Steve Israel

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the goals and ideals of Jewish Social Action Month. This first annual Jewish Social Action Month, which is being held in conjunction with the Jewish month of Heshvan, November 3-December 1, 2005, was conceived by Kol Dor, an international group of next- generation young leaders. It is as a result of their vision of encouraging community service and social action that this important initiative is being undertaken around the world. This month and these days have been selected since they follow Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the holiest days in the Jewish year. Heshvan follows a time when all Members of the Jewish faith face ourselves, look inward, and cleanse ourselves of all our misdeeds. Then, it is during Heshvan that we look forward to the promise of the New Year. There is no better way to begin our New Year than by launching into a month-long serious effort to commit to social action. This commitment being made today is not a one-year-only event. Every year during the Jewish month of Heshvan, Jews around the world will renew our commitment to making this world a better place. Minister Michael Melchior and Member of Knesset Colette Avital deserve special recognition for their early and strong support for this concept. My Jewish colleagues and Jewish people in many other countries are also launching similar plans in their respective countries from Brazil to Britain. Additionally, I would also like to make special mention of Kol Dor and the co-chairs of Jewish Social Action Month: Adina Danzig, Executive Director of the Stanford Hillel; Rabbi Gidon Sylvester, assistant to Deputy Minister Michael Melchior; and Yosef I. Abramowitz, CEO of Jewish Family & Life. I commend the people working to make this goal a reality and urge my colleagues and people of all faiths to participate in community service and commit themselves to the principle of Tikkun Olam, to repairing the world.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, all too seldom we are blessed with a person of extraordinary talent, vision and blinding commitment to social justice who devotes his entire life--selflessly and completely--to the public interest, and to spreading the values of his nation all across the planet. Penn Kemble, who died October 15th after a fierce year long struggle with brain cancer, was that rare kind of American. Penn devoted his life to ideas. He fought with passion for what he believed, and he sometimes fought alone. He was a college socialist who battled against the Stalinists who led the Soviet Union; a hardliner on defense and foreign policy issues who came to become a leader in the fight to negotiate an end to the war in Vietnam. He was a Scoop Jackson Democrat, a Hubert Humphrey Democrat, a Bill Clinton Democrat--always a Democrat working within our Party to make it more committed to social and economic justice and more committed to a strong and realistic national security policy. Some talked change--Penn caused it: a civil rights leader who put his life on the line fighting for racial equality, but confident enough in himself and his values to lead the fight against racial quotas; an internationalist who was not afraid to confront and challenge what he perceived to be dangerous isolationism within his Party. Through the difficult decades of the 1970s and 1980s, some chose to cut and run when they did not have their way. Penn Kemble chose to stay and fight. No one fought harder and with more conviction. And nothing exemplified his commitment to values, to ideas and to the strength of the American experience more than his work as Deputy Director and Acting Director of the United States Information Agency, where he created and executed the brilliant and unique international CIVITAS program to promote civil society and civic education around the world. Like so many things that Penn developed, he created CIVITAS to break out of the worn mold of traditional West-to-East assistance in democracy building by replacing it with an innovative participatory network to develop civil society and free markets in emerging democracies through civic education and grass roots civic participation. CIVITAS was thinking ``outside the box.'' It was, in the words of one of its Russian participants, ``a unique possibility to see the full context of what we can do to support democracy, in concrete terms, now and in the future.'' CIVITAS is an international dialogue, not a monologue by the U.S. Penn's vision can best be summarized in his own words. In Prague, in 1995, Penn Kemble said that ``today there is an emerging recognition that what we usually think of as the civic realm and the economic realm are interlinked, and that when one is strong the other is generally strong, and that when one is weak or broken the other is in danger, too . . . One thing we surely have neglected is education. Education is the principal means for transmitting and strengthening the values and understandings--the subjective element, the culture--on which the institutions of all societies rest. Perhaps democratic society more than any other depends on the quality of its education.'' At USIA Penn Kemble saw that our embassies and public diplomacy posts abroad would work with local NGOs to foster civic education as a transformative element to grow democracy from the grass roots. He understood that a truly international movement for civic education could take an issue and give it life, a place on the international agenda of the community of democratic nations--whether it was human rights, sensible environment polices, or equal protection, treatment and opportunity for women in modern society. He internationalized national issues. He was nobly committed to the globalization of social democracy. Participants in the most recent gathering of the CIVITAS consortium in Amman, Jordan in June 2005, were struck with the realization that the group that Penn Kemble first convened in Prague 10 years before was still at it, plugging away in the trenches to build support for teaching democracy in schools and building a culture of democracy from the bottom up. Robert F. Kennedy once said that ``the future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society.'' That future--the future of the universal dream of social justice that should be the dream of all people everywhere--belongs to Penn Kemble. The very definition of CIVITAS is Penn's legacy: ``the concepts and values of citizenship that impart shared responsibility, common purpose and a sense of community among citizens.'' He will be missed, but the power of his ideas makes him immortal. Time, justice and the forces of history are on Penn's side.