Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise, reluctantly, in support of this supplemental appropriations bill.

I do so not because the President has called us to this task, but in spite of that fact.

I do so not because of my sympathy for the people of Baghdad, although I am sympathetic, but because failure is not an option.

The Middle East was, before the war, it remains today, and it will be tomorrow, a region of critical importance to our Nation. We have close allies who depend on America for their freedom; we have vital economic interests; we have ongoing challenges from regimes like Iran and Syria that continue to sponsor terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction. We can not walk away.

I rise in support of this massive $87 billion expenditure not because it is the final step in securing Iraq, but with the knowledge that it is in fact just the one more step on a long and hard road this Congress agreed to embark upon in October of last year.

If anyone here thinks we just have to swallow this one bitter pill, they are sadly deluded.

Mr. Chairman, there should be no mistake: over the next few years, Iraq is going to cost this Nation billions upon billions of dollars. And because of the majority's tax-cutting fanaticism, these billions are going to come in the form of debt--to be paid by our children and our children's children. And this, because the majority party has squandered our surplus by their tax pay off to their wealthiest contributors.

Nonetheless, I believe this is money that must be spent. Despite the administration's lies. Despite the President's massaging of the facts. Despite the shameful manipulation and distortion of intelligence that was used to justify the war. Despite the inept and pathetic failure of our diplomacy before the war. Despite the astonishing incompetence of our planning for after the war. Despite the stupid fantasies about an exile takeover and a speedy exit. Despite the incomprehensible pig- headedness that characterized our initial reconstruction efforts. Despite our arrogance toward the international community and so many of our allies.

Despite all these appalling failures and breaches of public trust, there is still the necessity of protecting our Nation. There are still American men and women struggling to accomplish our Nation's tasks in Iraq; they need and are entitled to our support. There are still Islamist terrorists pouring into Iraq to pursue their crusade of terrorism against our Nation; they need to be stopped, they need to be destroyed. There are still millions of Iraqis who are counting on us not to abandon them to mercies of Saddam's loyalists and the invading jihadis, they need to be reassured we will not betray them. These vital tasks cannot continue without the money in this bill.

In the context of September 11th can anyone really believe that abandoning Iraq would not produce a greater haven for terrorists there then the Taliban produced in Afghanistan?

There is no easy way out of this. Pursuit of a quick or cheap solution is as fanciful as a mirage in the desert.

The rest of the world is not going to clean up this mess. While we should aggressively pursue every avenue to involve the international community in this tremendous and critical project, we cannot expect the world to come to our rescue. The Bush Administration did our Nation a terrible disservice in conducting our international relations in such an arrogant and high-handed way. We have alienated much of the world and repairing this error, I fear, will take far longer than resolving the debts we will accumulate from rebuilding Iraq.

Since 1776, our choice as Americans has always been to act, to take our fate in our own hands. We may appeal to heaven, but we should not depend on divine assistance. We may solicit the aid of allies, but we must not place our national destiny in the hands of others. We may fervently hope for success, but we cannot allow hope to be the keystone of our policies. Our Nation has been built and sustained by action, by deeds, and by hard choices.

Today we are called upon to make just such a hard choice: to open the American treasury to rebuild a defeated nation, and to pile up debt upon ourselves and our children (having yesterday given away our ``rainy-day funds'' to Republican rain-makers) so that we might pursue a more secure world tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, we don't have to like it, and I can tell you, I don't. I am bitter and fighting mad about the sly deceit and mendacity that has characterized this Administration's Iraq policy and that is continuing to this day.

But we have a job to do and it costs money. It costs a lot of money. And it will cost even more money in the future.

The alternative, however, is not just ruins left in Baghdad, the alternative is a failed state, a new home for terrorists and their plans. The choice is fighting terrorism by cleaning up the squalor in which terrorism thrives, or taking our chances, and hoping everything turns out OK.

I can not--I will not--vote to put our Nation's future into the unthinking hands of fate, or worse, into the hands of the people we are fighting at this very moment in Iraq.

We must succeed. I urge all Members to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Syria Accountability Act, encourage the administration to use all of the tools at its disposal to enforce that accountability.

