Sign up for Congressman Israel's Email Updates on important issues that affect Long Island communities and people.

You are at: Home >> Blog

Huntington, NY| Wed, November 8, 2006

The Democrats Take the Majority

In my travels throughout our community, I often say that Congress decides “who gets what when.” That is what government is about on every level: determining priorities, allocating resources, moving in one direction or the other.

This week, the American people chose a different direction and new priorities. In January, I will be joining a new majority in the House of Representatives. And I’ll continue working hard to put politics aside and move America to the “sensible center.”

Under the old priorities, Congress slashed funding for federal college tuition assistance programs to give a $2 billion tax cut to the richest oil company executives on earth. Under the new priorities, I’ll work for tax relief for working families so they can afford to send their children to college.

Under the old priorities, Congress would pass resolutions supporting our troops; and then pass budget resolutions underfunding veterans’ health care. Under the new priorities, I’ll work to stop underfunding veterans’ benefits by refusing to overpay Halliburton.

Under the old priorities, oil companies were allowed to draft energy legislation in Congressional and White House offices. Under the new priorities, I’ll continue focusing my efforts challenging America’s companies to unleash their talents and develop a new generation of advanced energy technologies.

What is our task now? To unite Americans behind the new priorities.

These things won’t be easy. The past six years has created an $8 trillion debt and a fraying fabric of civility in the halls of Congress.

We have no choice but to accept these challenges. As President John Kennedy said in announcing that we would land man on the moon: “We choose to do these things…not because they are easy, but because they are hard…That challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win.”

We must accept these challenges. Not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. Not to move to the left or the right, but forward. We are heading in a new direction for a better future.

Posted by: SI

Huntington, NY| Thursday, October 26, 2006

Do Nothing Congress

On Saturday, just before speaking at a celebration for Bishop Darrin Allan of the Salvation and Deliverance Church in Wyandanch, before an interview in Woodbury with News12 about the National Guard, before hosting my annual military academy fair in Islip, I had real work to do.

Heavy winds had left a thick blanket of dried pine needles across my lawn and driveway. So I put on some jeans, a sweatshirt and my favorite West Point baseball cap; grabbed my essential supplies, (one IPOD, one thermos of coffee, one rake, one shovel, one pile of leaf bags, and my dog Max) and went to work.

A few minutes later, my letter carrier drove up in his van. "Congressman!" he exclaimed, “What are you doing?"

"Raking," I said, as I leaned on my rake.

"You’re not cut out for this kind of work!" He laughed.

We spoke for a few moments. "What kind of fuel do you use for the mail-truck?" I asked.

"Gas," he reported. "We used to have natural gas but it didn't work out."

Which gave me an idea (more on that another time).

My mailman gave my idea his stamp of approval. Then he handed me my mail, and drove off with a supportive "Don't work too hard."

I resumed my raking until my next door neighbor and her children appeared. We waved and exchanged neighborly hellos over the yelping of my dog.

Back to the raking, the shoveling, the bending. Until my neighbor across the street ventured out with a concerned look. "Steve! Ya wanna borrow my leaf-blower?"

"Nah. I like the exercise," I said.

He shrugged his shoulders. And I put mine behind a broom.

My cell phone rang. My daughter was reporting on the PSAT she had just taken and advising me of my driving responsibilities for later in the day. (You can be a Congressman, a CEO, or a NASA astronaut. But for as long as you have a teenager, you're nothing more than a chauffeur).

Before I knew it, and with only half my job finished, it was time to get back to my other job: a Representative. A shirt and tie replaced the sweatshirt. Shiny brown loafers replaced my paint-splattered-mud-encased-tattered-weekend-work-shoes.

It was a perfect Saturday: Raking pine needles up; coming up with a clean-energy idea to raise with the Post Office; speaking to my letter carrier and my neighbors; to News12 reporters and the members of a local church; and meeting young men and women who are interested in a congressional nomination to our military academies.

Perfect until someone told me about a CNN report that ran during the day. It was about the "Do-Nothing Congress."

Posted by: SI

Islip, NY| Wednesday, October 11, 2006

School Visits

After countless visits to schools across my district – including today's meeting with the Advanced Placement classes at Connetquot High School -- I instantly recognize familiar expressions.

A few students seem bored even before I have had the chance to bore them.

Some students welcome my presence. Not because they are interested in me, but because I am relieving them of whatever they were scheduled to actually learn that period. As if to say, "The teacher isn't going to teach. All we have to do is listen to this guy."

Some regard me with a healthy dose of skepticism -- that healthy high school skepticism that suggests that no blue-suited politician from Washington could really understand the challenges they face.

There are some who seem impressed. Who tell me they saw me on the news; or know someone I know. They are generally eager to ask questions -- as long as they are not the first one to ask.

And their questions are refreshingly informed.

Take this morning’s visit to Connetquot, for example. There were questions about North Korea, and immigration; questions about alternative energies and drilling at ANWR. At one point, their teacher, Mr. Truppia and I encouraged them to "get personal" -- to ask about my schedule, or whether my wife ever gets mad at me for being away from home. They would have none of it. They wanted to stick to the issues.

A nice contrast to the slash-and-burn personal campaigns we're seeing these days.

Maybe those students' skepticism is well-founded. Maybe they can teach candidates for Congress a thing or two.

I enjoy all of the school visits but, I must confess, my favorite school visits are to elementary schools. Those kids have predictable expressions too...but completely unpredictable responses. For instance, last week I was speaking with a NASA astronaut who recently flew on the Space Shuttle. He was telling me about his visits to first grade classes. He talked about his voyage to space, how the G-Forces felt, what it was like to be in zero gravity, what earth looked like from orbit. When he was finished, he asked for questions. One girl raised her hand excitedly. He acknowledged her. She stood up and said, "My grandma and grandpa-- they live in Florida."

And sat down.

Some day, she will ask a visiting politician about policies and issues. Our job is to give her a decent world and safe schools in which to grow up in so that she learns how to ask those questions.

Posted by: SI

Huntington, NY| Sunday, October 1, 2006

From My Flight from BWI to Islip

After midnight on Saturday, a weary Congress staggered through the doors of the House to begin a five-week recess. A few hours later, Reps. Tim Bishop, Nita Lowey and I slumped into a taxi for Baltimore Washington Airport, and then slumped once more into our seats on a flight to Islip.

Figuring out how to get home after Congress adjourns is a mix of "Beat the Clock," "Survivor" and "The Amazing Kreskin." It requires prescience, persistence, patience and precision. What appears on the surface -- cast the last vote on the Floor, drive to the airport, take-off, land, drive home -- is actually a constant act of high speed juggling in multiple directions.

Consider last week:

We arrived in Washington on Monday, with the expectation of voting late into every evening, and concluding business "very late Friday night, possibly early Saturday morning."

By Thursday, the scheduling alerts that flash on every Member's blackberry grew ominous: "Members are advised that the House will not recess until business is completed...possibly late Saturday night." The word on one elevator was even more disturbing: "Maybe Sunday morning," I overheard.

By Thursday afternoon, the rumors turned in a better direction. The word on the Floor was that all business would end on Friday -- in time to make flights home. Since I don't like to spend an extra minute in DC, my long-suffering scheduler began her frenetic race to book me on every available passage from Capitol Hill to Dix Hills: the Delta and USAir Shuttles to LaGuardia, the Southwest flight into Islip, and, just in case a thunderstorm grounded planes, the Amtrak into Penn Station. (Want to know if thunderstorms are rolling into Washington? Forget the Weather Channel. Just call my scheduler and ask her what flight I have booked to NY. Whatever time that is, a thunder storm is almost guaranteed.)