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, what we are debating here is what is affordable, how much is enough. Middle-class families know the answer. If you are in the middle class, you are too rich to be eligible for Federal programs, but too poor to be able to keep up with the cost of living. The language that the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), and I worked into this bill is a commonsense, bipartisan compromise that keeps up with that middle-class squeeze that makes the American Dream of homeownership possible. With all due respect to the gentleman, this amendment makes the American Dream of homeownership even harder. We should defeat this amendment.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the accomplishments of Jo Ann Mittenberg, who was recognized in September by the U.S. Department of Education as the American Star of Teaching honoree from New York State. This exceptional honor goes annually to one exemplary teacher from each state. Ms. Mittenberg has taught math for over 27 years and has been a teacher in the Farmingdale Union Free School district for over 14 years. Her colleagues describe her as a ``gifted, caring, tireless, dedicated person with a superb mathematical background and extraordinary teaching skills.'' Over the years, Ms. Mittenberg has taught Sequential I, II and III Mathematics, Grade 8 Math, Grade 8 Remedial Math, Regents Competency Math, Pre-Calculus Syracuse University Calculus Program and C.W. Post SCALE Calculus for college credit. Additionally, she has taught computer programming, computer literacy, SAT preparation, and GED preparation courses. One of Ms. Mittenberg's most impressive successes in the classroom has been helping ninth graders with disabilities pass state Regents exams with a 90 percent success rate. Ms. Mittenberg's dedication to providing Long Island students with a strong math education doesn't end in the classroom. She works hard to ensure that her colleagues are trained in the most innovative teaching techniques. As a certified Texas Instruments T-Fast (Technology for All Students) instructor, Ms. Mittenberg trains other teachers to use the newest, most advanced calculators. Over the years, she has taught almost 200 hours of in- service and professional development workshops. I am proud to have nominated Ms. Mittenberg for this prestigious and well-deserved honor. We have heard time and again the importance of math and science in the classroom. Long Islanders can be proud that teachers like Jo Ann Mittenberg are teaching their children skills they need to be successful in tomorrow's world.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my sincere congratulations to the Sayville Fire Department in celebration of their 100th Anniversary. The Sayville Fire Department was formed in 1905 with the merger of three independent fire companies. Two of those original companies, the Sayville Hook & Ladder Company No 1, formed in 1878 and the Resolute Hose Company No 1, formed in 1891 are still active today. The first firehouse, built in 1878, still stands and is used today as a private home. The present Fire Headquarters for the Department was built in 1938 and enlarged in 1994. If you were to visit the Sayville Fire Headquarters, you'd find original hook & ladder trucks and hose reels from the 1800s on display. Today, the Sayville Fire Department proudly protects 16,000 people living in an area of 4.5 square miles. It operates out of two stations and protects a primarily residential area. Approximately 120 firefighters volunteer their time for the department. While there have been many developments since 1905, the mission still remains the same. The brave men and women of the Sayville Fire Department are proudly serving their community by saving lives and protecting property.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and thank her for her leadership on this issue. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for his leadership, his passion for history, his leadership on behalf of the legacy of Constantino Brumidi in joining with me in urging the Stamp Advisory Commission to issue a United States postage stamp honoring Constantino Brumidi. Mr. Speaker, all Americans of all faiths, of all backgrounds, of all experiences who come to this citadel of democracy are inspired by the legacy of Constantino Brumidi. All of us are influenced by him. I was just walking through the corridors of the Capitol, and this is a very busy, very crowded place. And everyone who comes to the Capitol today and during these weeks has no choice but to look at the work of Constantino Brumidi, to be affected and influenced by it. Constantino Brumidi epitomizes the greatest democratic values that our country offers to the world: a sense of strength, a sense of pride, a sense of hope, the sense that one can come here with nothing and create an enduring and permanent legacy of their values. Constantino Brumidi captures not just the history that we view in his works in the Capitol, but he also sends us a critical message about our future, our collective future. What he tells us in his work is that this is a special place in the world, that one can come to America and work hard, they can reach the literal zenith of their profession, and in that workforce all the rest of us can look up at what they have done. That is something that should not be taken for granted. I would suggest that only in America could Constantino Brumidi's works be as cherished as they are. Only in America could his work force all the rest of us to look up at what he has done, and only in America could people from all faiths and