Mr. Speaker, today's debate over the Syria Accountability Act, is in my view, Congress's long overdue response to the Bush Administration's failure to match its tough talk with demonstrations of our resolve.

This spring, the Administration took sudden notice of the numerous and longstanding Syrian policies that are hostile to our national interests. The President dispatched the Secretary of State to loudly threaten serious consequences; there were the predictable rounds of feckless diplomacy; and then the Administration's attention wandered off. Syria's policies, of course, didn't change one bit.

We know that during combat operations in Iraq, there was credible evidence of arms and people moving from Syria into Iraq. And we know that Syria is directly responsible for providing safe passage and transit documentation to many of the terrorists now working to undermine our relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The Bush administration's response? Zero.

We know that Syria's highly touted cooperation in battling Al-Qaeda has dried up. According to the State Department counterterrorism coordinator, Damascus has ``allowed Al-Qaeda personnel to come in and virtually settle in Syria with their knowledge and their support.'' The Bush Administration's response? Zero.

We have known for years that Damascus has actively opposed U.S. efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through its patronage of Hezbollah.

Today, Hezbollah, is aggressively working to facilitate ever greater levels of Palestinian terrorism against Israel. And since Hezbollah can't get Iranian weapons through Iraqi airspace, Damascus is reported to be supplying Hezbollah with weapons from Syria's own depots. The Bush Administration's response? Zero.

On July 22, President Bush said ``Syria . . . continue[s] to harbor and assist terrorists. This behavior is completely unacceptable, and states that support terror will be held accountable.''

It's now mid-October. Secretary Powell went to Damascus in early May. Where's the accountability?

Moreover, when asked only weeks ago to testify about Syria's weapons of mass destruction, the Administration provided an elaborate listing of the numerous authorities they have under U.S. law, the powers provided by executive orders, and the manifold capabilities of the executive branch, all to counter Syria's proliferation efforts. But next to nothing was offered on how these tools are being used.

By now, two things should be indisputably clear: terrorism is the Assad regime's preferred strategic option in dealing with America, and bluster is the favored method of the Bush Administration in dealing with Syria.

Mr. Speaker, Congress can only provide the tools, and with this bill, we will be adding to the already considerable stockpile of authority the President has chosen not to use. What's lacking in our Syria policy is not legal authority. What's lacking is consistency, focus, and resolve.

I hope passage of this bill will prompt the Bush Administration to conduct the kind of serious policy review that has been unfortunately absent so far, that has allowed our policy to drift so badly, and that has brought this legislation to the floor of the House.

I strongly encourage Members to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, October 10 marks the 92nd anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China and is celebrated internationally as Taiwan's National Day. As this historic day approaches, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate President Chen Shui-bian and the people of Taiwan for their continuing political reforms and economic achievements.

Mr. Speaker, over the last decade, Taiwan has established itself as a strong and successful model of democracy. Under the leadership of President Chen, the government and people of Taiwan have continued to implement domestic reforms and strengthen diplomatic relations with surrounding nations. This continuing commitment to democratic progress can best be seen in next year's elections. With both the presidential and legislative elections scheduled for 2004, next year will likely prove to be a politically dynamic and exciting year for Taiwan. I applaud the robust multiparty democracy that Taiwan has become.

Mr. Speaker, along with its democratic development, Taiwan remains an important economic partner for the United States. We are Taiwan's largest market, but Taiwan is our 7th largest trading partner. This is a remarkable achievement for this island nation of 22 million people. Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organization last year will set the stage for even greater opportunities for U.S. business.

Mr. Speaker, as Taiwan continues to earn international acclaim as a model of democratic progress and free market economics, I call on my colleagues to join me in commending Taiwan during the upcoming celebration of Taiwan's National Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an icon of public service, May W. Newburger, for her exemplary career, dedicated to the people of the Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County and New York State.

May Newburger has had a long and distinguished career, to the great benefit of the people. May spent eight highly productive years, from 1978 to 1986, in the New York State Assembly. She served as Town Councilwoman in North Hempstead from 1991 to 1993, and was the first woman to be elected chief executive of a Nassau County town. Now in her fifth term, she has served as Town Supervisor of North Hempstead since 1993.

