SPEECH Act

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2765, legislation that would prohibit the recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services. This bill, like legislation (Free Speech Protection Act) that I introduced earlier this year attempts to deal with the issue of ``libel tourism'' that threatens not only Americans' first amendment freedom of speech but also their ability to inform the general public about existential threats; namely, who are the terrorists and who are their financial backers.

Let me begin by stating the main threat posed by libel tourism is not just the clever exploitation of foreign courts' libel laws to win financial judgments against American authors. It's not even the risk that Americans are losing their First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech (although that is quite troubling). The danger is that foreign individuals are operating a scheme to intimidate authors and publishers from even exercising that right. And it's actually scarier because, in many of these cases, the journalists are trying to write on topics of national and homeland security. Therefore it is imperative that Congress address the issue and pass legislation to stop this nefarious activity at once.

The issue of ``libel tourism'' threatens not only Americans' First Amendment freedom of speech but also their ability to inform the general public about existential threats; namely, the identity of terrorists and their financial supporters. As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, it is my duty to oversee policies for protecting our nation from potential terrorist attacks--a charge I take very seriously. I receive regular classified briefings on dangerous plots to attack the United States so I know just how grave these threats are. We cannot allow foreigners the ability to muzzle Americans for speaking the truth about these dangers!

Libel tourism is a recent phenomenon in which certain individuals attempt to obstruct the free expression rights of Americans (and the vital interest of the American people) by seeking out foreign jurisdictions (``forum shopping'') that do not provide the full extent of free-speech protection that is enshrined in our First Amendment. Some of these actions are intended not only to suppress the free speech rights of journalists and others but also to intimidate publishers and other organizations from disseminating or supporting their work.

Unlike in the United States where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the publication was not only false but also malicious, in countries such as the United Kingdom it is actually the reverse. And some of these ``tourists'' claims of jurisdiction are tenuous at best. In many cases, not only are none of the individuals (author, litigant, or publisher) associated with the case living in the venue of jurisdiction, but the books aren't even published there. These ``libel tourists'' stretch the law by claiming a handful of copies of the book purchased over the internet and delivered to an address in a foreign country gives them standing.

Since the burden of proof is on the author in the United Kingdom, the author must then hire an attorney, travel to the foreign country, and defend herself or likely face a default judgment. Consequences include, but are not limited to, stiff fines, outrageous public apologies, the removal of books from bookstores and libraries, or even their destruction.

We cannot change other countries' (libel) laws, nor would we want to. We must respect their laws, as they ought to respect ours. However, we cannot allow foreign citizens to exploit these courts to endanger Americans' First Amendment protected speech; especially, when the subject matter is of such grave importance as terrorism and those who finance it.

Just to be clear, we're not talking about journalists who carelessly or maliciously slander an individual. In this case we're talking about authors who, after conducting exhaustive research and carefully sourcing their work, are providing us glimpses into a dark and secretive world. We ought to rely on a variety of sources for this information and we cannot allow foreign litigants or foreign courts to tell us what can be written or published in the United States. That is a dangerous path we do not want to follow.

Some of the plaintiffs bringing such suits are intentionally and strategically refraining from filing their suits in the United States, even though the speech at issue was published in the United States, to avoid the First Amendment protections that Americans enjoy.

But this issue is also very troubling for the authors, journalists, and even publishers who attempt to write on these subjects. Already we have seen examples of authors having difficulty getting their articles or books published because publishers fear of being sued overseas. Some companies have even gone as far as to pay large settlements at the mere threat of legal actions. So not only are authors being injured for the works they have previously written but they and their publishers are being intimidated from writing future articles on these important topics. The free expression and publication by journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others of the information they uncover and develop through investigative research and study is essential to the formation of sound public policy and thus the security of Americans.

In turn, the American people are suffering concrete and profound harm because they, their representatives, and other government policymakers rely on the free expression of information, ideas, and opinions developed by responsible journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others for the formulation of sound public policy, including national security policy.

