Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to the House's attention a wonderful event which reflects the vibrancy and dynamism of the Jewish community in my district. On Sunday, March 28, Temple Israel of Great Neck will celebrate the installation of Rabbi Howard A. Stecker as Spiritual Leader.

Originally from Fair Lawn, New Jersey, Rabbi Stecker received a Bachelors Degree in English literature from Columbia University before going on to The Jewish Theological Seminary, where he was ordained in 1992. While in Seminary, he served as a student chaplain at Lenox Hill Hospital, counseling patients of all faiths.

Rabbi Stecker served for 4 years as Assistant Rabbi of the Shelter Rock Jewish Center in Roslyn, New York, under the leadership of Rabbi Myron Fenster before serving for 7 years as Rabbi of the Jewish Community Center of West Hempstead. In December of 2003, Rabbi Stecker became Rabbi of Temple Israel of Great Neck.

Rabbi Stecker served on the Board of Directors of the Solomon Schecter Day School, in Nassau County. He also played an important role in the formation of its high school and spent 5 years as co-chairman of its education committee. Rabbi Stecker currently serves as President of the Rabbinical Assembly of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, an organization that provides educational and social opportunities for local Rabbis. Despite his many responsibilities in the community, Rabbi Stecker makes plenty of time to spend with his wife, Deanna, and their three sons, Joshua, Daniel and Zachary.

I commend Rabbi Howard A. Stecker for his continued dedication to Jewish community on Long Island. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please join me in congratulating Rabbi Stecker on his appointment as Spiritual Leader of Temple Israel of Great Neck.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is extraordinary, not for what it says but for what it deliberately refuses to admit. The President took us to war. An immediate nuclear threat was the bait. This resolution is the switch.

In the aftermath of the war, we found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and with shifting justifications coming from the President and memorialized here in this Republican-crafted resolution, I cannot help but feel, as my constituents do, that we were sold a bill of goods. Not surprisingly, today's feel-good pep-rally resolution does not speak to these issues. What it does provide is the background music for justification revisionists.

But since we have not discovered the promised stockpiles of weapons, we have a big problem. Not that our failure to find the weapons is not a big problem or that al Qaeda forces sneaking into Iraq is not a big problem or that nation building a place the size of California is not a big problem. The real problem is an utter lack of White House credibility. It is gone. Having not just cried wolf, but rabid wolf, this administration has lost its credibility with the Congress, with the American people, with the people of Europe, even with the people of ``New Europe,'' and with the international community.

And the credibility gap extends to the plans for what we would do after the war. We won the war. The Secretary of War makes good war. And for the peace we were assured, the American people were assured that there was a plan. In fact, there was. It was crafted by the State Department. It spoke to all of the issues and problems that we have come up with until today, and it was scrapped by the Secretary of Defense. So how are the American people supposed to believe that the current plan to hand over power to the Iraqis on June 30, ready or not, come hell or high water, will actually work when all the expertise the United States Government could muster in advance has been summarily dismissed? I have concluded that the administration's plans to get us into the war was bait and switch, and the plan to get us out looks like cut and run.

Finally, I am deeply concerned that the war against Iraq has undermined our stated Bush national security doctrine on preemption. Surely we face a new and different world in the wake of September 11 and we must think differently about how to win the war on terror, but preemption as a valid and legal doctrine for self-defense depends on imminence, an imminent threat to our national security. What we have discovered in Iraq is that there was no imminent threat and that our intelligence about Saddam's weapons was far from the mark. The administration has destroyed its credibility with the world community, and if by our actions we have transformed preemptive war into preventative war, then despite what today's resolution says, we have not made the world a safe place but a more dangerous place in the long run.

Mr. Chairman, never would I have thought that defending the Constitution would be so lonely a job on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Do not get me wrong, I believe in decency and Mary Poppins and all things nice; but what is at stake here is freedom of speech and the assault thereon.

I become more and more concerned about the concentration of the media in the hands of so few players, that kind of media power concentrated in the hands of so few and influenced specifically by the far right wing and religious right in this country.

We talk about the President and the Presidency, and we say that the President has a bully pulpit, and he does. That does not concern me. What concerns me is the bullyism and the bullying that is going on. When networks and stations and people-owned medias are afraid to be critical of the administration, to impose a fine on speech that you do not like of a half a million dollars a shot, multiplied by 30 or 300 stations, does not have a chilling effect. It has a freezing-out effect where people will be afraid to speak out.