I awoke Friday morning and cheerfully began packing for the five week recess. Bad move. Instead of preparing my baggage, I should have consulted my Blackberry. Then I would have seen the dreaded message: votes would occur well into Friday night, possibly all night. And into Saturday. And even late Saturday night. I called my daughters with the bad news. My older daughter had come home from college this weekend. She was on her way to Long Island. But not me. I was stuck in Washington.

All day Friday the news and schedule shifted. And so did my scheduler. She booked reservations first thing Saturday morning. She held reservations for Saturday night. And Sunday. And everything in between.

As we approached Friday evening, an announcement was made: Congress would adjourn at about midnight. On my desk, my scheduler left as assortment of different airline boarding passes that looked like a deck of cards.

The gavel finally came down at midnight. I got up at six the next morning and headed back.

I write this aboard the Southwest Airlines flight to Islip. Reps. Bishop and Lowey are reading the newspapers and I've reflected on the week:

- I passed two bills in the House: the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act, which authorizes $100 million for land acquisition and preservation along the Sound (read my Floor speech here); and a resolution for national awareness of myositis, an auto-immune disorder that causes painful inflammation of the muscles (read my Floor speech here).

-My efforts to promote tolerance religious tolerance in the military scored a partial victory. We succeeded in striking language from the Department of Defense budget that would have opened the door to coercion and proselytization, (although I am not fully satisfied with the compromise). (Read my floor speech here).

-There were some rough battles as well: we passed a military tribunals bill that allows the government to detain suspects indefinitely without trial; we passed a bill that allows the government to eavesdrop on communications without a warrant.

On both of those issues, I notice some hypocrisy. As I stated on the Floor (click here), when it comes to people planning genocide against my country, I want to find them, fight them, capture them, try them, and if they're found guilty, kill them. I support capital punishment for convicted terrorists. But I also know that governments make mistakes and they lose records. So I want some quality control. I support wiretaps on suspected terrorists, I just want a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make sure we're wiretapping the right suspect (it was recently disclosed that the Pentagon accidentally spied on a group of Quakers planning a protest demonstration). In the case of so-called detainees, I want a court making sure we didn't arrest and imprison the wrong person in the fog of war. I want to fight terrorists in the pursuit of our historic values, not theirs.

We begin our descent over Long Island. Washington and its busy week are behind me, and five weeks of district work period are ahead. I hope I'll have an opportunity to hear your views on the issues confronting our nation!

Posted by: SI

Washington, DC | Thursday afternoon, September 28, 2006

My Bill To Protect LI Sound Passes House

Below, I've posted the statement I gave last night on the floor of the House of Representatives. Also, click here to read the Newsday article about my bill to protect the Long Island Sound.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for bringing this bill to the floor today. I also want to thank my colleague from Connecticut, Representative Simmons, and the rest of the members of the Long Island Sound Caucus for their very hard work on this legislation and their ongoing efforts to preserve and protect the Long Island Sound. I have the privilege of serving as co-chair of the Congressional Long Island Sound Caucus with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and we have worked together for many years in the hope that this bill would become a reality. I was proud to introduce it with the gentleman from Connecticut, and I am proud of the Long Island Caucus for standing behind it every step of the way.

This bill is bipartisan. It is bicoastal. It is bicameral. It is one of the most important initiatives that we can take to protect the Long Island Sound, to identify and enhance sites with ecological, educational, and recreational value in Connecticut and New York. And it does so in a way that is consistent with the vision put forward by a consortium of local groups who have been working for over a decade to save the sound.

The Long Island Sound is one of our Nation's great natural wonders. It sustains a diversity of birds, wildlife, and marine organisms. It is a very important part of the national economy. It remains a vital component of our identity, our way of life.

Today over 8 million people live in the sound's watershed and 20 million people live within 50 miles of its shores. The sound alone contributes $5 billion to the regional economy through sport and commercial fishing, recreation and tourism.

Mr. Speaker, I served for 8 years as a member of the Huntington Town Board, and I worked with our local baymen and worked with different organizations to preserve the Long Island Sound, and I am acutely aware of the many environmental challenges that confront our community. In fact, my town and many others initiated bond acts, asking local taxpayers to come up with a few more dollars to support and protect the Long Island Sound. And I always believed that the Federal Government should be more of a partner with local townships. And tonight we take the first big step in that new partnership.

This bill creates a purely voluntary process to protect coastal areas along the Long Island Sound. It creates a process that will bring together stakeholders on a committee, including Connecticut and New York representatives from the Federal Government, the State government, local governments, non-government organizations, academic, private and development interests. This is a critically important step.

And, Mr. Speaker, before I close, I just want to mention that, in fact, this bill has been the product of cooperation at all levels of government with advocacy groups in both New York and Connecticut, and I am grateful to all of them for their input.

On a personal note, I have been very fortunate to have a wonderful staff for working on this legislation for most of the last 4 years. And I want to thank Karen Agostisi, who devoted so much of her time to this effort and helped navigate this bill through the sometimes choppy and turbulent waters of the Long Island Sound. I was privileged to work with the gentleman from Connecticut.

This is a very important step for this Federal and local partnership. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill. And again I thank the gentleman for his cooperation. I thank my colleagues for their consideration.

Posted by: SI

Washington, DC | Wednesday afternoon, September 27, 2006

Strange Bedfellows and Backroom Brawling

This is a civics lesson. This is a lesson whose elements can't be found in "How a Bill Becomes a Law,” the fine little primer available in the lobbies of most congressional offices. No, some of the elements of this story belong in an HBO special with a parental advisory: strange bedfellows, backroom brawling, religion, hypocrisy and intrigue.

The story begins two years ago, when the Lutheran chaplain at the U.S. Air Force Academy complained to me that many cadets were experiencing harassment and discrimination based on their religious beliefs. In one report, a military chaplain told an interfaith gathering of cadets that some would “burn in the flames of hell." In another, cadets were forced to march back to their dorms in so-called "heathen flights" if they refused to attend a specific prayer service.

Now, I believe that people in the military should be allowed to pray how they want, when they want and to whom they want. But they should not be pressured or demeaned based on their choices. That is unfair. It also undermines military strength.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, my principle role is providing the resources for a strong and effective military. That means ensuring that our troops maintain morale, strict discipline, and cohesion. When troops are divided along religious lines, that “unit cohesion" is degraded. That is why longstanding Pentagon guidelines require that military chaplains show sensitivity, tolerance and respect for all service members -- regardless of religious perspective.

There is another reason as well. Since there aren’t enough military chaplains to guarantee that every religion is represented in every military unit and on every military base, chaplains frequently find themselves supporting the literal life and death spiritual needs of service members outside their religion. The exigencies of war may place a Catholic soldier in the arms of a Protestant chaplain for example. In order to provide comfort, the chaplain must be welcoming rather than repelling.

This year, a group of Republicans on the Armed Services Committee have tried to change these standards, arguing that they are a form of "political correctness." They have inserted language in the annual Department of Defense budget authorization that sounds innocuous: giving military chaplains the right to pray "according to the dictates of their conscience..." But, the new language specifically purges the existing Department of Defense regulations requiring sensitivity for all faiths.

To rectify this "oversight," I offered an amendment. It retained the Republican language word-for-word, and simply added that military chaplains shall demonstrate "sensitivity, tolerance and respect to service members of all faiths." Who could be against that? Incredibly, my amendment was defeated by a party-line vote in the Armed Services Committee. And then again by a party-line vote in the House Rules Committee.

Meanwhile, the Senate passed its version of the Pentagon budget -- retaining the Department of Defense requirements for religious tolerance.

Here's where the civics lessons, the strange bedfellows and the backroom brawling enter the picture. Because the House and Senate bills had discrepancies, they had to be reconciled in a House-Senate conference. There, the House Republicans refused to budge on the chaplains issue. I found myself in a unique alliance with the Secretary of Defense, the individual military services, fifteen religious groups (including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Jewish Committee and the Evangelical Chaplains Commission), the Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (Senator John Warner), Democratic leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee and many military leaders. Together, we have been opposing a position that is so stubborn that the Department of Defense budget authorization has been stalled for weeks.

