Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Suffolk County Volunteer Firemen's Association 2003 ``Firefighters of the Year.''

This year, the Association is honoring 1st Asst. Chief James M. Cummings, Ex-Captain Robert Souhrada and Firefighter Daniel Boucher of the Bay Shore, NY Fire Department. The testimonial of Chief Michael K. Cummings demonstrates the commitment of these three brave men.

On March 19, 2002, at 18:31 hours the Bay Shore Fire

Department was alerted and toned out for a structure fire

(signal 13) at 103 Second Avenue. Immediately after going on

the air, the Bay Shore base was informed by Suffolk County

FireCom there was a child hanging out a window. At 18:33

hours, Engine 3-1-2 and 1st Asst. Chief James Cummings, 3-1-

31, went (signal 2) enroute to the scene.

While the crew of 3-1-2 began preparing to enter the

building with an attack line, 1st Asst. Chief (3-1-31) James

Cummings arrived at the scene and realizing due to heavy

smoke and intense flame that time was running out for the

trapped victims elected to effect a rescue through the second

story front window. As he entered the room, directly in front

of the window was 3-year-old John Thomas. Chief Cummings

immediately pulled him to his arms and proceeded to the

window.

As Chief Cummings was affecting the first rescue,

Firefighter Dan Boucher had completed his ascent of the

stairs. Firefighter Boucher, unaware that anyone else was in

the room, entered the front room. Both Cummings and Boucher

arrived at the second

victim simultaneously. Firefighter Boucher picked up the

second child, 4-year-old Derek Wright and attempted to go

back to the stairs.

He was immediately directed by Chief Cummings to take the

victim to the window, where he passed the boy to Ex-Capt. Bob

Souhrada with no protective gear waiting atop an aluminum

ladder that was found on the side of the house.

As resuscitation, attempts were being made on the two

youths on the front lawn, Chief Cummings continued to search

on his hands and knees in the dense smoke for the third

child. As Chief Cummings arrived at the base of a piece of

furniture, he realized the piece of furniture was a crib, he

felt around and located 8-month-old Starkeya Steeple.

He grabbed the infant and immediately passed her to

Firefighter Souhrada on the ladder, where she was rushed to a

waiting ambulance that was immediately put in route to

Southside Hospital.

At 19:23 hours, the return to base (signal 5) was

transmitted by the incident commander, Chief Michael K.

Cummings. Thirteen pieces of apparatus and eighty-six

firefighters responded to the scene.

Unfortunately, both John Thomas and Derek Wright had

succumbed to their injuries on the day of the incident.

Starkeya Steeple remained in critical condition after being

airlifted to Nassau County Medical Center Burn Unit, where

she remained until March 23, 2002, at which time she was

pronounced dead, but not before her family was able to have

her organs donated.

Without any regard for the grave risk to their personal

safety, Asst. Chief James Cummings, Ex-Captain Robert

Souhrada, and Firefighter Daniel Boucher displayed

extraordinary bravery in rescuing these children without any

protective streams or ventilation from the intense heat and

consuming smoke of this alarm.

Therefore I respectfully request that these individuals be

rewarded the appropriate grade of commendation of valor, for

their actions above and beyond the call of duty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues the touching story of

Fred Amore, Commander of the Suffolk County Veterans of Foreign Wars and Dorothy Holland. Mrs. Holland and Commander Amore were pen-pals while he was serving in the Vietnam War. They remain close friends today.

Wartime Letters A Lifetime Bond

detention officer, vietnam soldier have forged lasting relationship

(By Rob Morrison)

When Fred Amore, Commander of Suffolk County Veterans of

Foreign Wars (VFW), looked into the crowd during the Cow

Harbor Day Parade last weekend, he was searching for the face

of a friend who has stood by him through years of war and

peace.

As she does every year, Dorothy Holland, 75, of East

Northport stood along the parade route waiting to catch a

glimpse of Commander Amore, 55, also of East Northport,

marching along. Seeing him brought back many memories of her

years working for the Northport-East Northport School

District and the year-long period she and Commander Amore

were pen pals while he was serving in the Vietnam War.

The two met in 1965. Mrs. Holland had just begun her tenure

at the old Northport High School building on Middleville Road

as the detention officer. It was during the spring of that

year when Commander Amore, then only a teenager, was given

detention for cutting class with his high school sweetheart.