Having said that, the United States respects the sovereign right of other countries to enact their own laws regarding speech, and seeks only to protect the First Amendment rights of Americans in connection with speech that occurs, in whole or part, in the United States.

That is why last year I introduced the Free Speech Protection Act (H.R. 1304) to defend U.S. persons who are sued for defamation in foreign courts. This legislation would allow U.S. persons to bring a federal cause of action against any person bringing a foreign libel suit

if the writing did not constitute defamation under U.S. law. It would also bar enforcement of foreign libel judgments and provide other appropriate injunctive relief by U.S. Courts if a cause of action was established. H.R. 1304 would award damages to the U.S. person who brought the action in the amount of the foreign judgment, the costs related to the foreign lawsuit, and the harm caused due to the decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research, or generate funding. Furthermore, it would award treble damages if the person bringing the foreign lawsuit intentionally engaged in a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights. It would allow for expedited discovery if the court determines that the speech at issue in the foreign defamation action is protected by the First Amendment.

Nothing in H.R. 1304 would limit the rights of foreign litigants who bring good faith defamation actions to prevail against journalists and others who have failed to adhere to standards of professionalism by publishing false information maliciously or recklessly. The Free Speech Protection Act does, however, attempt to discourage those foreign libel suits that aim to intimidate, threaten, and restrict the freedom of speech of Americans. I am proud to have worked closely with Senators Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman, and Chuck Schumer who introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

The King/Specter/Lieberman/Schumer legislation also has the backing of various organizations including the Association of American Publishers, College Art Association, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress, American Library Association, 9/11 Families for a Secure America, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, and the American Civil Liberties Union. In addition, various columnists and editorial boards have written in support of our approach including Floyd Abrams, Andrew McCarthy, the New York Times, New York Post, and the Washington Times.

The impetus for a federal law is the case of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a U.S. citizen and Director of the American Center for Democracy. Dr. Ehrenfeld's 2003 book, ``Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop it,'' which was published solely in the United States by a U.S. publisher, alleged that a Saudi Arabian subject and his family financially supported alQaeda in the years preceding the attacks of September 11, 2001. He sued Dr. Ehrenfeld for libel in England because under English law, it is not necessary for a libel plaintiff to prove falsity or actual malice as is required in the U.S. After the English court entered a judgment against Dr. Ehrenfeld, she sought to shield herself with a declaration from both federal and state courts that her book did not create liability under American law, but jurisdictional barriers prevented both the federal and New York State courts from acting. Reacting to this problem, the Governor of New York, on May 1, 2008, signed into law the ``Libel Terrorism Protection Act'', commonly known as ``Rachel's Law.''

As I said last year, I believe any libel tourism bill should include punitive measures to discourage these ridiculous lawsuits from being filed in the first place. It was my hope that during this new Congress we could work together to introduce a bill that would solve this problem once and for all, legislation which would not only ban the enforcement of these foreign libel judgments but would also create a federal cause of action allowing American authors and journalists to sue those foreign plaintiffs here in the United States. This should be the essential component of any libel tourism bill. The real issue here is not the judgment or even the libel case itself. Rather, it is the attempt by certain individuals to muzzle those who dare speak out about terrorism and the financiers of it. Lawyers are cleverly exploiting foreign libel laws not only to injure American authors and publishing companies, but more importantly to shut them up. And it is working. But we must stop it!

In September, I supported and the House passed H.R. 6146, legislation sponsored by Representative Cohen, to prohibit U.S. Courts from enforcing these outrageous defamation suits. At the time, I stated that I believed that bill did not go far enough to combat the threat of libel tourism and that pertains to H.R. 2765 as well.

Nevertheless, I will support H.R. 2765 because it prohibits U.S. (domestic) courts from enforcing these outrageous defamation suits. We must stand up to the terrorists and their financers, supporters, and sympathizers. However, this bill does not go far enough nor does it resolve the problem of ``libel tourism.'' Foreign litigants will still be allowed to file these libel suits overseas with no worry of being countersued here in the U.S. If this bill were to be signed into law, the litigants would never see a dime of the judgments they are awarded, but it's not money they are after in the first place. They want the publicity, an apology, and they want these books to disappear. Most of all they want to intimidate authors and publishers. And it's working!

