Floor Statements

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank Chairman Rangel for yielding.

Speaking on behalf of myself and on behalf of the entire New York Republican delegation of myself and Congressman Lee--a very powerful two-man delegation against 27--seriously, Congressman Owens, it is a privilege to welcome you to the House of Representatives.

Thank you for your years of service to your country. We look forward to working with you. You will find, whether it's 27-2 or 18-13--or whatever it was a few years ago--we in the New York delegation do work across the aisle and work with each other, and I wish you the very best.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I am proud to rise in support of this legislation which will be naming a post office in honor of Jack Kemp.

As the Speaker well knows, Jack Kemp was a long-time Congressman from New York. Jack Kemp was a proud Republican who was always willing to reach across party lines. Jack Kemp was a principled conservative who tried to find ways always to make those who were not as well off as others, to enable them to move up in society.

He was particularly interested in low-income areas. He was particularly interested in expanding housing opportunities for the underprivileged. As the Speaker knows, Congressman Kemp worked very closely with Congressman Garcia in the Bronx to expand housing, to provide more opportunities. Jack Kemp was a Republican who saw a large world. He saw a world where we could reach out to all people.

In my own case, I was proud to call Jack Kemp a friend. I knew him for many years before I had the opportunity to be here in Congress. During that time I was always struck by his integrity, by his candor and by his willingness to explain, even to people like myself, the nuances of economics. Jack Kemp was the author and the architect--and no one was more involved than he was in the Reagan Revolution--of the Kemp-Roth tax bills which brought unprecedented job growth to this country.

Mr. Speaker, Jack Kemp personified the very best of this Congress. He personified the very best of being an all-pro athlete, a person who was always there for his friends, always there for his country, a man who until the day he died was fighting for the principles he believed in.

I am proud to join in this resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, the issue of chemical plant security is obviously a very vital one. It's one that has to be addressed. It's an issue which certainly since September 11 is more vital than ever. That is why, in 2006, the Homeland Security Committee, when I was chairman working across the aisle, worked long and hard to enact landmark legislation. There was much negotiation. There was much debate. We covered issues such as preemption and inherently safer technology.

Legislation was put in place, and that is the basis upon which the Department has been acting for the past 3 years. And this legislation that we enacted then is in the process of being implemented by the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, the Department, itself, asked for a 1-year extension. That was voted on in the appropriations bill last month, which I strongly supported. As far as I know, the administration has not asked for this legislation, and I'm not aware of any statement of support that they've sent up in support of it.

But before I get to that, let me just commend the chairman, Mr. Thompson, the Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Jackson-Lee, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Dent, because even though we are going to have differences during this debate today, I want to emphasize the fact that this was done very fairly, very openly, and with a tremendous spirit of cooperation from your side of the aisle and I hope from ours as well. The differences today are very honest ones, but I want to emphasize the level of cooperation that existed throughout this process.

I am, however, opposed to the legislation because I believe it is going to create confusion and undue cost. It is going to cost jobs, and it's going to raise taxes. It gives far too much credibility to IST, or inherently safer technology, which is a concept, yet this concept will have, I believe, a very stifling effect on the private sector. We should keep in mind that we're not just talking about large chemical plant facilities, but we're also talking about institutions such as colleges and hospitals which will have to incur these costs.

The current law is working. And I asked the chairman this during the time of the debate when it was in the committee, what is the rush to move it through? And when I say ``rush,'' obviously, if it had to be done, we should do it immediately, we should do it yesterday. But the fact is that the Department did not ask for this extension, did not ask for these changes. I believe that we took a good concept, an admirable concept of enhancing chemical plant security, and have allowed concepts and ideas regarding the environment, regarding certain pet projects, and allowed that to, I believe, have too large an influence on this bill.

There is another aspect of this bill which has been added, and that's the concept of civil lawsuits against the Department. I know Mr. McCaul, in the debate later, is going to offer an amendment on this issue. But any fair reading of the testimony of the Department at the hearing we held on this legislation made it clear that they did not support this language regarding the civil lawsuits.