``From that day on Fred and I were friends,'' Mrs. Holland

told The Observer during an interview in her home Tuesday.

While the two remained friends, Commander Amore graduated

the next year, in 1966, and attended Suffolk Community

College. But in the spring of 1967 Commander Amore received

his draft notice. On June 13, 1967, he went into the United

States Army as an Infantryman. Before he left, she went to

all the boys ``who were leaving,'' Mrs. Holland said. ``I had

tears in my eyes and I said ``I will write to you but you

have to write to me.''

Commander Amore returned home from boot camp for

Thanksgiving in 1967, then he left for Vietnam December 10 of

that year. That Christmas, knowing he would not have a tree

of his own, Mrs. Holland sent Commander Amore a photograph of

herself in front of her Christmas tree. It was not until

January 1968 that Commander Amore said he wrote his first

letter to Mrs. Holland.

``I remember saying to Walter, my husband, `Oh, he'll never

write,' '' Mrs. Holland said.

But Commander Amore said he became very homesick during his

time in Vietnam, especially during the holidays. Commander

Amore wrote as often as he could from his military post in

Soc Trang on the Me Kong Delta.

``He only said `I'm so lonely' and `It is a horrible war,'

'' Mrs. Holland said. ``That's when I started getting

worried.''

But her fears of the worst became stronger when she stopped

getting letters from him. It was February 1968 and Commander

Amore was in the thick of battle, attempting to hold off the

North Vietnamese during the Tet Offensive. Commander Amore

said the three-month ordeal mostly took place at night and

forced him and his fellow servicemen and women to live in

their foxholes.

``We knew it was coming,'' Commander Amore said. ``It was

all over the constantly being bombarded by mortar attacks.

The South Vietnamese military was supposed to be

protecting the base and the members of the 1st Aviation

Battalion, of which he was a part. When the North

Vietnamese attacked, however, the South Vietnamese dropped

their weapons and fled, leaving Commander Amore and his

colleagues stranded. He had been on base for 90 days and

still did not have a weapon.

``I had to wait for someone to leave or die to get a

weapon,'' Commander Amore said.

While many soldiers on base were killed during the

offensive, Commander Amore said all of the 25 men in his unit

survived.

Commander Amore spent several months hoping he would live

to see his home again. In the meantime, Mrs. Holland waited

to hear news from Commander Amore and the rest of the

Northport High School graduates she knew were in Vietnam.

``My heart went out to all the boys,'' she said. ``The

stories were just horrible [in their letters]. They knew they

weren't accepted back home. That was the worst for them.''

After coming out of Vietnam unscathed, Commander Amore was

disturbed to hear the negative public opinion of the Vietnam

War.

``I knew the feeling of the people before I left and I knew

the feeling when I came back,'' he said. ``I didn't want to

talk about it.''

It was not until 1991 when Commander Amore decided to get

involved in veterans activities and build up pride for his

service during the war. He joined VFW Post 9263 in Elwood and

Commack. In June, he was appointed commander of the Suffolk

County VFW after serving as commander of his own post for

five years.

``I had no intention of joining the VFW when I got out,''

he said. ``I didn't want any part of it for a lot of

reasons.''

He always remembered, however, the letters of support that

Mrs. Holland wrote him. Despite the nationwide disdain for

the war, Mrs. Holland was a proud supporter of the boys who

left high school to fight in Vietnam.

``The letters would pick you up,'' Commander Amore said.

``That would get you to the next mail call. I really figured

when I went into the service I wouldn't hear from her again.

She knew how to keep your morale up and keep you going.''

``While working at the high school I met the greatest

students,'' Mrs. Holland said. ``I haven't forgotten them and

they haven't forgotten me. That school was the happiest part

of my life.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues the testimony of Michele De Jesu from a hearing in regards to Long Island's statistical status, as designated by the Office of Management and Budget. This testimony was given at the Alfonse M. D'Amato United States Courthouse on June 20, 2003.

I am Michele De Jesu, and I am thankful to learn from this

hearing.

I know that the Census Bureau has had a tremendous job in

counting populations. Now I am learning that the Bureau can

make conclusive definitions as to what to call those populous

areas.

We can all agree on one thing: Every individual is entitled

to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness under the

Constitution.

