Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for bringing this legislation to the floor. I want to commend the cochairs of our delegation, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Congressman David Dreier, both from California, being the cochairs of our delegation, and all of our colleagues who come to the floor today and join us in expressing our appreciation to our men and women in uniform, our first responders, emergency services personnel, and our firefighters who conducted themselves in such a brave, brave and tireless manner to protect the people and the homes and businesses of California.

Today, we thank God that the winds have finally died down and our brave first responders were able to contain the largest fire in the Golden State's history. As I said, our first responders, our firefighters, were courageous and tireless. More than 11,000 personnel, including thousands of firefighters from across California and neighboring States, and thank you to our neighboring States for their participation, and 2,500 of our brave National Guardsmen and -women worked through long days and nights to battle the dangerous flames.

In doing so, as I said, they saved lives, homes and businesses. For that, we will be forever grateful.

Today in California, five fires still burn. As these fires are quenched, the hard work of restoring the regular order of residents' lives begins. We can now begin the accounting of our staggering losses: seven dead and more than 100 injured; 500,000 acres burned; 1 million residents forced to evacuate; 1,400 homes destroyed across seven counties.

But as the victims of the fire know, the tragedy can't be expressed in those numbers. It is in the lost baby photos and treasured mementos gone forever. It is in the fear of knowing that in an instant life can take a tragic turn.

I salute Governor Schwarzenegger and the Governor's Office of Emergency Services for their efforts and leadership in protecting the people in the area and containing the fires.

I am very pleased that President Bush responded to the request of the Governor and the California bipartisan delegation in declaring what was happening in California as a major disaster.

Today, we vow that our response to this fire will not end once those flames

are extinguished. The California congressional delegation will work in a bipartisan way with the entire Congress, with the Governor and the President to ensure short-term and long-term needs are met.

To those who have suffered personal losses, whether it's the loss of a loved one, personal injury, loss of their homes and their communities, as Speaker of the House, I extend the deepest sympathy and the fullest support of the House of Representatives. We stand with you today and in the days of rebuilding to come.

Once again, I acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Clay and Mr. Duncan and thank them for giving us this opportunity to express our appreciation to our firefighters and our first responders in California.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, and I thank you for bringing this opportunity to the floor where Congress again will have to make a decision about our priorities. The Congress will, I know, in a very strong bipartisan vote, support the children of America because this has always been, as the gentlewoman indicated, a bipartisan initiative.

I first want to acknowledge the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, for his work over the years. I believe his committee had seven hearings on the legislation regarding SCHIP. And the distinguished Chair of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Pallone, is with us here.

I also want to acknowledge the great work of Charlie Rangel, the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been such a strong advocate for America's children in every way and, in particular, in this. He, too, had his markups on the bill, which improved the bill; and I want to acknowledge him and his distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Stark.

But my highest praise goes to Republicans. Without the Republicans we wouldn't even have SCHIP. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah really is the father of this initiative. As he tells us, two families in Provo, Utah, visited him in his office. Both of these families have two wage- earners, both of them making minimum wage, trying to support their families of four each. They pled with him that they could not provide health insurance for their children. Because they were working and they were above the poverty line, they did not qualify for Medicaid, and so their hard work was rewarded, not so, by not having health insurance for their children and that was where this all began.

Ten years ago, under a Democratic President, President Clinton, and a Republican Congress, this initiative, SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, became the law of the land; and God bless that bipartisan effort for making that possible for the health of our children.

So Senator Hatch was very much a part of putting this legislation together, and the gentlemen are right, this is largely a Senate initiative. Senator Grassley, the former Chair of the Finance Committee from Iowa, also a distinguished Republican Member of the United States Senate, has worked harder than anyone to make this the law of the land again, to reauthorize this SCHIP, this children's health initiative, by his intellect, and helped shaping the bill, by his persuasion in talking to Members, including his persuasion of many of us who had a far different bill in mind but agreed to the compromises that he has put forth for the good of the children.

That bill was vetoed. The original bill was vetoed by the President, as we all know. The veto was not overridden. So here we are again with another SCHIP in the image of the bill that received all of the attention before, but improved upon by suggestions made by our colleagues in the minority, our Republican colleagues.

It wasn't that these issues weren't covered in the bill; but the clarity sought by the Republicans, and agreed to by all of us, I think are a definite improvement on the bill, and these fall into three areas.

First, there was the question of the now-famous unlimited amount of wealth that a person could have in order to be able to avail themselves of SCHIP. I hesitate to even repeat the charge because it was so untrue and was known to be untrue, because none of the waivers for such action were ever given by President Bush.

So that factual statement did not exist, but in any event, the fact is now and I thank our Republican colleagues for insisting upon the clarity that says no one making over 300 percent of poverty, no State can allow people to receive the benefits of SCHIP. So there's a cap, a 300 percent of poverty, as to who may receive the benefit.

Secondly, the question of undocumented, those people who are in our country but have not been here that length of time that would qualify. So the undocumented are one category, and the undocumented are not allowed to receive benefits from this initiative. It was clear in the first bill. It's even clearer in the second bill.

So the cap on who can receive it, stronger language as to undocumented, and, third, the issue of adults. Adults were in the program because people thought as a lure to families they could get children in the program. Republicans objected to that. There was an exaggeration of the number of adults who are in the program; but, nonetheless, in the interests of the children the new legislation contains a provision that adults, under one circumstance, will be phased out in 2 years and, in another circumstance, in 1 year, so that it's a faster, faster removal of adults from the system.

As a mother of five, though, I have to insist that Governors still be allowed to provide health care to pregnant women because we cannot talk about the health of our children, especially getting one out to the earliest, healthiest start, unless we talk about the health of pregnant women.

So, again, three areas: the cap, 300 percent; no illegal aliens, to use your term, I prefer undocumented, are able to get benefits; and adults are phased out of the program. The adults were only in the program because the Bush administration gave the waiver to enable them to be in the program; but, nonetheless, that is now out of the question.

So we have this opportunity, once again, for this Congress to speak and vote in support of children. This is so important. It's a very positive day for me because when people ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress, I always say the same thing--our children, our children, our children: their health, the education, the economic security of their families, a safe and healthy environment in which they can thrive, and a world at peace in which they can reach their fulfillment.

And on every one of those scores, this Congress has acted in a strong bipartisan way on behalf of the children. The health, we're talking about today. The education, this Congress in a strong bipartisan way passed the biggest package for college affordability since the GI Bill of Rights was signed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, over 60 years ago, and this Congress said we are standing with the children in terms of expanding their opportunity.

The health today, the education and many other educational initiatives. I point that one out because it's a start. The economic security of their families, this Congress voted in a very strong bipartisan way to raise the minimum wage, the first time it was raised in 10 years, and with a strong bipartisan vote.

Also, in a very strong bipartisan vote, we voted for the Innovation Agenda, the COMPETES Act, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one, keep good-paying jobs and businesses in the United States, helping the economic security of our families.