Quite frankly, with all the work the Department of Homeland Security has to do, with the difficulty there is in bringing all of these thousands of entities into compliance with the law, I believe the last thing they need right now is to be subjected to civil lawsuits

where there would virtually be no limitations on who could bring those lawsuits. My understanding is that the person doesn't even have to be a citizen to bring a lawsuit under this or live in the State where the facility is located.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a bridge too far. This is a rush to judgment. Rather than work with the carefully crafted and thought-out legislation that we adopted in a bipartisan way 3 years ago, we are now changing it--and changing again--without a request from the Obama administration. We have language in this legislation which was clear the administration opposed at the time of the debate on the bill when it was before the committee. So I strongly urge, reluctantly, that the legislation be voted down.

But in doing that, let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that there are a large number of organizations opposed to this legislation, such as the American Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Trucking Association. I will place into the Record the letter which was sent by a group of these organizations in opposition to the legislation, H.R. 2868.

Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude--and by the way, I will be asking Mr. Dent to manage the balance of the time on our side. I would ask those on the other side to go easy on Mr. Dent; he is suffering from trauma. His team, the Phillies, after being lucky last year, have gone back to their usual ways and they were defeated last night. I give him credit for coming out of his bed, from coming out from underneath the covers to be here today to take part in this debate. So especially I would ask the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has a talent for going for the jugular, you can do it to me, but please go easy on Mr. Dent today if you would. And I'm sure the chairman concurs in the sympathy we feel for the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, on a serious note, we started work on this legislation in good faith. That good faith continues. But I strongly believe, and others on our side do, that the extreme environmental language in the bill is going to tie the hands of the Homeland Security Secretary with unrelated costly and burdensome provisions.

Congress has granted the President's request for a 1-year extension. We should let the Department of Homeland Security continue its work. I believe that moving this legislation forward will hurt the Department, will hurt small businesses, and will not improve the security of these facilities.

November 4, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives, Capitol Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Capitol

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner: We write

to you today to express our opposition to H.R. 2868, the

``Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009.'' Despite the

changes made to this legislation in the Energy and Commerce

and Homeland Security Committees, we continue to oppose the

bill due to the detrimental impact it will have on national

security and economic stability.

Specifically, we strongly object to the Inherently Safer

Technology (IST) provisions of this legislation that would

allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to mandate

that businesses employ specific product substitutions and

processes. These provisions would be significantly

detrimental to the progress of existing chemical facility

security regulations (the ``CFATS'' program) and should not

be included in this legislation. DHS should not be making

engineering or business decisions for chemical facilities

around the country. It should be focused instead on making

our country more secure and protecting American citizens from

terrorist threats. Decisions on chemical substitutions or

changes in processes should be made by qualified

professionals whose job it is to ensure safety at our

facilities.

Furthermore, forced chemical substitutions could simply

transfer risk to other points along the supply chain, failing

to reduce risk at all. Because chemical facilities are

custom-designed and constructed, such mandates would also

impose significant financial hardship on facilities

struggling during the current economic recession. Some of

these forced changes are estimated to cost hundreds of

millions of dollars per facility. Ultimately, many facilities

would not be able to bear this expense.

Thank you for taking our concerns into account as the House

of Representatives continues to consider the ``Chemical Water

and Security Act of 2009.'' We stand ready to work with

Congress towards the implementation of a responsible chemical

facility security program.

Sincerely,

Agricultural Retailers Association American Farm Bureau

Federation American Forest & Paper Association;

American Petroleum Institute; American Trucking

Associations; Chemical Producers and Distributors

Association; Consumer Specialty Products Association;

The Fertilizer Institute; Institute of Makers of

Explosives; International Association of Refrigerated

Warehouses; International Liquid Terminals Association;

International Warehouse Logistics Association; National

Agricultural Aviation Association; National Association

of Chemical Distributors; National Association of

Manufacturers; National Grange of the Order of Patrons

of Husbandry; National Mining Association; National

Oilseed Processors Association; National Paint and

Coatings Association; National Pest Management

Association; National Petrochemical and Refiners

Association; National Propane Gas Association; North

American Millers' Association; Petroleum Equipment

Suppliers Association; Petroleum Marketers Association

of America; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; USA Rice

Federation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3619--the Coast Guard Authorization Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Rep. Peter King

Bill Number: H.R. 3619

Section: 1321

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Nassau County Police Department

Address of Requesting Entity: 1490 Franklin Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501

Description of Request: The transfer of two excess 41-foot utility boats from the U.S. Coast Guard to the Nassau County Police Department. The conveyance of these vessels will enhance the port and homeland security capabilities within the region.