As Town Supervisor, May Newburger has been the driving force behind long-term strategic financial planning in North Hempstead, most notably through the Debt Management and Capital Plans. She has already transformed a $7-million budget deficit into a surplus of $7.7 million, and through her leadership and foresight, she will have reduced the Town's debt by $107 million over the next ten years. This planning has helped move the Town from the lowest bond rating in its history to its highest ever.

Mr. Speaker, under May Newburger's dynamic leadership, North Hempstead was named ``Town of the Year 1999'' by the Long Island Development Corporation, and received

the ``Quality of Life'' award from the Long Island Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers. May also spearheaded the initiative to reclaim the Morewood Property, an environmentally damaged area, turning it into the Harbor Links municipal golf course. This prescient, breathtaking project is one of America's most environmentally friendly championship level golf courses, winning the ``Environmental Stewardship Award'' as well as the prestigious ``Audubon Signature Distinction.'' Supervisor Newburger also successfully lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency for $200,000 to designate New Cassel as a Brownfields Pilot Community.

Throughout her career in public service, May Newburger has served on many state and national committees and has received innumerable awards and honors. In 1981, she served as a New York State Delegate to the White House Conference on Families; from 1987 to 1989 she chaired the American Jewish Congress' National Commission on Women's Equality. She was also a member of the State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, the Governor's Commission of Domestic Violence and the State Commission on Child Care.

Mr. Speaker, the good citizens of North Hempstead and Nassau County are truly blessed to have had the great benefit of May Newburger's vision, leadership, dedication and drive for these many years. Her commitment to her constituents has never flagged; she has been indefatigable in the cause of improving the lives of others. I am awed by her accomplishments, humbled to have known her, and very proud to call her my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please rise and join me now in honoring May W. Newburger, in celebrating her outstanding career in public service, and in extending our best wishes to her as she goes on to meet new challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor May W. Newburger on the occasion of her retirement from public service. During her long and distinguished career, Ms. Newburger served for two years as Town Councilwoman as well as for eight highly productive years in the New York State Assembly. She was the first woman to be elected chief executive of a Nassau County town and is currently serving her fifth term as Town Supervisor of North Hempstead, New York.

As Town Supervisor, May Newburger has been the driving force behind long-term strategic financial planning in North Hempstead, most notably through the Debt Management and Capital Plans. She has already transformed a $7 million budget deficit into a surplus of $7.7 million and will reduce the town debt by $107 million over the next ten years. This planning has helped move the town from the lowest bond rating to the highest in its history.

Under May Newburger's leadership, North Hempstead was named ``Town of the Year 1999'' by the Long Island Development Corporation and received the ``Quality of Life'' award from the Long Island Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers. May also spearheaded the initiative to reclaim the Morewood Property, an environmentally damaged area, turning it into the Harbor Links municipal golf course, one of the country's most environmentally friendly championship level golf courses and the winner of the ``Environmental Stewardship Award'' as well as the prestigious ``Audubon Signature Distinction.'' Supervisor Newburger also successfully lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency for $200,000 to designate New Cassel as a Brownfields Pilot Community.

Throughout her career in public service, May Newburger has received innumerable awards and honors and has served on many State and national committees. In 1981, she served as a New York State Delegate to the White House Conference on Families and from 1987 to 1989 she chaired the American Jewish Congress' National Commission on Women's Equality. She was also a member of the State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, the Governor's Commission of Domestic Violence and the State Commission on Child Care.

I commend May W. Newburger for her commitment and tireless dedication to improving the lives of others. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please join me in celebrating her outstanding career in public service.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Over the past several months, the Financial Services Committee has held numerous hearings, in addition to the subcommittee and full committee markup of this legislation. As a member of the committee, I am proud to have played a role in crafting this important legislation which achieves a number of goals important to consumers, as well as to the financial industry.

This legislation extends the expiring provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, allows consumers to receive free annual credit reports, and protects consumers' sensitive medical information.