And then the environment in which they live, again in a strong bipartisan way, we passed legislation to make the air they breathe, the water they drink cleaner. All of this was done, again strong bipartisan votes, highest ethical standard, no new deficit spending, all of it so that none of the advantages that we were conveying to children would be accompanied with a bill heaping mountains of debt onto them into the future.

Part of that also was to operate in the most honest and open way. In a strong bipartisan way, we passed our ethics reform bill so that we are here for the children's interest and not special interests.

So this Congress this year has had a strong bipartisan record in support of our children, and I thank both the Republicans and the Democrats for supporting those initiatives. Almost all of that except this SCHIP has been signed into law by the President of the United States.

Some mention has been made about the fact that there is a fire in California, and as one who has had the privilege of representing the great Golden State of California for 20 years in the Congress, one who understands we had an earthquake in San Francisco, an earthquake in Los Angeles and now these disastrous fires, we all understand how important it is for Members to be at home with their constituents at a time of a natural disaster, a time of tragedy. But that doesn't mean we don't continue with the work of government.

As Mr. Taylor so eloquently said earlier, he was with his constituents in Mississippi while we passed legislation that affected those people here in the Congress, and that was the appropriate way to go. It was then; it is now.

As a matter of fact, I spoke to Governor Schwarzenegger the other day and acknowledged his leadership and the rapid response of the California emergency services team, which is the gold standard, a model for the country. I wanted to find out from him what needs he had from the Federal Government. At the time we had emergency designation. Now we have a major disaster designation by the President, and I salute the President for making that designation, and I thank him for visiting California today.

According to Governor Schwarzenegger, all of the Federal resources that are available to those affected by the disaster, those resources are accessible to those who can help people with that, but we will be taking a bipartisan delegation of appropriators and others who can help meet their needs and get a better picture of what's on the ground there after the fire subsides.

So this is something that is a very high priority for this Speaker of the House, the first Californian to ever serve as Speaker, with great love for our great State.

The Governor in that conversation then said, How are we doing on SCHIP? He told me of the calls that he had made, and how important it was to pass this legislation. That's why we are here today.

This is important not only to California's children, but children across the country. The Governor knows a million people have been displaced in California in this natural disaster, and 1.2 million in California will benefit from

this SCHIP bill that we are passing in the Congress today. The Governor understands that. He has been a strong supporter of it, and he is helping us to pass this legislation, recognizing that we have to get the job done. Again, I salute him for his leadership, and I thank him for his support on SCHIP.

Earlier this year under the chairmanship of George Miller, Congressman Chaka Fattah and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro we had a summit, a children's summit, where we had hundreds of scientists from all over the country who came and spoke about our children again, their health, their education, housing, really, every aspect of their lives. One of the people who spoke there was Dr. James Heckman, who is a Nobel laureate, received the Nobel Prize for his work on economics. He is the Director of the Center for Social Program Evaluation, Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago.

What he said that day was that the accident of birth is the greatest source of inequality in American society. He said, a good public policy for our children makes good economic sense. That is from an economist.

I know, as a mom and a grandmother that it makes good sense to care for the health of our children. Our Members, I am sure, across the aisle and all of us here know how important the health of our children is. People across America have understood it.

Easter Seals was here last week to advocate for this legislation. The March of Dimes was here on the day of the vote last week to advocate for this SCHIP legislation. Every organization from AARP and the AMA, the American Medical Association, to YWCA and everything in between alphabetically, Catholic Hospitals Association, Families USA, are out there beating the drum for the passage of this legislation.

Imagine Easter Seals and March of Dimes, within 1 week, both sending hundreds of people to Capitol Hill to lobby for this legislation. It was astounding.

I hope today, when our colleagues have to make a decision about this vote, that they will be thinking about the record of bipartisanship on behalf of America's children and families that this Congress already has. Sometimes it is eclipsed by the disagreement that we have on the war, but it is a fine record, and it is stronger because it is bipartisan.

I hope that our colleagues will be thinking about the children. Some of these little children, one of them, Zeke Taylor, he wasn't a beneficiary of SCHIP. March of Dimes helped him through his early years when he needed health care. But he wanted other children to have that, because he, at age 8 years old, as the ambassador for the March of Dimes, knew that it was important to him and, therefore, it was important to other children as well.

As my colleagues, we are pretty blessed, when you think of it. Think of those of us who will be voting today. We all have health insurance for our children. In my case, it's grandchildren. My children are grown, so it's not a question of that. But you who have children who are still, God bless you, I am so jealous, have your children home, you have health insurance for your children.

The people we are trying to reach with this health insurance can't afford it. By the way, nearly, over 90 percent of them make one-fifth of what a Member of Congress makes, one-fifth of what a Member of Congress makes. So we are talking about people who are playing by the rules who are working to lift themselves into the middle class or to sustain their place in the middle class.

We are talking about a country who has not as an issue, not as a piece of legislation, but a deeply held value, an ethic, that to be a great Nation we have to take care of the health of our children. It should almost go without saying, but it doesn't, and we need the public policy, as Dr. Heckman said, good public policy for our children. We say it is necessary for their health and well-being. He also says that it is essential to our economy.

So there is every compassionate, humanitarian, motherly, fatherly, family reason to be for this legislation, but it also makes good economic sense. By the way, it also makes good national security sense.

Again, we have had our moment. We are like a family here. We have had our moments. It's time to put the children first.

I urge all of you to support this legislation that is before us for America's children, for all of America's children, to take our country in a new direction for them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for bringing this rule to the floor that will enable us to vote for this important bipartisan bill which has broad support, H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007.

I commend our colleague, Mr. Boucher, for his persistent and relentless leadership on this legislation. In advancing this, Mr. Boucher, you have advanced the cause of protecting our existing wilderness, and all of us who care about the wilderness and our park lands are deeply in your debt.

As we come to the floor, though, today, Mr. Speaker, I do want to call additional attention of my colleagues that as we gather here this afternoon, wildfires are raging in my home State of California. The President has declared an emergency. I hope that it will

be limited to that. But the way the fire is raging, I'm afraid it may come to the point of a major disaster. The Governor of California, Governor Schwarzenegger, has just reported that 750 homes have been totally destroyed, 68,000 homes are endangered; 250,000 acres of land, an area the size of the entire City of New York, has been devastated by the fire, much of it wilderness areas. And in addition to that, 365,000 people have been evacuated from their homes.

In any consideration of what is happening there, it's very important to salute our firefighters for their courage and their tireless, tireless effort to end this fire, which is a tough battle because of the winds and, hopefully, they will die down soon. It is possible that if the fire continues to rage, we may have to appeal to the President to declare this a major disaster and therefore eliminate any capping of support that we would have for California, and that would have implications, as we know, for other fires that may occur in our country.

So this is when the American people look to government to step up to the plate and to be there for them. The firefighters are doing their share. The people are acting in a very responsible way in the evacuations. The local government is doing well, according to what the Governor says and, of course, the State of California has this as an emergency of the highest, highest order. So far they have been able to avail themselves of whatever is available from the Federal Government. We may have to expand on that if the fires continue to rage.