backgrounds be so influenced and inspired by what he has done. That is the true lesson of Constantino Brumidi. He does not capture the past. He tells us that the best is yet to come. So I support this resolution. I thank the gentlewoman and gentleman from Florida, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, Republicans began this week when one Member accused the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), me, and Democrats in general of being anti-Christian. The gentleman retracted his comments. They are ending this week with Karl Rove characterizing Democrats as weak in responding to 9/11 and endangering our troops. He needs to retract his remarks. My district is 40 miles from Ground Zero. Democrats and Republicans died in that rubble. Democrats and Republicans are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Rove dishonors them by politicizing 9/11. He dishonors our troops by dividing them at a time of war. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago or 3 weeks ago we had the Armed Services markup on the defense authorization. Democrats offered amendment after amendment to strengthen our troops, better force protection, deeper investments, better quality of life for their families. Republicans opposed those amendments because we could not afford it. They said that the tax cuts that Mr. Rove engineered were more important. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rove must repudiate his comments. The President must ask Mr. Rove to repudiate his comments. This is the first administration that I know of that is every day seeking to divide the American people during a time of war.

Mr. ISRAEL

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of serving with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on the Committee on Armed Services, and it is a privilege to work with them. I offered a very similar amendment during the authorization process. The chairman asked if I would withdraw that amendment so we could work together, and I did that in the spirit of bipartisanship and good faith. But now we are being told, let us not work together, let us wait. We cannot wait any longer. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) said we are trying to scrub religion from public places. On the contrary. We are not doing that. The language of the Obey amendment explicitly says the expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the United States military. That is the line we are drawing. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution of the United States, which we have sworn to protect and defend, guarantees religious freedom and talks about the need. We were founded as a diverse country based on tolerance. We take the oath to the Constitution. We ask the Members of the military to take the same oath and fight to protect and defend the Constitution. For over 1 year there have been persistent reports that religious freedom and constitutional protections have not been respected at the Air Force Academy, cadets forced to mark on heathen flight lines, cadets being given and denied privileges based on a religious view, cadets encouraged to tell other cadets they will burn in hell if they do not embrace a certain view. When the Air Force attempted a review and corrective action, it was diluted. When a Lutheran chaplain complained it was diluted, she was dismissed. Mr. Chairman, even the superintendent of the Air Force, someone I have a very high regard and respect for, has said these reports keep him up at night and they may take 6 years to fix. As I said before, we have a constitutional civilian oversight responsibility for the military, and we are being told today do not take a position, let the Air Force investigate itself; and at that point Congress should weigh in. Here is the problem with that: this has been going on for over a year. Congress has done nothing. The appropriations bill will pass tonight. After tonight, it will be too late for Congress to take a position on this issue. The principal vehicle of funding for the military will have passed and the opportunity to defend tolerance, respect, and religious pluralism and freedom will have passed us by. Delaying is not a matter of fairness. Delaying is a matter of delay. It is a matter of complicity. If the House Armed Services Committee cannot exercise its full constitutional oversight responsibility on this issue, why are we in existence? My chairman knows that I have been a stalwart supporter of the military on every amendment, every bill, supporting more resources for the military, more investments, increasing end strength, because I want the military to be able to protect and defend the Constitution at home and abroad and I want it to respect the Constitution and embrace the personal expression of religious view at its own home. That is why I rise to support the Obey amendment, and that is why I oppose the Hunter amendment.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the words that we heard, as unfortunate and as hurtful as they were, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says, testimony for the passage of our amendment. I have never heard it suggested that by somehow saying that with a personal expression of religious observance and freedom, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wrote in his amendment, as I included in my amendment, could somehow be characterized in the way it just was. And, Mr. Chairman, I will just state for the record, with respect to the Air Force Academy, by one estimate, of the 117 Academy cadets, staff members and faculty members who complained about religious intimidation and proselytizing, eight happened to be Jewish, one happens to be atheist, 10 happen to be Catholic, and all of the rest happen to be Protestants. So this is not being for or against any one faith, I would say to the gentleman. This is about respect for all faiths. And that is why we offer this amendment, and that is why we believe now more than ever that it is critical that it be passed, and that the American people know that we embrace religious viewpoints in our military, but we also want respect for the spiritual values of all people.