Madam Speaker, I proudly rise on the House floor tonight to manage a Special Order on behalf of our former colleague and the present Secretary of the Army, former Congressman John McHugh, now Secretary John McHugh.

Madam Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) who does have to leave, and I would recognize him for 2 minutes.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York, who actually served in the State legislature with John McHugh back when John was a senator and the gentleman was an assemblyman, Mr. Tonko from Upstate New York.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his very gracious remarks.

In your remarks, you demonstrated the same bipartisan spirit that personified John McHugh's career here in the House of Representatives, and I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Now I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his remarks.

Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania referenced, Congressman McHugh did go on a number of congressional delegations to Iraq. I was privileged to go on one that he led in 2004. But just to show that Congressman McHugh is not perfect, he did have one person on the trip who really didn't fit in at all, but Congressman McHugh, being the wonderful person that he is, brought him along with a sense of charity and compassion.

With that, I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, Mr. McCotter.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his remarks.

Now I will yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who served in the New York State legislature with John McHugh when John was a senator and Mr. Hinchey was in the New York State Assembly. And I believe that Mr. Hinchey and Mr. McHugh came to Congress in the same year, in 1992. It was quite a year, Mo.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his remarks.

I now yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his remarks. I must say, I agree with him completely that Congressman McHugh had a level of sophistication and sartorial splendor which you and I certainly lack. We all try to emulate John but come nowhere close.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who also served in the New York State Legislature, in the assembly when Congressman McHugh was at that time a State senator. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio, a good friend of Secretary McHugh, Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Ohio for always managing to get something good out of whatever happens. He gets John McHugh as Secretary of the Army, and Steve LaTourette has a good parking place, so all is right with the world.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, Mr. Sessions.

Thank you, Congressman Sessions.

We have seen tonight people from all regions of the country, from both sides of the aisle, come forward. No one personifies that more than the dean of the New York delegation, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank Chairman Rangel for his remarks.

It's very appropriate, I believe, that Congressman McHugh has become Secretary of the Army, and these remarks tonight by Mr. Rangel were made by someone who has such a distinguished record in the United States Army in the Korean War. That's the type of person that John McHugh will be representing as Secretary of the Army, heroic men such as Congressman Rangel who certainly put their life on the line and answered their nation's call.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a large number of people coming out tonight to speak on behalf of Secretary of the Army John McHugh. I was fortunate to be elected to the United States Congress in 1992, the same year as John McHugh. I knew John McHugh from his outstanding service in the New York State Senate, I knew that he was a legislator's legislator; and from the moment he arrived here in the Congress, John always to me exemplified what a Member of Congress should be. I don't know how many times you would walk out that door and see John sitting there at a chair and desk studying the legislation.

People say that Members of Congress don't read their legislation. I can tell that you John McHugh was constantly reading legislation, constantly studying up on what had to be done, constantly trying to find bipartisan solutions to problems.

It was mentioned tonight that he served on the Postal Subcommittee, where he did author reform legislation of the Postal Service, a very, very difficult job.

We talked about the trips he took, the 10 visits to Iraq, the four to Afghanistan that he took as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Then earlier this year he reached the culmination of his congressional career when he was elected as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee where, again, he worked very closely with Chairman Ike Skelton in a bipartisan way, always putting the troops first. I remember during his early years here in Congress when there was an attempt to close down Fort Drum and the work that John put in around the clock doing what he could and successfully doing what he could to save Fort Drum from being closed down.

These are just some examples of the type of dedication that John McHugh had. As Congressman Rangel said, there was something else; there was no meanness, there was no bitterness, there was no anger in John McHugh.

John wanted to find a way to get things done. He had strong principles. He had strong beliefs. But he also recognized that people on the other side of the aisle and people in his own party also had very strong beliefs, and they may be different from his, but he respected them.

I wish John the very best as Secretary of the Army. President Obama made an absolutely superb selection when he picked John McHugh. I can't think of anyone who would dedicate himself more to the men and women of the United States Army than John McHugh.

