Steve Israel

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Arkansas with whom I have served for 6 years. We were elected together in 2000, and it has been my privilege to work with and under him in the Blue Dog Coalition. Mr. Speaker, one of the critical obligations we have as Members of Congress, it does not matter whether you are a Blue Dog or Republican or Democrat, one of the most critical obligations we have, in my view, is keeping our country strong and safe, making sure that our military continues to be the strongest and greatest on earth; making sure that our children, as they advance in years, inherit a military that is strong and a country that is safe and secure. That is what we all think about. That is the obligation that we all have. But if we continue these unsustainable budget strategies on this unsustainable budget path with $8 trillion debts and multibillion- dollar annual deficits, we are undermining our military and we are doing a disservice not only to our children but to the brave men and women who count on us to ensure that we are appropriating the funds adequate for them to fight the fight. I have the great privilege of being on the Armed Services Committee, which has jurisdiction for all military and national security issues. We have a $500 billion national defense budget this year. We need to continue providing our forces with the critical funds that they need for force protection, for night vision goggles, for up-armored Humvees, for Kevlar, for pay increases, for health benefits, for decent housing, for education. We are going to continue to need to do that because the world will continue to be a very dangerous place. We want to make sure that our men and women have all of the resources that they need to confront those dangers. The problem is this: These unsustainable budgets, the lack of balanced budgets, the lack of true prioritizing and the lack of true bipartisanship is not going to provide our military with what they need. Let me give an example. At a recent Blue Dog meeting, I was very concerned to receive a report from the GAO, and that report is eye-opening. It is jarring. It should be a matter of concern to everybody who makes budget decisions. According to that report, in 2005 Federal revenues as a percentage of GDP were just over 20 percent; just over 20 percent of our gross domestic product was Federal revenues. Federal revenues will be flatlined all of the way through 2040. Federal revenues, now over 20 percent of our GDP, in the year 2040 Federal revenues will continue to be just over 20 percent of our GDP. The problem is this: that Federal spending is going to far exceed our Federal revenues. Last year, 2005, Federal spending as a percent of GDP, might have been sustainable. But by the year 2040, Federal spending as a percentage of GDP will be so high, without the appropriate balanced budget controls, that this is the condition that our kids will find themselves in. In the year 2040, Federal revenues will be ample to pay for two functions in the Federal Government: interest on debt and a little bit of Social Security. Everything else will be in the gap between the money we have and the money we need. That includes all defense spending. It includes the FBI. It includes payments to farmers. It includes the CIA. It includes all of our national security spending. That is what we are saying to our children. If we continue these unsustainable budgets, by the year 2040, Federal revenues will only pay for interest on debt, credit card interest, and a little bit of Social Security. They are either going to have to cancel all other programs or tax themselves catastrophically to pay for them. Now, that is not a value that any American sitting around their kitchen table would agree to. That is not a work ethic that any of us would agree to. So how do we fix this problem? How are the Blue Dogs proposing that we give our kids the ability to pay for the strongest military on earth? It is very simple, not very complicated at all. The Blue Dogs say balance our budgets. Don't spend if you don't have the resources to spend. The Blue Dogs say impose fiscal discipline on this Congress and on the administration. The Blue Dogs say prioritize, meet your critical needs first, pay for a strong military, don't try to balance budgets on the backs of people who are fighting on our fronts and then have them report to us that they didn't have coagulant bandages in Iraq because nobody paid for adequate amounts. Pay for those things first and watch and measure your spending on other less important things. That is what we are saying. But make sure at the end of the day the budget is balanced. Finally what the Blue Dogs are saying is this: We don't care whether you are Democrat or Republican. We don't care whether you are from the south shore of Long Island or from the deep South. It doesn't matter to us. Work with us. Work with us. We will work with you. The seat that I stand in front of here is three seats from the center aisle of the Congress of the United States. Blue Dogs have demonstrated time and time again our willingness to cross that aisle and work with anyone who is as committed as we are to the values of a balanced budget and a strong defense. So as we go into the majority, which is a very sober responsibility, and face the difficult choices to be made, we assert again our willingness to cross that center aisle and forge partnerships with Members on the other side of the aisle to do what is best for our children: Pay for a strong defense, an excellent military, a well- trained military, and do it as we balance our budgets. Give our children the ability to be protected and pay for that protection at the same time. It is about simple, fundamental commonsense priorities, and few organizations are as equipped and as expert to pursue those priorities as the Blue Dog Coalition, which is why I have been so proud to be a member.