But to those who have suffered personal losses, whether it's the loss of a loved one, personal injury, loss of their homes and their communities, I extend the deepest sympathy and the fullest support as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

With that, again, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Boucher's bipartisan legislation to protect the Virginia wilderness, and in advance of any needs that we may have for the wildfires in California, inform my colleagues of the extent of the damage that we know to date and the need that we have for support. This compact between the people and the Federal Government is never called upon more strongly than in time of a natural disaster of this kind.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend him for his exceptional leadership on this issue.

The issue of health care for Americans has been a signature issue for the Dingell family. Mr. Dingell, the distinguished chairman's father, was the author of legislation for access to health care for all Americans. He continues that tradition. He was in the chair the day and gaveled the vote on Medicare. So thank you for your years of experience and leadership, and, again, your leadership on this important issue of insuring our children.

This isn't about an issue; this is about a value. Thank you, Mr. Stark, thank you, Mr. Pallone, for your leadership, and thanks to the distinguished Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for his important and relentless leadership on this issue.

My colleagues, as I listen to the debate today, I hear a lot of subterfuge and distractions; but the fact is that this is a discussion about America's children and it is a discussion about America. There is no industrialized country in the world that anyone respects that does not provide health insurance for its children. We are the exception. This is not a designation to be proud of.

But the American people in their wisdom have this not as an issue, but as a value, as an ethic. That is why I am so proud of what has transpired since we took our first vote on this bill. That day I said we could establish ourselves as ``the Children's Congress,'' and we did. Work remains to be done to bring that to fruition.

In the meantime, across our country, Democrats and Republicans, Governors and mayors, people who work with children or have the responsibility of delivering a system of health care have been advocating for this reauthorization of SCHIP that we have before us today. Every organization you can name, from AARP to YWCA, and everything in between, the American Medical Association, Catholic Hospital Association, Families USA, every organization you can name is supporting this legislation.

I am so proud, because earlier this week Easter Seals representatives covered the Hill with hundreds of advocates visiting Members' offices. We were pleased to hear from the president of Easter Seals, President James Williams, who said, ``Without health care coverage, our early intervention in other programs for children cannot be successful.'' That is why the Easter Seals organization was here.

He was very eloquent in his advocacy, but no more eloquent than the young children who were here to tell us their stories.

Today, representatives of the March of Dimes, over 400 of them, are visiting offices on Capitol Hill. And Jennifer Howse, president of the March of Dimes, has stated that SCHIP ``is the health insurance lifeline for millions of low-income children who have no other way to obtain coverage.''

Our country has put poor children first; that's called Medicaid. The poorest of the poor children in our country are able to receive health care through Medicaid.

I wish you could have heard the stories of some of the parents who told us, Bethany's parents who were in the other day. The press asked them if they were afraid their family would come under attack because they were lobbying for SCHIP. They said we are already under attack, but we are proud to come forward to support this initiative. We are not proud of the fact that we are low income, they said. We are trying very hard to lift ourselves up into the middle class. We work very hard not to be on Medicaid, but to be among the working poor, it is not something that we brag about, but SCHIP is something that we need.

So when the President wants to have 4 or 5 million children instead of 10 million children in his initiative, is he the one, the decider, who wants to go to that family and say, Your child is out? Bethany had heart problems from birth. She was 2 years old in July. They have been told by some people as they lobbied, The baby is better now; you don't need SCHIP anymore. Well, she does.

They said, We are not just lobbying for Bethany; we are lobbying for all of the children.

As far as the March of Dimes is concerned, and I am proudly wearing their pin, they deal with children with birth defects, and it might interest you to know that one of eight children in America each year is born prematurely, around half a million babies born prematurely. Many of those children, I am not saying all, but many of those children have ongoing conditions and preconditions that bar them from

getting any health insurance. Those children need SCHIP. They are in the category that makes them eligible.

And that category does not include people earning $83,000 a year. So while some of you may use that as an excuse not to vote for the program, I hope you know intellectually it is not a reason to vote against this initiative. There are currently no children enrolled in SCHIP with family income of 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, $83,000 for a family of four. In fact, 91.3 percent of the children enrolled in SCHIP are in families of four that make less than 200 percent of poverty. And 99.95 percent, just a hair under 100 percent of them, are in families under 300 percent of poverty.

So this is a sad thing. We are asking people who are working hard and playing by the rules, they are taking care of their families. They could have stayed out of work and stayed on Medicaid, but that is not what we are encouraging people to do in our country. We are encouraging them to move on and upward. And these families have to come forward and say why they have not attained the American Dream of enough wealth to afford $1,200 a month in health insurance premiums, and that's a big order.

I am so pleased, though, that with the work they have done, Easter Seals, Red Cross and all of the organizations I mentioned earlier, and the Governors and mayors, et cetera, that now 82 percent of the American people support this initiative. If I said it before, I want to say it again.

And let me also say that there are some myths about SCHIP. Well, I don't think that they are myths; I think they are excuses not to vote for the bill. I mentioned one of them. Another one is about illegal aliens.

Clearly, the bill states ``no Federal funding for illegal aliens.'' It says it, but it is also the law of the land. Illegal aliens do not get benefits, so don't use that as an excuse to deprive 10 million children in our country who are eligible for enrollment in SCHIP that they shouldn't get it.

This has been a bipartisan effort, and some of what has been said about SCHIP is simply not true. But don't take it from me. Senator Orrin Hatch, former Chair of the Health Committee in the Senate, now the ranking member, said: ``I believe that some have given the President bad advice on this matter because I believe supporting this bipartisan compromise to provide health coverage to low-income children is the morally right thing to do. If we were truly compassionate, it seems to me, we would endorse this program.'' Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah.

Senator Charles Grassley, former chairman of the Finance Committee, another committee of jurisdiction and now the ranking member said: ``The President's claims about SCHIP are flatly incorrect. The SCHIP bill is not a government takeover of health care. Screaming `socialized medicine' during a health care debate is like screaming `fire' in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from looking at the facts.'' Senator Grassley, Republican Senator from Iowa.

So, my colleagues, we have a decision today to override the President's veto, which would be, in my view, the right thing to do for our children and for our country. It is not about compassion. It is about fairness. It is about fairness. And this is a bill again that has been bipartisan in its development and required enormous sacrifice from the Democrats in the House of Representatives. We had a much higher goal. This is what is achievable for the children. It should have been signed by the President. There is no reason that he has given that is consistent with the facts.

And so I urge my colleagues to think about the children, to think about Bethany and think about a little boy, Zeke, who was in my office this morning. He is the ambassador of the March of Dimes for 2007. He is 8 years old, born prematurely at a pound and a half, and now going out and speaking on behalf of the needs of other children.

The President is isolated in this. Don't join him in his isolation. Come forward on behalf of the children and let's truly send a signal that we are about the future. I tried to do that when I was sworn in by being surrounded by children. It was a spontaneous moment, but it was one that was clear in its message: We are gaveling this House to order on behalf of the children.