Finally, I will support H.R. 2765 because it is a first step in the right direction. H.R. 2765 is an important and necessary part of any ``libel tourism'' bill. Unfortunately, it doesn't put an end to the problem and doesn't provide any deterrence from these suits being filed in the first place. I regret that we could not have come up with a more comprehensive bill on the House side but I pledge to work with our Senate sponsors to improve this legislation over in the other Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2765) to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Earlier this Congress, I introduced, together with Congressman Darrell Issa, H.R. 2765, to protect Americans' First Amendment rights against the threat posed by libel tourism, a new term in our vocabulary. The House passed that bill by voice vote under suspension of the rules. The 110th Congress had also passed that bill in this House as well.

Last week, the Senate passed, by unanimous consent, an amended version of H.R. 2765, named the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act, or SPEECH. We consider the Senate version today.

Libel tourism is the name given to the practice of doing an end-run around the First Amendment by suing American authors and publishers for defamation in the courts of certain foreign countries with defamation laws that don't accord the same respect to free speech values as we do. Britain is a nation that particularly is a situs for these actions.

While we generally share a proud common law legal tradition with the United Kingdom, it is also true that the United Kingdom has laws that disfavor speech critical of public officials and public figures, contrary to our own constitutional tradition. As a result, the United Kingdom has become the favorite destination for libel tourists.

British defamation laws lack the constitutionally mandated speech- protective elements of U.S. law. For example, in contrast to U.S. law, British law presumes the defendant is wrong and places the burden on the defendant to prove the truth of her allegedly defamatory statement.

This feature of British law has brought condemnation, not only from American defenders of free speech, but also from the United Nations, and even from some members of the British Parliament.

In addition to Britain's substantive defamation law, features of Britain's procedural law tend to facilitate libel tourism, especially when it comes to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defamation defendant.

Under their more expansive standard, British courts have been quick to take jurisdiction over an American defendant whose book, magazine or newspaper, though principally, or even exclusively, distributed in the United

States, reaches even just a handful of readers in the United Kingdom, or whose Internet site, though based in the United States, is visited by someone in the UK.

Particular concerns have been raised that, as a result of British courts' expansive exercise of jurisdiction in libel cases, the Internet has rendered American authors and publishers especially vulnerable to libel suits in Britain.

As one commentator has described the situation: ``In the Internet age, the British libel laws can bite you no matter where you live.''

The Senate amendment to H.R. 2765 builds on the version of my bill that passed the House earlier this Congress, maintaining its core elements. Like the original bill, the Senate language prohibits U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with the First Amendment or do not comport with our due process requirements.

The Senate language also continues to prohibit the enforcement of a foreign defamation judgment against an interactive computer service if the claim of the party opposing enforcement in the judgment is inconsistent with section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.

The purpose of this provision is to ensure that libel tourists do not attempt to chill speech by suing a third-party interactive computer service, rather than the actual author of the offending statement.

In such circumstances, the service provider would likely take down the allegedly offending material rather than face a lawsuit. Providing immunity removes this unhealthy incentive to take down material under improper pressure.

The Senate language enhances an existing attorneys' fee provision so that a court would now be required, absent exceptional circumstances, to award attorneys' fees to the party resisting enforcement of the foreign judgement if that party prevails. That provision was added in committee this year to put more teeth in the bill.

The purpose of the provision is to dissuade libel tourists from putting American authors and publishers through the burden and expense of defending a meritless enforcement action and to compensate authors and publishers when they are forced to do so.

The most significant change made by the Senate, which I support, is the addition of a declaratory judgment remedy for a U.S.-based author or publisher who is the target of a foreign defamation judgment.

This provision would allow the U.S.-based party against whom a foreign defamation judgment is entered to seek a declaratory judgment in Federal court, finding that the foreign judgment is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States under one of the grounds listed in the bill.

The declaratory judgment remedy provides an added measure of protection for the free speech rights of American authors and publishers.