It is not for us to put limits on free speech. The public decides what they want to listen to and wants to hear. They can change the channel, they can change the station, they can turn it off. To talk about motherhood and breast feeding as something that is good is fine, but people are offended by a breast? Is that obscene? Maybe it was in poor taste at the time, but is it obscene?

That Howard Stern on the radio would be threatened with extinction from broadcast because he did not hang up in time on somebody that called in, that was not the issue. The issue is that he is beginning to speak out against the President and the administration, and he is paying the price because of the pressure on the media by the President and his media cronies.

This concentration of the media denies the public access to the right to speak out. It is not just speech that we agree with and we think is pretty that we have to tolerate. The test of freedom of speech is if we tolerate ugly speech, obnoxious speech, and speech that we disagree with. And saying that we are protecting the country and the children, what about personal responsibility? Everybody should protect their own children from what they do not want to listen to or see.

These become weapons of mass communication, and no one will own them except those who have the hands on the levers of power in the White House and their friends.

That is what we find obscene? What is obscene is public officials lying to the public, lying about public policy, lying about education. It is about not providing enough money for AIDS or cancer; that is what is obscene in this country. We need people to defend our Constitution. We need people to defend freedom of speech, and that is really what is at stake here. This is going to become a very dark day in American history. We are going down the slippery slope of limiting our Constitution and the protections that it gives to the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I for one will be voting against this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing to do with trial lawyers or any other issue that has been basically discussed here today, but it is merely to correct what I think is an inadvertent omission in the bill.

My amendment would expand the definitions in the act to exclude any establishment that manufactures or sells meat from downed animals for human consumption from the protections of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, nearly 3 months have passed since the first mad cow was discovered in the United States and the very first food-related bill has reached the House floor. It is not a bill to protect the American people from mad cow disease and to safeguard the food chain, but it is instead a bill to protect lawsuits against food manufacturers for injuries related to weight gain.

With America's food and meat supply at risk, it is embarrassing that this special interest legislation is our first response to reforming food safety in the United States.

The USDA banned downers from the food supply noting that a non- ambulatory animal was 49 times more likely to have mad cow disease, and they issued a regulation banning it. Those who oppose this amendment will tell us that the amendment is not necessary because the bill before us already says companies that knowingly violate Federal or State law get no protection in the bill and that the USDA banned downers, but the USDA is not the Congress and a USDA ban on downers is not the law. It is merely a regulation.

So this amendment is needed to make it a law, as was, I believe, intended. Otherwise, slaughterers who knowingly violate the regulation, not a law, get protection from legal action for selling diseased meat from mad cows to someone whose brain may rot some 8 years from now.

In the aftermath of our first discovery of mad cow disease, Americans deserve more from Congress than just a bill preventing frivolous lawsuits which have already been successfully defeated in U.S. courts. Instead, we should be working to assure our constituents that the meat they are eating and feeding to their children is safe and free of mad cow disease.

Personal responsibility, yes, add me to the long line of people who have already said that they believe in it, but people should take personal responsibility from acts that they knowingly take and knowingly violate and voluntarily take.

A person cannot know that they are eating the meat of a sick animal because it is not labeled, and that is another issue. What about personal responsibilities of companies that knowingly sell meat from downers, from diseased animals, too sick to walk to the slaughter? We could take personal responsibility if the corporations took personal responsibility and put labels that said the meat we are eating is from a diseased downed cow or that the meat we are about to eat had a 99 percent chance of never being inspected.

According to a Consumers Union poll, seven in 10 Americans who eat meat say they would pay more for beef to support increased testing in the cattle, and in a Zogby poll, three out of four Americans find it unacceptable to have downed animals in our food system. In fact, the USDA tells us that it was a downed animal from Washington State that proved positive for mad cow disease this past December, and early last year in Canada, the infected mad cow was also a downed animal. That is not a coincidence.

The USDA ban on slaughtering downed animals for human consumption is based on sound science and is nearly identical to the Ackerman- LaTourette amendment that failed just three votes short of passage in this House in the past summer, and that was before the discovery of mad cow disease in the United States. Surely there are three more people in this House who now better understand this issue.