I am particularly pleased with the provisions that help consumers prevent and correct inadequacies in their credit reports. The bill provides that when a financial institution reports negative information, such as a consumer's delinquencies, the institution must notify the consumer of this in writing. This is a win-win for all parties involved. Financial institutions will stand a greater chance of collecting their money sooner if the consumer is warned that being reported to the credit bureau is imminent. A notice in writing stating you will be reported to the credit bureaus for this delinquency and that this will affect your credit rating is strong motivation for most consumers. For the consumer who wants to protect and improve his credit rating, this is essential information. For the consumer whose identity has been stolen, this may be a vital notification.

I have greatly appreciated the opportunity to collaborate with Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank and their excellent staffs, all my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee, and representative of both the financial services industry and consumer groups to develop this historic bipartisan legislation. I ask my colleagues to join with me in supporting H.R. 2622.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Meeks- Crowley-Ackerman amendment to prevent the unnecessary closing of the St. Albans Primary & Extended Care Center. This center provides primary care and offers specialized geriatric programs and restorative rehabilitation to veterans from New York City and Nassau County. To close it would be a disservice to the Veterans of Queens and Nassau County.

At a time, when we have sent over 150,000 troops to fight in Iraq, it is indefensible that these men and women may come home to find that the Veterans Center is no longer there. Closing this facility would be an insult to those who have served our country so bravely.

The Veterans Administration is currently dangerously under-funded. To save dollars, the Administration wants to close Veterans' health centers. However, the administration did manage to find the money to give the wealthiest Americans a tremendous tax cut. We must fulfill our promises to our veterans and continue to provide access to the quality health care they were promised.

Currently, veterans sometimes have to wait months for doctors' appointments at VA Hospitals. Closing St. Albans will simply exacerbate this problem. If St. Albans is closed, veterans will have to go to other already overcrowded facilities in New York.

We owe it to our veterans to provide them access to quality health care. St. Albans needs to remain open.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the Saudis have been bad, bad, bad, but this amendment makes everything worse, worse, worse, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

There seems to be a lot of confusion because there is an array of speakers we have seen who are usually on the same side on these issues. And I have to tell you what the real problem is. The real problem is that there are two Saudi Arabias. One is the Wahabi fanatics, who are prone to terrorism, and the other is the government and the royal family that is holding on by their very rich, and sometimes greedy, claws to the tenets of power and making money.

It is in their interest to control the terrorists and to eliminate the terrorists. If you had to put your money down on one of these players, which one would you pick? The answer is, and my bet for a lousy $100,000 goes with the government. This list that we would put the Saudis on, every other nation on that list is a government sponsor of terrorism. The Saudis have terrorism, but it is not sponsored by

the government. Osama bin Laden's number one enemy is not the United States, it is not Israel, it is their own government of Saudi Arabia. This wicked genius that did such damage to our country and to my city picked 14 Saudis to be on those planes for a specific reason, because he knew what it would do to the reputation of the country that has outlawed him, that has banned him, that has taken away his citizenship. They do not need our bucks. What they need is a little bit of encouragement, a little bit of encouragement when they do do the right thing, which is not very often. But they are trying, too, to rid themselves and the rest of the world of this terrorist threat that promises to topple their government and then some others.

This money that we are talking about is to bring some people in the military from Saudi Arabia here to join with our military people to teach them how to deal with these terrorists, how to cooperate with us. Anybody who knows anything about the intelligence on this issue, anybody who has studied it in depth knows that the names and addresses of so many of the terrorists that have been picked up in the Middle East and other places in the world have been provided to us by the Saudi Government. They cannot proudly stand up and say that because it would threaten them more than it does right now.

This amendment is the amendment to bite your nose to spite your face. Sure, we want to kick the Saudis around; sure, they have done some terrible things. But if we want to help those in Saudi Arabia who want to correct it, the right vote on this is ``no'' on this amendment. Let us not pander, let us not trip over each other to show our reasonableness on antiterrorism. Let us think this issue through and do the right thing, the right thing for America, the right thing for the world, the right thing for the international community, and the right thing for all those people who want to end terrorism. Let our military and our intelligence people have the benefit of meeting with those people from Saudi Arabia that want to help in this situation.

Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I have a question on behalf of all of those Members who were not in any of those rooms: If it was the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) in the hearing room with the fruitcake, why did you sic the cops on the Democrats in the library?