Mr. ISRAEL. If the gentleman would yield, this is such a critical point. This is a national security area. And I know that the gentleman understands that so well. Mr. Speaker, last year the Department of Defense spent $10.6 billion on basic energy costs. That is what it costs the military to fuel itself. Of that, the Air Force spent $4.7 billion, about half on one thing: fuel for its airplanes. With this $8 trillion debt, we have to fund the defense budget. How do we do it? The gentlemen know well, we borrow the money from China. So here is what we are doing: We are borrowing money from China to fund defense budgets to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to fuel our Air Force to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. This is not just an energy policy, it is a national security vulnerability. We will balance our budgets, have fiscal responsibility and pursue energy independence so that we are safer and we are much better off in terms of our budgets. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns with S. 3880, The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. I believe that individuals and groups cannot resort to intimidation, vandalism or violence in the advancement of a cause. Protests must be lawful and disagreements respected. But, this bill, as drafted, could criminalize lawful and constitutionally protected activists. This bill criminalizes conduct that ``intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property,'' however, the bill fails to define what ``real or personal property'' means. As a result, legitimate advocacy--such as a boycott, protest, or mail campaign--that causes an animal enterprise to merely lose profits could be criminalized under S. 3880. It also fails to adequately define the term ``animal enterprise.'' Nothing in the current definition requires that an enterprise be lawful. Therefore, investigations into unlawful animal enterprises, such as animal fighting organizations or illegal puppy mills, could be deterred as employees, citizens, and legitimate animal activists may be afraid to cooperate or provide information to law enforcement agencies for fear of prosecution under the terms of this bill. I am a strong supporter of research, but I also believe that animal rights need to be vigilantly enforced. In order to achieve that goal, I have been working with the Humane Society on amendments to the Animal Rights Act, which is the law that governs the humane care, handling, treatment and transportation of animals in laboratories and dealers who sell animals to laboratories and animal exhibitors. My bill would provide two keys changes to this law. First, it doubles the fine for violations (from $5,000 to $10,000) and increases the number of annual inspections at laboratories. I will be introducing this measure when the House comes back for the 110th Congress, and I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in providing these additional animal protections.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, all of us can celebrate this conference report and the support that it provides to our troops. It is a good product, and we have had some hard-fought differences on various issues. For me, we have been grappling with the proper balance between religious expression and tolerance in the military. I am very pleased that this conference report struck language that in my view would have made it easier to engage in certain practices by overturning existing DOD standards on tolerance of all faiths. And I thank my ranking member, Mr. Skelton, and I thank Senators Warner and Levin of the other body, the Department of Defense, and many, many different religious organizations, from the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces, to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to the American Jewish Committee and so many others. They understand this is not just an issue of tolerance, Mr. Speaker, it is an issue of good order and discipline and unit cohesion. We maintain the overall language requiring respect of all religious faiths, but this language does reopen a loophole, a loophole that allowed commanders and chaplains at the Air Force Academy to chastise cadets for not attending certain religious services, a loophole that allowed one chaplain to tell cadets of all faiths that some of them would burn in the eternal flames of hell for not following his faith. So we still have some work to do, and we still have some good-faith discussions ahead of us. And I want to take this opportunity to say something to my friends on the other side of the aisle and on the other side of this issue, people who I respect and admire a great deal. I want to continue working with them. I have been troubled by the occasional rhetorical excess that has suggested, because I am opposed to proselytizing of any specific religion on any military base, I am somehow trying to stop people from invoking the name of Jesus in their prayers. Nothing could be further from the truth. People should be able to pray how they want, when they want, where they want, and to whom they want. They just can't compel others to join them. For those of you who truly believe that the chaplain who told cadets willing to die in the defense of freedom that after they died they would burn in the eternal flames of hell, well, you and I have some profound differences on that issue. So profound that I don't think the issue should be decided in 3 weeks of discussion in a House-Senate conference. It ought to be put before the American people in hearings. And I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting that, as we move forward in trying to resolve this issue, we all rededicate ourselves to the spirit of openness, sensitivity, tolerance, and respect. And don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, because behind me, carved into this wood dais on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, is the word ``tolerance,'' right in the center. That word must remain with us. My speech will come and go. This word will always stay. That is what makes our military great. That is what makes our country worth fighting for.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for bringing this bill to the floor today. I also want to thank my colleague from Connecticut, Representative Simmons, and the rest of the members of the Long Island Sound Caucus for their very hard work on this legislation and their ongoing efforts to preserve and protect the Long Island Sound. I have the privilege of serving as co-chair of the Congressional Long Island Sound Caucus with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and we have worked together for many years in the hope that this bill would become a reality. I was proud to introduce it with the gentleman from Connecticut, and I am proud of the Long Island Caucus for standing behind it every step of the way. This bill is bipartisan. It is bicoastal. It is bicameral. It is one of the most important initiatives that we can take to protect the Long Island Sound, to identify and enhance sites with ecological, educational, and recreational value in Connecticut and New York. And it does so in a way that is consistent with the vision put forward by a consortium of local groups who have been working for over a decade to save the sound. The Long Island Sound is one of our Nation's great natural wonders. It sustains a diversity of birds, wildlife, and marine organisms. It is a very important part of the national economy. It remains a vital component of our identity, our way of life. Today over 8 million people