As was mentioned, having traveled with John to Iraq, I would see him sit with the generals, the two-star generals, the three-star generals, the four-star generals. He would sit with the ambassadors. He would sit with all of the high-ranking people. But he always found time to spend most of his time with the enlisted men, the enlisted women, the PFCs, the sergeants, the first lieutenants, second lieutenants. He realized that it wasn't just the people at the top, but it was people at all levels, the people who really did the heavy lifting, who put their lives on the line, who were the people who made the most impression on him and to whom he had the greatest responsibility.

John, I certainly wish you the best. We look forward to your service for the United States, for the United States Army. I know that more even than the feeling you are going to receive from the Members of Congress, it's the men and women of the Armed Forces, of the United States Army, who appreciate you the most, because they are going to be the greatest beneficiaries of your dedication, your patriotism and your hard work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 23 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, October 29, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding, and at the outset I want to commend Ranking Member Rogers and Chairman Price for the outstanding job they have done on this bill. I certainly intend to vote for it. I will vote for it. I must say, however, there are three specific problems, three areas where I do have questions.

Number one is on the Secure the Cities program, which is essential to protect New York City from radiation, dirty bomb attacks. This House by an overwhelming margin approved an amendment by Congresswoman Clarke and me which would have put $40 million in the bill for that. Instead, in conference that was reduced to $20 million. This is a shortfall which I believe can have damaging impact.

Secondly, on the issue of Guantanamo, I concur in everything that Ranking Member Rogers has said. To me, it is wrong to bring terrorists, enemy battlefield combatants, to our shores for any purpose, even to stand trial, especially to stand trial, because I believe they should be tried in military tribunals.

Again, I bring up the issue of New York City, where I am certain a number of these will be brought. Those who were involved in the 9/11 attacks will be brought to the Southern District of New York. To me, this is a timebomb

waiting to happen, to have those terrorists in New York City for a protracted period of time before, during and after their trial.

Thirdly, on the issue of the firefighter grants, the President cut them by 70 percent. I know the committee put money back in, but the level was still lower than it was last year. This, I believe, is going to impact negatively on fire departments throughout our country.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, this is a fine bill. I look forward to supporting it. I thank the committee for the way they approached it in a bipartisan way. As Congresswoman Lowey said, our Nation is under threat. There are threats every day. They have targeted various cities throughout our country. This bill goes a long way towards resolving that.

But, again, on the issues of Secure the Cities, Guantanamo and the firefighter grants, I do have real issues, real concerns. Having said that, I support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the resolution introduced by my colleague from New York, Congresswoman Clarke. House Resolution 731, of which I am a cosponsor, recognizing the month of September as National

Preparedness Month, also commends the employees of the Department of Homeland Security; other federal agencies; state, local, and tribal government officials; emergency response personnel; and law enforcement officers who defend our nation against acts of terrorism.

New York's 3rd Congressional District is home to many of the Department of Homeland Security's employees, including those who work at JFK and LaGuardia airports and in the Coast Guard. We are all grateful for the important work they carry out, in partnership with local law enforcement officers and other first responders, to protect our communities, particularly in light of several recently foiled terrorist plots.

Earlier this month, we commemorated the eighth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In these times, we cannot afford to be complacent, or to forget what it means to prepare ourselves, our families, and our communities to respond to the threat of terrorism. All Americans can help promote emergency preparedness by taking steps such as assembling emergency supply kits, creating family emergency plans, and staying informed about possible emergencies in their area.

We have come a long way since September 11th, but there is still much more to do to keep America safe. House Resolution 731 helps remind all Americans of the steps they can take to be prepared, and honors those on the front lines who tirelessly work to keep our communities safe.

Madam Speaker, due to a homeland security matter I was detained this evening and missed rollcall #696. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to commend Chairman Towns and Ranking Member Issa for bringing this bill to the floor. I want to thank Congresswoman Matsui for the tremendous work that she has done in leading the way on this legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my good friend from New York, Mr. Engel, and he really articulated the way all New Yorkers feel. September 11 will be a day that none of us will ever forget. It is a day that will just be embedded into us because of the terrible horror, the tragedy, all that occurred on that day, but also because of the tremendous valor, the tremendous dedication, and the tremendous sense of courage which was also demonstrated on that day.