Mr. Speaker, I demand that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I thank the gentleman very much for trying to bring civility back to the House which is very important. In consultation with the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who was the only Democrat on the committee who the police were not called to throw out of the library because he was not in the library, he was in the committee room, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has accepted your apology.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to introduce the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment which would prohibit the USDA from expending any funds to approve meat from downed animals for human foods.

This, Mr. Chairman, is a downed animal. Downed animals are livestock who collapse, often for unknown reasons. They are unable to walk, unable to stand. Animals such as these are inhumanely dragged, very often by ropes and by chains, into stockyards where they often spend days lying in their own feces. They are sometimes covered in E. coli and are at high risk for illnesses such as mad cow disease.

The smart and humane businesses in this country, such as McDonald's and Wendy's and Burger King, all refuse to accept the meat of downed animals. They recognize how harmful it could be to their industry and what a looming disaster it would be to this country if mad cow disease entered our food chain. The USDA, as a matter of fact, prohibits the use of downed animals in our own school lunch programs throughout this country; and yet these downed animals such as this find their way into our food supply and are on the shelves in our supermarkets, our butcher shops, and our restaurants. If these downed animals are not safe enough and not adequate enough for the fast food restaurants or for our children in school, why are they put on America's supermarket shelves?

The answer, Mr. Chairman, has nothing to do with cows. It has to do with pigs. It has to do with greed. For the sake of making a few bucks, getting us to eat a crippled cow such as this can cripple the entire industry. Less than 1 percent of all animals are downed animals, not a big dent in the industry.

Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, a mad cow was discovered across our border in Alberta, Canada. Their meat standards are almost as good as ours, and that one mad cow was a downed

animal. That discovery is not a coincidence. Study after study after study shows that downed cows are much more predisposed to having mad cow disease than the general population. The USDA has conducted a study and has concluded that if mad cow disease ever did occur in the United States, it would most likely be found among downed cattle than the general cattle population.

Just one infected mad cow crippled all of Canada's meat industry. We do not buy cows from Canada anymore. They are absolutely devastated. Canada should be a lesson to us. We must pass this legislation.

The bipartisan amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and I introduce today will improve the safety of our food supply and prevent animals such as these from entering our food chain. Last year, we passed this measure in Congress. This year, we have 115 sponsors of this legislation. It is absolutely imperative that we pass this. In the name of food safety, in the name of the humane treatment of animals, please pass the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a very, very important point. Unfortunately, he refers to previous legislation that the gentleman and I discussed.

What we are doing here is we are not preventing the animal from getting there. We are preventing it from entering the food supply so people do not eat these crippled, diseased, pathetic animals as part of their hamburger or steak that they unwittingly buy at the supermarket. This just prevents the use of any funds from approving this animal from entering the food supply. It does not prevent the animal from being tested. It does not prevent the animal from being researched.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I should point out that the gentleman, who is a distinguished leader and authority in this area and someone for whom I have the greatest respect, is absolutely right. However, what we are dealing here with is an amendment that does not disrupt this process whatsoever. All of those things can and should take place from the time the animal is grazing to the time it is in the yard to the time it is being shipped and even prior to slaughter.

The only thing that we prevent is the animal from being consumed by the American public. Every single one of us has constituents that eat meat. Some of us have the majority of our constituents. And the American people, 0 percent of them say they will not eat the product of a downed animal such as this.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should know that we do not prevent the animal from being tested anywhere, including right up to the slaughter house. We do not deny funds for the testing of the animal. We want the animals to be tested. We want to make a determination as to where the animal came from if he does test positive for mad cow disease or any other kind of disease. What we are saying is that we are going to deny funds under this amendment to those animals, such as this one here, from entering the food chain and from being consumed by my constituents or your constituents.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me respond, first to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my good friend, I may not be in the cattle business; but I can tell a good steak when I see one. This does not a good steak make, and that is exactly the point.

And in answer to both questions to both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), there is a greater picture that some might argue about testing anywhere along the process and euthanizing the animal prior to reaching the marketplace. That is all well and good, and we could argue those points; but that is not what this amendment is all about. This amendment does not prevent any of that from happening.