Mr. Chairman, we should not be passing bills to protect the irresponsible establishments that may knowingly sell meat from sick and fallen animals. This amendment would ensure that manufacturers and sellers who ignore the proven health risks from downed animals who ignore the USDA ban, not a law, and sell tainted meat from downed animals to the American public, are not protected from lawsuits under this Act. I do not believe that was the intention.

Mr. Chairman, the time is long overdue for this issue. This issue is so ripe it is beginning to get rotten. The American people deserve better than that, Mr. Chairman, and this Congress has the opportunity to act right now to do the right and proper thing to protect all of our constituents from an inadvertency that occurs within this bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and then again, the distinguished Chairman of the committee, although very knowledgeable, may very well be wrong.

I am holding the page with the very lines that he asked me to refer to, and what it basically does is it refers to

government action, government action against those companies, not individual actions of those people. The government is not getting sick or certainly not getting sicker from eating the meat of diseased animals, but human beings are denied under this, not the government. Human beings who have eaten diseased meat from downed animals have no recourse under the law the way this is written.

Yes, if a person gains weight, and some of us have done that, from eating wrong and indulging a little bit too much, sometimes that evidence is all too evident, but when a person eats the meat of a diseased animal, they have already eaten the evidence, and the case is difficult enough to prove.

People have no protection, no ability to sue, and the gentleman, what he sought to do, if he rereads what he has asked me to do, he will see very, very clearly that they are not exempted from government action, but they are still protected from private citizens bringing private courses of action.

Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman assured us at the outset of his remarks that private citizens would not be precluded from bringing private actions. It is very clear, to at least some of us who read the language of what is in the actual bill, that that is what happens, but given the chairman's genuine assurance that citizens would not be precluded, I fail to see what harm would be done if we specifically say that people have a right to bring action against those companies that knowingly and willfully sell meat from diseased fallen animals to the consuming public.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is overlooking something. The government brings lawsuits for violation of the FDA act. Individuals cannot bring actions under the FDA act. Individuals bring civil cases under the tort laws, and that is what we are talking here.

This bill allows the government to bring a lawsuit. I want Mrs. Jones to be able to bring a lawsuit because her 8-year-old son was just made brain damaged and is going to die in 3 months because he ate a hamburger that somebody knowingly sold him that came from a downed animal that had mad cow disease. They cannot do that under this act because they are not the government.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would then ask, Why is the gentleman protecting companies that allow that?

We do not prevent it.

It certainly does. That is exactly the point of this amendment the gentleman is speaking on.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me.

The gentleman from Iowa took it upon himself to speak for the Founding Fathers, which gives me the initiative to speak for the founding mothers. I think they would be aghast to see that this Congress is looking to protect rather prurient corporate interests at the expense of the health and safety of the American people.

It is not about protecting pigs, my colleague. It is about protecting people. And I say to the gentleman from Iowa, as well as the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, who has had many discussions with me on this issue, that the Ackerman amendment does not take away anybody's right to sue. It does not give anybody, as the gentleman asserted, the right to sue. People have a right to sue now. That is the status quo under the American system of jurisprudence. You can bring a lawsuit.

What the Ackerman amendment attempts to do is to prevent what the opposition is trying to do, and that is to provide an escape clause for those corporations who say it is a regulation, not a law; and, therefore, we are exempt from lawsuits.

The bill before us protects those people who knowingly and willfully sell bad meat to good people and says the public cannot sue them. The government can bring action for violating the FDA law, but people cannot sue under this provision.

It is appalling to think of who we are protecting here. I would have thought that those who represent the States that have cattle and pigs, and so many people make an important living from livestock, would understand the magnitude of the damage that they are doing to their own industry and their own constituencies. The world does not believe what they are saying, that the American food is the safest food in the world. You have lost billions of dollars.

The Japanese will not eat American hamburgers, and they are the ones who have been buying it all over the world. Europeans test every cow before they put it on the market. America, with all our wealth, cannot do that to protect our own people, and my colleagues' constituents are paying the price. Billions of dollars you have cost them. Wake up.

The American people do not want to eat this meat. And it is not because they are just a bunch of animal lovers. They will eat meat if they know that it is safe. And it is your job to protect that industry as well as the public. And the way to do that is to keep the deck honest; to allow people to bring a lawsuit if they think harm was done to them and do not exclude the industry and those who knowingly and willfully sell products that are tainted to the public.