If Nassau County is not counted as an entity; if Suffolk

County is not counted as an entity:

If that be the case, where does it lead each and every

impoverished homeless person, too numerous to count? I wonder

if they are seen in the census books.

Please help the housing agencies that serve the homeless,

poor and mentally challenged, agencies like HALI (Hands

Across Long Island) and count us so that our government can

represent us too.

Please redefine your definitions rather than depersonalize

whole counties and thus each individual.

Please reevaluate and reconsider, and may the OMB not deny

us of our unalienable rights.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise to urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, today we are going to vote to provide $87 billion to Iraq to fight terrorism and protect against weapons of mass destruction; but if we ask the Government of Saudi Arabia, Mr. Chairman, what weapons of mass destruction are, they will tell us that this is a weapon of mass destruction, that this breeds terrorism, a Barbie doll. The Saudi Government recently said that the Barbie doll is a Jewish-influenced toy.

Mr. Chairman, dolls do not kill innocent civilians. Plastic toys are not terrorists.

We should pass this amendment and stop subsidizing terror and violence, intolerance and anti-Semitism.

Mr. Chairman, I will cast my vote on the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq based on two conflicting influences.

First, this central premise: we simply cannot invade a country, destroy its infrastructure, leave it without lights, water, or jobs, and then walk away from it. We made a commitment to rebuild Iraq, and voting against this bill is effectively canceling the check.

Conversely, Mr. Chairman, is my belief that this bill, and particularly the political process that brought it to the Floor, is deeply flawed. There is no doubt in my mind that the Administration is essentially holding the safety of our troops hostage to the passage of this bill without any of the commonsense compromises sought by the Democratic Caucus.

The issue for me, Mr. Chairman, is whether flaws should override final passage of the appropriation. I have come to the conclusion that the Administration's irresponsible handling of Iraq and this supplemental bill cannot allow us to irresponsibly defeat it. But, I cast my vote with the demand that the Administration use these resources to make immediate and dramatic improvements in several areas of engagement in Iraq.

We used force in Iraq based on the view that we could create a transformative model in the Middle East of democracy, prosperity, human rights, education and empowerment. Defeating this appropriation would be the equivalent of saying we are canceling the check for those vital goals. It is the equivalent of saying, ``We broke the merchandise, and now we are returning it.''

And to what are we returning it? Waging war on Iraq and refusing to pay for the peace would not create a transformative model of peace and prosperity, but of violence and poverty. It would bolster the calls for jihad against the West. It would fuel permanent resentments against our country and the West. It would be handing terrorists a long-term victory after we supposedly won a short-term war. It would create a rubble-strewn stage on which Baathists could stand, holding Iraq as an example to the world: ``What have the Americans brought: no jobs, no lights, no roads.'' They would exploit the instability and proselytize an ideology that places suicide bombings ahead of ballots as the agent of change in society. They would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like a summer camp.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, there is the issue of our troops. Last week, I met in my Long Island office with two soldiers who are serving in Iraq. They were home on rest and recreation. I believe the Administration's horrible planning of post-war activities has already left our troops exposed and fatigued. The Pentagon's own Stars and Stripes newspaper has surveyed our troops and found widespread dissatisfaction, low morale, weak sense of mission, and potentially serious reenlistment problems. Our soldiers need flak jackets, they need armored vehicles, they need communications equipment, they need a much more serious program of military police and civil affairs training.

When things go wrong, as they have in Iraq up to this point, there are two ways to respond. We can say, ``What went wrong and who do we blame? or we can say, ``What went wrong and how do we fix it?'' Refusing to fund our troops and the construction of Iraq is not the way to fix the Administration's current failures there. The way to fix those failures is to fund improvements and require accountability and responsibility.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I use this vote today to put the Administration on notice that it must use these resources to improve the following specific areas: create broader alliances; crack down on cronyism and war profiteering; hasten the supply of flak jackets and armored vehicles needed by our troops, end the strain and fatigue on our Guard and Reserve and provide them with a realistic return date, and account for every penny that is being spent. If the Administration fails basic tests of responsibility and accountability, then they cannot and should not ask for my vote again.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I also wish to express my outrage at the leadership of this House for putting politics over the military, for putting partisanship over the very lives of our troops. The Republican leadership has steadfastly refused to even consider Democratic amendments that would have made this bill more palatable by releasing funds in increments on an as-needed basis. The Republican leadership refused to move forward like statesman President Harry Truman working with a responsible Republican Senate to create and implement a transparent Marshall Plan. Instead, they have forsworn consensus for cronyism and have basically said, ``It is our way or the highway.'' They have essentially held our troops as political hostages to a cynical legislative strategy: either vote for the bill as we demand it, or leave our troops behind.