There is nothing more important that we have to do in our work than make sure that our children are healthy and safe. Today we have an opportunity to do that. Let's not miss that opportunity. Let's give a vote for the children and against the President's veto.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his excellent management of this rule affording us the opportunity to bring this important legislation to the floor.

I commend Chairman Reyes and Chairman Conyers for their leadership

in protecting and defending the American people by putting forth the best way to collect intelligence under the law.

Mr. Speaker, as we say over and over again here, and each one of us who comes to serve in this body, indeed, everyone who serves our country takes an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It's a thrill to take that oath of office.

As we protect and defend the American people in the preamble, it says to form a more perfect Union, Mr. Jackson has been a champion on that, to provide for the common defense. In that preamble, that's a high priority for us. We have a responsibility to protect the American people; that makes everything else possible in our community and in our society.

But as we protect and defend the American people, our oath of office calls upon us to protect and defend the Constitution and our civil liberties. The legislation before us today does just that. It's about protecting the American people from terrorism and other national security threats.

I, for a long time, have served on the Intelligence Committee, both as a member, as the ranking member, and also ex officio as leader and now as Speaker. I believe very firmly in the role that intelligence gathering plays in protecting the American people. We want to prevent war. We want to prevent harm to our forces. Force protection is a very, very high priority for us. Protection of our forces. And we must now meet this horrible challenge of fighting terrorism in the world. It has been a challenge for some time. In order to do that, we have to have the laws in place in order to collect that intelligence under the law, and that is what this legislation does. First, it helps us defend our country against terrorism and other threats. Secondly, it protects the privacy of the American people, which is important to them and a responsibility for us. And third, this legislation restores a system of checks and balances and how we protect and defend our country and provides for rigorous oversight by Congress of this collection.

In the 1970s, when the FISA law was passed, it was conceded that Congress had a role in determining how intelligence was conducted, how the executive branch conducted the collection of intelligence, the executive branch, Congress, making laws to govern that, two Houses, two branches of government. And in the FISA bill that was passed at that time, the role of the third branch of government was defined, the FISA Courts. That system of checks and balances has served our country well. With the advance of technology, additional challenges arose, and this legislation meets those challenges. Any suggestions to the contrary are simply not factual. What the Director of National Intelligence has asked for in terms of collection he has received in this legislation, and he has received it under the law.

The legislation restores checks and balances in other ways. It rejects groundless claims of inherent executive authority. Under that, we might as well just crown the President king and just say he has access to any information in our country, and he may collect that outside the law.

And this legislation reiterates that the law enacted by Congress, FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence. The principle of exclusivity is a very, very important principle, and it is enshrined in this legislation.

The bill also sunsets by December 31, 2009, at the same time the PATRIOT Act sunsets, so the next administration and another Congress can review whether the new program appropriately meets national security and civil liberty objectives.

This bill does not provide immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the President's warrantless surveillance program. As I have said many times, you can't even consider such relief unless we know what people are asking for immunity from. Congress is not a rubber stamp; we are a coequal branch of government. We have a right to know what conduct the administration wants us to immunize against.

Working side by side, the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee have produced an excellent bill. It has been heralded so by those organizations whose organized purpose is to protect our civil liberties in light of our responsibility to our national security. It has been heralded by those who follow and hold as a value the privacy of the American people. It has been heralded by those who understand that one of our first responsibilities is to provide for the common defense. Our Founders understood it well, the balance that needed to be struck between security and liberty. They spoke eloquently to it in their speeches. They enshrined it in the Constitution. Let us protect the American people under the law.

Please, my colleagues, support this very important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding, and I appreciate his strong leadership in protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States. He leads us well in honoring our oath of office that we take.

I commend the cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation, Mr. Boucher and Mr. Pence, for their leadership and commitment to working in a bipartisan way on an issue central to our democracy.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.'' Freedom of the press, protected by the first amendment, has been a cornerstone of our democracy, one that we cherish and promote around the world.

A free press keeps our Nation informed and holds those of us in government accountable. It is critical to freedom of speech and expression in our country. Freedom of the press is fundamental to our democracy and it is fundamental to our security.

Speaking truth to power is vital to our democracy today, as it has been throughout our history.

Mr. Speaker, the recent contracting scandals in Iraq, the appalling care of our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital, and the hidden Medicare drug prescription estimates a few years ago are several of the many examples where press coverage shaped our debate and our actions. These stories are central to accountability, the accountability necessary to make our Nation stronger and to be better stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.

However, the essential work of the press has been severely hampered by the lack of a consistent Federal standard or a federally recognized privilege concerning the disclosure of confidential sources by journalists. As a result, in recent years, more than 40 reporters have been subpoenaed for the identities of confidential sources in nearly a dozen cases.

Former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who served under President George W. Bush, wrote recently in The Washington Post, ``Journalists reporting on high-profile controversies cannot function effectively without offering some measure of confidentiality to their sources. Their ability to do so yields substantial benefits to the public in the form of stories that might otherwise never be written about corruption and abuse of power.''

Nearly all States have some form of press shield protecting the confidentiality of journalist sources; however, that protection is lacking at the Federal level and in the Federal courts.

It is for this reason that I have long supported a Federal press shield law, without which freedom of the press is threatened. The Federal Government's policies and actions should protect and preserve the press's ability to speak

truth to power. And this legislation does so with appropriate national security safeguards, striking a careful balance between liberty and security.

Freedom of the press has long been an issue of importance to many of us in this body. When I was the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, I encouraged President Clinton to veto the Intelligence Committee authorization bill one year because it made it easier to prosecute journalists. We fixed those provisions and passed a bill that both protected our Nation and protected our fundamental freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, we seek today to protect the freedom of the press that has served our Nation so well. We also seek to make clear to confidential sources that they will be protected in most circumstances when they bring forward public evidence of waste, fraud and abuse in government and in the private sector.

As we protect and defend our Nation, we must now protect and defend the Constitution by enabling our press to be free, as our Founders envisioned.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the United States has a long and deep history of supporting the sovereignty and independence of the Lebanese people. That is why we must condemn in the strongest terms possible continued Syrian and Iranian interference in Lebanese affairs.

The Lebanese parliament is currently engaged in the process of selecting a new president, a task unfortunately complicated by the meddling of outsiders, most notably Syria and Iran, and their terrorist proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah. Syrian and Iranian interference in Lebanon must be condemned by the international community in the strongest possible terms and it must immediately end.

The resolution before the House chronicles the tragic toll exacted on Lebanon and its people by its neighbors. It is a tale of a peaceful people seeking a better future who again and again have seen their hopes dashed due to the cruel and opportunistic machinations of Iran and Syria.

I recently met for the second time this year with Sheikh Saad Hariri, the leader of the majority in the Lebanese parliament, whose family has given so much for the freedom of the Lebanese people. Mr. Hariri made an eloquent appeal for help from the Congress of the United States and other parliamentary bodies to expose the interference of non-Lebanese groups in the selection of Lebanon's next president. I commend the bipartisan leadership of the House Foreign Affairs Committee for acting quickly so the House could go on record against these tactics before the next meeting of the Lebanese parliament later this month.