And here is where the hypocrisy comes in. Some of the same Members of Congress who reflexively criticize any "micromanagement" of our military commanders in Iraq are now willing to strip our military commanders of their authority to decide on morale and unit cohesion issues.

Congress will recess this Friday, and return after the November elections. At a time of war, our military budgets should not be held hostage to a kind of "religious war."

We should embrace religious expression in the military. But the military is the last place that should demean or discriminate based on religious preference. If any religious leader in America was told he or she could not preach a specific view, I would contribute to their legal defense fund. But when a religious leader chooses to wear the uniform of the United States military as a chaplain, he or she has a special responsibility to worship in accordance with the dictates of personal conscience and to demonstrate sensitivity, tolerance and respect to service members of all faiths. Anyone who has put on a military uniform and sacrificed in the defense of freedom should not be demeaned or discriminated against while defending that freedom.

And I hope that those who disagree will not continue to hold up the defense budget at a time of war.

Posted by: SI

Northport, NY| Monday afternoon, September 18, 2006

NOTES FROM A PASSING PARADE

I often compare notes with my congressional colleagues about the cultural peculiarities of our districts. Virtually every public event—school visits, town meetings, Rotary speeches—has its own veneer, depending on what part of the country you happen to be in.

I thought about this on Sunday, while participating in the Cow Harbor Day Parade in Northport. Cow Harbor Day has become a Fall highlight on Long Island, attracting well over 10,000 (or so I'm told).

Some of my southern colleagues tell me that when they march in parades, they are expected to toss candy to children on the sidewalks. My guess is that if I tried that, I'd get about a fifty-percent return; and would spend most of the parade trying to protect myself from 95-mile an hour Lifesavers threatening my life.

As a Member of the House Blue Dog Caucus, I spend a considerable amount of time with rural Members from the deepest parts of the Deep South. In those places, when they show-up for a small town parade, the high school marching band greets them, a red carpet is unfurled, and they make Page One of the local newspaper. In Long Island, I get to march behind the horse.

My favorite part of Cow Harbor, however, is the instant feedback I receive from my constituents:

- "Who's that?" "I dunno. Some politician I guess."

- "Is that Steve Israel or Steve Levy?"

On Sunday, however, all the festivities -- the school bands and bass drums, the fire engine sirens and crowds cheering -- were drowned-out by the voice of a solitary woman who left the comfort of the sidewalk to speak to me at the end of the parade.

She told me that her husband, a Vietnam Veteran, had Parkinson’s disease, and my office had been helpful to him. As tears welled in her eyes, we hugged, and I asked if I could meet him.

I had spent this Cow Harbor Day in a convertible driven by two veterans. And I watched as other veterans marched proudly to the cheers of thousands. We should support them, not just at parades, but everyday. Not just by waving at them when they march by now, on a warm September Day, but by repaying them for the marches they took yesterday, to the most dangerous places on earth.

And it shouldn't matter what congressional district they happen to be in. Because supporting veterans is an American obligation—as American as apple pie and parades.

Posted by: SI

Oakdale, NY| Thursday morning, September 14, 2006

FDR, 9-11 AND JOHN SFERAZO

On September 11th, the President of the United States spoke to the nation:

“The American people have faced other grave crises in their history - with American courage, with American resolution they will do no less today.”

The President was Franklin D. Roosevelt. On September 11th...1941.

I thought about that eerie coincidence on Saturday during a 9-11 ceremony at SUNY Farmingdale. I thought about the courage and resolution we witnessed five years ago, and continue to witness today.

One of the best examples sat right next to me: John Sferazo, a proud ironworker from Huntington Station.

So proud that when we were attacked, he rushed to Ground Zero. He knew he could use his skills as an ironworker to move debris in the search for survivors. John worked hard there, sucking in dangerous particulates in the air until his lungs were battered.

Today, his breathing is shallow and labored. It's difficult for him to finish a sentence without running out of air, without his chest heaving. His eyes are sad, but not defeated. His condition may have taken the breath out of him, but not his resolution.

Here's how I know.

Only days before we sat next to each other at the 9-11 ceremony in Farmingdale, John and I attended a different kind of 9-11 gathering in Washington. We met with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ask why the funds Congress appropriated for medical monitoring and care for 9-11 recovery workers hadn't yet been released by the Administration. Senators Schumer and Clinton were there, along with a handful of Members of Congress from both parties.

It was a typical Washington meeting. Staffers lined the walls of the ornate Mansfield Room in the Capitol. Cameras flashed and questions were asked. I heard talk of “complexities" and "technicalities".

Typical -- until John Sferazo spoke. He rose to his feet, gulped as much air as he could, and told his story through those painfully short breaths, every word an effort.

"Mr. Secretary, no one told me I had to go to Ground Zero. My biggest problem was pushing through the police and soldiers who said it was too dangerous. But I'm trained. I knew I could help."

He spoke of the heroic recovery efforts, of experiences at the site that no human being should have to endure. And then he talked about the aftermath. How he began experiencing health problems, how his breathing changed, how his lungs deteriorated.

And how the governments' promises made to fund his medical monitoring and care had become as shallow as his own breaths.

Although his condition left him with a weakened voice and constricted sentences, his was the most powerful statement in the meeting that morning. When he finished, the room fell into a stunned silence (a rarity in Washington). One New Jersey Congressman wiped tears from his eyes.

Secretary Leavitt then made a promise:
$75 million for medical care for 9-11 recovery workers would be released in October. Finally. And he would work with us to assess the additional funds necessary.

I leaned to Senator Clinton and whispered: "This is the third time I've heard that the check is in the mail."

There is usually a protocol for asking questions at meetings like this. You raise a hand, the Member chairing the meeting jots your name, and you are recognized in order. But I had become impatient.

"Mr. Secretary," I blurted, "I believe in taking yes for an answer. But I've heard two deadlines in this meeting. October 1st, and 'sometime in October.' Can we get your commitment in a written letter?"

He answered that "government doesn't move as fast as we would like" and there are "complexities" and "October is a bold goal" but that he would hold to it.

That may be. But if we were able to pass tax cuts for the richest oil company executives on earth at lightening speed, shouldn't we be able to make sure John Sferazo, an ironworker from Huntington Station, gets the funds he needs to treat lungs that were impaired during his heroic 9-11 recovery effort? Why is it so "complicated" to help him? Why has he had to wait...at all?

Which is why, as I sat next to John Sferazo at the 9-11 memorial in Farmingdale, I thought about FDR's quote from the same day 64 years ago.

Americans have always faced grave threat and crisis. And each generation has answered by making the right choices and choosing the right priorities. Each generation has served and sacrificed, mobilized and manufactured, researched and developed, fought and fallen in the endless pursuit of threat.

We didn't let technicality and complexity stand in our way.

On this 9-11, I think about an early September 230 years ago -- right here on Long Island. George Washington and a ragtag group of fighters had been were hopelessly surrounded by the most powerful military machine on earth the British Navy. The concentration of warships and wooden masts was so great that New York Harbor was described as a forest. Our national survival seemed on the verge of extinction -- at the tender age of six weeks.

But Washington found the courage and commitment to escape the threat. And went on to replace foreign monarchy with American democracy.

This 9-11, I think about July 2nd...1863. When Col. Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine stood atop Little Round Top in Gettysburg. They were miserably outnumbered and outgunned by the Confederate forces that surrounded them. But they knew they could not lose that hill. If they did, there would be nothing between Robert Lee's army...and Abraham Lincoln in the White House. After repeated assaults on their position, the 20th Maine ran out of ammunition, but not fortitude. They met the final assault this way: they fixed their bayonets and charged against an oncoming wave of men and munitions. And won. They saved the hill, and perhaps even the Union.