live in the sound's watershed and 20 million people live within 50 miles of its shores. The sound alone contributes $5 billion to the regional economy through sport and commercial fishing, recreation and tourism. Mr. Speaker, I served for 8 years as a member of the Huntington Town Board, and I worked with our local baymen and worked with different organizations to preserve the Long Island Sound, and I am acutely aware of the many environmental challenges that confront our community. In fact, my town and many others initiated bond acts, asking local taxpayers to come up with a few more dollars to support and protect the Long Island Sound. And I always believed that the Federal Government should be more of a partner with local townships. And tonight we take the first big step in that new partnership. This bill creates a purely voluntary process to protect coastal areas along the Long Island Sound. It creates a process that will bring together stakeholders on a committee, including Connecticut and New York representatives from the Federal Government, the State government, local governments, nongovernment organizations, academic, private and development interests. This is a critically important step. And, Mr. Speaker, before I close, I just want to mention that, in fact, this bill has been the product of cooperation at all levels of government with advocacy groups in both New York and Connecticut, and I am grateful to all of them for their input. On a personal note, I have been very fortunate to have a wonderful staff for working on this legislation for most of the last 4 years. And I want to thank Karen Agostisi, who devoted so much of her time to this effort and helped navigate this bill through the sometimes choppy and turbulent waters of the Long Island Sound. I was privileged to work with the gentleman from Connecticut. This is a very important step for this Federal and local partnership. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill. And again I thank the gentleman for his cooperation. I thank my colleagues for their consideration.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The distinguished chairman of the committee, who I have a very strong respect for, opened this debate by saying that in the global war on terror we cannot read terrorists their Miranda rights. No one has said that. No one has proposed it. No one has suggested it. That is not what is being debated here. That is not what we should debate here. It is absurd. When it comes to terrorists planning mass murder on the American people, I want to find them. I want to capture them. I want to kill them. I want to try them. If they are found guilty, I want to kill them. I believe in capital punishment for terrorists perpetrating genocide. But because I think that we should fight and kill terrorists, I want there to be fewer of them to fight and kill. This bill says to potential terrorists, the U.S. is surrendering the moral high ground. It is unilaterally relaxing the Geneva Conventions, that we are willing to keep people locked up indefinitely without a trial. And since I believe in executing people found guilty of perpetrating or planning a genocide on the American people, I want to make sure we are executing the right terrorists. Government is imperfect. We make mistakes. How do I know? Katrina. We lose records. How do I know? The long line of veterans at my district office who cannot get their back pay because we lost their records. When it comes to capital punishment for terrorists, I want to make sure that we are giving them the proper trial, that we are getting the facts. If I am willing to execute them, I want to make sure it is based on fact. And because I believe we should fight and kill terrorists, I also know that Americans in that fight are going to be caught; and I want them treated by the same standards that we would treat our enemy's prisoners. I do not want any one of our military people to be subject to the whims and the arbitrariness of a current interpretation by a foreign enemy. Mr. Speaker, I want to close by suggesting and telling my colleagues that I recently asked a service member, who received a Bronze Star for valor in Fallujah, what he thought about this. He said, Congressman, I do not think our enemies really care about the Geneva Conventions, but I am fighting for my country because I care about morality, because I care about strong values, because this is a good country that leads the way, and I want to continue leading the way. If I am asking young men and women to die for what we stand for, I want to stand for something. If I am asking people to fight to kill terrorists, I want to be in the pursuit of our values, not the terrorist's values.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland, and I thank Chairman Davis for his cooperation on this very important bill. I also want to thank Ranking Member Waxman for considering this resolution, and also Representative Foxx for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, this resolution supports the goals and ideals of a National Myositis Awareness Day. I was first introduced to the myositis community through my work to improve Medicare access to intravenous immune globulin, or IVIG. The myositis community is one of many patient groups that rely on IVIG. However, since there are several forms of myositis that affect different people in different ways, the disease is often misunderstood and cannot be treated with a single remedy. This is one of many reasons that it is important that we pass this resolution. As the chairman said, each year an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 Americans are affected by myositis, a general term used to describe swelling of the muscles. Myositis patients suffer from their immune systems attacking their body's own normal tissue, resulting in inflammation or swelling. The disease can cause muscle weakness, and patients often live in chronic pain and have long-term health problems that can lead to permanent disabilities. Myositis affects individuals of all ages and can come in many different forms. Many patients with treatable forms of myositis often have severe long-term disabilities because of failure to diagnose and treat the disease. In addition, the effects of inflammatory myopathies are much more severe than just inflammation. They are thought to be autoimmune diseases such as that the body's immune system, which normally fights infections and viruses, does not stop fighting once the infection or virus is gone. Mr. Speaker, because myositis varies so much from patient to patient, no single existing treatment works for everyone. Myositis can be treated with steroids, various medicines and intravenous immune globulin. The Myositis Association is the national patient advocacy organization serving the myositis community and has designated September 21 as Myositis Awareness Day. Myositis advocates traveled to Capitol Hill last Thursday in an effort to educate the public and Congress on the need for more research funding, accurate diagnosis, and effective treatments for this disease. This resolution thanks them for their work and dedicates the United States Congress to continuing the research for treatments.