The politically-motivated violence that has been so much a part of Lebanon's recent history has not dampened the desire of the Lebanese people for self-determination.

The Cedar Revolution was an eloquent and powerful testament to that fact; a fact which deserves the respect of all nations. Passage of this resolution puts the House squarely on the side of the freedom-loving people of Lebanon and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to acknowledge the passing of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis and to pay tribute to her. As we all know, she passed away on Saturday. And although she had been diagnosed a while ago, we knew she was sick, it still hit this Congress very hard to lose her.

Congresswoman Davis was tremendously proud to represent Virginia's First District, which she called ``America's First District'' because it included Jamestown. She spoke often on this floor of the deep patriotism of her constituents and of the pride of the many brave men and women in uniform who were her constituents.

When Jo Ann Davis was elected to Congress, as has been mentioned by some, she made history as the first female Republican ever elected to the House from Virginia; but she knew it was far more critical to make progress than to make history, and she did, particularly in honoring our troops and our veterans. In fact, the first piece of legislation Congresswoman Davis ever introduced increased the life insurance benefits paid to survivors of military members killed on duty, and that passed the House in 2001.

After being diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005, Congresswoman Davis became an outspoken advocate in favor of education, prevention and treatment of the disease. We in this body can express our admiration for her dedication with a real national commitment to fighting this disease which annually takes the lives of 40,000 American women.

The Daily Press of Newport News, Virginia wrote of their Member of Congress this weekend, ``You can, as Jo Ann Davis amply demonstrated, succeed in politics by making friends, working hard, and doing your duty.'' All of us in this body can honor Congresswoman Davis's legacy by doing just that.

As was mentioned about the patriotism of her district, she was deeply patriotic as well. She loved our country, and this Congress loved her. When she was diagnosed, we all hovered over her and prayed for her and were deeply saddened. At first, she would be gone for a while, and when she came back, we all encircled her and hugged her, and as it turned out, drew strength from her. As we were trying to encourage her, she gave us strength. Her attitude, her dignity, and the strength with which she confronted this terrible disease was something that was a lesson for all of us. When she passed away, we were all very, very deeply saddened, as I mentioned before, to get that sad news.

She was really a bright light in this Congress. I hope it is a comfort to her

husband, Chuck Davis, to her family, her two sons, her granddaughter, and her many family and friends that so many people in our country, indeed, intensely in this Congress, mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his tremendous work on

behalf of health care for all Americans in our country and in this case for our children. I commend Mr. Pallone for his leadership as well, and the distinguished chairmen, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Dingell.

I salute the bipartisan vote that we had in the Congress to send the SCHIP legislation to the President of the United States. It was strong and bipartisan. It was about the children. And I also salute the strong vote in the United States Senate. I commend Senators Hatch and Grassley for lending their weight and bipartisanship to this important legislation. They joined Senators Rockefeller and Baucus on this important issue.

Madam Speaker, as we all know and has been spoken already, today the President of the United States missed an opportunity to say to the children of America your health and well-being are important to us, so important that we are making you a priority. Today, the President said ``no'' to bipartisan legislation that would have extended health care to 10 million American children for the next 5 years.

The President said ``no'' to giving assurances to America's working families that if they work hard and play by the rules, we are their partners in raising the next generation of Americans and investing in the future.

In his speech and his veto statement, the President indicated we were doing something in this bill that we were not, that we were expanding eligibility. No, we were just enrolling all of the children who are eligible. In fact, we didn't have enough money to enroll all of them, but as many as could be afforded by a bill that could receive bipartisan support.

The President said that we are moving toward socialized medicine and that he supports private medicine. Well, so do we, and this is about private medicine. It is about children being able to get insurance so they can have health care. The fact is that 72 percent of the children on SCHIP receive their health care through private insurance programs.

I think the strongest indication of the President's commitment to this initiative came when he was Governor of Texas. At that time the State of Texas ranked 49th in its participation in SCHIP in meeting the needs of the children of Texas.

SCHIP started as a bipartisan initiative with a Democratic President, President Clinton in the White House and a Republican Congress which came together in a bipartisan way in order to provide for the needs of our children. Once again with the reauthorization of the bill, we have come together in a bipartisan way to provide for the needs of our children.

Sadly, following true to form, this form in Texas, 49th in the country, and how could Texas be 49th in the country with all of the pride that Texas takes in its stature, its size, its commitment to the future, its large number of beautiful and diverse children, that it would allow 48 States to be ahead of them in meeting the health needs of America's children from poor working families.

What I know will happen today is that we will vote for a time certain in 2 weeks for us to bring up the override of the veto. At that time I hope that with the 43 Governors across the country, Democrats and Republicans alike, with bipartisan overwhelming support in the House and Senate, with every organization from AARP to YMCA and everything alphabetically in between, including the Catholic Hospital Association, Families USA, and the American Medical Association talking about private medicine, and the list goes on, that Members will listen, at least listen to those who care about children, who have standing in caring about children because I believe every person in this Congress cares about children, and I think it would be important for us to hear the voices of those who on a day-to-day basis try to help families who need some assistance in meeting the health needs of their children.

So, my colleagues, this is, as Mr. Hoyer said, a defining moment for the Congress of the United States. The President has said ``no.'' This Congress must not take ``no'' for an answer, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on a time certain when we can take up the override of the President's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, an initiative to provide 10 million children health care, health insurance for 5 years. The difference between us and the President is 41 days in Iraq. For 41 days in Iraq, 10 million children can receive health care for 1 year.

Let's get our priorities in order. Let's recognize that the strength of our country, in addition to being defined by military might, is defined by the health and well-being of the American people, starting with our children.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and thank him for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the

floor. I thank him for mentioning my name in the same breath with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. You compliment me, Mr. Chairman. You and I know that the sacrifice she has been making for so many years is incomparable, really, in the world.

For many years, many of us, Chris Smith, Dana Rohrabacher, John Porter when he was here, worked on this issue for a very long time. John Porter and Chairman Lantos co-chaired the Human Rights Caucus, and the issue of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and repression in Burma was and has been an important priority for them.

So today we are coming together again following this horrible crackdown in Burma, and I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution condemning that crackdown on the peaceful protesters in Burma and calling for the immediate release of Burma's democracy leader, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. I thank Mr. Lantos for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for many decades has been a leader on this issue. She won the last democratic election in 1990 and has spent the last decade under house arrest away from her husband and her two children. Who in the world could have the courage and strength that she has had? When her husband was ill and was in the United Kingdom for his treatment, she could not visit him. When he passed away, she could not attend his funeral. Imagine the personal sacrifice of this great leader. Imagine the turmoil within her. But she understood that the democracy for all of the people of Burma was more important than the personal needs that she had for her family. What greatness.

She has seen her supporters beaten, tortured and killed; and, yet, she has never responded with hatred and violence. All she ever asked for was peaceful dialogue.