Last Thursday, The New York Times hailed the passage of this bill by the Senate, where it was sponsored by Senator Leahy, as a great move forward for First Amendment rights that are so important to our American way of life.

I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Ranking Member Lamar Smith, the members of the Judiciary Committee, and the cosponsors of this bill for their support.

And I greatly thank Senators Patrick Leahy, Jeff Sessions and Arlen Specter for their longstanding and committed leadership on this issue. And I should say particularly, Senator Leahy, such a gentleman, in moving this bill forward.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

[From The New York Times, July 22, 2010]

A Victory for Writing

It is a rare achievement these days for the Senate to pass

anything of real substance by a unanimous vote. But an

important bill that protects Americans from the whims of

foreign libel judgments was passed earlier this week by

unanimous consent. Once it passes the House and is signed

into law, it will provide a safeguard to authors and

publishers threatened with ruinous foreign judgments.

In the United States, a plaintiff alleging libel must prove

that a statement is false and defamatory, and public figures

have to show that a writer acted with actual malice in making

a false statement. But these protections, rooted in the First

Amendment, do not exist in places like Britain, Australia and

Singapore, where the burden is often on the author, once

accused of libel, to show that a statement is true.

To sidestep American protections, subjects of books have

sued publishers and authors in British courts where they have

a better chance of winning. The practice, known as libel

tourism, counts on a system in which American courts will

enforce British fines and penalties.

The bill passed by the Senate on Monday would prohibit

American courts from enforcing foreign defamation judgments

if the judgments are inconsistent with First Amendment

protections. In other words, if a British court finds that an

American author has committed libel but has not conducted the

trial with the same legal standards as an American court, the

judgment against the author would be void in the United

States. Americans who are found overseas to have committed

libel can also sue in federal court to have that judgment

found to be ``repugnant to the Constitution'' or American

law.

These kinds of cases have come up far too often. One of the

best known examples was that of Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote a

2003 book called ``Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed--

and How to Stop It,'' that accused a Saudi businessman,

Khalid bin Mahfouz, of providing financial support to Al

Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. After Mr. Mahfouz

sued for libel in Britain--a charge that Ms. Ehrenfeld

refused to defend--a British judge ordered her to pay K10,000

each to Mr. Mahfouz and his two sons, and more than K100,000

in legal costs, a total equaling about $230,000 at the time.

She refused to pay, and the case led the New York State

Legislature to pass a bill similar to the Speech Act in 2008.

The House has already passed a similar bill and is expected

shortly to support the version approved by the Senate, giving

authors in the rest of the country the same protections that

exist in New York. The next step is for the new British

government to take the hint and follow through on the promise

it made earlier this month to review and overhaul its libel

laws. No one in either country wins if writers cannot express

themselves freely.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to reflect on the fact that this bill probably couldn't have gotten as far as it had without the outstanding work of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). The gentleman from Massachusetts has been an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee for many years, contributed much to First Amendment rights, and participated as the vice chairman of the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee this year, an invaluable role that he actively engaged in.

On this bill in particular, he was very instrumental in its passage. I thank him for his service on this particular bill and in general. All the publishers and the authors also should know that the gentleman from Massachusetts was very involved in this bill.

With that, I would like to reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that this bill comes to a conclusion. We passed this in the 110th Congress, we couldn't get the Senate to agree on the language, and we did it in this Congress. It was a victory for writing, said the New York Times, a rare achievement for the Senate to pass this particular bill by a unanimous vote. It was an important bill that protects Americans from the whims of foreign libel judgments. This bill will safeguard authors and publishers threatened with ruinous foreign judgments. These particular First Amendment rights have been jeopardized in places like Britain, Australia and Singapore where the burden was shifted.

So it is important, as the New York Times suggested in what is an outstanding editorial endorsing and praising the passage of this bill, mentioning Ms. Rachel Ehrenfeld who wrote a 2003 book ``Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed--and How to Stop It,'' where she was the object of a libel tourism action by an individual that got a judgment against her which was improper. She has been a very active and important citizen in seeing that this bill was passed along with the publishers over the years.