How can one exercise personal responsibility if you do not know the facts? There is no label on your hamburger that says that this hamburger came from a diseased or downed cow. People would not eat it, and you know that. It is a charade that we are playing here. This has nothing to do with trial lawyers. This is a simple amendment that closes an escape clause that I believe, with all due respect, was inadvertently created by an oversight, regardless of your feeling on trial lawyers or anything else.

And I should make it clear, talking about pigs, that my amendment does apply to all livestock, not just cattle.

The gentleman from Texas is right because all livestock, cattle, sheep and pigs can bear the animal form of mad cow that can be passed on.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the USDA, which is selectively cited by the gentleman from Texas giving it such great authority, happens to be the authority that says that downed animals are 49 times more likely to have mad cow disease than ambulatory animals. There is the connection. It is not that there is no connection, it is not just that a cow fell and cannot get up and does not have a button to press.

If it is a downed animal, regardless of why it is a downed animal, it is 49 percent more likely to have mad cow disease. Do Members want to play that game of Russian roulette with their children? I do not. I think others really do not, either. If Members want to protect the American people, guarantee that we are playing straight with the American people. It is their interest that we are trying to protect. For the sake of trying to make a few more pennies on the pound, you are jeopardizing the entire industry, as well as the safety of the American public.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Under this gentleman's thinking, that beloved animal of that little boy who has shown him all around, if he falls and breaks his leg, that animal should be treated humanely and humanely slaughtered which would prevent it from being sold to the public.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the gentleman would have it both ways. First the claim is that my amendment is redundant, the bill already does what it does. Now the gentleman is saying that it guts the bill. How can it be redundant and gut the bill?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am trying not to be insulted by being accused of having a foolish and ridiculous amendment. I am sure the gentleman is insulting the amendment.

Let me suggest to your very sanctimonious self that it was the chairman of this very committee that said my amendment was redundant. The author of the bill, rather, who said that the amendment was redundant, that what I am trying to do is already in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 15 and congratulate my colleague Mr. Wilson of South Carolina for his sponsorship of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, the resolution before us today commends India on its celebration of Republic Day and urges continued strong bilateral relations between the United States and India. But there is much more to celebrate than simply India's Republic Day. There are the commonalities between the U.S. and India, in particular both are thriving multi-cultural democracies. India is the largest and the U.S. is the oldest. This year both nations are in the midst of the great democratic tradition of elections. India's elections begin later this month and run through the beginning of April.

Beyond our common experiences with democracy, the United States and India have been growing ever closer over the last several years. Beginning with President Clinton's trip to India in 2000, the U.S.- India relationship has truly blossomed over the last several years.

In the immediate aftermath of the horrendous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, India was the first nation to step forward and offer unqualified support and assistance to us. Just a few months later, India suffered a devastating attack in the heart of its democracy, the parliament building in New Delhi. These events underscore the fact that both nations have faced, and continue to face, serious threats from global terrorist organizations.

These unfortunate events have led to a significant expansion of the U.S.-India relationship into areas where our two nations had not previously cooperated: defense and counter-terrorism. Evidence of the new and intense level of cooperation in these areas can be found in the most recent joint exercises between air force units of the United States and India in central India just last month.

On the other aspects of our relationship, like the newly announced U.S.-India Strategic Partnership and a steady stream of senior level visits in both capitals speak volumes regarding the robust nature of our relationship. So it is only fitting Mr. Speaker, that the Congress, join the chorus of voices in recognizing that the oldest and largest democracies are on a new and welcome path bilaterally.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Offered By: Mr. Ackerman

Amendment No. 1: Section 4(2), insert after the period at

the end the following: ``However, such term shall not include

any slaughtering, packing, meat canning, rendering, or

similar establishment that manufactures or distributes for

human consumption any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses,

mules, or other equines, that, at the point of examination

and inspection as required by section 3(a) of the Federal

Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 603(a)), are unable to stand or

walk unassisted at such establishment.''.

Section 4(6), insert after the period at the end the

following: ``However, such term shall

not include any slaughtering, packing, meat canning,

rendering, or similar establishment that distributes for

human consumption any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses,

or mules, or other equines, that, at the point of examination

and inspection as required by section 3(a) of the Federal

Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 603(a)), are unable to stand or

walk unassisted at such establishment.''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 50th anniversary of Young Israel of New Hyde Park, the only Orthodox synagogue in northeast Queens. The synagogue, which boasts a vibrant multi-generational membership, plays a central role in increasing the presence and awareness of Orthodox Judaism in our community.