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the dedication of my constituent, Thomas Ronayne. As commander of Post 1469 in Huntington Station, he has devoted himself to the betterment of life for veterans on Long Island. In fact, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States honored Thomas Ronayne as an All American Post Commander last month. This is one of the most esteemed titles within the Veterans of Foreign Wars organization. Commander Ronayne is one of only 101 VFW post commanders around the world to be designated with this prestigious honor. With his hard work ethic, Ronayne has increased membership and services provided at Post 1469 in Huntington Station, NY. I am pleased to say that he has also contributed to the flourishing involvement in VFW programs on Long Island. It is an honor to have All American Commander Thomas Ronayne working and living in the Second Congressional District of New York. He has dedicated his entire life to serving his country and I am grateful for his service. We should all be so lucky to have citizens like Thomas Ronayne in our districts. I hope you will join me in applauding Commander Ronayne for his dedication to the VFW, his country and particularly Post 1469.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, U.S. Army SPC Jose L. Ruiz made the ultimate sacrifice for his country on August 15, 2005 while conducting security operations in Mosul, Iraq. SPC Ruiz who served in the Army's 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, also known as the Stryker Brigade Team, was killed by enemy forces using small arms fire shot from a passing vehicle. Brave Americans like SPC Ruiz are the reason that our country has been able to overcome adversity throughout its history. SPC Ruiz was inspired to join the military following the attacks by terrorists on our Nation on September 11, 2001. In a phone conversation with his wife shortly before his death, SPC Ruiz said that he felt like he had fulfilled his duty as a soldier and was proud to be defending his country. Sadly, SPC Ruiz was scheduled to return home just 6 weeks after his death. Raised in Brentwood, New York, SPC Ruiz went on to graduate from Brentwood High School in my district and then the New York Institute of Technology before joining the Army. Ruiz was devoted to his education, his family and his country. The courage of SPC Ruiz is a testament to the dedication of our young soldiers. He is survived by his parents, Eduardo and Juliana King, his wife of 6 years Alexa, and his baby daughter, Liana. I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to his family and thank SPC Ruiz for his selfless devotion to our Nation.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from Illinois for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I also thank my friend from Long Island, Congressman Peter King, for sponsoring this resolution and for allowing me to cosponsor it with him. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jacob Fletcher and his family, and urge my colleagues to support this resolution to name the Babylon post office in his honor. Mr. Speaker, the Babylon post office no longer resides in my congressional district, but I do have the privilege and the honor of representing Jacob's mother, Dorrine Kenney. She is a constituent; she is also a dear friend. She has become an important advisor to me on so many military issues that I confront as a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Her son, Jacob Samuel Fletcher, was a native of Long Island, and if this bill is passed, all of Long Island will know about his life and his untimely death. Jacob Fletcher grew up on Long Island, he dreamed of serving his country on Long Island. He represented us proudly when he went to Iraq. On March 23, 2003, he and the 173rd Airborne Brigade jumped into northern Iraq and made their way to Kirkuk. On November 12, 2003, Jacob was killed by an IED on Highway 1 in Samarra. Mr. Speaker, this kind of news does not tell us the fullness of a life. We see a name in the newspaper, we see a face, we see statistics and numbers, but none of that really describes the fullness of a life, and so I want to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues and with all America the life of Jacob Fletcher. He was an athlete. He was an artist with a talent for drawing. He played drums. He wrote poetry. He was described as having a big heart, and of being a good listener. And those are the traits that I see in his mother. In response to her son's death, Dorrine Kenney had every right to retreat into her own grief, to wait for the entire world to feel sorry for her and to support her. But she refused to do that. Instead she created the Jacob's Light Foundation. It sends care packages to our servicemembers in dangerous places around the world. It sends toiletries and food and snacks and reading materials and sunscreen and writing materials, all of the necessities that our troops require. Rather than retreating into her grief, Dorrine Kenney felt it was her responsibility in her son's name to help improve the quality of life for her son's comrades. A few months ago she came to my office, Mr. Speaker, and she was angry. We sat down and she said that she was receiving e-mails from troops in the field in the theatre in Iraq complaining that they had not received coagulant bandages, which the Department of Defense has said could save 50 percent of casualties in Iraq, and she asked me to look into it. We called the Pentagon, and it took us a few weeks, but, in fact, we were able to solve that problem. And we are working with the Army even today to make sure that those bandages are arriving in dangerous places like Iraq and saving lives. Another example, Mr. Speaker. This woman could have felt sorry for herself. Instead, she dedicated herself to coming into my office and working with the Army to make sure that those who were still in Iraq and Afghanistan had the life-saving supplies that they need. The Army did not respond because of me, it did not respond because of the hearings we had in the Armed Services Committee; it responded because this mother of a son who was killed was contacted by men and women in Iraq who asked for her help. That is exactly what Jacob Fletcher was all about, helping when people needed help, listening when people needed to be listened to. It is fitting that there is a foundation named for Jacob Fletcher which sends parcels to servicemembers who need them. And it would be even more fitting, Mr. Speaker, to name a post office in honor of Jacob Fletcher where parcels will be sent, and where the American people and those who live in Long Island will understand what he stood for, what our country stands for, and will remember him always. Again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for giving me this time. I thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5682, the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006. In January of 2004, I had the opportunity to visit India with my wife and colleagues. During that trip I spoke with Defense Minister George Fernandes, and we discussed closer military cooperation between India and the United States. Even at that time, India favored closer military cooperation, but there were too many regulations, restrictions and laws on the books in a post 9-11 world. These laws inhibited closer military strategic cooperation. Fernandes explained that India and the United States hadn't been able to pursue a defense relationship because of outdated and insufficient export control policies. This, he said, had compelled India to develop a defense partnership with other nations. Until recently, approximately 70 percent of India's imported military equipment was from Russia. One cannot help but ask why this is so? While we were having that conversation the United States military was conducting hip to hip joint military exercises with the Indian military in the Indian Ocean to fight against the global war on