Others have mentioned some of the provisions of the legislation, and I think it is important to continue to mention them: condemn the crackdown. Mr. King particularly emphasized the role of China in all of this. And, yes, we should act in a bipartisan way, Mr. King.

This resolution demands that the People's Republic of China and other countries that provide political and economic support for Burma's military junta end such support.

This resolution firmly insists that Burma's military regime begin a meaningful tripartite political dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy, and ethnic nationalities; demands the immediate unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, detained monks and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience; calls on governments around the world, including the nations of the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to severely tighten their sanctions regime against Burma; calls on the United Nations Security Council to immediately pass a resolution imposing multilateral sanctions on Burma's military regime.

Of course, this cannot happen without China's cooperation on the Security Council. That is why their role is so important. It is also important because of the role they have played in propping up the junta. I am disappointed but not surprised that China is using its veto power at the United Nations Security Council to block the condemnation of the recent crackdown. For many years, the Chinese Government has helped prop up the Burmese, I think of them as thugs, but the Burmese regime, by blocking multilateral sanctions and providing substantial economic and military assistance to the Burmese Government.

China is Burma's largest trading partner, and it is estimated that China controls more than 60 percent of the Burmese economy and has provided close to $3 billion in military aid since the early 1990s.

Simply said, the Burmese regime would not have the strength and power that it has absent the support of China. We're calling on China to use its influence to bring about a political negotiation with the pro- democracy activists. This is a golden opportunity for China to show that it can be a force for peace and stability in the world.

In the last few weeks, we all know that we've seen an extraordinary turn of events in Burma. This has been there for a long time. The repression has been there for a long time, but in these last few weeks, courageous people led by Buddhist monks have taken to the streets to stand up to a corrupt, illegitimate military regime that has repressed the country for nearly 20 years.

The ruthless crackdown is outrageous, and the international community must not stand by while peaceful protesters are arrested, beaten and murdered.

Let there be no doubt that the United States stands with the freedom- seeking people of Burma in their just cause.

President Bush is to be commended for supporting tougher sanctions on those responsible for the gross violations of human rights. We can and should go further in bringing diplomatic pressure to bear on the regime. I know we all look forward to working closely with the President on this as we go forward.

And so I again commend Aung San Suu Kyi as years ago, she called on individuals, organizations and governments to support Burma's democracy movement, and at that time, she said please use your liberty to promote ours.

Today, on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, we are doing just that. I commend Aung San Suu Kyi for her courage and her leadership. The people of Burma are rising up and demanding their country back. The world must meet this challenge to our conscience.

I thank again Mr. Lantos and Mr. Smith and all of my colleagues, in a bipartisan way, in support of democracy in Burma.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a great American pioneer, Jean Picker Firstenberg, the outgoing President and CEO of the American Film Institute. Her 27-year tenure has marked AFI as one of America's greatest national cultural and educational resources. Under Jean Picker Firstenberg's visionary leadership, AFI has fulfilled its mission of excellence in screen education and the recognition and celebration of excellence in the art of film, television and digital media.

From the moment she joined AFI in 1980, Firstenberg was effective from the start, acquiring an 8-acre campus in Los Angeles, and accrediting the AFI Conservatory through the National Association of Schools of Art and Design.

In the 1980s, Firstenberg incorporated television and video into AFI's work, and established the AFI Los Angeles International Film Festival, AFI FEST, which has become a world-renowned annual event.

In the 1990s, she embraced the digital revolution, starting with the AFI-Apple Computer Center for Film and Videomakers, and adding the AFI Media and Technology division, the AFI Digital Content Lab, and Virtual AFI Web sites (AFI.com, AFIFEST.com, and SIL VERDOCS.com.

Firstenberg has brought the art and science of storytelling to children through the AFI K-12 Screen Education Center that utilizes the advantages of digital and Internet technology to teach core subjects in America's schools, and to the general public through the AFI Showcase at the Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park in Orlando, Florida that depicts AFI programs and projects to millions of guests each year.

Firstenberg has celebrated the diverse talents and creativity of American filmmakers in the innovative AFI's 100 Years . . . 100 Movies series she began in 1998. Millions of Americans have revisited old favorites and discovered new classics with the AFI series, which includes 100 Years . . . 100 Stars (1999), 100 Years . . . 100 Laughs (2000), 100 Years . . . 100 Thrills (2001), 100 Years . . . 100 Passions (2002), Years . . . 100 Heroes & Villains (2003),100 Years . . . 100 Songs, (2004), 100 Years . . . 100 Quotes (2005), and 100 Years . . . 100 Cheers (2006).

Another milestone, reached in 2003, was the opening of the AFI Silver Theatre and Cultural Center in Silver Spring, MD, a state-of-the-art center for the moving image arts. It hosts SILVERDOCS, a film festival for aspiring documentary filmmakers, and anchors a revitalized community.

Firstenberg has continually embraced new media and blazed a trail for others to follow. She is rightfully proud of 27 years of funding the Directors Workshop for Women. Most of the women directors working in the film industry today come from this program.

As she prepares to take leave of her day-to-day responsibilities at AFI, she will continue her service in her capacity as a lifetime trustee and through her legacy as a mentor, entrepreneur and role model. She will do so with the love and support of her family, particularly her daughter, Debra and her husband Michael Kusma, and their children Rachel, Sarah, and Christopher; her son Doug, his wife Suzanne, and their children Samantha, Drew, and Lindy; and her brother David Picker, and his wife, Sandy. Firstenberg's commitment to excellence and ethics in filmmaking is best captured by her AFI Conservatory graduates who describe her this way: ``She has made AFI a place committed to the notion that television and film are more than commerce or technology--they are our investment in the future; in fact, our legacy. That we are to be held responsible for the images we perpetuate in the culture. And that one institute would take on the task of encapsulating the hard truths and dreams of a nation by preparing the storytellers of its future.''

Madam Speaker, I ask the Congress of the United States to recognize the vision, talent and contributions that Jean Picker Firstenberg has made to enrich our cultural heritage and to encourage future generations to capture the imagination and innovation of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the distinguished chairman for recalling to mind that opening day here when I accepted the gavel on behalf of the children of America, all of the children of America. And when we had this debate before in Congress, we talked about perhaps the children listening to this debate, hearing what Members of Congress were saying. And I expressed my hope that they would consider this the children's Congress.

I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for his leadership, and Mr. Stark, the Chair of the Health Subcommittee for helping to make this the children's Congress with this legislation. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee for his tremendous leadership.

Mr. Rangel and Mr. Dingell went into the conversations with the Republican leadership in the Senate on this bill, true champions of America's children, knowing the facts and figures, the provisions, every provision of the bill with such authority as they argued on behalf of America's children so effectively that this legislation before us reflects many of the provisions that were in the House bill. We had to agree to the Senate language in terms of the $35 billion and the pay-for with the tax on tobacco. We had hoped that we could do more in terms of the money allocated for this purpose so that we could cover more children.