I will not play that cynical game, Mr. Chairman. To protect our troops and bring them back to Long Island safe, I will vote for this

bill. But let everyone understand that this Administration and the leadership of this Congress has compounded bad planning with bad politics, and is shamefully exploiting the vulnerability of our troops to advance a legislative strategy.

It is for the future of a safer world, a stable Middle East, and the lives and well-being of our troops that I support this bill. It is not for the present policies and politics of those who drafted it and sullied it with partisanship. I rise to vote ``aye'' because I am proud to stand with our troops during these dark days. But I am not proud to stand with those who exacerbated the problems and manipulated the process. The future will judge them. The present requires me to support this bill with the improvements I have stipulated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Paul DeVaul, a decorated veteran and past County Commander for the Suffolk County American Legion. On October 5 2003, the American Legion will be honoring Mr. DeVaul for his service to veterans on Long Island.

After entering the United States Army in December of 1961, Paul was assigned to the United States Army Special Warfare School at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. During this time Paul was awarded numerous awards, including the Army Commendation Medal and the Good Conduct Medal upon his discharge on December 16, 1984.

Paul has been an active member of the Bay Shore Post, #365, of the American Legion since 1990 including serving as County Commissioner in 2001. Paul is one of the few Legionnaires who has served as County Commissioner for two years. One of his more notable accomplishments was when he took it upon himself to gather the names of all Korean and Vietnam War veterans from Bay Shore to create an Honor Roll to recognize their sacrifices for this country.

Paul also developed recognition programs for community groups, individuals, and students who support Veterans and American Legion programs; such as the Spirit Of American Award, which honors individuals for their efforts on behalf of veterans or for their community work. On September 11, 2001 Paul coordinated seven local American Legion posts to serve as shelters for the emergency workers at Ground Zero.

Paul continues to play an active role in the American Legion community and he serves as a role model for all Legionnaires. I commend Paul DeVaul for his dedicated service to our country during his time in the Army and in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center, and for his hard work on behalf of veterans on Long Island.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues the following opinion piece from the New York Times on Sunday, September 21, 2003. Written by Mark L. Kimmey, a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve and a systems engineer in civilian life, this piece portrays Reservists' frustration with the Defense Department's recent decision to prolong their deployment.

Boots on the Ground, Family Back Home

(By Mark L. Kimmey)

The Army's decision to keep its Reserve forces in Iraq on

duty for a full year from their arrival may have profound

consequences for both the Army and the war in Iraq. While the

Army will gain increased flexibility with its ``boots on the

ground,'' the long deployments may demoralize reservists.

When mobilization and demobilization are included, 12 months

on duty in Iraq will mean a 14- to 16-month separation from

family and career for reservists.

``Fair doesn't mean equal,'' a battalion commander once

told me. But the message to reservists is unmistakable: the

Army no longer takes into account sacrifices made to maintain

two careers and lives. Many reservists will watch the regular

soldiers with whom they came to Iraq go home before they do.

The Army may not care about the disparity between the way the

forces are treated, but those of us in the Reserve do.

Everyone knows that the regular and Reserve units of the

Army are not equal. Regulars are better trained, better

equipped and expected to execute their missions more

professionally. That's the way it should be: it's their job--

their only job.

Reservists have jobs in the civilian world. For a

reservist, every day in uniform is a day away from what might

be (or might have been) a promising career. Despite the

Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act,

which prohibits discrimination against an employee because of

military service, we understand that when a dispute with an

employer arises, the reservist always loses--even if the

employer is forced to take us back. What's more, many of

us don't serve long enough to qualify for a military

pension--and even if we do, it's not enough to compensate

for opportunities missed while we were deployed.

Hardships on Reserve families have increased with longer

and more frequent deployments. Reservists don't always have

ready access to a military base and its support programs.

Left to fend for themselves, Reserve families are becoming

more vocal about their unhappiness with the situation.