And I think of John Sferazo, who also responded to attack by charging forward, risking his very breath to help, charging past the police and soldiers who told him it was too dangerous.

Nothing is as important as the 9-11 memorials and ceremonies that embrace the memory of those we loved and lost. And they should also remind us that there are people in our midst today -- perhaps sitting next to us at those very ceremonies -- who have trouble breathing because they wouldn't take no for an answer.

They went to help, and we can still help them.

President Roosevelt was right on September 11, 1941. We have faced grave crises in our history. We have faced them with courage and resolution. And we can do no less today.

John Sferazo and so many like him -- ironworkers and steelworkers, cops and firefighters, laborers and paramedics -- showed courage and resolution for us.

We should no less for them. For John Sferazo.

Posted by: SI

Dix Hills, NY | Tuesday morning, September, 5 2006

“Dear Representative Israel”
Lessons From a Third Grade Class

Every week, hundreds of letters and e-mails flow into my office. Some are personally written over many pages; some consist of a quick signature on a pre-printed postcard. There are heartfelt emails and spam emails. There are agreements, disagreements, questions and inquiries.

But I have come to believe that the letters from school children are among the most heartfelt…and direct.

For example, the letter from one elementary school student that included, “Also, thank you for inviting me to the White House. My mother said I can’t go.”

Or the letter I received last spring thanking me for a school visit: “My favorite part was that you spoke in complete sentences.”

There was the young man who wrote to us inquiring about whether it was “legal to own a ferret in Suffolk County.” I responded that it was legal, hoping that he would be a responsible ferret owner. Weeks later, he wrote again. He was thanking me because his parents had told him that it was illegal to own ferrets. But I cleared that up! As a result, he was the proud owner of Coco and Bandit. I suspect, however, that his parents weren’t too happy with their Congressman.

This week, as children congregate in classrooms and we think collectively of their futures, I wanted to share a letter I received from nine year-old Chelsea Abreu. Her assignment at the Thomas J. Lehey School in Greenlawn was this:

“Begin a story with this sentence: 'My message is written. Now I will put it into a bottle and toss it into the raging sea.'”

Here is her message, forwarded to me by her teacher, Linda Mastriano-Letica. It is a lesson I hope we all learn.

Posted by: SI

Dix Hills, NY | Wednesday afternoon, August 30, 2006

A letter to Secretary Rumsfeld

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SALT LAKE CITY – “Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said yesterday the world faces ‘a new type of fascism’ and likened critics of the U.S. war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis.”
Associated Press, August 30, 2006

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I read your quote in the Associated Press dispatch. Respectfully, I believe you are right about one thing, wrong about another, and misdirected on a third.

As you know, I am a Member of the House Armed Services Committee. You have testified before me many times. I have met with you, and your staff, frequently. I have supported every single military appropriation and authorization. I proudly call myself a “Harry Truman Democrat.” I believe the world presents many threats and we need a robust military to deter or defeat those challenges.

• Here is how I believe you are misdirected, Mr. Secretary:

Instead of giving a speech condemning the individuals who criticized your past strategies, wouldn’t it be better for us all if you gave a speech outlining how we’re going to get it right in Iraq? I think the American people have had enough name-calling, blame-laying and finger-pointing. They would prefer to hear specific, responsible solutions that enable us to redeploy our forces without leaving Iraq in worse condition than when we entered it. And they need more than sound bytes. Banalities such as “We will stay until the mission is accomplished” and “For every Iraqi soldier that stands up, an American will come home” are getting as stale as an old commercial for cereal. It’s the political equivalent of the “Happy Face.”

• Here is how I agree with you:

I believe you are correct when you say the world faces “a new type of fascism.” The spread of violent extremism is a generational threat comparable to World War II, the Cold War, the Civil War and the many other grave crises that have confronted our nation. Fanatical elements of Islam want to liquidate democracy, subjugate women, and propagate a hateful world-view. They believe in beheadings rather than ballots; they teach their children how to blow things up rather than how to put things together. And they will stop at nothing to achieve this goal.

• And this is how I disagree with you.

I disagree with your statement comparing critics of your strategies to appeasers of the Nazis:

Since you raised the comparison, Mr. Secretary, let me pursue it.

It is precisely because I believe that Islamic terrorism is just as grave a threat as the Nazi’s that I have an obligation to criticize strategies that are not defeating terrorism

I can’t imagine President Roosevelt embarking upon World War II with the strategies you employed to confront terrorism. I can’t fathom that he would tell the American people that we could build our arsenals, defeat Nazism and fascism, win World War II and remake the world – all on the cheap. I can’t picture him addressing Congress after Pearl Harbor and proclaiming, “With courage and determination, with unbounding confidence in our Armed Forces, we will gain the inevitable triumph. . . and if you’re in the upper 1 percent of wage earners, you’re also gaining a huge tax cut.” No, in order to defeat Nazism we all sacrificed to ensure that our troops had the equipment, the supplies, and the support necessary to triumph. Contrast that, Mr. Secretary, to the recent Armed Services Committee hearing where I castigated the Department of Defense for failing to provide our soldiers with sufficient life-saving coagulant bandages.

Mr. Secretary, I can’t imagine the Secretaries of Defense of the 1940s disregarding the multitude of plans that were developed to ensure that we won the war and kept the peace. I don’t recall hearing of anyone in the Roosevelt or Truman Administration suggesting that a single battle would be easy or quick; or browbeating their generals to slash troop levels and weapons systems; or disregarding postwar planning. Indeed, after President Truman used the zenith of hard power – the Atom Bomb – we were ready to implement the ultimate in soft power-- the Marshall Plan. I believe in hard power, Mr. Secretary. But what is the Marshall Plan for the Middle East, where seventy percent of the population is under the age of twenty-five and most have no jobs, no future and no hope. Why is Hezbollah, the very group of thugs that held the Lebanese people at gunpoint, now gaining their support by leading efforts to rebuild their lives?

Nor can I imagine that the leaders of World War II would ignore recommendations to improve our domestic security. Is it “appeasing” our enemies to criticize you for failing to implement the policies of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission?

Finally, Mr. Secretary, may I suggest what is even worse than appeasement?

The Administration’s energy policies have deepened our reliance on foreign oil, raised gas prices, and helped send a tidy profit to the very oil suppliers who threaten us. How do these oil-countries spend their profits, Mr. Secretary? Iran invests it in their nuclear program, or spends it on equipment and training for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia donates it to build Madrasas that teach a virulent strain of Islam. As a result of your oil policies, your own Department was forced to spend $10.6 billion on basic energy costs. The Air Force spent about half of it ($4.7 billion) on one thing: buying fuel for its planes. And every $10 increase in a barrel of oil adds $600 million to your overall costs – forcing you to reduce weapons procurement funds to pay the oil bill.

Here is what is worse than appeasement: we’re making interest payments to China to borrow their money to fund our military to buy oil from Persian Gulf countries to fuel our Air Force to protect us from China and Persian Gulf countries.

Mr. Secretary, I close with two thoughts.

First, I believe we will defeat our enemies, wherever they are. But the current strategies are not working. And when strategies don’t work, silence in asking for better strategies risks defeat, and appeases our enemies.

Second, the only thing I can think of that is worse that appeasing our enemies is subsidizing them to threaten us.

I hope that your future speeches will focus less time on historical parallels and criticizing criticisms, and more time on a strategy for success. The core of that strategy must be an energy initiative that stops us from subsidizing and enriching our true enemies in the world. I hope you will ask your staff to read my Next Generation Energy Security Initiative (it’s on my web site www.house.gov/israel). I’m ready to work closely with you – as long as it’s a discussion of the future and not a debate about the past.