This specific amendment does not touch any of the testing procedures.

We want the animals tested. There are those who even have a greater picture; and they would say, let us not eat meat at all. That is not the purpose of this gentleman, and that is not the purpose of this amendment.

This amendment says after you go through all of these processes and all of these wonderful things that are in place right now, why jeopardize it all for the sake of making a few bucks and jeopardize the entire cattle industry, a major American industry, for the sake of making a few bucks off a couple of crippled animals, less than .63 percent of the entire population. It makes no sense.

One mad cow has closed them down in Canada. Do we want that to happen in the United States?

There is a humanitarian issue here for those of us who appreciate the inhumane treatment of animals, and there is a public-safety issue. And if nothing else, for goodness sake, look at the public-safety issue and look at what happened to Canada. Granted, we do a little bit better job, we think; but one mad cow is all it will take to shut down our industry.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's sentiments and how articulately he presents them. We have a great deal of sympathy with what he is trying to accomplish, and one of the things the industry is trying to accomplish is to squeeze every nickel out of every head of cattle regardless of whether it is ambulatory, nonambulatory or anything else. There should be a disincentive for people bringing animals that are sick or diseased or nonambulatory to the market for the sake of making a couple of dollars on \1/2\ of 1 percent of the entire cattle industry in America.

The fact that we do 40 times more testing and a better job than the average in the world, I am not impressed by that argument that we do better than places like Saudi Arabia and the Sudan and other places which bolster our numbers in how good we are.

Take a look at Canada. They do 40 percent better than the rest of the world, also. It took one mad cow who was a downed animal to shut down the entire industry. The industry here needs to be saved from itself. For the sake of that \1/2\ of 1 percent, they are jeopardizing their entire business.

The humane aspect of this, I do not want to hold these pictures up continuously for the rest of this debate nor shall I, but the point is, the pictures are troubling. They are disturbing. Nobody likes to look at that. But if we think we go to the supermarket and buy some chopped meat and our own hamburger out of meat that McDonald's would not touch, out of meat that Wendy's would not touch, out of meat that Burger King would have no part of, out of meat that the USDA says, my goodness, keep this off the plates and tables of our schoolchildren as they have their lunches, it is unfair, it is unsafe, that the industry would say let us sneak this in and have these animals be put up for sale for the unsuspecting American public.

According to a Zogby poll, four out of every five Americans has said they would not touch this meat if they knew it came from a downed animal, but they do not know that it came from a downed animal, Mr. Chairman.

What we are doing here with this amendment is we are saying that the animal can be tested on the farm, it can be tested where it falls, it can be tested when it is in transit, it can be tested in the stockyards, it can be tested right up to the point of slaughter, do all the testing, make the determination, keep the statistics, but do not then put it into the food supply for the American people. Food safety demands better, and humanity to animals demands better.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

We are not compromising the testing system at all. Test to your heart's content. Test and retest and double test. We agree with that. But, in the end, after all the tests, do not subject the American people to eating these downed animals.

On the gentleman's second point, that in the history of this country we have never found mad cow disease, I just want to point out that until one mad cow, who was a downed animal, came along, Canada had never found a mad cow in their country either. Look what has happened to them. Do not let it happen here in the name of food safety. In the name of the humane treatment of animals, do not allow that to happen here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the old vaudeville act where the guy goes to a doctor and he says ``Doctor, Doctor it hurts when I do this. What should I do? And the doctor says, `Do not do that.' ''

Every action has a reaction. And people who perpetrate violence and commit acts of violence provoke responses.

I rise in strong support of the resolution. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the author, for bringing it to us. The resolution brings something critical to our discussion about the future of the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, and that is moral clarity. We should be absolutely clear about this. Neither the Israeli soldier nor the American soldier who defends his nation by preemptively eliminating terrorists can with any decency be compared to the terrorist who intentionally sets out to murder innocent women and children on a bus or in a disco or in a pizzeria or in a shopping mall or in a supermarket or going to work in the Twin Towers in New York. Terrorism and the defense against terrorism are not a cycle of violence. Active defense against terrorism including strikes against terrorists and terrorist leaders and those who harbor them is a moral obligation of a free and democratic society. We do it because it is right, and Israel does it for the same reason.