As I praise Mr. Dingell, I also want to acknowledge the fabulous leadership of Mr. Pallone, Chairman Pallone of the Subcommittee on Health in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Because of their leadership, we were able to join Senator Reid, Chairman Baucus, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Grassley, and Ranking Member Hatch in having a very bipartisan conversation on this subject. The people who were in the room that evening cared about passing a serious piece of legislation to expand health care for America's children. Not to expand the eligibility, as some on the other side of this House would have you believe, but to expand the number of kids who could be served if they met the eligibility. I, myself, had hoped that we could go beyond that and have eligible children in America who were legal immigrants. I was told that that would not fly in the Senate; that is a fight we will hold for another day.

But I am pleased as one who represents a minority majority district

from a majority minority State, where our State is blessed with a beautiful diversity, that of the additional children, nearly 4 million additional children covered, 67 percent of those children are minority children. Two-thirds of those children are children from families who are working hard, playing by the rules, lifting themselves out of poverty. They are the working poor in America. They are those who have aspired to the middle class to change that status and want to stay there. They simply don't make enough money to afford the private health insurance that this SCHIP initiative enables them to do. In fact, 72 percent, my colleagues might be interested to know that 72 percent of the children on this SCHIP program get their health coverage from private health insurance.

There are many misrepresentations, and I think they are probably unwitting because I assume that every person in this Congress cares about insuring as many children in our country as possible. How could it not be so? It is a deeply held value in our country that our children, as President Kennedy said, are our greatest resource and our best hope for the future. We must invest in them. We have a moral responsibility to do so.

When we had the debate on this bill and it first came to the floor, I was delighted in quoting a poem from my youth from Longfellow when he said, ``Between the dark and the daylight, when the night is beginning to lower, comes a pause in the day's occupation that is known as the children's hour.'' This is the children's hour for us in the Congress of the United States.

I quoted Longfellow then, I am reminded of the Bible tonight, and I speak with all of the sincerity and all of the hope to President Bush in the hope that he will change his mind to dig deeply into his heart and think about the children in America who don't have health care. Because, if not, I think that the President is giving new meaning to the words ``suffer, little children.'' Suffer, little children, if your parents can't afford health insurance, but they are working hard and they are not on Medicaid, but you will suffer because they are struggling to give you the best possible future. Suffer, little children, if your family has played by the rules and they have come to this country and you are here as a legal immigrant, because if you are sick, you will not get health care unless your parents can afford private insurance. Suffer, little children, if you are sick because you haven't had the proper nutrition, the proper prevention, the proper early intervention to your affliction, that you should go directly to the emergency room. But until you can get into that emergency room with enough of a serious illness, you will suffer. That is just not right.

I would hope that the President would have had a change of heart and mind since he was Governor of Texas. When he was Governor of Texas, the SCHIP program there, in meeting the needs of the children of Texas, ranked 49th in the country; 49th in the country. Forty-eight States were doing better in meeting the health needs of their children as reflected in the outreach of the SCHIP program. Does that mean that Texas is the 49th wealthiest State in the Union, that the children in that State can all afford private health care? I don't think so, especially since that State, as with mine, is blessed with beautiful diversity and people, again, families who come to America, families who are part of our country, who are struggling to make ends meet to build a better future for their children. And building that better future is what our country is all about, and those newcomers make America more American. I heard the President say that.

We also heard him say that in this term of office that he would enroll every child who is eligible. I am sure our distinguished majority leader will bring that to the attention of this body.

What is interesting about this is that the President, if he persists in vetoing this bill, and by the way, you don't have to be a Latin scholar to know that ``veto'' means ``I forbid.'' With that pen, the President says, I forbid struggling families in America to have health care for their children. I forbid every child to be treated the same if they have an ailment.

How did any one of us decide that we were going to choose, you will have health care and you will not, in a country as great as ours when we are talking about our children? We are talking about our children.

So that is why the Conference of Mayors, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a bipartisan organization, has overwhelmingly supported this legislation. That is why 43 Governors sent us a letter in July urging us to come to bipartisan agreement on legislation that would reauthorize SCHIP to care for many more children in our country. So when I hear the President say that we don't want to help children, we just want to do politics, I don't think he means that. So I hope he doesn't mean that he is going to veto the bill.

Senator Grassley said of the President: The President's understanding of our bill is wrong. I urge him to reconsider his veto message based on our bill, not something that someone on his staff told him wrongly is in the bill. Actually, he said, ``in my bill,'' Senator Grassley said. And Senator Hatch said: We are talking about kids who basically don't have coverage. I think the President has some pretty bad advice on this.

And I want to also commend Representative Ray LaHood and join you, Mr. Chairman, in saying what a privilege it is to call him ``colleague'' and to serve with him in the Congress, and thank him for his leadership in making a distinction between what is about the children and what is about politics in this House.

I talked about the mayors; I talked about the Governors. Nearly 300 organizations in our country, alphabetically from AARP to YMCA and everything alphabetically in between, Families USA.

I heard someone say the doctors should be making the decisions. The American Medical Association firmly supports this bill. The President of the AMA stood with us in a press conference today to support this legislation. The Society of Pediatrics. Everyone who has anything to do or cares about children in our country knows that this bill is the way to go. It is not everything I want, believe me, it is not the bill I would have written. I would have been far more generous and it would have been paid for in perhaps a different way, but it would have been paid for; because in terms of bringing benefits to our children, we have absolutely no intention of heaping debt onto them.

The Catholic Hospitals Association, again, the list goes on and on about who supports this bill. It is a long list; it is a comprehensive list. And I might include in it that, across the country, overwhelmingly, the American people know and respect the value of taking care of America's children, all of America's children. Two- thirds, two-thirds of those polled among Republican voters, 2-1, they support passing this legislation and having it signed into law.

Why does the President want to isolate himself from caring for America's children? Let's hope and let's pray that a very big, strong bipartisan vote tonight will send him a message to rethink his position.

I see a child in the Chamber. Our constant inspiration of what we do here is supposed to be about the future, and the future demands that we invest in health, the education, and the well-being of our children.

So, my colleagues, vote as if the children are watching. Please vote as if the children are watching, and please send them a message that this is the children's Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I thank Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Boehner for cosponsoring this very important resolution to remember what happened on 9/11 6 years ago.

On that terrible day, our country received an assault that was personal, and it was vicious. Our country responded with unity and with clarity about our resolve to fight terrorism. On a personal basis, for the families who were affected, I want to thank them, the families of 9/11, for turning their grief and their sorrow into action. They inspired our country to form a 9/11 Commission, to have the 9/11 Commission recommendations passed into law and signed by President Bush this summer. For that, all of us who care about the security of our country and the safety of our people owe those families a deep debt of gratitude. We also owe them the sympathy that their lost ones, their loved ones, will always be in our hearts.

Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, I went to Ground Zero. I saw the rebuilding that is going on at that site. It is not without great sadness that one visits that hallowed ground. It is not without remembering when some of us visited the first time 6 years ago following the tragedy. At that time, it was total silence, no speaking, no photographs, just a somber evaluation of the destruction that had been wrought and about the lives that had been lost. Today, Ground Zero is rebuilding. It is rebuilding to remember, with a memorial to remember; and it is rebuilding to say to the terrorists that they have not won.