Posted by: SI

Dix Hills, NY | Monday morning, August 21, 2006

Summer Reading

Some of my time in Congress is spent giving speeches; plenty of time is spent listening to constituents and policy experts. And then there is the time I spend reading.

Recently my wife and I stopped into a bookstore. Near the entrance was a table with a sign “Summer Reading” planted into an overflow pile of paperbacks. As I began digging through, I thought about my own pile of summer reading at home. For some reason, the later we get into summer, and the more I read, the higher the pile seems to grow.

Here is the Summer Reading List that currently sits on my table:

A four-page policy proposal from a friend that begins: “Dear Steve, Here's the newest of my ranting," an outline from Keyspan on a new Advanced Energy Technology Center on Long Island and a briefing entitled "Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use".

There is an Air War College paper on "War Without Oil: A Catalyst For True Transformation,” a Congressional Research Service Issues Brief entitled, "Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles: Issues in Congress," and a National Journal article on Global Warming.

Also, an analysis by General (Ret.) Bob Scales about the strategic dynamics of the recent hostilities in Lebanon, a Miami Herald article headlined, "More Iraqis Stand Up But The Us Can't Stand Down," a Washington Times article noting, "Battling Terror Calls for Modern-Day Alternatives" and an Armed Forces Journal cover story: "Clausewitz: Right Or Wrong."

There are constituent letters and emails...articles on local issues clipped from weekly newspapers...and letters from elected officials

Also in the pile: a briefing about preventive health and wellness programs; an essay on "The Persian Gulf and the Geopolitics of Oil," an Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism memo, and “Seven Questions: America's Energy Predicament" from Foreign Policy Journal.

Not to mention a briefing about counterfeit drugs, another briefing about shoulder-fired missiles, and a memo about Iran from the Marine Corps Fellow assigned to my office.

The corner of my table has room for two books I'm currently reading: Kevin Bakers' Paradise Alley (about the New York City draft riots) and Erik Larson's "The Devil in the White City" (about the 1893 Chicago Worlds Fair).

Finally, there's a recent newspaper feature on the 1986 Mets.

I'll start with the Mets. After all, it’s summer.

Posted by: SI

Hauppauge, NY | Wednesday morning, August 9, 2006

BEHIND THE SCENES: "LIVE ON FOX"

What lurks behind the scenes when a Member of Congress appears on a national television news show? More than meets the eye:

THURSDAY AUGUST 3:
A "booker" from Fox News calls my office to check on my availability for a Sunday morning interview on the situation on Lebanon. They'll make it easy -- rather than driving to their Manhattan studio, I can use a satellite location in West Babylon. I agree.

FRIDAY AUGUST 4, 5:00 PM
Fox emails updated information. Be at the studio at 11...Eric Shawn will host the program... Rep. Charles Dent will also appear....And the topic has been narrowed. Now it's "the UN's role in peacekeeping operations in southern Lebanon." (Knowing the topic in advance is not always helpful. On several occasions on other networks the subject has been changed, literally seconds before going live. Maybe the Mets' David Wright can hit a curve ball on national television, but I'm not quite that talented.)

SATURDAY AUGUST 5:
Late-breaking news: the U.S. and French governments announce agreement on a Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel. Now Fox wants me to focus on this development. They also request that I arrive at the West Babylon studio at 10:50 instead of 11:00 the next morning. In Washington, my staff emails everything they can compile on the new Security Council resolution.

SUNDAY AUGUST 6:

10:45-- A behemoth satellite truck occupies most of the parking spaces in front of Village Video in West Babylon, groaning in the heat. I knock on the door, and soon Bob Wolf emerges, smiling gregariously. Some people call him "Wolfie"; but I think of him as "The Wizard." The man behind the technology curtain pushes buttons, flicks switches and moves levers that will magically beam me from West Babylon, to a satellite high above us, then to Fox studios, and finally to television sets across America. I, on the other hand, can't figure out TiVo.

After a cell phone conversation with the Fox technicians in New York, Bob reports: "We're hitting at 11:10". That's when I go live. Fifteen minutes -- more than enough time.

10:50-- Bob leads me inside his building to a small, windowless room. A stool is positioned in front of a solitary camera. Oversized lights hang at odd angles from the ceiling. The "scenery" behind me includes a desk, bookshelves, an American flag and a computer monitor glowing with the Fox logo.

I position myself on the stool. Bob attaches a microphone clip to my tie, inserts an earpiece, and adjusts the volume so that the Fox programming gushes through my ear. Then he trains the camera on my face, adjusts its angle, and switches on the overhead lights. The glare is so harsh that I can barely see the camera.

This is where it can get dangerous. Although the interview won't begin for several minutes, the satellite feed is active. Anything I do or say at this point can be recorded for posterity. Primping, preening, yawning, or humming my favorite show-tunes is not recommended. This is the stuff that TV Blooper shows are made of.

11:00-- Static crackles in my ear. "Representative Israel? This is Debbie, the producer in New York. Can you hear me?"

"I can hear you fine, Debbie."

In New York, Debbie sees my lips move, but hears nothing. "Your microphone isn't on," she says with some urgency. "I'll get it fixed," Bob promises as he rushes to the satellite truck outside, his words trailing behind him.

11:05-- The interview is supposed to start in five minutes. Yet I am alone in the studio, listening to Eric Shawn in my earpiece, staring into the harsh lights, growing uncomfortably warm. Almost miraculously, Bob pops in with a bottle of cold water. "Give me a count," he orders.

"One...two..."

"Still a problem", he says, rushing back to the truck.

Then I hear Eric Shawn make a promise to America: "Coming up! Can the UN enforce a cease-fire in southern Lebanon? We'll hear from two Members of Congress...."

Except that one can't be heard.

11:10-- A lot of scrambling. In the satellite truck outside, Bob's fingers dance across buttons and levers and dials, in syncopated movements with his counterpart technicians at Fox. Meanwhile, Eric Shawn commences his own shuffle. My 11:10 interview is now with former CIA Director Jim Woolsey. Jim and I have been working together on energy security issues, so at least I can listen to his interview.

"Nice job," I email to Woolsey's Blackberry. "I'm the guest just behind you."

"Thanks," he emails me back when he is finished.

11:15 - 11:20-- "Congressman?" My earpiece crackles. "This is Fox audio in New York. Can you count to ten?"

"Can I count to ten?" I think, "Who said Congress is a hard job?"

"One...two...three..."

"We still don't hear you," the technician interrupts.

Fox now eases into a long commercial break. Bob scurries back and forth. The break ends and I can hear Shawn's voice. He introduces a correspondents' report from Lebanon. Then another. "Stall," I think.

11:20 - 11:25-- Still staring into the camera, I assume Fox will simply pull the plug on me and hand the entire interview to Rep. Dent.

Suddenly Bob reappears. "Give me a count!"

I count to ten.

He offers a relieved thumbs-up.

Then the Fox audio technicians chirp through my earpiece: "Can you hear us?"

"Yes."

"Can you give us a count?"

"One...two...three..."

"Got it," they exclaim.

The next voice I hear is the producers', offering last minute coaching: "Sorry for the technical problems. You're on after this break. The host is Eric Shawn. You're on with Congressman Charles Dent. Stand-by."

The earpiece now falls silent, as if I am listening to an ocean through a shell on Robert Moses beach. I fix my eyes through the harsh glare at the camera lens. Bob stands next to the tripod, ready to flash hand-signals. When he points at me, I know I am on camera. A closed fist means that Fox is using a different shot.

Suddenly, the triumphant swelling of the Fox theme song rolls through my ear. Eric Shawn whisks through a summary of our topic, and finally introduces Congressman Dent and me. I smile and nod my head at the glare in front of me.

Over two or three minutes, Rep. Dent gets the first question: I get the second and third; and Dent handles the fourth. Then the curtain is brought down: "Sorry we've run out of time. Thanks for coming on this morning."