For half a century, Young Israel of New Hyde Park has provided its members and visitors with many of the things that an Orthodox family looks for and needs: from classes to daily minyanim to a local Boy Scout troop. Now under the leadership of Rabbi Binyamin Hammer, the synagogue, which is just around the corner from Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Hillside Hospital and Schneider Children's Medical Center, has long been known as a place where families and friends of patients can find religious support and Shabbat and Yom Tov hospitality. To this end, a bikur cholim apartment was recently added through the purchase of a house next door to the synagogue. To date it has provided temporary lodging for people from all over the United States, Russia, Italy, Israel and Canada.

Those familiar with this congregation, those who, for 50 years have made it a place of civic support and spiritual development, know that Young Israel is more than just a temple--but a shul, a spiritual home, a place that reflects the highest aspirations of an ancient people living proud and free in this great nation.

I commend Young Israel of New Hyde Park for its continued dedication to our community. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please join me in congratulating the synagogue on the occasion of its 50th anniversary and in wishing Young Israel best wishes for another 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Narayan Keshavan who passed away suddenly and unexpectedly last week.

Keshavan worked for me from January of 1998 until June of 2001. During much of that time I was the Co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans and Keshavan helped me stay abreast of the issues facing India and Indian-Americans and stay in contact with the vibrant community here.

Keshavan had a love for two countries. His adopted home, the United States and his ancestral home, India. So few people modestly and selflessly served to help U.S.-India relations through such dramatic periods of growth and change. Keshavan was an early and vocal advocate for a different kind of relationship between the oldest and largest democracies in the world. He saw the possibility, in fact the necessity, of India and the United States working closely together well before it was evident to leaders in either country. In a clear example of bringing the two cultures closer together, Kesh was one of the Indian Americans who made the October 23, 2003 First Deepavali Event at the White House happen.

Born May 31, 1950 in Hyderabad, India, Keshavan was a graduate of Andhra University (Visakahapatnam, India) where he received a BA in Pharmacy and Osmania University (Hyderabad, India) with a BA and MA in journalism. Over his impressive career as a journalist, Kesh was respected for his vision and commitment to politics and Indo-U.S. Relations. In addition to working for the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, he was the Founder and Executive Director of the Indian American Republican Council, and President of the Indian American Forum for Political Education (NYC and LI chapter). He also was a founder of the Indo-U.S. Parliamentary Forum. He served as a mentor to countless individuals of all ages and faiths, deeply touching the lives of many here and in

India, even those he knew only a short time. People loved Kesh for his honesty, intelligence and humor.

Kesh passed away on Thursday, November 13 after he appeared on CNN in a interview with Lou Dobbs where he defended India in the growing political issue of outsourcing. Keshavan is survived by his father and sister.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a journalist, public servant and tireless community activist, Narayan Keshavan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call to the attention of the House an important event in my district: the groundbreaking for the Young Mashadi Jewish Center in Great Neck on December 14, 2003. I want to offer my best wishes and congratulations to all the men and women who have contributed their time, energy and support to bring this tremendous project into being.

America and New York in particular have been blessed by a growing number of Jews of Iranian descent, who have made an enormous contribution to the health and vitality of our Jewish community. Owing to their bitter experience as a persecuted religious minority in Iran, they--more than most--have come to understand the meaning of the prophet Jeremiah, ``If you will remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up. . . .'' The expansion of this community's physical presence through the construction of this center is a sign of continuing growth and maturity, and one which I happily encourage.

Mr. Speaker, as always, breaking ground on a new religious center is a joyous event. Such structures are gifts to the future and expressions of our most admirable goals for our posterity. The Young Mashadi Jewish Center in Great Neck will include classrooms and a playground for children, a youth center for young adults, a recreational lounge to accommodate social, cultural, and educational programs for the community seniors, and other spaces available to host all those events which connect individuals and families to their community.

This center will be built with love, dedication, determination and an abiding faith in the future of the Jewish people. In short, it will be a center that reflects the values of the people who built it.