Tempting as it may be, peace cannot be achieved through delusion, pretending that all parties to this conflict are of equal goodwill or everyone shares the belief that the two-state solution is a recipe for failure. Hamas and Islamic jihad engage in terrorism not to create the state of Palestine, but to destroy the State of Israel. Their victims are Jews not by coincidence of citizenship, but by active design. These are not just misguided militants or eager extremists, as our newspapers might label them. They are fanatical haters, murderous zealots committed to destroying both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, driving out both Jews and Christians and building an Islamic state on the ashes.

Mr. Speaker, peace may be possible; but it is not automatic. It is almost certainly impossible until these hate groups are crushed. The Palestinian Authority cannot succeed. It cannot fulfill its mandate as the single voice of the Palestinian people. It cannot perform its historic role as the agent of Palestinian statehood as long as these groups are allowed to exist. In the words of a former Israeli prime minister, we must pursue the peace process as if there were no terrorists, and we must pursue terrorists as if there were no peace process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American and a great New Yorker, Solomon Newborn, who passed away on June 16, 2003 at the age of 86, after a life dedicated to public service, his community of Plainview, the Town of Oyster Bay, his religion, and--most importantly--his family.

After growing up as the poor child of Austrian immigrants, Solomon worked his way through New York University, where he received both his Bachelor of Science in Accounting and his Master's Degree in Education.

During World War II, Sol decided to enlist in the Navy. But the Navy told him that it was no longer enlisting men, so Sol, determined to serve his country and his flag, enlisted in the Army Air Corps, the forerunner of the United States Air Force. Solomon Newborn became a decorated Captain who served valiantly in flight and in uniform fighting the Nazi regime.

Sol's dedication to the highest standards of his profession was always evident in his work. A Certified Public Accountant and recognized specialist in the fields of municipal auditing, Solomon was elected the Receiver of Taxes of the town of Oyster Bay in 1996, a position he held until 1983. He was also an author on taxation and municipal accounting, subjects he taught at Adelphi University and Queens College, my alma mater.

Sol also understood how important it was to be a part of a community. As soon as he and his wife, Rita, moved into their home in Plainview, New York, in 1953, they began to develop the idea for the Plainview Jewish Center. Sol was not only one of the founders, but the synagogue's first president. Today, The Plainview Jewish Center continues to thrive as one of the largest synagogues on Long Island. Ironically, Sol died a full half century to the day after the first planning meeting was held in the Newborn's own living room.

Solomon Newborn was the organizer of the Annual Brotherhood Conference of Plainview Service Clubs, served as Chairman of the Red Cross for Plainview and was the Senior Vice Commander of the Jewish War Veterans in Hicksville. His tireless efforts on behalf of his community and various groups have earned him the ``Man of the Year'' award from Yeshiva University and the ``Masada'' award from the United Jewish Federation.

Solomon is survived by Rita--his wife of 54 years, four children and one granddaughter: Ira, Evan, Jud, Kym and Stacey.

Solomon Newborn was the kind of man who led by his heart and always encouraged other public officials to be true to themselves. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please join me in honoring and thanking Solomon for his service to our nation and to extend to his family our deepest sympathies and condolences.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Private Jason Kleinman, of the United States Army, whose courage and valor in the face of tremendous danger saved the lives of three fellow United States soldiers during an enemy ambush outside of Baghdad on Memorial Day. Pvt. Kleinman, along with two fellow soldiers, ignored flames and exploding ammunition to pull three wounded comrades from a burning Humvee.

Pvt. Kleinman, a member of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's Task Force 270, was traveling in a convoy of Humvees when an Iraqi man tossed a home-made bomb under the wheels of the vehicle in front of his. The bomb blew the Humvee back 80 feet, igniting the gas tank as well as machine gun and anti-tank rounds inside. Without hesitation, Pvt. Kleinman, along with Pvt. Dustin Meeks and Pvt. Enrique Alvarado, dragged three soldiers from the burning Humvee despite at least 50 secondary explosions as ammunition continued to discharge inside the vehicle. Though the Humvee's gunner succumbed to his injuries, the other two soldiers have Pvts. Kleinman, Meeks and Alvarado to thank for their lives.