I continue staring at the camera until the producer signals that I am free to leave.

11:30-- Bob unclasps the microphone from my tie, removes the earpiece, and tells me he's preparing for his next transmission in a few minutes: Rep. Peter King.

As I drive home, I wonder how the interview was received. Whenever I appear on a national news show, my office phones ring with instant feedback from across America. But today is Sunday. We'll have to wait until tomorrow to hear what messages were left.

11:34-- No waiting at all. Just as we pull out of the studio parking lot towards the Southern State Parkway, my Blackberry vibrates with this email:

"Steve:
You looked good on Fox New this morning. I agreed with everything you said (for whatever that's worth)."

It's from an uncle. In Dallas.

Posted by: SI

Dix Hills, NY | Friday morning, August 4, 2006

August Recess: Home Away From The House

There is only one thing more enjoyable than Thursday evenings, when the plane at National Airport or BWI surges forward, lifts off the runway, clears the congressionally induced hot-airspace of Washington, and whisks me to Long Island. And that is when the plane-ride marks the beginning of the August Recess. In fact, it's downright liberating. Five weeks away from Washington. No bluster, no banter; no pontificating, no punditry. The only screaming and jeering I will hear will be when I watch the Mets. (I confess: that's me doing the screaming and jeering).

Five weeks at home, away from the House.

This is not to say that the August recess is a vacation. I'll spend it meeting with dozens of constituents--speaking at Rotary Clubs and Chambers of Commerce, convening five sessions of my Energy Security Task Force, visiting local businesses, sitting with Fire Chiefs and veterans, working with state and local officials on congestion problems along Commack Road. And for eight days I will travel to Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Darfur and Rome.

But I'll also have a little more time to do the things that stay with me long after the Congressional schedule resumes.

One of my first stops this recess was the local kosher deli, where the waitress always briefs me on her grandson's progress in college. (She's a big fan of her grandson). On Monday night, the owner of a CD store shared his opinion of President Bush (not a big fan of the President).

Most of what I need to know as a Congressman I learn in diners and delis and schools and businesses on Long Island. I learn more about energy issues when I fill-up at the gas station then when I'm spun at a congressional hearing. (Don't forget to check-out my Next Generation Energy Security Initiative). I learn more about the needs of our Armed Forces by speaking with them in Iraq than listening to an expert in my Committee room.

So, if you happen to see me this August --or any weekend during the year-- don't be shy about letting me know how you feel. It doesn't matter if it's at a speech to hundreds, or if we just happen to bump into each other in the aisle of the supermarket.

The more I learn when I return home in August, the better a Representative I am when I return to the House in September.

Posted by: SI

Take 1 Poison Pill and Call Me at Two O'clock in the Morning

There are the inevitable features of the last day before an extended Congressional recess. The day stretches into night, the night into early morning. Behind closed doors, Republican Majority leaders craft a bill that will enable their Members to return to their districts trumpeting a major legislative victory. To attract votes, accommodations are made, concerns are met, provisions are inserted, and pages are added -- until the final product is the size of a telephone book or two. And a battle-weary, sleep-deprived House votes in the dead of night, just before the sun rises over Washington and planes carry us home.

Sometimes, there is the insertion of the infamous “poison pill” -- that little bit of bitter, intentionally dropped into legislation in order to guarantee its own demise. That best explains how legislation to increase the federal minimum wage was drafted and passed by the House at 2 a.m. last Saturday.

For months, many Democrats in Congress have demanded an increase in the federal minimum wage, which hasn't been adjusted in a decade. The House Republican leadership has reliably resisted this proposal. But last week a change was in the air, pushed by winds that have become ominous for Republican incumbents. Three months before congressional elections, and for the first time in 12 years, dozens of Republican House members face difficult campaigns in their districts. The last thing they needed was to spend an entire August explaining to their constituents why they raised their congressional salaries, but not the minimum wage. They needed to bring something home. Or, in terms only Washington would understand, anything, even nothing, as long as it looked like something.

The Republican Leaders faced a dilemma. Allowing a vote on a minimum wage increase could actually end up increasing the minimum wage. That would be bad. But keeping it bottled-up would weaken many of their endangered incumbents. Also bad. The task: allow their Members to vote for a minimum wage hike, but make sure the bill never becomes law.

In other words, they needed to fix their “Let Them Eat Cake" image with a "let's have our cake and eat it too" political strategy.

Here's how it happened:

On Thursday afternoon, the Republican Leadership announced that they would present a minimum wage bill to the House and that we would not adjourn until Friday, or perhaps even Saturday.

All day on Friday, rank and file members waited while Congress was in recess. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, a handful of Republicans drafted the bill. It didn't matter that a clean and straightforward minimum wage increase with bipartisan support had been pending after passing at the committee level for months.

It wasn't until 5 p.m. on Friday, that the Speaker finally convened the House with the rap of his gavel.

"What's in the bill?" I asked my Legislative Director.

"We don't know yet. We haven't seen it."

Yet another feature of that last day before recess: draft massive, complex and very expensive legislation, keep it out of view for as long as possible and let Members review hundreds (sometimes thousands) of pages just before they vote. (I get more time to figure out a tip in a Long Island diner.)

Before long, some of the provisions began oozing out.

This wasn't a bill to increase the minimum wage. In fact, the words "minimum wage" didn't even appear in the title. It was a nearly $300 billion reduction in estate taxes without any offsets -- meaning we would pay for the loss of revenue by adding the costs to our $8 trillion debt and let our children foot the bill (even as we slashed their federal tuition assistance programs by $12 billion because of supposed "budget constraints"). It was sprinkled with sweeteners for certain Congressional districts around the country. Projects were funded, problems solved. Oh, and by the way, it did contain a minimum wage increase. But it was phased-in over a far longer period of time than was necessary.

Some of the bill's provisions were good. Some bad. But the whole package was ugly. Ugly because the Senate had already made it clear that this kind of legislation was "dead on arrival" in their chamber. The insertion of these extraneous provisions weren’t poison pills as much as they were bombs, timed to explode when the bill reached the front door of the Senate. And the minimum wage would be the principle casualty.

Even the labor organizations that have fought long and hard for a minimum wage hike couldn't support this package.

Democrats asked repeatedly: "Why don't we vote on a simple and clean minimum wage increase that we know will pass the Senate?" Republicans answered with an indignant barrage of bluster and spin and flim-flam. But what they really meant to say was: "Because we don't want it to pass the Senate."

At least one of my Republican colleagues was honest enough to say publicly that Democrats were angry because "we outfoxed you on this issue."

At about two o'clock in the morning, the vote was cast: 230-180.

It was Washington politics as usual. Republicans could take credit for passing a minimum wage bill in the House even though they knew it would fail in the Republican Senate. Politics trumped policy.

In coming months, when you hear some of my colleagues crow about voting for a minimum wage increase, ask a minimum wage worker whether they got the raise.

Remember this: because the poison pill worked, working families won't receive an increase in the minimum wage -- at least not at anytime soon.

And we wonder why the American people have lost faith in Congress?

Posted by: SI

Washington, DC | Thursday night, July 27, 2006

The Prime Minister of Iraq and the Lienecks of Deer Park

The Prime Minister of Iraq came to Washington on Wednesday. And so did the Lieneck family of Deer Park. And David Willmott, the publisher of Suffolk Life.

Every day in Congress demands the relentless shifting of gears, lurching from one meeting to the next. It is a day-long juggling of issues: safety conditions at Islip Airport and security in Iraq; traffic on Commack Road and missile firings from Lebanon; the Long Island Sound and the Strait of Hormuz.

And it all stops suddenly, when I am reminded of what counts the most. Not the Prime Minister of Iraq, but the Lienecks of Deer Park.

Which brings me to Wednesday's schedule.