I lost probably 150 constituents, friends, neighbors that day, and that is just all throughout downstate New York. Almost every Member of Congress can say the same thing about the large numbers of deaths in their districts and their friends, their neighbors who were murdered that day.

So it is really important, as we go forward, that September 11 never just be a day, never just be a holiday, never just be a day where maybe some people get off and some don't or a day that you use to go shopping. It should be a day where we find a way to remind ourselves of the sacrifice of that day, of the police officers and the firefighters and the EMTs and construction workers who actually ran into the burning towers and suffered those incalculable deaths, 343 firefighters, 60 police officers, a number of EMTs, a number of construction workers, all of whom were killed rescuing people that day.

Mr. Speaker, just as a historical note, this legislation initiated from an organization called MyGoodDeed, and this organization, one of the founders was Jay Winuk. His brother Glenn was a constituent of mine.

Glenn was actually working in Lower Manhattan that day as a lawyer, but he was also a volunteer firefighter. After he evacuated his own building, he ran into the World Trade Center and was killed. Just this past week, he was finally awarded the 9/11 Medal of Valor. But the Winuk family, in honor of Glenn, who really personified September 11 in that he was one of both a civilian and a firefighter, who in both capacities performed so brilliantly that day, his family was the starter of this organization, which was the genesis of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, also, for instance, tomorrow, throughout my district, there will be various types of services being carried out. For instance, in my own office, we have a blood drive which is run by my assistant, Patricia Gartland, who will have people lined up from morning to night giving blood in honor of those killed on September 11.

In my own school district, the Seaford School District, there will be a large commemoration, and the coordinator, Ken Haskell, is a firefighter who lost two brothers on September 11. He is coordinating an effort where the students will show the good works that they did in honor of those who died on September 11.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a day which, again, as tragic as it was, as horrible as it was, it is also a day from which tremendous good came from that. So let's go forward. Let's adopt this legislation in the spirit of what happened on September 11, both in memory of those who were murdered and in honor of those who gave their lives, and in honor of those who in the days afterwards, as Congressman Engel said, not just from New York but from all over the country, came to Lower Manhattan, came to the World Trade Center, came to the Pentagon, went to Pennsylvania to try to do what they could to help those and to take part in the rescue operation and recovery operation and really showed the unity of the Nation, maybe as never before.

With that, again, I thank the chairman, I thank the ranking member, I certainly thank Congresswoman Matsui, and I urge the adoption of the resolution.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of this resolution today. And at the outset, let me commend the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, and the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, for introducing the resolution and showing the spirit of bipartisanship that is so essential.

Mr. Speaker, September 11 is not just history. It is real. It is with us every day. As the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, said, I lost approximately 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on September 11, and that is true of almost every Member of the downstate delegation from New York. In fact, I can't drive throughout my district without seeing sign after sign, street signs commemorating the police officers and firefighters who were killed on that day. So this was a real tragedy. It is a real tragedy that continues today in those families, with their friends and with their neighbors.

It is also an ongoing threat against the United States of America. The attacks on September 11 do not end on September 11. The fact is we have an enemy of Islamic terrorism, al Qaeda, which threatens us throughout the world and, indeed, here in our own country. In New York alone, there have been attacks foiled against the Brooklyn Bridge, Herald Square, against Fort Dix in neighboring New Jersey, against the synagogues in Riverdale in the north Bronx. So these are issues. This is a threat which is ongoing and it is real. We always have to keep our defenses up.

We have to thank the men and women of our Armed Forces who are fighting throughout the world, the men and women of our intelligence agencies, the men and women of the State and local police departments in New York, of the New York City Police Department, of the Nassau County Police Department, and of the Suffolk County Police Department. There are more than 1,000 police officers dedicated to fighting terrorism in counterterrorism units. And again, it is a daily, daily effort.

As the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, I'm aware of many of the threats we have stopped, and we are realizing again how the enemy is never going to stop, and we can't let our guard down.

Also, in the interests of bipartisanship, I believe we should give President Bush credit for setting up the international level of cooperation with so many countries throughout the world and also for breaking down barriers with their own intelligence agencies and requiring them to share information with local police departments. It is not because of luck we haven't been attacked in 8 years. On September 12, 2001, no one would have thought we would go 8 years without being attacked the way we were on that horrible day of September 11.