Politicians may not be listening to their complaints, but you

can bet we husbands and wives overseas are hearing their

pain.

The Army is fond of bragging about the advantages of the

all-volunteer force. But reservists are volunteers, too. We

sign up for the Reserve when we leave the Army because we

want to continue to serve with people we respect. We sign up

because we want to serve our country. We sign up for extra

income or educational benefits. Some of us sign up to be part

of history, for the possibility of adventure. But nobody

signs up for occupation duty, especially occupation of a

country that never officially surrendered.

It is not a question of performing our duty. I have served

as a peacekeeper in the Balkans, a job that most of us found

hard but acceptable. Even though most active-duty soldiers

were deployed to Bosnia or Kosovo on 180-day assignments--90

days shorter than us reservists--my unit didn't suffer from a

flood of resignations after Balkan duty. In fact, we laughed

that reservists were providing more continuity there than the

regulars.

The problem in Iraq is that the Army doesn't seem to know

what to do with us. The Army has only one civil affairs

battalion on active duty. Its job is to get in fast,

stabilize the situation and then hand responsibilities to a

mobilized Reserve unit as quickly as possible.

That's where my Reserve civil affairs brigade comes in. I

am a communications officer in a unit filled with higher-

ranking officers. Why so many senior soldiers in a civil

affairs brigade? Because our knowledge, skills and

experience, gained in the civilian world, make us valuable in

rebuilding countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the case of my brigade, we've had nothing to do for

almost a month. We were originally deployed in support of the

First Marine Expeditionary Force, but when it went south to

Kuwait at the end of August to begin its journey home, we

were left to cool our heels. Our three battalions were

dispersed on far-flung assignments. One battalion was sent to

Bosnia on a scheduled peacekeeping rotation; another was

split, with half reinforcing the 101st Air Assault Division.

The remaining soldiers are filling holes in my own unit.

So here in a makeshift base camp, we have a brigade

headquarters with few reservists to command and no regular

Army commander to support. The feeling throughout the ranks

is that we are being held in place while someone tries to

think of something for us to do. We've been assured that new

orders will be published ``any day now,'' but we've

heard that before.

The advantage of experienced reservists to a unit is

immeasurable. But here in Iraq, I am hearing more soldiers

talk about calling it quits when they return to the States.

Even though some soldiers are only four or five years from

qualifying for retirement pay and benefits, they're getting

out. The constant deployments are difficult for families and

careers, they say, and waiting around for retirement benefits

is no longer worth it.

The evidence I see in other units around me is the same:

the United States Army is about to see a mass exodus from its

Reserve.

For me, the length of time I spend in Iraq is less

important than getting the job done right. I don't want my

son to have to come here in five years because we messed it

up. But if the Army continues its policy of year-plus tours

for its Reserve forces in Iraq and elsewhere, it will soon

find those ranks empty.

The question the Army faces is simple: will more frequent,

extended deployments dry up the Reserve pool? We need an

answer soon. If the Reserve continue to be misused, soldiers

will vote with their feet when they get home. By then it will

be too late for the Army to figure out what went wrong.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that we need

to be fair to reservists, their families and their employers.

If reservists are forced to spend too much time on active

duty, he said, ``we're going to end up losing them, and we

can't afford to lose them.''

From my perspective, however, we're already losing them.

The real impact of the Army's policy on Reserve deployments

won't be felt until long after his watch. But because

everything bad that happens is the commander's fault, Mr.

Rumsfeld's tenure may be remembered less for its battlefield

victories than for the damage it caused to the morale of the

Army.

Mr. Speaker, early tonight when the House voted on the Ryan Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1308, rollcall No. 509, the Stenholm Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1, rollcall No. 510, the Rodriguez Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1588, rollcall No. 511, and passage of H.R. 1409, rollcall No. 512, I was not present. Unfortunately, I was compelled to miss these votes due to a long-standing meeting with Prime Minister Silvio Burlusconi of Italy. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall Nos. 509 through 511, ``no'' on rollcall No. 512.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion to stop outrageous plans to cut hazard and separation pay for troops. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think it's appalling that we would balance the budget on the backs of our troops.

It is critical that we make the increase in imminent danger pay and the family separation allowance permanent for our Armed Services and their families and make it available to everyone in imminent danger, no matter where they are serving.