The Prime Minister’s address to a Joint Session of Congress featured all of the pageantry of a State of the Union address. The booming voice of the House Doorkeeper heralded the arrival of dignitaries: The Vice President, the President's Cabinet, the Senate, the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, the Prime Minister. For each, my colleagues and I rise and clap on cue, as if prompted by a giant "Applause” sign.

We listen to the Prime Minister through headsets providing simultaneous translation. When he finishes his optimistic report about conditions in Iraq, I feel as if we should have received the headsets as well as some rose-colored glasses.

I return to my office, where the Lieneck family has gathered.

Last year, their 11-year-old daughter, Brianna, was killed in a tragic boating accident on the Great South Bay. Since then, they have refused to retreat into their well-deserved grief. Instead, they and their family and friends have dedicated themselves to boating safety. As Mrs. Lieneck said to me, "We don't want anyone else to go through what we went through.”

Their cause, like all causes, has generated frustration. They have encountered bureaucratic roadblocks and overlapping jurisdictions. They have navigated from the town's Bay Constable all the way to the United States Coast Guard. Their appeals for new standards for boating safety have been directed at good and empathetic people. But the bureaucracy has been formidable.

"Let's go right to the top," I told them when we met on Long Island weeks ago.

So after the Prime Minister’s address to Congress, I listened in my office as the Lienecks shared their issues with Coast Guard Rear Admiral David Pekoske, Assistant Commandant for Response. The Admiral listened attentively and offered condolences. He briefed them on steps the Coast Guard is taking to improve boating safety and rescue operations. Then he reported that a Coast Guard proposal to increase training and education for boating proficiency was submitted to Congress last year, but stripped out of a broader measure. The Lienecks and I agreed that I should focus on reviving that proposal; and that we would work closely together so that other families are not thrown into the tragedy that took away their daughter.

After the Admiral left, a family member pulled a scrap book from a large folder and passed it to me.

"We want you to know all about Brianna."

I flipped the pages and saw the familiar photos that all parents cherish. Brianna in her Little League uniform, Brianna at a picnic, Brianna with her arms wrapped around her friends and her family.

"She is very proud of you today," I offered.

People often wonder whether Washington really listens to them; whether their voices are drowned out by the roar of the powerful; whether the issues that are important to them are lost in the furious swirl of other important issues. That is for them to judge. But I do know this: on the day that the Prime Minister of Iraq spoke into a microphone to the U.S. Congress, I heard the voices of the Lieneck family of Deer Park. And Brianna's too.

Posted by: SI

Washington, DC | Thursday morning, July 20, 2006

My Floor Speech on Israel and Lebanon

My last posting follows the process of speaking on the floor of the House. Below, find the speech:

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from California.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Almost 1 year ago, in August, I stood on the border of Gaza. I watched a gate descend. I watched the last Israeli leave Gaza. Israel said to the Palestinians, we will take a risk for peace. Build something here. Provide security. We want peace.

And what did they do with that? What did the Palestinians do with that offer? They fired Kassam missiles on Israeli civilians. They elected a terrorist regime sworn to the liquidation of Israel. They dug a tunnel. They snuck through the tunnel, they showed up on Israeli soil, they kidnapped a 19-year-old soldier and snuck him back. Israel took a risk for peace, and this is how it was rewarded.

Israel took the same risk in Lebanon. They left Lebanon. They said provide security here. We will take a risk for peace, and let's have it together. What happened with that offer? Hezbollah was allowed to dominate southern Lebanon. And just last week, Hezbollah terroristsinfiltrated a border, snuck across an undisputed border, murdered some Israelis, kidnapped others, murdered some more, and snuck back across.

Every time Israel has taken a risk for peace, that risk has been answered with violence, and that is not acceptable.

What would we have done? It is exactly what we did do on 9/11. When terrorists infiltrated our borders, we responded robustly to protect innocent civilians.

Israel has the right to do the same. There can be no double standard.

There can be no moral relativism. This resolution simply says that Israel has taken risks for peace. Those risks ought to be answered with reciprocation, and not missiles; with good faith, security, and not kidnappings. Israel has done what we have done, and this resolution reaffirms that.

Posted by: SI

Washington, DC | Wednesday night, July 19, 2006

Diary of a Floor Speech

If you've ever watched House proceedings on CSPAN, and wondered how Members are recognized to speak and for how long, join me for Wednesday evenings' debate on a resolution condemning the most recent terrorist attacks against Israel.

6:30 PM: After learning that the House is commencing debate on this resolution, I inform my Legislative Director that I wish to participate. She tells me that it may be difficult. The House Leadership has allocated a total of one hour of debate, divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Members of the International Committee will be recognized first. If there is remaining time, non-Committee Members will be recognized on a "first-come, first serve basis." It doesn't look good.

7:15 PM: I meet with two high school students from Long Island, then drive across Washington to meet with members of the New York State Bankers Association. As we leave, I ask my Legislative Director for an update on Floor proceedings. She calls another staff member and then advises me that if I rush to the Floor, it will be possible to reserve time to speak.

8:00 PM: I enter the House Chamber and the scene is immediately discouraging. Most of the Members of the International Relations Committee -- the ones who should have already spoken -- are still in their seats. They have been there for two hours, and only a handful of Members have spoken. The one hour of debate has already been extended. We are plodding through the debate. But there is really very little debate. Virtually everyone on both sides of the aisle is agreeing; but it's taking hours for them to express that agreement.

I sit beside Congressman Tom Lantos. As the Ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, he manages my party's portion of the debate. He decides who will speak, and how much time they will be granted. And he dispenses that time like gold.

"Is it impossible to get time?" I ask.

"We'll extend the debate," he responds. "If you're willing to wait an hour."

On the table in front of him is a thick deck of yellow index cards. The name of every Member who wishes to speak is scrawled on a card. He adds my card to the deck. In the back. Way in the back.

Still, I look on the bright side. I will have time for dinner.

8:15 PM: In the Democratic Cloakroom, I order an elegant congressional dinner: one peanut butter and jelly on rye, one bag of potato chips, a diet sprite and, (I must admit, even if my wife reads this) a candy-bar for dessert. The cloakroom has all the charm of a shopping-mall snack bar. Rep. Allyson Schwartz (PA), Adam Schiff (CA) and I lean against a counter, munching on our meals, while a television blares speeches from the Floor nearby.

8:30 PM: I push though the cloakroom doors and return to a seat on the Floor. Both Parties have agreed to a "unanimous consent" motion to extend the debate another forty minutes. But there are still many Members waiting, and even more are reporting to the Floor, pushing me even further behind. I sit beside Rep. Joe Crowley, and begin a skeletal outline of the speech I hope to give. I don't know whether I will have thirty seconds or five minutes. In Congress, last minute adjustments are common.

10:00 PM: An hour and a half has passed, and I seem no closer to recognition than I was at 6:30.

I ask Rep. Lantos' staffer how many Members are ahead of me. He flips through the deck of yellow cards, which has grown even thicker as additional Members drift onto the Floor. There are still eight 8 Democrats (and presumably as many Republicans) ahead of me. One problem is that many Members are recognized by Rep. Lantos for a set time (two minutes, five minutes) and when the persistent tapping of the Speaker's gavel warns them that they have exceeded the limit, they request "an additional minute." Being a gentleman, Rep. Lantos grants the requests. But without an extension of the entire debate, every additional minute taken by a Member means a minute deducted from those of us who have not yet spoken. Time is simply running out.

10:10 PM: I make a decision. I will ask for a "unanimous consent" request, which is designed for just this kind of situation. It allows a Member to very briefly rise in support or opposition to the resolution, and then ask that a full text of a speech be inserted in the Congressional Record. The problem is that I don't have a full text of a speech. I was prepared to use some rough talking points which I had scribbled earlier in the evening. Now I must write a full text.