terror. If our men and women in uniform can conduct military exercises side by side with India's men and women against the enemies of democracy--we can develop a partnership between the Indian defense industry and the U.S. defense industry. We are partners. We share the same values. We share a partnership on the war on terror. And in a short time that relationship has advanced. The two countries have been working closely on joint technology developments. And we need to expand that partnership, not only on a security basis, but also as we look at another key challenge we face: energy. India, America's strongest ally in the region, is on the verge of energy insecurity: India does not have the domestic energy resources to sustain its rapidly growing economy, and consequently must meet its requirements through foreign energy resources. India's oil demand has doubled between 1990 and 2003 and will double again within the next 25 years. As India consumes more energy from the world's finite energy supply, the cost for energy for ordinary Americans will increase significantly. Two-thirds of India's annual oil consumption is imported, and it is projected that India will import over 90 percent of its annual oil requirements within the next 15 years. Currently, nuclear energy only comprises 3 percent of India's energy consumption, and this number cannot increase substantially without civilian nuclear cooperation with the United States. That is why I think that along with civilian nuclear cooperation, a renewable energy partnership is equally as important. Many people don't realize that this deal will help keep energy costs down for ordinary Americans by reducing demand in the global oil market. So I would like to spend a few minutes speaking on U.S.-India renewable energy cooperation. Something that is extremely important for both countries. After 6 years in Congress I have found that every single threat we face here at home is either derived from or based on one thing: our dependence on foreign oil. Renewable energy cooperation between the U.S. and India would help both countries tremendously. When we dropped 2,500 pound bombs on Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the order was given to 2 fighter planes. Only one could respond, because the other was in mid-air refueling. What better metaphor for the dangers of our current energy reliance! Before leaving for India in 2004 I read the book ``India'' by Stanley Wolpert. In his book he wrote--``if India ever learns to harness its solar energy economically, the desert states of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh could become valuable centers of power generation and transmission. Even as oil reserves have catapulted Arabia to affluence, solar power might launch central India into an age of rich growth and development, especially were it used to help tap mother Ganga's Perennial flow. India's major liability might then become her greatest asset.'' We have some plans in place but we need to keep pushing to make sure that the two countries work together. The Indian minister of non-conventional energy sources (MNES) recently met with experts at the National Renewable Energy Lab to discuss potential areas of collaboration. These areas include solar thermal power generation, low wind speed technology research & development, renewable energy resource assessment and the use of resource data in relevant analysis tools. The Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) has proposed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOE'S National Renewable Energy Laboratory to focus on hydrogen and biofuels research. This MOU will be the basis for future joint research. I am asking that Congress fully fund these programs and bring them to fruition, and work with India. Mr. Chairman, we will need democratic partners in meeting threats and defending our national security. We will need democratic friends and allies with shared values and principles. I saw that demonstrated last July not in India, but on the floor of the House of Representatives. I was one of the Members who urged the congressional leadership to allow Prime Minister Singh to address a joint session of congress. There it was for the whole world to see. the head of the largest democracy on earth (India) . . . speaking in the Congress of the oldest democracy on earth (America). That gave me great hope that we will triumph over our mutual challenges of terrorism and energy dependence.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, everything that can be said has been said. We have no speakers, and I yield back my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Promoting Transparency in Financial Reporting Act, and I want to thank my very good friend from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for introducing this important measure. I was pleased to cosponsor it and I am very pleased to work with him on the bill. I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank, for bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor today. H.R. 5024 requires that the chairpersons of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board provide oral testimony to the Committee on Financial Services on their efforts to reduce the complexity in financial reporting to provide more accurate and clear financial information to investors. These appearances before the committee would begin in 2007 and continue annually for 5 years. Madam Speaker, the ability of America's investors to make informed decisions is severely compromised when financial reporting is inaccurate, when it is incomplete, when it is unclear. We saw the consequences of bad financial reporting years ago during the corporate accountability scandals at Enron and WorldCom, among others. Those bankruptcies not only revealed weaknesses in many aspects of our financial reporting system, but showed the devastating financial impact when their financial statements are not held to the highest standards. In many cases, the complexity of financial reporting requirements has made it very difficult to detect purposeful violations of those standards. Congress, regulators, and the industry assessed these financial reporting failures and reacted with efforts aimed at strengthening the financial reporting system. Sarbanes-Oxley made very important initial strides to this end; however, more needs to be done. This measure is an important next step. By calling on the SEC, PCAOB, and FASB to testify each year on the steps they are taking to improve financial disclosures, Congress is ensuring that it can and will effectively carry out its oversight function. We can gather the necessary information to ensure that, should we need to act legislatively, we are doing it in a sober, thoughtful manner based on data rather than in haste as we respond to the latest news cycle. Madam Speaker, this legislation will help us as we work with the FEC, FASB and the PCAOB to improve our financial reporting system. It is important that we maintain a consistent focus on this issue. And, to that end, I urge all of my colleagues to support the measure. Again, I was pleased to work closely with the gentleman from Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 2006, I mistakenly voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 384. I intended to vote in support of Mr. Watt's amendment to preserve the authority of the United States Supreme Court to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in 4 U.S.C. section 4, or its recitation.