In April, Congress approved a much deserved pay raise for our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This was the least we could do for those who are risking their lives to secure our freedom.

It wasn't a lot of money--increases of $75 a month in ``imminent danger pay'' and $150 a month in ``family separation allowances.''

In fact, this was the first raise in ``imminent danger pay'' in over 10 years, and the first increase in the ``family separation allowance'' in over 5 years.

Now, as a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I have had the privilege of spending time with military personnel on the day of their deployments.

With 500 men and women of the Marine Corp. 2nd Battalion at Plainview, NY as they left for the Middle East and said goodbye to their families with the brave men and women at the U.S. Navy and Marine Reserve Center in Amityville.

One of my most vivid memories from that day is of a Marine kissing her child and saying, ``I'll be back soon.''

In her eyes, I saw determination and strength and faith and courage.

Could we ever look another soldier in the eye, if we allow these increases in imminent danger pay and family separation allowance to expire?

The right thing to do is to make the increases permanent. We know that the war on terrorism will be a lengthy one. it will require a deepest commitment.

Just yesterday, another American soldier was killed and another wounded in a bomb attack on their vehicles northeast of Baghdad.

The slain soldier was the 287th U.S. service member to die in the Iraq War. Sadly, we know that he will not be the last.

In the 24 hours before the soldier's death, the Pentagon reported that there had been 14 attacks on U.S. forces. Clearly, no one can ever doubt the bravery of our forces.

They know that sacrifices are necessary in the global campaign against terror. For the first time since the Vietnam War, army personnel are facing the possibility of doing back-to-back combat tours.

To fail to make these benefits permanent is to shortchange the moral contract we have with our soldiers. This is our chance to stand with our troops at home as they fight for our freedom abroad.

Many of our servicemen are already under severe financial stress due to their extended deployment. The effect on reservists and members of the National Guard has been particularly devastating.

Let's keep our promise to those in uniform. Vote for this motion to instruct the conferees and authorize the necessary funds to help those who are fighting for us, for our families, and our future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to recall that George Washington once said that the ``willingness of future generations to serve in our military will be directly dependent upon how we have treated those who have served in the past.'' Unfortunately, that is a lesson that still hasn't been learned in the city that bears his name. Today, the House considered legislation funding the Veterans Administration. This bill funds veterans' programs at a level $1.8 billion less than was promised in the budget passed through the House just a few months ago.

Veterans' health care is no place to start slashing funding. We cannot send troops into war today and cut their vets benefits tomorrow. We cannot ask them to fight in Iraq and, then, when they come home tell them that we've slashed spending, causing veterans to lose access to VA health care. There is no excuse for trying to balance domestic budgets on the back of those willing to fight to protect our freedoms.

The funding level set out in the bill today does not keep pace with hospital inflation or the growth in the numbers of veterans enrolled. There is a staggering crisis in veterans' medical care: an average of 200,000 veterans are waiting six months or more for an appointment at Veterans Administration hospitals. Some are even dying before they get to see a doctor.

I have been working with colleagues in the House to prevent increases in prescription drug co-payments and enrollment fees and to increase investments in veterans' health in order to reduce these waits for medical appointments. It is generally acknowledged that veterans deserve a $3.3 billion increase for medical care. The $1.4 billion increase is inadequate to allow us to fulfill our obligations to those who have served our country so well.

This stinginess with our veterans health needs is unacceptable. As Americans are fighting for our freedom abroad, we must stand with them at home. But where will we stand tomorrow? Will we remember what we owe them? At the end of WWI, the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George asked: ``What is our task? To make Britain a fit country for heroes to live in.'' Our task is to make America a country fit for heroes to live in.

Our veterans deserve better. I urge my colleagues in voting to return this bill to the Appropriations Committee for reconsideration.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 458 on final passage of H.R. 2859, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003.

Head Start is one of the great success stories in the history of American education. Since 1965, Head Start has benefited more than 20 million low-income pre-school children, preparing them to compete with their more affluent peers when they reach primary school.

Head Start offers these kids a research-based academic curriculum and a wide range of vital services, including health screenings, nutrition, dental and vision services, as well as extensive parental involvement in education. It currently serves over 900,000 pre-schoolers, including 2,500 on Long Island.

Last week, I had the privilege of meeting several Head Start success stories in my district. Let me tell you about one of them.