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

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I respect the passion and force the gentleman from New Jersey brings to the fight against coercive abortions in China, but this is not about coercive abortions in China. This is about saving lives in Sri Lanka and Indonesia and areas that have been devastated by the tsunami. I was in Sri Lanka only a few months after the tsunami. I was in a maternity hospital that was ravaged by the first wave. That region has lost its capacity for maternal health care. It has lost its nurses, its doctors, its midwives, its entire maternity health care infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, 150,000 women scheduled to give birth after the tsunami, they need help. The UNFPA is one of the only agencies of its kind that can provide that help. It does not make sense for us to abandon the lives of newborn babies and their mothers in tsunami- affected areas because of what we do not like happening in China. The two issues are not at all related. We have an opportunity. This is something we can agree on, and that is maternal health care and reproductive health care, and saving lives in areas that desperately need it. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf for his bipartisanship.

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Virginia in a colloquy regarding the American Corners Program. Mr. Chairman, the American Corners Program are partnerships between the Public Affairs sections of U.S. Embassies and host institutions. They provide access to current and reliable information about the U.S. via book collections, the Internet, and through local programming to the general public. Sponsored jointly by a U.S. Embassy and a host country organization, an American Corner serves as an information outpost, similar to a public library reference service. The multi-media book and periodical collections are open and accessible. Associated reading or meeting rooms are made available to host program events and activities, like author readings, films, speaker programs, workshops, meetings, and exhibits. Recently, a Pakistani official, Hussain Hakanni, told me about his experience at an American library in Pakistan as a young boy. One day he met the U.S. Ambassador and he beat the Ambassador in a game of Trivial Pursuit. When the Ambassador asked him how long he had been in the United States, he responded, I have never been to your country. I have visited your libraries. Today, he is a strong ally for the United States in a region where we need strong allies. This program was his first contact with America, and it succeeded in doing what we are today struggling to do with youth in that corner of the world, winning hearts and minds. That is why I support the American Corners program, and I hope to work with Chairman Wolf as this bill progresses to ensure strong support for this important international program.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor three organizations: the American Airpower Museum, the Discovery Network's Military Channel, and Cablevision. Each of these organizations has taken tremendous time and effort to pay tribute to and acknowledge Long Island women who have served in the military. They have shown their deep appreciation for servicewomen by supporting a recent event that honored Long Island women who have served in the military. Women have played a crucial, role in our country's military history. They have served both on the home front and in combat throughout World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm and now, in our ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the last century, the contributions made to our nation's military forces by women are immeasurable. From the medics and support personnel of World War II, to the women currently serving in combat abroad, our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have been increasingly reliant on the heroism and leadership of our women in uniform. These esteemed women deserve to be recognized for their bravery and dedication and for the sacrifices they have made for our country. For this reason, I commend both Long Island women who have served in the military and those who have made the effort to acknowledge their commitment, particularly, the American Airpower Museum, the Discovery Network's Military Channel, and Cablevision. It is crucial to take the time to recognize those who have made great sacrifices for our country. Once again, I commend and hold in the highest esteem the women who have served in the military along with these three organizations that have taken the time and effort to acknowledge these women who have played such a crucial role in our country's history.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students from Half Hollow Hills High School in Dix Hills, New York for their hard work in the ``We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals. The students, Jason Albert, Matt Bernstein, Bryan Cowan, Jennifer Crupi, Arielle Davidsohn, Danielle Gold, Chelsea Gordon, Brittnay Hershkowitz, Joelle Lichtman, Priya Murthy, Lindsay Nussbaum, Liz Oren, Josh Parker, Sylvia Qu, Beth Reisfeld, Dan Roberts, Jill Rubino, Alida Salins, Aaron Schwartz, Ben Seleznow, Jen Signet, Soyoon Sung, Jessica Wasserman, Matt Young, and Jen Zhao, led by their teacher Scott Edwards, demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government. It is truly an honor to call these outstanding young Americans my constituents. Their success in the competition is also a testament to the excellent teachers at Half Hollow Hills East High School and elsewhere on Long Island. I offer my congratulations on their hard-won honorable mention and commend these students on their dedication to the study of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to send the Congress's birthday wishes to Robert Hedger on the occasion of his 70th birthday celebration. Father to Matthew, Sarah, Adam, Douglas and Stephen--a valuable member of my personal staff--and grandfather to Allison, Jonathon, Samuel, Kristina and Sarah, Robert has brought a wonderful family into this world. I offer my best wishes for continued good health and good fortune for he and his family and for many more gatherings such as that which he will hold this Memorial Day weekend when he will be surrounded by his loved ones at his home in Corea, Maine.