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments. Since its enactment in August of 1965, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has helped bring us closer to realizing the true spirit of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees all American citizens the quintessential democratic right to vote. Today we'll vote to reauthorize expiring provisions of the VRA and by doing so send a signal that we will not tolerate discrimination at the polls. Some of our colleagues will rise today to offer amendments that would weaken the VRA. I am opposed to any attempts to dilute the intent and spirit of the VRA by weakening Section 5 of the bill. Section 5 ensures that the Federal Government will take a closer look at election practices in states and localities with a history of discrimination at the polls. Our Nation has made a great deal of progress since 1965 when the VRA was first signed into law by President Johnson. But some municipalities continue to make it difficult, intentionally or otherwise, for ethnic and racial minority voters to register and vote. The great civil rights leaders of the 1960s, including our distinguished colleague Rep. John Lewis, worked tirelessly to fight discrimination in all aspects our society. They knew then, and we know now, that the right of all Americans to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. We must continue their great legacy and pass the bill before us today without amendment.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Almost 1 year ago, in August, I stood on the border of Gaza. I watched a gate descend. I watched the last Israeli leave Gaza. Israel said to the Palestinians, we will take a risk for peace. Build something here. Provide security. We want peace. And what did they do with that? What did the Palestinians do with that offer? They fired Kassam missiles on Israeli civilians. They elected a terrorist regime sworn to the liquidation of Israel. They dug a tunnel. They snuck through the tunnel, they showed up on Israeli soil, they kidnapped a 19-year-old soldier and snuck him back. Israel took a risk for peace, and this is how it was rewarded. Israel took the same risk in Lebanon. They left Lebanon. They said provide security here. We will take a risk for peace, and let's have it together. What happened with that offer? Hezbollah was allowed to dominate southern Lebanon. And just last week, Hezbollah terrorists infiltrated a border, snuck across an undisputed border, murdered some Israelis, kidnapped others, murdered some more, and snuck back across. Every time Israel has taken a risk for peace, that risk has been answered with violence, and that is not acceptable. What would we have done? It is exactly what we did do on 9/11. When terrorists infiltrated our borders, we responded robustly to protect innocent civilians. Israel has the right to do the same. There can be no double standard. There can be no moral relativism. This resolution simply says that Israel has taken risks for peace. Those risks ought to be answered with reciprocation, and not missiles; with good faith, security, and not kidnappings. Israel has done what we have done, and this resolution reaffirms that.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend from New York, and Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution. Mr. Speaker, this is not the grave crisis that a constitutional amendment demands. I will tell you what the grave crises are that we should be spending our time on. North Korea tested a ballistic missile last week. We are still waiting for a strategy for success in Iraq. Gas prices are skyrocketing. War is erupting in the Middle East. And Congress wants the American people to believe that same-sex marriages are the gravest threat to their security. We need to be focusing on issues of true security and safety for the American people and not on rhetorical devices that have no substantive meaning, because the other body already defeated it. Mr. Speaker, I spent all morning this morning at the National Defense University participating in a military exercise with respect to Iran's development of nuclear weapons. I spent my time trying to figure out how we are going to protect the American people from that threat, and then I come to the floor of the House, and we waste time debating how we are going to protect the American people from same-sex marriages when we cannot even amend the Constitution in this session of Congress. If we spent more time trying to hunt down Osama bin Laden and less time trying to hunt down people in marriages that we find objectionable, we would all be safer. Now, I have a deep respect for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on the other side of this issue, but I would suggest that the American people want us focused on real security and real safety.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I believe that estate taxes at 2001 levels were inherently unfair. And I voted to reform those levels by increasing the exemption and lowering the tax rate through 2010. Today, I would vote for all estate tax reform that permanently raised the exemption to $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples, while lowering the rate to 45 percent. Unfortunately, the majority has refused to even entertain a compromise. In fact, they won't even allow us to vote on a compromise, even though they could vote against it. They insist that we either take or leave their bill: a $700 billion cost, added to an existing $8 trillion debt. Why do we need compromise? Why can't I support the legislation before us today? For three reasons. First, at a time of war that has been described as ``generational'', when we experienced shortages on the battlefield, funding cuts in Pentagon weapons systems, and cuts in homeland security funding to my constituents in New York because of budget strains, adding an additional $700 billion in estate tax relief is irresponsible. How is it that we have $700 billion for estate tax relief, but just cut funds for a critical Air Force advanced energy program? Why is it that we slashed college loan programs because we had to save $12 billion, but we have $700 billion for estate tax repeal? How is it possible to defend cutting Homeland Security funds to NY by $80 million because we can't afford it, and then pass a bill that spends $700 billion to repeal the estate tax? Second, I have been fighting for meaningful and permanent relief of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which has become the largest middle class tax increase in history. The Administration and Republican leadership of Congress has not agreed to real alternative minimum tax relief. All we can afford they say, is a temporary bandage every year. The cost of the permanent AMT reform that Representative Lowey and I have introduced is about $400 billion. The cost of permanent repeal of the estate tax is $700 billion. Why is it that we can't afford tax relief for millions of middle class families, but we can afford twice the cost for tax relief to several thousand estates? Third, a $700 billion liability to the Federal Treasury represents a staggering unfunded liability for our children. Let me prove my point in specific and non-partisan terms. Recently I attended a meeting with the Comptroller General of the United States. He was chosen to this position by President Bush, the Republican Speaker of the House, and the Republican Leader of the Senate. The Comptroller described the long term fiscal position of the Federal Treasury. Over the next 30 years, Federal revenues will remain fairly constant as a percentage of the federal budget. On the spending side--even if we do what we have never been able to do, and keep spending at the level of inflation--our total costs will skyrocket, particularly with the rapid growth of our aging population. The resulting gap between revenues and expenses will be so huge that in 2040, the entire Federal budget will be adequate to pay for only two things: interest on debt, and a small piece of social security. Everything else--the military, veterans benefits, the FBI; the CIA, education, health, homeland security--will require either a catastrophic tax increase on our children, or abolishment by our children. And today, we add $700 billion to their problem. Mr. Speaker, we can provide estate tax relief that is affordable and fair, by allowing a vote on Mr. Pomeroy's substitute. But denied that opportunity by the leadership, I cannot support a ``take it leave it'' bill. Not when, by taking this, I leave the real bill to our children.