10:15 PM: I duck into a small room on the side of the Chamber. It has two computers and a printer, and I begin typing, as fast as I can.

10:20 PM: Just as I hit the "print" button, Rep. Lantos' staff member pokes his head into the room.

"Mr. Israel, you're next."

Back to Plan A. I will give my speech, after all. As I said, last-minute adjustments are common.

"How much time can you give me?" I ask the staffer.

He holds up two fingers.

I gather my papers -- a five minute speech which I must now present in two -- and follow him back to the Floor.

10:25 PM: The Speaker's gavel warns Rep. Nadler that his time has elapsed. Jerry asks Rep. Lantos for additional time, and gets thirty seconds. When he finishes, Lantos stands. "Madame Speaker, I am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from New York, Congressman Israel."

10:30 PM: I lean into the microphone. "Madame Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution..."

Two minutes later, I finish. It has taken me four hours to speak for two minutes. And now I begin a 12 minute walk home, through a dark and oppressively hot Washington evening. But at least I was able to make my point.

Posted by: SI

Washington, DC | Friday evening, July 14, 2006

Law and War

At a long and complex Armed Services Committee hearing on the legal process for detainees at Guantanamo, Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) called my name. For nearly two hours, I had listened to lawyers spar over the fine points of the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice; parse a Supreme Court ruling; and swat each other with hypothetical legal scenarios.

"Mr. Chairman, " I began. "Much to my mothers shame, I am not a lawyer and never went to law school. That puts me at a decided disadvantage in this hearing. However, it also gives me the powerful advantage of common sense."

It is easy to lose sight of common sense through the density of legal complexity and the thick haze of partisan rhetoric. But this issue -- how we will design a system that prosecutes so-called "enemy non-combatants" in the war on terror -- really rests on clear and fundamental questions:

How does a democracy protect its national security and preserve its national identity at the same time? How do we kill, capture and punish enemies who seek to destroy our values of freedom and justice, and at the same time offer our enemies the shelter of the very values they wish to destroy?

That is the question the Armed Services Committee has set-out in response to the Supreme Court decision that the current process violates federal and international law. And our first hearing, last Wednesday, revealed a a surprise for me.

When I tuned-out the heated rhetoric and the pin-point legal sparring, I realized that there is actually significant congressional agreement on many fundamental issues.

For example, consider this rhetorical flourish by one Pentagon lawyer who testified. He outlined a scenario where a U.S. Marine kicks in the door of a potential terrorist hide-out in Afghanistan, grabs a suspect by the scruff of the neck, and then has to read that suspect "his rights" while "filling out legal forms."

I asked him who had advocated such a rule? What Member of Congress proposed it? In what legislation? What speech? He couldn't name one.

In fact, while the rhetoric may be dramatic, the facts are rather bland. Not a single Member of the Committee argued that the legal protections enjoyed by Americans should be completely and purely applied to enemy combatants. Everyone recognized that the vagaries of war don't allow for finger-printing; that intelligence sources cannot be compromised by fully revealing all evidence; that certain rules and procedures that we enjoy in our justice system must be changed to fit the uinique circumstances presented by unconventional warfare.

At the other end of the spectrum, I did not hear a single Member of the Committee argue that enemy non-combatants should be stripped of all due process. No one proposed arbitrary arrests, infinite detentions, or throwing people in Soviet-style gulags.

Indeed, the hearing succeeded in one important respect. It quickly closed-off the extremes that usually detour us endlessly. It established a path that will be confined by the mutual desire to guarantee both national security and the rule of law.

In the weeks ahead, there will be differences on foundational issues: whether a new body of law should be created or whether we should simply modify existing bodies of law. There will be I's to dot and T's to cross. The intricacies of the debate will surely rivet the attention of law professors and constitutional scholars and CSPAN junkies.

But most Americans, I believe, will have an inuitive and plain understanding of where we must end-up.

Designing a system that keeps us safe without having to change our national character. Creating a process that allows us to kill and capture terrorists without having to surrender our values to them.

Posted by: SI

Washington, DC | Monday afternoon, July 10, 2006

The Week That Wasn't

A few weeks ago, we solved our nation's dependence on foreign oil. Or so House Republican leaders would like you to believe when they declared the last week in June “Energy Week.” OPEC, beware! Breathe easy, you inhalers of carbon-based smog. Our long national nightmare with energy is over. We had "Energy Week” in the House of Representatives!

Who knew that solving a generational challenge and ending our perilous and dysfunctional energy policies was this easy? Why waste time fashioning an energy policy that looks beyond the horizon when all we had to do was talk about energy for a week?

What chumps we have been all these years, listening to Lincoln, Churchill, and Roosevelt, and their "sacrifice is good for you" speeches dripping with castor oil; succumbing to their appeals for selflessness, endurance and fortitude. If only they knew then what Republican Congressional leaders know now:

White House Press Release: Dec 8, 1941: FDR DECLARES "WIN WORLD WAR II WEEK" ON JAPAN Describing yesterday's attack on Pearl Harbor as "a day of infamy," President Roosevelt promised the American people that they would "gain the inevitable triumph through a week-long series of legislative proposals on Capitol Hill." Demonstrating national resolve, Roosevelt and congressional leaders gathered near a vivid blue backdrop stenciled with "Win World War II Week" logos. Roosevelt proclaimed: "With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, with a week of debate in the House, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God."

From John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961: J.F.K. TACKLES LIBERTY AND JUSTICE DURING FIRST WEEK OF FEBRUARY "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. That covers the first week of February. Now let's move on to week two."

From Winston Churchill's Radio Address to the British Empire, February 9, 1941: CHURCHILL PROMISES TRIUMPH BY NEXT SATURDAY

"Here is the answer which I will give to President Roosevelt... We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job. But we have to finish by Saturday, because next week is 'National Food Quality Improvement Week.'"

From press reports of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865: LINCOLN UNVEILS FIFTEEN-POINT “UNITE AMERICA PLAN”

President Lincoln today launched his second term, promising to unite America with his fifteen-point "Malice Toward None And Charity For All Act of 1865." Lincoln abandoned his usual soaring oratory, preferring instead to inspire the nation with "my specific and detailed plan to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." The President challenged Congress to debate and pass the measure "ASAP."

From John F. Kennedy's Address to a Joint Session of Congress, May 25, 1961: PRESIDENT KENNEDY EXHORTS AMERICA TO LAND MAN ON THE MOON:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth. If that's asking too much, I think, before the week is over, we can send a guy to Des Moines. Whichever is easier. You tell me."

From President George W. Bush's State of the Union Address, January 31, 2006:

“Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.”

The President didn't need a week to implement his vision. The very next day, his Secretary of Energy stated that “He didn't mean it literally.” So, call me the “Energy Week Scrooge,” but when we're really serious about energy policy, we will ask the American people for more than a week. We will ask them for sacrifice.

Posted by: SI

Washington, DC | Monday morning, July 10, 2006

Welcome to my blog

Starting July 10, I will be writing a blog on my congressional activities in Washington and Long Island. I believe this is a new and important way of expanding my communications with the people I represent.

My blog will be your seat in Congress, giving you a real-time view of critical issues on Capitol Hill. You will sit in on House Floor votes and Armed Services and Financial Services Committee hearings...share opinions on critical issues...and join me as I work on initiatives such as energy security, Iraq and Iran, college affordabilty and health care.

When I am home, my blog will bring you with me from constituent meetings to congressional town halls...from local school visits to homeland security forums.

And, it will have unique "Inside Congress" portions: blurbs about the dynamics of the House, interactions with colleagues, Floor procedure, and more.

I hope the blog gives us a new and innovative forum to learn more from each other. That is why I hope you will visit it by checking my website or by registering here to receive my blog updates by email.

Posted by: SI

Back to Home