Also, in the interest of bipartisanship, it is important for us, as Republicans, to stand with President Obama with his policy in Afghanistan, which is a continuation of efforts that we began against the Taliban and al Qaeda after the attacks of September 11. This issue of international terrorism is too important to allow us to be divided by partisan politics. We came together as a Nation on September 11 and the days after. It is important that we stay together.

This, as President Kennedy said in 1961, is going to be a long twilight struggle. But we won that Cold War, and we're going to win this war. We are going to prevail if we stand together as one, stand together as a Nation and realize that our enemy is attempting to destroy us. But if we stand together as one with our allies and with our forces here in this country, we can never be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 29 (the companion bill to H. Con. Res. 91), a resolution granting a posthumous pardon to John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson for his 1913 racially motivated conviction. On April 1, 2009, I introduced my resolution with Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. and I join today with my colleagues in urging the House to support this effort.

Jack Johnson became the first black World Heavyweight Boxing Champion in 1908 after defeating Tommy Burns in Australia and kept the title until 1915. He was a flamboyant and controversial figure in American history who paved the way for African-American athletes to participate and succeed in racially integrated professional sports in the United States.

Prompted by his success in the boxing ring and his relationship with a white woman, Jack Johnson was wronged by a racially motivated conviction under the Mann Act. He was convicted in 1913 after fleeing to Canada, Europe and South America and served one year in prison. Being convicted ruined his career and wrongly destroyed his reputation.

Because of this, we believe the President should grant a posthumous pardon to Jack Johnson to clear his name and recognize his athletic and cultural contributions to society. I am proud to have sponsored this resolution on his behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3326--the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Rep. Peter King

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: RDTE, N (MC)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: American Defense Systems, Inc.

Address of Requesting Entity: 230 Duffy Avenue, Hicksville, NY 11801

Description of Request: $2,000,000 will be used to develop a new Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert (E-SAPI) that will have the same performance of the current E-SAPI, but at a lower weight and with greater durability and multi-hit capacity.

Requesting Member: Rep. Peter King

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: RDTE, N

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Webb Institute.

Address of Requesting Entity: 298 Crescent Beach Road, Glen Cove, NY 11542

Description of Request: $2,500,000 will be used for the construction of a Ship Model Testing Facility to provide undergraduate research applicable to the new hull forms the Navy is developing and fielding.

Requesting Member: Rep. Peter King

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: RDTE, A

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: New York University.

Address of Requesting Entity: 3 Park Avenue, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10016

Description of Request: $3,000,000 will be used for the NYU School of Medicine to create a research Center for Excellence in the areas of Infectious Diseases and Human Microbiome to foster the collaboration of researchers across the campus.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express best wishes and congratulations to my good friend Dan Holman on his upcoming marriage to Tina Loh on September 19, 2009. Considering Dan's respect for tradition, it is especially fitting that the wedding will be celebrated in St. Patrick's Cathedral on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. I first met Dan when he was a student at the Notre Dame Law School during the same time my son and daughter were attending Notre Dame. Dan has had an outstanding career as a knowledgeable and respected attorney and is a fervent believer in America's values and beliefs. He is a true patriot. I wish Dan and Tina many years of health and happiness.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3293--the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, & Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Peter T. King

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration-- Substance Abuse Treatment

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Tuesday's Children

Address of Requesting Entity: 390 Plandome Road, Suite 217, Manhasset, NY 11030

Description of Request: $750,000 will be used to provide mental health counseling for 9/11 first responders and other public safety workers involved in protecting our homeland security.

Requesting Member: Congressman Peter T. King

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: Higher Education (includes FIPSE)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: St. Francis College

Address of Requesting Entity: 180 Remsen Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201

Description of Request: $650,000 will be used to upgrade its science and information technology facilities in support of the Project Access higher education opportunity program.

Requesting Member: Congressman Peter T. King

Bill Number: H.R. 3293

Account: Health Resources and Services Administration--Health Facilities and Services

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: National Kidney Registry

Address of Requesting Entity: 42 Fire Island Avenue, Babylon, NY 11702

Description of Request: $177,000 will be used to support an upgrade of the architecture of the (kidney) matching system to enable more transplants to be facilitated.