Thomas Farrell attended Head Start for 2 years as a pre-schooler. Thomas came into Head Start with a speech impediment, which the Head Start educators worked to correct.

Now, Thomas has just finished his first year at Brown University. He has excelled in his coursework. He plays linebacker on the football team. And he speaks perfectly.

From Head Start to the Ivy League. That's the kind of life-changing difference that Head Start makes.

But this bill will pull the rug out from under all of the future Thomas Farrells out there--ending Head Start as we know it. H.R. 2210 dismantles Head Start, turning the program over to States with unproven expertise and without the Federal program's quality standards and oversight.

It this bill passes, our low-income kids will be placed into State- run Head Start programs, which will be held to a weaker set of quality standards--if they are held to any standards at all--than current, locally run Head Start programs.

States will be able to cut off all services to 3-year-olds, increase class size, eliminate adult literacy services, eliminate parent classroom involvement, and use unproven and untested academic curricula.

And under this bill, States will be able to raid Head Start funding to pay for other educational programs.

My Republican colleagues say they want to make Head Start better. But under this bill, State are under no obligation to show that they would improve the program. In fact, no State pre-kindergarten program has ever been demonstrated to be as effective as Head Start.

Mr. Chairman, my Democratic colleagues and I are willing to work with our friends across the aisle to make Head Start an even more effective program for our low-income kids. We can start by fully funding Head Start so no eligible child is left behind. We can work together to expand Early Head Start to serve

more infants and toddlers. And we can improve the quality of Head Start teachers by requiring that more of them have bachelor degrees and by compensating them properly so that they stay with Head Start.

But what we must not do is dismantle a program that has proven to be so effective for our low-income kids.

Mr. Chairman, education is the great equalizer for kids like Thomas Farrell to achieve the American Dream. I implore my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2210, which makes the playing field even more unlevel for them.

Our primary job in Congress is to set priorities for America. Let our children be our highest priority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend an honorary New Yorker, Colonel Bob Morgan (USAF) Ret.

Colonel Morgan was part of the heroic and courageous crew aboard the Memphis Belle during World War II. During that time the Memphis Belle flew 25 consecutive successful missions while helping the allies to defeat Nazi Germany.

In a ceremony at the American Airpower Museum at Republic Airport in New York, Colonel Morgan honored many supporters by describing them as ``Americans who have preserved and protected our nation's past so that we may better protect our future.'' It is thanks to the dedication and service of men and women such as Colonel Morgan that we have such a bright future to protect.

I am honored to have gotten to spend time with Colonel Morgan and thank him again for his service, dedication and patriotism to the nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask that his remarks at the July 3, 2003 ceremony be inserted into the Record at this point.

Congressman Steve Israel, Mr. Hugh Jones, Mr. Edward

Blumenfeld, Supervisor Bellone--distinguished guests and

fellow veterans--it is a tremendous honor to be here this

morning at the American Airpower Museum at Republic Airport.

I have not been in New York since September 11th, 2001. But

truth be told, I don't find its spirit to be much different

than when I was here back in the late 1990's. You still have

the guts, the grit and the determination of what I remember.

You continue to be that tough competitor on the outside with

the heart of gold on the inside.

That character was on display that morning of September

11th as men and women made life and death decisions with

courage and bravery that will be recorded in the annals of

American history for all time.

Some 22 months ago many in this audience found themselves

on the front line of this nation's fight against tyranny and

terrorism. Civilians and uniformed services found themselves

together--under fire and confronting an enemy we had never

known before. And yet because we were attacked as Americans

we responded the same way--as Americans.

I am proud that you think me worthy of being called an

honorary New Yorker. Congressman Israel, I will wear that

label proudly as it shows solidarity with each and every one

of you. It reminds all of us that the fight to preserve and

protect our country is never without sacrifice.

Some sixty years ago I served with men who understood that

stark reality. To protect our freedom we need to put

ourselves in harms way. In a plane much like the B-17 Flying

Fortress sitting beside the museum, we set out 25 times to

defy the Nazi Luftwaffe. We knew that if we didn't put bombs

on target the people of Europe would remain slaves forever

and the people of America would always live in fear. We never

wanted to be heroes but we understood the stakes.