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to share with my colleagues the passing of Sonny Dolci. Most Members of the House never met Sonny Dolci. But everyone has a Sonny Dolci in their congressional district. Sonny Dolci was a veterans' leader in Northport, Long Island. He died 3 days before Independence Day. And he had a special link to that day. Because he embodied the finest qualities of great Americans who refused to say `no' when it came to their country or their community. When the veterans of Northport wanted to build a new facility, Sonny Dolci said, ``Give me the shovel.'' When community leaders wanted to organize a celebration of Northport, Sonny helped lead what is today one of the largest festivals on Long Island: Cow Harbor Day. When a Korean War memorial was planned, Sonny traveled to eastern Long Island, and climbed amongst the rocks to find the perfect facing. Sonny would not take no for an answer. That is really what Independence Day is about: the Americans who refused to say no when faced with challenge. Two hundred thirty years ago, George Washington found himself surrounded in NY by the most powerful Navy on earth. He didn't give in, he kept up the fight for independence. And we replaced foreign monarchy with American democracy. One hundred fourty years ago, Abraham Lincoln lost battle after battle for American unity. He didn't give up. He kept fighting until we replaced slavery with liberty. And 60 years ago, men like Sonny Dolci left their homes for World War II and then Korea. They refused to say no to defeating tyranny and totalitarianism. They came home, and looked at the moon. And when President Kennedy said we could even defeat the distance of space, they said, ``Let's go''. That determination and spirit made us the country we are today. They wouldn't take no for an answer. And neither should we. The threat today is our reliance on foreign oil. Our generation needs a Declaration of Energy Independence. If we can beat the British, defeat slavery, triumph in World War II and land Americans on the moon, we can design vehicles that get more than 40 miles per gallon. That is today's challenge. Sonny Dolci never said ``It's too hard'' when it came to the safety and security of his country, his community, his comrades, or his children. And as long as his spirit and fortitude lives in each of us, we will give the next generation of children the peace and security that Sonny fought and worked to give us. And that is the greatest legacy of all.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share the following article from Time Magazine with my colleagues in the House. I believe it contains some important insights into what we really need to focus on during the long war. [From Time Magazine, June 25, 2006] Forget Flag Burning (By Major General Robert Scales (Ret.)) Some in Congress appear to be taking a sabbatical from the long war on terrorism to introduce a constitutional amendment banning the burning of the flag. The debate over such an amendment may or may not be worth having, but one thing is clear: at a time when the country is at war, now is not the time for such tertiary considerations. I understand reverence for the flag. It comes naturally to soldiers. We commit our lives to serving intangibles, swearing oaths to a piece of parchment or saluting an expanse of cloth decorated with stars and stripes. We understand symbolism because symbolism is what in large measure compels us to do a job that might result in our demise. The American flag symbolizes freedom. The Constitution we soldiers are pledged to defend guarantees freedom of expression even when freedom of expression includes the right to deface the flag, however obnoxious that act may be. Of course, I'm old enough to remember flag burning when flag burning was ``cool.'' I was in Hawaii, on R. and R., halfway through my tour in Vietnam. My wife and I were watching television when student war protesters in California--none of whom had the slightest chance of facing violent death in combat--illuminated their campus by torching Old Glory. I was appalled by the sight. A short time later, Walter Cronkite informed the world that my unit, the 101st Airborne, was beginning an offensive in the A Shau Valley. I left for Vietnam the next day to confront an enemy that undoubtedly would have punished those protesters had they burned the North Vietnamese flag in Hanoi. But that was then. The image of the flag that soldiers see today is different. Instead of flags aflame, we see flags covering coffins of soldiers and Marines returning the hard way from Iraq and Afghanistan. Pushing forward a constitutional amendment is labor-intensive work. I'm concerned how such a diversion during wartime might appear to those who are still serving in harm's way. Please don't get me wrong. I have many friends in Congress, patriots all. Each one of them has been to Iraq and Afghanistan many times. Although he refuses to advertise the fact, one was wounded there during an inspection tour last year. My concern relates not to the sincerity of Congress but to the perceptions among our young men and women that their overseers are suddenly distracted at a time when attention to their needs has never been more necessary. Our soldiers want to be assured that Congress is doing all it can to reduce losses in what Lincoln ruefully termed the ``terrible arithmetic'' of war. They want to know that Congress is doing all it can to give them the weapons they need to maintain the fighting advantage over the enemy. They are concerned that their equipment is wearing out under constant use. They and their families are worried that not enough soldiers are in the pipeline to replace them. We know from letters and conversations that our young soldiers returning from combat are concerned about the future of their institutions. They want to know who is focused on reshaping our Army and Marine Corps so that both services will be better able to fight the long fight against radical Islam. How will Congress fund the future? Where will the new weapons and equipment come from? They are also worried about more personal issues like housing and health care for themselves and their families. Dan Brown was my First Sergeant in Vietnam. I was new to war. He had served in two. He gave me a piece of advice then that Congressmen intent on changing the subject should heed: ``In combat the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. Otherwise, you die.'' The main thing today for Congress and the Nation should be the war in Iraq. Soldiers are sworn to defend the right to free speech with their lives even if ``speech'' is expressed in despicable ways. What they want in return is the assurance that our lawmakers will hold their interests dear. So the message from most of us soldiers is clear: Debate a flag-burning amendment if you wish. But don't create the perception among our young men and women in combat that there are more important issues than their welfare at the moment. Wait a while. At least for their sake, wait until the last flag-draped coffin comes home.