The main goal of terrorists is to terrorize, to instill fear. They don't care about lives. They don't care about buildings. They just want to make people afraid. They want to change the way we run our country, do our business, live our lives and honor our freedoms. But if that was their goal, they certainly have failed. Whether it is at the Pentagon, where a wreath will be laid tomorrow, or it is in Pennsylvania, where we will mourn that loss forever, or whether it is in New York City at Ground Zero, the American spirit is alive and well. Again, they have lost this fight because we will not change who we are. That is what they resent. That is what we will not relent on.

So to those families, thank you. We will always, again, carry your loved ones in our hearts; but thank you for turning grief into power, into law, into a safer America. To those courageous people who rushed in, whether it was the emergency services, the police and fire, whether it was just volunteers, people off the street going in trying to help, whether it was construction companies going in trying to clear the area, to them we also say thank you for their courage at Ground Zero.

But we owe them more, as well. So I hope that in our resolve to remember and to rebuild, to honor our freedoms and to honor our people, we will understand that we must honor a responsibility we have to those who tried to

save lives at Ground Zero, who may have lost their health because of it. So in my trip to New York at Ground Zero and at City Hall, I talked to the mayor and the Governor about how we can work together in a bipartisan way to see what is fair and what can be done now so that fairness will prevail for these people, but that the message will be clear. God forbid if we are ever faced with another situation that we have a compact with our people that if we stand together, we will not stand alone if we are affected by another tragedy. It is very sad.

I thank Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Boehner for putting together this very excellent resolution. Following the vote later this evening, we will leave the Chamber and go down the steps of the Capitol to have a vigil on the eve of 9/11. As the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, mentioned, 6 years ago, spontaneously, Members, Democrats and Republicans alike, came together and at his suggestion we sang ``God Bless America.'' He is too modest. We will do that again tonight. We will sing that song with all the sincerity in the world. Moved by its beauty, but also committed to its words, we know that God has truly blessed America with our men and women in uniform who are fighting terrorism, with our first responders who are our first line of defense in our community in ensuring homeland security and with all Americans joined together to never forget what happened on 9/11 and never forget that we are committed to our freedoms.

So don't forget, my colleagues, following the vote on this resolution, in about another hour, let's all join together. It will be one of the first memorials to 9/11 this year, once again, on the steps of the Capitol. With that, I commend Mr. Boehner and Mr. Hoyer.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding on this very sad occasion. I am sad to join my colleagues as we face the very sad news regarding the loss of our colleague, Paul Gillmor.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Members of Congress, I rise to pay tribute to Paul Gillmor, who passed away suddenly today. I offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Karen, to his two daughters, Linda and Julie, and his three sons, Paul Michael, Connor, and Adam. How proud he was of his children. That was one thing that we used to chat about quite regularly. I would hear about the progress of the twins and how everybody was doing.

Congressman Paul Gillmor was an experienced and talented legislator who spent much of his life serving his country. His service began in the Air Force where he rose to the rank of captain as an Air Force Judge Advocate. As a true Ohioan, Congressman Gillmor then served his State in public office for more than four decades, first in the Ohio State senate where he was elected President of that body, and later here in the House where he also served ably and was held in highest esteem by his colleagues.

More interested in policy than in seeking the limelight, Paul Gillmor focused his time here in the House squarely on the needs of his constituents. On the Energy and Commerce Committee, he was deeply involved in consumer issues, including protecting consumers from unfair credit report practices. He also worked to preserve our history by supporting and improving sites honoring our Nation's Presidents. As vice president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Congressman Gillmor was the highest ranking American in this highly esteemed international organization of parliamentary members from the 26 NATO states.

Congressman Gillmor's passing is a loss for this House and for our Nation. It is, of course, a greater loss for his family. I hope it is a comfort to them, to Paul's family and friends, that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for us because we also learned of the sudden passing of our former colleague, Jennifer Dunn. She was a distinguished former Member of Congress from the State of Washington and I know we will acknowledge her service and leadership in the Congress on another occasion. But getting hit from all sides on this in one day is a great loss for the Congress.

As I yield back to the distinguished gentlewoman, I also want to thank her for bringing to the attention of so many Members of Congress the passing of Congressman Vanik who served so ably in this body who passed away last week. Anyone who knows about international human rights knows that Congressman Vanik as part of the Jackson-Vanik amendment did so much to free people in the Soviet Union. He made a very big difference for Soviet Jewry.

Ohio has been generous to the country. We mourn the loss of Paul Gillmor and Jennifer Dunn and Charles Vanik, who lived until his 90s, so God blessed him with that long life.

God did not give Paul Gillmor a long life, but he gave him a life of great quality with a beautiful family and the opportunity to serve a State he loved and a country that he was very patriotic about.

On behalf of all of our colleagues, I extend my deepest sympathy to his family.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Archie Green, a distinguished San Franciscan and recipient of the Library of Congress' Living Legend Award.

Dr. Green has devoted most of his 90 years to the study and celebration of people, and to the texture and meaning of their lives as expressed in song, story, custom, belief, ritual, and craft. He became a shipwright's apprentice in the Bay Area in the 1930s. After serving as a carpenter's mate in the Navy during World War II, he returned to San Francisco to become involved in veterans' affairs and to work in the building trades for another 15 years. Along the way he listened and observed and talked with people he met about their working lives and traditions. His passionate interest in workers and their traditions sparked an interest in research and writing that eventually earned him a Ph.D. in folklore. He became a university professor, and wrote seminal books and articles about grassroots culture and the folk traditions of work.

Archie Green's work has stimulated younger generations of scholars to become interested in ``laborlore''--a term he coined. In the union ranks his writings in newsletters and journals have given members a renewed sense of their shared heritage.

Decades ago, believing that the Federal Government had a vital role to play in documenting, supporting, revitalizing, and disseminating America's grassroots knowledge and arts, Dr. Green envisioned a national center that would preserve and present American folklife. He then spent 10 years walking the halls of Congress, explaining to every Senator and every Representative, and to their staffs, why the folk traditions in their States and districts mattered, and why the ordinary citizens who carry them on deserved our recognition. On January 2, 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed into law the American Folklife Preservation Act, PL 94-201, which had passed unanimously by both houses of Congress, and established an American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress.

Thirty-one years later, the American Folklife Center is going strong. It carries out projects and initiatives that document, preserve, and share information about the diverse cultural traditions of the American people. Its archive, now with more than 4 million items, is one of the largest in the world. Its Veterans History Project--launched in 2000 by an act of Congress--is the largest oral history project in the Nation's history.

On August 16 and 17, the American Folklife Center is sponsoring a symposium on laborlore, and Archie Green--the father of laborlore in the United States--will take part. It is highly fitting that, during the symposium, he will be given the Living Legend Award in recognition of his work that has raised our awareness of how our traditions contribute to a larger history.

I join Dr. James H. Billington and the Library of Congress in commending Dr. Green for his contribution to our Nation's history.