I am proud to represent Pvt. Jason Kleinman, a nineteen year-old native of Roslyn Heights, Long Island who joined the Army last September, after graduating from Herricks High School in New Hyde Park. Jason had dreamed of joining the Army since he was a child. Now he will return home as a hero.

I commend Jason Kleinman for his tremendous display of bravery in the face of mortal peril and I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please join me in praise of this young man's heroic acts.

Mr. Speaker, I love our flag and that for which it stands. It stands for a Nation founded by people fleeing from an oppressive regime. It stands for freedoms, not the least of which is the freedom of opinion and the unimpeded expression thereof, including the freedom to protest.

Bear in mind, this was a Nation founded by protesters. When our Founding Fathers sought to guarantee these freedoms, they created not a flag but a Constitution, debating the meaning of each and every word, every amendment, every one of which gives people rights. They did not debate a flag. The flag would become a symbol of these rights.

There are those who would have fewer rights. Why? What is the threat to the Republic that drives us to erode the Bill of Rights?

Well, someone burned the flag. Whatever happened to fighting to the death for somebody's right to disagree? We now choose instead to react by taking away a form of the right to protest. Most people abhor flag burners, but even a despicable, low-life malcontent has a right to disagree and disagree in an obnoxious fashion if he wishes. That is the true test of free expression, and we here are about to fail that test.

These are rare but vile acts of desecration that have been cited by those who would propose changing our founding document, but these acts do not harm anybody. If a jerk burns a flag, America is not threatened. If a jerk burns a flag, democracy is not under siege. If a jerk burns a flag, freedom is not at risk. We are offended. To change our Constitution because someone offends us is, in itself, unconscionable.

Hitler banned the burning of the flag. Mussolini banned the burning of the flag. Saddam banned the burning of the flag. Dictatorships fear flag burners. The reason our flag is different is because it stands for burning the flag.

Though we in proper suits may decry the protests and the protestors and the flag burners, protecting their right is the true stuff of a democracy. The real threat to our society is not the occasional burning of a flag, but the permanent banning of the burners. The real threat is that some of us have now mistaken the flag for a religious icon to be worshiped as pagans would, rather than to be kept as the beloved symbol of our freedom that is to be cherished.

It is not the flag burners who threaten democracy. Rather, it is those who would deny them. In the name of our Founding Fathers, save us from those who would put up this defense.

The Constitution was written by intellectual giants and is here today being nibbled by small men with press secretaries. If flag burners offend us, do not beat a cowardly retreat by rushing to ban them. Protesters, like grapes, cannot be eliminated by stomping on them. Meet their ideas with bigger ideas for an ever better America to protect the flag by protecting democracy, not by retreating from it.

We cannot kill a flag. It is a symbol, and yes, patriots have died; but recall what they have died for. They have died for liberty. They have died for democracy. They have died for the right to speak out in protest. They have died for values.

The flag is a symbol of those values. What they died for are American principles. Saying that people died for the flag is symbolic language. The Constitution gives us our rights. The Constitution guarantees our liberties. The Constitution embodies our freedoms. It is our substance. The flag is the symbol for which it stands.

True patriots choose substance over symbolism. Diminish one right and it shall forever stand for less. Do not pass this amendment. Do not diminish the Constitution. Do not cheapen the flag.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment.

I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their work on this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is included in the en bloc, is short and simple. It encourages the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Navy to work with their Israeli counterparts to make arrangements for safe port visits by the U.S. Sixth Fleet to Haifa, and if such arrangements can be made, to resume the regular visits to Haifa that used to occur.

To be clear, the amendment does not require the resumption of visits by the Sixth Fleet to Haifa and does not encourage such visits unless appropriate means can be agreed upon to protect our ships and personnel.

Mr. Chairman, Israel, like our nation, is confronting terror. The visits of our Navy ships to Israel's chief port will send a critical message of support and make clear our Nation's bedrock commitment to the survival of the only real democracy in the Middle East.

I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support, and I encourage Members to support the amendment.