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the distinguished ranking member Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member and the entire subcommittee for excellent work on the Defense Appropriations Act of 2007. This act does an extraordinary job of continuing the transformation of our forces, while funding our military at war. Mr. Chairman, I believe that every military threat now and in the foreseeable future is derived from or impacted by one thing, and that is our dependence on foreign oil. We fund a Defense budget of $500 billion this year, including supplemental spending. Of that amount, $10.6 billion is spent on the Pentagon's direct energy costs alone, and of that $10.6 billion, $4.7 billion bought one thing, fuel for our Air Force planes. That is about the same amount as the President has budgeted for the National Cancer Institute this year alone. The Department of Defense uses 97 percent of all Federal fuel consumption, and half of that is used for fuel for the Air Force. A single F-16 can burn 28 gallons of gas a minute, in fact. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, $10 million for the Air Force's alternative fuels research program to help reduce our reliance on foreign oil to fly our own Air Force planes is not included in the budget. I was going to submit an amendment that I would let the Air Force allocate $4 million for B-52 synthetic fuels testing, $3 million for other synthetic fuel testing, and about $3 million for studies on synthetic fuel and suitability for use in jet engines. However, I will not proceed with my amendment in the hope that the honorable gentleman and ranking member will pursue this effort during conference with the Senate.

Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I know he, above all people, realizes that our energy dependence is a national security issue that we must triumph over. I thank the gentleman. Amendment Offered by Mr. Castle

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to this resolution, H. Res. 861. Mr. Speaker, I pride myself on being unapologetically supportive of a robust military. I do believe that President Wilson was correct when he said the United States can help make the world safe for democracy. I believe that we must stand decisively against totalitarianism in whatever form it takes--and today, it takes the form of a twisted misinterpretation of Islam that is radical, extremist, and murderous. And nothing is more important to me, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, than supporting and honoring our troops. Sadly and cynically, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us has not been drafted to unify the American people around these principles. It has been drafted to divide the American people based on politics. This resolution--a nonbinding sense of the House--is not a policy statement. It is a political strategy. It is designed not to win the war in Iraq, but to win elections at home. First, Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake about the legislative intent of this resolution. It is a sign of this Republican leadership that they would introduce a resolution on an issue as critical as the war in Iraq; then refuse to include in that resolution a single idea, a single solution, a single policy that would actually win the war in Iraq; then refuse to allow sufficient debate or even consideration of alternative resolutions that would demonstrate our national resolve as well as our constructive ideas on how to prevail. Who can be against the resolution's operative statement: ``Declaring that the United States will prevail in the global war on terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary''? Who can be against the clause in the resolution that states that we ``Honor the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces'' . . . that we ``call upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security''? But the Republican leadership, in their callous attempt to politicize the war in Iraq has inserted other language that is troubling. A clause I find questionable, Mr. Speaker, is this: ``Whereas Iraqi security forces are taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq''; In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are reports that Iraqi Security Forces are not significantly leading independent operations. Proportionately, Iraqi security forces are performing fewer combat operations than just 6 months ago. Mr. Speaker, the Majority should have worked on a bipartisan basis to write a plan to find Osama Bin Laden, and catch or kill him. If the Republican Majority wanted near unanimity, they would have removed these clauses, or at least refined them. They would have allowed us to offer alternative language. They would have offered to hold bipartisan consultations to find language that would unite Congress and the American people. Instead, they put partisanship ahead of bipartisanship on an issue that demands cooperation from both sides of the aisle: the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the well-being of our troops, the honor of their sacrifices. Mr. Speaker, let me make two final points. First, about the importance of honoring our troops. I passionately agree with the resolution's call for honoring our troops. In fact, while the House debated this resolution on the floor yesterday, I secured a public commitment from the Army at an Armed Services Committee hearing that they would end the shortages of life-saving coagulant products that help our soldiers from bleeding to death. Every day for the past 2 weeks I have been working on this issue. It is proper that we pass a non-binding resolution honoring our troops. But I have secured a commitment from the Army to bind their wounds. So I will not take second place to anyone in this body on the issue of supporting and honoring our troops. And I am insulted that some of the very same people who rail about not degrading the morale of our troops will use the vote on this resolution to degrade the morale of our troops. Second, Mr. Speaker, instead of passing non-binding resolutions that are political documents, let us pass a binding policy to win the war on terror. The resolution we should be voting on today would require the President to certify to Congress that number of Iraqi forces that have reached combat proficiency, and redeploy an equivalent number of U.S. forces. It would commit some of those forces to containing the growing resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and finding, once and for all, the murderer who escaped our grasp and started the real war on terror-- Osama Bin Laden. It would commit ourselves to properly funding our troops so that no American citizen has to dig into their own pockets and mail life-saving coagulants to our troops because they were not properly equipped. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if those who wrote this resolution spent more time unifying us around those principles and less time dividing us on political rhetoric, we might be out of Iraq by now, and relentlessly finding, capturing and killing those who masterminded the attacks on our country in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.