Today is no different. The stakes are high. The risks are

great. But we are a nation that will do what it takes to

defend itself and preserve liberty. These aircraft at the

American Airpower Museum are part of that legacy. The

outstanding work that Congressman Israel does in Washington

is part of that legacy. And the support we get from people

like Hugh Jones of Republic Airport, Ed Blumenfeld of BDG,

Faith Weiner of Stop & Shop and Bill Mullaney of Hampton Inn

keep that heritage alive and well.

Accordingly, I would like to make those individuals

honorary members of the Memphis Belle--Americans who have

preserved and protected our nation's past so that we may

better protect our future. Wear your new membership proudly--

you are now part of our American heritage.

Thank you all and God Bless America.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is late, I understand that; and I will not take the full 5 minutes. I simply want to say this. We have heard it stated repeatedly that this is not about $105,000, and it is not about $105,000. It is about the line that President Bush drew in the sand when he came to this Chamber after 9/11/2001. He said that this struggle was between democracy and dictatorship, between liberty and tyranny, between education and indoctrination, between schools that teach people how to put things together and schools that teach people how to blow things apart. For that reason, the gentleman's amendment ought to be passed in this Chamber.

Mr. Chairman, I was reading tonight an important book called ``Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism.'' It is by a former ambassador to the United Nations, Dore Gold. I want to share very briefly, in a minute or less, some important excerpts from that book. Ambassador Gold points out that a third of the prisoners that the United States held from the war against bin Laden's al Qaeda organization were Saudi nationals. He talks about a Rand Corporation analysis who told the Defense Policy Board in July 2002 that the Saudis were active, quote, ``at every level of the terror chain.''

And if you do not want to listen to Members of Congress on this floor and if you do not want to accept the words of others, let me suggest that we understand the words of activists and leaders in the Middle East. Let me share the words of Mohamed Charfi, a former Minister of Education in Tunisia who wrote in the New York Times:

``Osama bin Laden, like the 15 Saudis who participated in the criminal operations of Sept. 11, seems to have been the pure product of his schooling. While Saudi Arabia is officially a moderate state allied with America, it has also been one of the main supporters of Islamic fundamentalism because of its financing of schools following the intransigent Wahhabi doctrine. Saudi-

backed madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan have played significant roles in the strengthening of radical Islam in those countries.''

Or the words in December 2001 of Sahr Muhammad Hatem, a doctor in Riyadh, who bravely wrote a letter to a London-based Arabic newspaper in which she said:

``The mentality of each of us in Saudi Arabia was programmed upon entering school as a child. Anyone who is not a Muslim in Saudi schools is our enemy and that the West means enfeeblement, lack of values. We all focus on bin Laden and his ilk, but we have yet to focus on the more dangerous people, and I mean those who fill our heads with this rhetoric in the schools, the mosques and the media, who disseminate words without hesitation, without considering the consequences or even understanding that in this era the entire world hears what is said.''

Mr. Chairman, it makes little sense to fund the people who are funding terrorism. It makes no sense whatsoever. Until the Saudi Government stops funding terrorism, stops supporting violence against Israel, stops teaching hatred in its schools, starts teaching tolerance and starts digging up the roots of ideological hatred against the West, any amount of money, even $105,000, is just too much.

Madam Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman from Illinois and the ranking minority member for their support on a critically important provision in this State Department authorization act. It is a measure that I drafted and they embraced and included in this bill. The Lantos-Israel language will require the Department of State to include in its annual country report on human rights a specific description on the nature and extent of curricula and classrooms that promote violence and hatred and terrorism around the world.

Why is this important? I believe it is important because I am convinced that all of the road maps and all of the cease-fires and all of the diplomatic accords and all of the agreements are going to be futile for as long as children are taught in their second grade classrooms how to hate, and the world will continue to be a very violent place if we allow classrooms to teach kids how to blow things up instead of how to put things together.

Some brief examples, I am talking about textbooks that teach children that there is no alternative to the destruction of the state of Israel, textbooks that equate Zionism with Nazism, textbooks that indoctrinated the terrorists who attacked and murdered over 200 of my constituents on September 11, 2001.

Madam Chairman, we have ignored school-sponsored lessons of hatred for too long. This provision for the first time will monitor the problem and will keep us focused on it, and it puts the world on notice that we want kids who are educated to put things together rather than indoctrinated on how to blow things up.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the ranking member for advancing this critical measure.