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, just one concluding point. This Blue Dog 12- point plan is not radical or inventive. It is what every American family has to abide by every single day. All this plan says is, we will play by the same rules that our businesses are supposed to play by and our families are supposed to play by. I do not know of a single American family that can just decide to go beyond their means and tell their bank, I want to borrow more. We should play by the same rules. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) for their stalwart leadership on fiscal responsibility and common sense.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross). The gentleman and I were elected in the same class, in 2000. I thank the gentleman for his leadership for so ably representing the conservative values of his district. I do not agree with every one of his positions, but nobody advocates more fearlessly for the interests of his district than the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross). Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis). I am honored to be on the floor with both of them this evening. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) noted that I am from New York, from Long Island, New York. One of the wisest decisions that I ever made in coming to Congress with the gentleman was to join the Blue Dogs. And, in fact, most of the Blue Dogs do come from the South. I am probably the only Blue Dog who speaks with a distinct New York accent. Sometimes we need a translator to figure each other out. But it really does not matter whether you are from the Deep South or the south shore of Long Island. What binds Blue Dogs are principally two issues: Number one, a sense of fiscal responsibility. We believe that we ought to play by the same rules on the floor of the House that every American family has to play by at their kitchen tables. You have got to balance the books. Those folks do not have the ability to simply print money in their basements. They have got to balance their books. They have got to reconcile their checkbooks. We believe the same. The second thing that we believe is that we have got to have a strong and robust military, something I agree with passionately. Now, I have the privilege of serving with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) on the Armed Services Committee. There are only two New Yorkers who serve on the Armed Services Committee. I am the only New York Democrat on that committee. And I call myself a Harry Truman Democrat. I believe in a strong and robust defense. I spend most of my time on this floor in this Congress thinking about how to keep our country stronger and safer. And what I want to talk about just for a few minutes this evening is the linkage between this $7 trillion debt and our national security, our national defense, because this figure does not make us stronger in the long run. Think about what happened on the floor of the House just a few hours ago. We spent the day debating a Defense authorization approaching $500 billion. And at the end of that debate, our Blue Dog colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), stood up and suggested that we make a simple, but important, change in the budget that was about to pass. He said to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it does not matter whether you are Republican or Democrat; let us do the right thing for our Guard and Reserves. Let us provide them with health care. Let us not tell a single American Guard or Reservist that if you are going to go fight for us in Iraq or Afghanistan, 40 percent of our military in Iraq, Guard and Reserve, if you are going to do that, when you come home we are not going to abandon you, abandon your families with respect to health care. If you need health care, we will take care of it. If you are willing to sacrifice yourself for us, we are willing to take care of your health care, your health insurance, not just while you are fighting, but after. And what was the response that we heard? It is the same response that we hear time after time after time on the floor of the House. It is not that anybody is against our Guard and Reserve. It is not that anybody is against providing health care for our military. It is just that we cannot afford it because of this number. Mr. Ross. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Israel. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman. Mr. Ross. The gentleman is telling us that we, tonight, the majority in this Chamber refused to provide health insurance every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of the year for our men and women who have gone to Iraq, who are going to Iraq, or who have been to Iraq, because they said we could not afford it Mr. Israel. That is exactly what happened. Mr. Ross. And it was going to be a billion a year. Mr. Israel. The gentleman is correct, a billion a year. Mr. Ross. And this is the same crowd that gave us a budget this year that includes $106 billion in new tax cuts. Mr. Israel. These are the Members of this body who argue that we can afford to make every single penny of tax cuts permanent, but we cannot afford to provide health care for Members of the National Guard and the Reserve who are fighting for survival around the world. Mr. Ross. If the gentleman would yield, so what you are telling me is that the majority on the floor of the U.S. House this evening decided it was more important to maintain $106 billion in tax cuts and not provide health insurance year round for our Reservists and Guardsmen that have either been to Iraq, are going to Iraq, or just got back from Iraq or are in Iraq today. They were not willing to take $106 billion in tax cuts and make it $105 billion so they could take care of our men and women in uniform? Mr. Israel. If the gentleman would yield, the gentleman is precisely correct. That is the decision that was made tonight. But it gets worse, because many of us on the Armed Services Committee approached our colleagues and said, you know, if somebody is willing to go to Iraq and they lose their life, we ought to be able to take care of their life insurance. We ought to pay for their life insurance. The answer was, great idea, we cannot afford it. After all, we have a $7 trillion debt. Nobody ever says, we do not care about our troops; nobody ever says, we do not care about our military. It all comes down to this: We used to have a $5.6 trillion surplus. Maybe in those days we could support our military and our military families, but now we have got into deep debt. We have got to make tough decisions so we can improve life insurance for our troops, our military families. We can pay a very modest amount in health care for our Guard and Reserve because of this debt, but also because we want to make sure we can make those tax cuts permanent. Now, that is fundamentally unfair. That is just bad priority. Meanwhile, as we are telling our Guard and Reserves that we cannot afford their health care, which does not make us stronger, for 2 years, as we told military families that we could not take care of their life insurance, increase their life insurance, increase the death gratuity. Meanwhile, we continue to engage in reckless fiscal policies with the enemies that we are told that we will have in the future, namely, the Chinese. Every time you have a briefing they tell you, you have to start worrying about China, but meanwhile we are allowing them to finance our debts. So the adversaries that we are told we should worry about in the next few years are keeping the lights on in the House of Representatives, are running our Humvees in Iraq. How can you have a coherent national security policy when you have to rely on the adversaries that you expect to finance your Treasury, when they own 40 percent of your debt? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The final point I want to make is this: This is bad enough. The decisions that are made on the floor of the House with respect to our military are bad enough, but think about what our children are going to have to deal with when they are here on the floor of the House, when they have to figure out how they are going to pay their taxes, balance their checkbooks. We have a $2.5 trillion budget right now. In 10 years when my kids are approximately my age or approaching my age, think about what that budget is going to do to them. Their defense budget, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) probably knows this, will likely approach $600 billion. Interest on the debt which they have to pay will likely approach $500 billion. And everything else, whatever is left in the budget will be allocated to all of their needs, Social Security, and Medicare, the FBI, education, environmental protection, crime reduction. That is an intolerable budget that we are inflicting on them. One of the things that the Blue Dogs emphasize is our fundamental responsibility to be fiscally conservative, but to give our kids a better, safer, stronger world than we have today. What we are doing with these numbers, with these policies is raising our kids' taxes, straining their military, mortgaging them to our potential adversaries. And I am reminded of the very profound words of one of our distinguished colleagues, another member of the Tennessee delegation, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who last spring said to a gathering of Blue Dogs that no nation in the history of humankind has ever been strong, free and bankrupt. If nothing else, our obligation in Washington, DC., in the administration, in the House of Representatives, is to put politics aside and agree to make sure that we are strong, free and not bankrupt. And all we have done over the past several years is to strain our military, deny military families the basic, decent conditions they need, the health care they need, the life insurance they need; and end up owing more to the adversaries we are told to worry about more and more every day. We have an obligation to treat our military families better, to treat our troops better, to treat our kids better. Thank goodness the Blue Dogs take that obligation seriously. I thank the gentleman for giving me this time.

Mr. ISRAEL. And would the gentleman state how long Members of Congress actually had to read that $2.5 trillion budget?

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Does the gentleman recall when the House of Representatives voted on the entire $2.5 trillion budget resolution?