It's important that we pass this. The New York Times editorial was so complete, it only failed to mention Mr. Delahunt's role in the passage of the bill. I wish it would have. With that, I would ask for the unanimous passage of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 460, H.R. 2765.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today the Senate has passed important bipartisan legislation to reduce the chilling effect that foreign libel lawsuits are having on Americans' first amendment rights.

I am the son of printers and I consider this a matter of great importance. My parents told me from the time I was a child: Believe in and uphold the first amendment. It is the basis of our democracy. It guarantees us the right to practice any religion we want or none if we want. And it protects the right of free speech. Those protections guarantee diversity. If you have a constitution that guarantees diversity, you guarantee a democracy.

That is what this does. I wish to thank Senator Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for working with me on this bill.

Let me speak a little bit about what the bill does. The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act or, as we call it, the SPEECH Act, will ensure that American courts will not enforce foreign libel judgments from countries where free speech protections are lower than what our Constitution affords against American journalists, authors, and publishers.

Too frequently, foreign plaintiffs bring libel suits against American writers and publishers in countries where the plaintiff or the publication lacks any significant connection to the foreign forum. The lawsuit is brought there because of that foreign country's weaker plaintiff-friendly libel laws. This is known colloquially as libel tourism.

In other words, if somebody in the United States writes a book, probably

very accurate, about some despot or some leader of a country who has done criminal acts, has stolen the property of that country or any one of a number of things--it could be very accurate and, in our country, truth is a defense--what they will do is maybe order online a couple copies of the books and deliver them to another country with weak libel laws and then seek judgments against the author, against the publisher, against newspapers that may have published excerpts of it; everything to chill any criticism of those who have either breached human rights or stolen from their own country and on and on.

On a broad scale, libel tourism results in a race to the bottom. It causes America to defer to a country with the most chilling and restrictive free speech standard determining what they can write or publish. This undermines our first amendment. The first amendment, as I said earlier, guarantees the diversity of thought and opinion in this country which actually allows and determines and guarantees that democracy.

The freedoms of speech and the press are cornerstones of our democracy. They enable vigorous debate, and an exchange of ideas that shapes our political process. Reporters, authors and publishers are among the primary sources of these ideas, and their ability to disseminate them through their writings is critical to our democracy. The broad dissemination of materials through the Internet, as well as the increased number of worldwide newspapers and periodicals, has compounded the threat of libel tourism.

This problem is well documented. Two years ago, the United Nations' Human Rights Committee observed that one country's libel laws ``discourage[d] critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affect[ed] the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work,'' and ``affect[ed] freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest.''

Several States, to their credit, have enacted legislation to combat this problem, but we need a national response. While we can't legislate changes to foreign laws that are chilling protected speech in our country, what we can do to uphold the right of free speech in our own country is assure that our courts do not become a tool to uphold foreign libel judgments that undermine American first amendment or due process rights. The SPEECH Act is an important step toward reducing this chilling of American free speech

The SPEECH Act is an important step toward reducing this chilling of American free speech. Americans have a great gift in their right of free speech. Every single Senator, Republican and Democratic, should join, as we have in this case, to protect America's rights.

The SPEECH Act is the product of hard work and extensive negotiations on both sides of the aisle, and the process is certainly mindful about principles of international comity. Many supporters would not have written this bill in this exact way, but all recognize that a bipartisan compromise is an important step in confronting the libel tourism issue. Without it, we could not pass this bill.

Among the supporters are the Vermont Library Association, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey, the American Library Association, the Association of American Publishers, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the American Civil Liberties Union, Net Coalition, and renowned first amendment lawyer, Floyd Abrams.

I would also like to recognize Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, who herself has been the victim of a libel suit in the United Kingdom, and has been a tremendous advocate for Congressional action in this area.

I wish to thank Senators Specter, Schumer, and Lieberman for their work in raising this important issue in the Senate and Representative Cohen for his hard work on libel tourism legislation in the other body. I am pleased the Senate has adopted this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to its prompt consideration and adoption by the House and to the President signing it into law.