Mr. Speaker, in the Jewish faith, when a book of study is completed, the accomplishment is celebrated by offering encouragement to immediately return to the work ahead. The groundbreaking of the Young Mashadi Jewish Center in Great Neck is a great step forward, a real achievement. But it is a step which only promises greater things. In the days ahead, I know the whole House will join me in saying ``Chazak! Chazak! v'Nitchazayk!'' (Be strong! Be strong! And may we be strengthened!)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Marathon Jewish Community Center in Douglaston, New York and its new Rabbi Gary Greene who officially took the reins on December 7, 2003.

The Marathon Jewish Community Center is a conservative synagogue which has served the communities of Douglaston, Little Neck, Bayside and Great Neck for more than 50 years. The facility includes a religious school, a junior congregation and adult education programs.

Earlier this year, the synagogue recruited Rabbi Gary Greene from Temple Shalom in Framingham, Massachusetts. Prior to his service there, Rabbi Greene served the members of Congregation B'Nai Jacob in Longmeadow, Massachusetts. While at Temple Sholom, Rabbi Greene helped to revitalize Adult Education, and for his efforts was the recipient of the Solomon Schechter Award for Adult Education. Among other accomplishments, Rabbi Greene has expanded the social and cultural programs of the Temple and introduced services and rituals, including Selichot, Tashlich, Healing Services and Meditation Services.

Rabbi Greene has also dedicated himself to teaching. Over the years, he has educated and enlightened thousands of children and adults. He taught most grades at the former United Hebrew School and served on its Board of Directors, Education Committee and Rabbis' Committee. He was instrumental in the creation of B'nai Jacob's Hebrew School and the B'yachad Hebrew High School. Rabbi Green has served on its Board of Directors, Education Committee and as the Co-Chair of the Education Committee in charge of Judaic programming. Rabbi Greene also served as a teacher and adviser to Camp Ramah in Palmer, Massachusetts.

Rabbi Green also served as the Jewish chaplain for students at Westfield State College in Westfield and Bay Path College in Longmeadow. He was also an active member of the Longmeadow Clergy Association as well as the Interfaith Council of Western Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me now in congratulating Rabbi Gary Greene and the Marathon Jewish Center for their service to the community. I am confident that the Marathon Jewish Center will continue to enrich the lives of its congregants for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The acting Secretary of the Army I am afraid has not gotten that particular message because in relation to right in my own district out in Hawaii, the movement of troops out of the 25th up at Schofield Barracks, out into Asia and into Iraq, the movement of Guard and Reserve troops, indicated that this was justified on the basis that if we did not fight them, presumably whoever these people are, terrorists and opposition, military opposition, fight them over there, wherever ``there'' is, that we would be fighting them here, that is to say, in the United States. The clear link there obviously is that had we not attacked Iraq, Iraq would somehow be attacking the United States, that somehow we would be the victims of an assault by Iraq or the forces of Iraq and presumably by that meaning Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, precisely my point is that it serves little good both to a sensible and reasonable and rational dialogue as to what steps we should take now with regard to our occupation in Iraq and the continuing military operations in Afghanistan, it does little good for us to engage in a dialogue in which these kinds of accusations are made or these kinds of observations such as I have just outlined: If we do not fight them there, we will have to fight them there. This is hardly worthy of the Secretary of the Army let alone any high official of the government. It is hardly worthy of anybody to say some are attacking the President for attacking terrorists. I mean it is stupid on its face to say something like that, and it is clearly meant to be provocative and political without forming any kind of an enlightenment with respect to the issues at hand. What needs to be done, and I think that the Iraq Watch that we have been engaged in these past weeks is indicative of this, that what needs to be done is to have this kind of dialogue. We do not have the hearings. We do not have the dialogue during the regular course of the day.

We are getting ready to recess. The Congress is going out of business in the midst of this winter. There will be no recess in the wars. There will be no recess in the killing. There will be no recess in the wounding. There will be no recess in the political implications. I can assure the Members of that. We are reaping a whirlwind of hatred and distrust across the world such as we have not faced certainly in my memory. The United States has always represented a beacon of hope to people. In our worst excesses and in times when there has been the most argument, even within the borders of the United States as to what our policy should be or should not be, it has always at least had as our fundamental base that we were trying to do the right thing by way of our cooperation with others, by way of our respect for other people; and yet today our whole policy is we are going to do as we please. We are going to take up the issues as we see fit, and whether anybody else wants to involve themselves with us, that is tough. We do not care. That is not a foreign policy. That way lies blindness and defeat for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Narayan Keshavan who passed away suddenly and unexpectedly last week.