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important bill. I have met with constituents with afflictions such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, childhood leukemia, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, diabetes, several cancers, spinal cord injuries, and other diseases, disorders and injuries. Embryonic stem cell research offers them hope. I have also met with an amazing young woman named Brooke Ellison from Long Island. In 1990, when she was eleven years old, Brooke was hit by a car, which left her paralyzed from the neck down. Even with this hardship, she graduated from Harvard University in 2000, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in 2004, and she is currently a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Stony Brook University. Her inspiring story was made into a movie on A&E and was directed by the late Christopher Reeves. I have worked with her to raise public awareness of the importance of stem cell research, and under the Unanimous Consent agreement, I am including an essay that Brooke wrote on the issue in the Congressional Record. As everyone here knows, on August 9, 2001, President Bush announced that embryonic stem cell research would be limited; he limited federal funds by limiting eligible lines for research. Although scientists were expecting a big number of available lines, less than one third of the allowed 78 lines are available for distribution. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would expand research on embryonic stem cells by increasing the number of lines stem cells that would be eligible for federally funded research. This bill should not be controversial. The bill ensures that strict ethical guidelines would be met: the embryos would have been donated with informed written consent and without any financial payment or other inducement to make the donation. These are embryos that will be discarded. Finally, the bill would not use any federal funds to derive the stem cells. It is a good bill, but I wish this bill went further. There is still a need for other funding, because state or private funding would be needed to fund deriving the stem cells. California and New Jersey have already set up funding sources for embryonic stem cell research, and a number of other states have announced intentions to fund this research. We must ensure that all entities can work together. Scientists still need funding for the aspects of research that the Federal government will not cover. Today, I am introducing a resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that the Federal government should not infringe on states or private organizations that fund embryonic stem cell research. I hope that my colleagues will show support for all embryonic research, by supporting my resolution. Many of us have family members suffering from devastating illnesses, and the prospect of helping them to be healthy and free of pain is a worthy goal. Make no mistake; this goal is what we are debating today. Enticingly Close . . . Yet Painfully Far (By Brooke Ellison) The ability to view the world through another's eyes is the essence of altruism. When putting their pens to the paper of policy, those who legislate ought to take into keen consideration the world as it is seen through others' eyes, wrought with the problems they face and conditions they endure. This is the basic tenet of a representative democracy, the basic belief upon which the United States was founded. Yet, despite this underlying and widely accepted notion of several voices speaking on behalf of many, this does not always appear to be the case and, in fact, those making collective decisions can become inextricably linked to their own, myopic ideology, failing to understand the situations of others or hear their voices. In September of 1990, when I was eleven years old, I was hit by a car while walking home from my first day of 7th grade. That accident left me paralyzed from my neck down and dependent on a ventilator for every breath I take. Living as a person with a physical disability or debilitating disease, each day is a struggle. Tasks that, to others, might seem mundane or be taken for granted are strenuous challenges, sometimes taking long hours instead of mere minutes, causing frustration both from what cannot be at present and potential being lost in the future. When we place our hopes and visions for our world into the hands of those making broad decisions, we do it with the belief that they will act on behalf of our best interest and not on an isolated viewpoint. To do otherwise is bad policy. To undermine the interests of a majority of citizens is bad policy. To ignore the voices and dash the hopes of those most in need is bad policy. In the context of stem cell research legislation, these are bad policies, yet policies that are being upheld. This forces millions to wonder things like, ``If I could be freed from the confines of my physical condition, what a miracle it would be.'' Or, ``If, for an entire day, I could once again be completely whole and my body was somehow irrelevant, what a renewed gift that would be.'' Or, maybe, ``If, for a single moment, I could wrap my arms around those I love, what a treasure that would be.'' And even, ``If, by some chance, those making policy decisions might heed some of my recurrent thoughts and change their stance on stem cell research, what a potentially groundbreaking step it would be.'' The reality is that, based on current federal legislation, these ``ifs'' likely won't change into ``thens''. On August 9th, 2001, from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, President Bush announced that he would significantly limit federal funds to stem cell research, only agreeing to fund research conducted on to stem cell lines already in existence at the time. According to this limitation, federally supported research could be done on no more than 78 existing genetic cell lines, although even the most optimistic estimates of viable cells were estimated to be far fewer, less than two dozen. To the delight of some and the grief of others, Mr. Bush indicated that the use of embryonic cells for medical research was a violation of the sanctity of life, analogous to abortion or euthanasia. In the President's own words, ``I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. . . . Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care''. Despite millions of testimonies and pleas to the contrary since that day, over three years ago, the opinion of the administration has remained constant and has not eased any restrictions. Despite strides being made in other countries around the world in the field of stem cell research, the U.S. government has remained resolute in its opposition to it. Research that holds so much promise for so many now remains unsupported by the federal government. Similar to other issues facing our nation today, the decision of whether or not to fund embryonic stem cell research is now left in the hands of the States, with the Legislatures and Governors picking up where the U.S. Congress and President have left off. California, with its Proposition 71, has been the most recent State to make substantive progress on the issue, passing a referendum to support research conducted in the state. California joins New Jersey in leading the charge for state-funded stem cell research. But the cause should not and must not stop there, as two States out of our fifty is simply not enough. With researchers, scientists, and human lives waiting in the wings for advances, opportunity wasted is opportunity lost. Therapeutic stem cell research, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, has the potential to provide cures for a considerable number of neurological and degenerative conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, childhood leukemia, heart disease, ALS, several different types of cancer, and spinal cord injuries. In its most basic description, stem cells are the undifferentiated, unspecialized cells that can be extracted from embryos in their earliest stages of development, three to five days after fertilization. The embryos, known in this initial developmental form as blastocysts, contain only about 30 cells. Importantly, the cells taken from the blastocysts can be placed in different conditions to become other types of cells, such as heart muscle or nerve tissue, which can be used to repair similar damaged tissue in children and adults. The procedure has the potential to affect directly the lives of nearly 100 million Americans who face different conditions, equaling over one-third of the U.S. population and more than the entire populations of New York, California, Texas, and Florida, combined. As complex as embryonic stem cell research is in its design, it is equally so in its moral debate. Therapeutic stem cell research can sometimes be confused with reproductive stem cell procedures, such as genetic engineering, which have sparked controversy in some political camps. The two types of research differ considerably, though, both in terms of procedure and intent, and represent two diverse ends on a very long, complex spectrum--an understanding which often goes ignored. Well, some have argued, isn't using stem cells just the destruction of one life for the sake of another? Aren't we simply judging some lives as more important than others? To hold such a belief is to view the world in black and white terms, thereby ignoring the much more complex gray areas. Yes, it is possible that, if a blastocyst, from where stems cells are derived, were to be inserted into a womb and allowed to grow for nine months there is the potential a life could be born. However, that is not the case for any of the blastocysts that yield stem cells that are used for research. These blastocysts are those that will go unused after in vitro fertilization procedures and will never be used to bring about life. These blastocysts, which some proclaim represent the sanctity of life, will only be kept in freezers at fertility clinics until they have expired and then will be discarded completely. Under current federal legislation, they are of no use to anybody. To rob the stem cells of their other potential of life, which is to cure diseases or to help regenerate parts of the body that are not regenerating on their own, is really to devalue life in another, otherwise avoidable way. Well, others have argued, isn't the work done on stem cells just the same as cloning? Aren't these cells essentially promoting the creation of another person? The once almost incomprehensible, futuristic ideas of ``cloning'' and ``body- doubles'' are now considered feasible and fearsome possibilities, and therapeutic stem cell research has been the unwitting victim of the prevalent fears. Orwell's 1984 has somehow come to life in 2004, with the speculations made by some of about unintended, science-fiction consequences. But, the connection between human reproduction and human therapy is a foggy one at best. The real fear, though, is not the potential of mad scientists reproducing people but the lost potential of sound scientists curing people. Fourteen years ago, I could have never imagined having to advocate for something that could potentially restore for me the very basic aspects of life and humanity. But, that is something that no one should have to imagine. Science has given medicine more promise than ever before, with the potential to heal and restore people in ways once unfathomable. Stem cells, which would otherwise serve no other purpose, hold the promise of life, not just for the newly born but now for the already living and this opportunity must be seized. The time is now. If the federal government chooses not to do it, then the States must tend to it, themselves. The time has come when we can change the lives of so many, giving to them the fundamental parts of life and dignity.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule. I am very disappointed that my bipartisan amendment to restore funding for shoulder-fired missile protections was not permitted by this rule. The President of the United States requested $110 million for shoulder-fired missile research and development. The bill that we are going to vote on later today reduces it to $10 million. Over the past several years, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), Republican chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and I have been working on this issue. But it is not just the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and I. It is the State Department which released a report saying that shoulder-fired missiles are the leading cause of loss of life in commercial aviation around the world. They were used in December of 2003 against an Israeli jetliner in Kenya. They were used a year later against a DHL carrier. We now know that the Internet is teaching terrorists how to buy shoulder-fired missiles, set them up, and fire them. There are hundreds of thousands of these systems available around the world in the hands of 27 separate terrorist groups including al Qaeda. Everyone who has studied this issue, the President, the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the FBI, the CIA, the Aviation Subcommittee, the Committee on Appropriations, agrees that this threat needs to be addressed. And what does this bill do? Ignores the threat. If a single shoulder-fired missile is fired at an American aircraft, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be worried about $115 million in this bill. We are going to be worried about the end of the aviation industry as we know it and devastating consequences to our economy and the American people will look at what we did on this floor today and ask why we turned our backs on the President's request, the State Department's urgency, the Committee on Appropriations, the Aviation Subcommittee, Republicans and Democrats, and, most importantly, the flying public. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. This was a commonsense bipartisan amendment. I will vote for the bill, but I am hopeful that we can work together on the basis of common sense and proceed to protect the American flying public.