Mr. President, I do not see anybody else seeking recognition, so I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2765) to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services.

First I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their

remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2765 prohibits U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with our First Amendment or fundamental due process. This legislation addresses what has come to be referred to as libel tourism, doing an end run around the First Amendment by suing American authors and publishers for defamation in the courts of foreign countries with more plaintiff- friendly defamation laws, particularly Britain. Britain has become a favorite destination for libel tourists for a number of reasons. First, British law lacks our constitutional free speech protections and instead, specifically disfavors speech critical of public officials and public figures.

Second, British libel law places the burden of proving the truth of the allegedly defamatory statement on the defendant. This distinction has drawn criticism not only from American defenders of free speech but also from the United Nations and even from some Members of the British Parliament.

And third, Britain takes a very expansive view of personal jurisdiction. A British court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a libel defendant if his or her statement, wherever it was made or aimed, can be said to cause ``real or substantial'' harm or injury to reputation in Britain.

Combined with the Internet, this expansive view has rendered American authors and publishers especially vulnerable to libel suits in Britain. As one commentator has said, ``In the Internet age, the British libel laws can bite you no matter where you live.''

H.R. 2765 will deter libel tourists from taking advantage of these differences in the laws of Britain and other foreign jurisdictions and our precious First Amendment by imposing important limitations on the enforcement of foreign defamation judgments in our courts. Under the bill, a U.S. court cannot enforce a foreign defamation judgment inconsistent with the First Amendment to our Constitution or when the foreign court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant does not comport with our due process requirements. And a U.S. court cannot enforce a foreign defamation judgment against an interactive computer service if doing so is inconsistent with section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. This will ensure that libel tourists cannot chill speech by suing a third-party interactive computer service rather than the actual author of the statement.

Finally, the bill allows a court to award attorney's fees to the party resisting enforcement of the foreign judgment if that party prevails. This puts some added teeth in the bill. That was a recommendation at our hearing on the bill. This will not only compensate the American author or publishers for the expense of defending a nonmeritorious enforcement action but will help dissuade the would-be libel tourist from putting them to that expense in the first place.

I am joined in introducing this legislation by my colleague Darrell Issa of California. Last year our bill passed the House overwhelmingly, and I ask my colleagues to support it again this year. I would like to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith and all the cosponsors of this bill for their help and support in bringing it to this point.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for such time as I may consume.

Thomas Jefferson observed that ``the only security of all is in a free press. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary to keep the waters pure.'' Were he alive today, Jefferson would not take too kindly to libel tourists, the subject of H.R. 2765. Oh, it seems true that some U.S. media more recently have become fan clubs rather than objective pursuers of truth, but there are still some very dedicated journalists in the United States who should be free from harassment from inappropriate libel suits in overseas courts.

In the wake of 9/11, the American media have become increasingly alarmed over a phenomenon called libel tourism. The term refers to the subject of a critical news story suing an American author or reporter of an article, story or book for defamation in a plaintiff-friendly overseas or foreign forum. These suits are filed mostly in Great Britain, as its libel and slander laws provide writers and journalists with less protection than those under the U.S. system that honors a First Amendment and a free press. Persons identified in news stories as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers have brought some of the higher- profile suits.

So how would American courts treat foreign judgments that clash with American legal values under this bill? A foreign judgment will not be enforced in the U.S. court when the foreign judgment is offensive to State public policy or the Constitution. And that's what this bill does.

Last September, as my friend from Tennessee indicated, the House passed a libel tourism bill that codified existing U.S. treatment of the subject. The other body did not act on the measure. So we revisit the issue today, better informed, thanks to a subcommittee hearing, full committee markup and substantial input by legal experts on the subject matter.

H.R. 2765 contains four major provisions, as my colleague from Tennessee has outlined.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation provides appropriate and necessary protection for U.S. journalists and authors and represents the strongest constitutionally sound policy in response to libel tourism. The issue has been thoroughly considered by the Judiciary Committee, and I would urge Members to support H.R. 2765.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. So when my colleague across the aisle is ready to close, I will likewise be ready.