Keshavan worked for me from January of 1998 until June of 2001. During much of that time I was the Co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans and Keshavan helped me stay abreast of the issues facing India and Indian-Americans and stay in contact with the vibrant community here.

Keshavan had a love for two countries. His adopted home, the United States and his ancestral home, India. So few people modestly and selflessly served to help U.S.-India relations through such dramatic periods of growth and change. Keshavan was an early and vocal advocate for a different kind of relationship between the oldest and largest democracies in the world. He saw the possibility--in fact the necessity--of India and the United States working closely together well before it was evident to leaders in either country. In a clear example of bringing the two cultures closer together, Kesh was one of the Indian-Americans who made the October 23, 2003 First Deepavali Event at the White House happen.

Born May 31, 1950 in Hyderabad, India, Keshavan was a graduate of Andhra University (Visakahapatnam, India) where he received a BA in Pharmacy and Osmania University (Hyderabad, India) with a BA and MA in journalism. Over his impressive career as a journalist, Kesh was respected for his vision and commitment to politics and Indo-U.S. Relations.

In addition to working for the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, he was the Founder and Executive Director of the Indian-American Republican Council, and President of the Indian- American Forum for Political Education (NYC and LI chapter). He also was a founder of the Indo-U.S. Parliamentary Forum. He served as a mentor to countless individuals of all ages and faiths, deeply touching the lives of many here and in India, even those he knew only a short time. People loved Kesh for his honesty, intelligence, and humor.

Kesh, passed away on Thursday, November 13 after he appeared on CNN in a interview with Lou Dobbs where he defended India in the growing political issue of outsourcing. Keshavan is survived by his father and sister.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a journalist, public servant, and tireless community activist, Narayan Keshavan.

Mr. Speaker, every 12 minutes a woman in America dies of breast cancer. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, but I am not sure that awareness is the right word. Unfortunately, many of us are painfully aware. Many, if not all of us have known someone who has fought against this devastating disease. I would like to express my deep appreciation to the many soldiers in the battle against breast cancer. There are too many to name right now, but their dedication and tireless efforts are critical and so deeply appreciated by us all.

A recent study found that the presence of mutated BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 genes made cancer risk soar. This information proves that passage of legislation such as the Genetic Non-Discrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act is imperative. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, which has 230 cosponsors. By not acting on this legislation, we are placing women's health in jeopardy on a daily basis. Women are not being tested because they fear they will be discriminated against by their insurer should they test positive. This is unconscionable.

This body has begun the job of funding the National Institutes of Health and cancer research over the past five years. However, our work is not done. It is imperative that we are able to fund new research and continue existing research. In order to ensure that progress is not lost and valuable information left uncovered, we must continue to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health.

One of the things I am most proud to have motivated and enacted was the establishment of the Long Island Breast Cancer Study, a comprehensive effort to investigate whether environmental factors are responsible for breast cancer. The historic investigation began in 1993, and was coordinated by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. When the study was released late last year, I was disappointed to find the study could not identify specific environmental factors from among the three compounds studied as a cause for breast cancer. Many of the other compounds remain to be ruled out; more funding and research are necessary. However, the lessons learned proved very important. Many of the results provided clues for future research. We must build on this information, we must try until we succeed because the alternative is much more costly.

We need to work together to turn ``A-wareness'' into ``A-cure.''

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this. In listening and thinking this through, I feel compelled to take the well.

I am one of the few on this side of the aisle that voted with President Bush the first time, as well as this President Bush, because I thought it was important, the right thing to do, that those of us who have said ``never again'' to tyrants must protect not just ourselves, but other people as well, and step up to the plate, and that it would be sinful not to do what we have to do in ridding the world of a tyrant. I am not sorry that I participated in that, because, indeed, it was the right thing to do, and remains so.

But things have happened and things have changed as we watch what has evolved, as we watch an administration that ran for office and continually talked about bringing morality back to government and taking personal responsibility, and suddenly seeing the evolving of what has happened here, which is truly mind-boggling.

Personal responsibility. Who knew what in the White House and when? Personal responsibility. Things starting to go wrong.

Where is the plan? Those of us who supported the action always said we were going to win the war. There was no doubt about it. You could not find an oddsmaker in Las Vegas to say that Saddam Hussein was going to win the war. The day, the amount of time, the casualties, that was always a question.

But the question that we pressed in the Committee on International Relations was, can you win the peace? What we have here is a Secretary of War who has now become the Secretary of Peace, and he does not know how to do it.

The President stood here in this House and said to us Members of both bodies assembled, ``British intelligence tells us this.'' I think it is what Nixon called ``plausible deniability.''

I never heard a President say someone else's intelligence told us this. He was warned. He was warned by the CIA Director that that intelligence was wrong. Blame the British. Blame the CIA Director. Blame the brave men in the Navy on the Abraham Lincoln.

What happened to personal responsibility? Where is the plan? We have been deceived; we have been lied to, we in the Congress and the American people as well, and that is intolerable. People took the oath of office to tell the truth. Where is the truth?

Indeed, this is a dilemma. We have so many American lives on the line in that country, but the President owes us a plan. A company declares bankruptcy for a half a million dollars, they have to have a plan. For $87 billion, there should be a plan. What is the plan? Nobody knows the plan.

``Trust us.'' Well, I have run out of trust in this administration. I do not mind that the emperor has no clothes; I mind that the emperor does not have a plan, because lives are at stake.

We want to protect our troops. Bring back a bill that would protect the troops. We are not going to leave them hanging out there. But to spend $87 billion, and nobody knows how, nobody knows why, nobody knows where, nobody knows when, is something that is absolutely unconscionable, and something in which I can no longer participate.

I will be voting no.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call the attention of the House to a wonderful event that will occur this Friday, October 24, in my district: the 50th anniversary and rededication of Temple Emanuel of Great Neck. This synagogue, since its founding, has been a vital force in my community, instilling hope, providing opportunities for prayer, education and fellowship, and acting as a vigorous agent of tzedaka, of righteousness, charity and social action.

Since 1969, this energetic congregation has been led by Dr. Robert Widom, an exemplary rabbi, a community icon, a wise, decent and kind man, and, I'm proud to say, my close friend and counselor. Under his leadership, Temple Emanuel has grown, thrived and fulfilled its mission of providing a home to a dynamic liberal Judaism that promises and delivers both continuity and change.

Mr. Speaker, this wonderful anniversary recalls the divine promise of redemption made by Isaiah who foresaw the restoration of the Beit HaMikdash, the holy temple in Jerusalem: ``Behold I will set down gems as your flooring stones and lay your foundation with sapphires. I will set your window frames with ruby and make your gates of carbuncle stones and your entire boundary of precious stones. All your children will be students of the Lord, and your children's peace will be abundant.''

This joyous 50th anniversary of Temple Emanuel will celebrate and amplify the echoes of the profound spirit of the Great Temple. This anniversary will rightfully celebrate the creation, half a century ago, of a place for Jews to join together to commune with God, to ask for atonement and to celebrate the holidays and mitzvot established in the Torah. For a generation, Temple Emanuel has been the place for hundreds of Jewish families to celebrate simchas, births, b'nei mitzvot, and weddings; the life events which connect individuals and families to our community and to their faith.

The structure of this synagogue is not mere mortar or brick; it is not wood, stone or steel. This house of prayer, this home for a community, is founded on centuries of faith and tradition, it is built up with love and dedication, and its roof is an abiding faith in the promise made to King Solomon so long ago. Even as this congregation has matured, this structure of spirit has not aged.

Those of us who know this congregation, who know the people who, for 50 years have made it hum with activity and life and spirit, we know it's not just a temple, it's not just a synagogue: It's a shul, a spiritual home, a place that reflects the highest aspirations of an ancient people living proud and free in this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, in the Jewish tradition, when a book of study is completed, traditionally we celebrate the success by offering encouragement to immediately return to the work ahead. This anniversary, this celebration of 50 years of sustaining Jewish life in a profound and modem way, is a real and deeply satisfying achievement. But it is an anniversary which only promises greater things.

Mr. Speaker, the words we say are ``Chazak! Chazak! v'nitchazayk!'' Be strong! Be strong! And may you be strengthened! Mr. Speaker, I ask all of the Members of the House to stand and join me in offering Temple Emanuel a hearty yasher koach, and best wishes for the next 50 years.