Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, at the very outset, let me commend Chairman Thompson and his staff and the majority side for the cooperation that they extended on this bill for making a truly bipartisan effort. I also want to commend the chair of the subcommittee, Sheila Jackson-Lee, for her bipartisan spirit and also, in a special way, Congressman Dent, the ranking member of the subcommittee.

This, as the chairman said, was a collaborative effort. There was tremendous cooperation. Obviously, there's some differences between what we wanted and what ended up in this bill, but basically, it's a fine bill.

And, Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend the outstanding men and women of the TSA for the job that they do day in and day out in protecting us. I see Mr. Pascrell is here. Just in the New York-New Jersey region alone, last year they inspected 110 million passengers coming through those airports, and again, last week alone, they confiscated 23 illegal firearms that were going through airports. So they do a very, very dedicated and outstanding job. And also, as far as rail transportation, VIPER Teams have become a vital part of our homeland security apparatus.

Having said that, let me just mention some of the concerns I do have about the bill.

One is, Mr. Chairman, that there is, as of now, as of yet, no TSA administrator. Also, my understanding is that there is not even anyone in the wings. There's no one being considered, no one's being mentioned to be the TSA administrator, and yet we put together this bill, which I think is a good bill, but without any input from the head of TSA. And since this is a 2-year authorization, we're going to be basically laying out a plan, a plan of action for the next 2 years, I would have preferred that we could have waited until we got an administrator in place to work with us on it.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I raised the issue--and I think these two issues are now interrelated--the issue of an authorization bill and the issue of jurisdiction. This will be, as I see it, the second year in a row that the committee will not have done an authorization bill. And yet next week in the appropriations subcommittee, the Homeland Security appropriations bill will be marked up, and the appropriators will act without our committee's input on 80 percent of the Department of Homeland Security's budget. They will act without our input on 75 percent of the Department of Homeland Security's personnel. And they will consider funding of programs, like the 287(g) program, border security, student visa enforcement, FEMA's hurricane response capabilities, the Coast Guard's port security programs, Secret Service protection of the President, to name a few, all without guidance from this committee.

Now, I believe the main reason for this--and I understand the position that the chairman is in--the main, I think, as I see the reason is that because of the multiplicity of jurisdictional claims to homeland security, it is very difficult for our committee to move forward. Now, the 9/11 Commission, one of their strongest recommendations was that homeland security be consolidated in one committee.

Several years ago, there were 88 committees and subcommittees that claimed some piece of jurisdiction over homeland security. That number is now up to 108, and this should not be a partisan issue. Both Secretary Chertoff in the previous administration and Secretary Napolitano in the Obama administration have called for consolidation, and yet it's not being done.

So, for instance, if we had gone forward and tried to do an authorization bill, we couldn't authorize the Coast Guard or FEMA because the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure would object. We couldn't authorize Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Secret Service, or U.S. Citizen Immigration Services because the Committee on Judiciary would object. And we can't authorize Customs and Border Protection because the Ways and Means Committee would object.

So I think it's really important that we make an effort over the next year during this Congress to implement, again, one of the most fundamental concerns of the 9/11 Commission, and that was to consolidate jurisdiction in one committee, the Homeland Security Committee.

And I believe that in 2005 and 2006, when this side of the aisle did control the committee, we did get authorization bills done, and there were jurisdictional disputes. We won them, and I think that was the direction we were going in, and the direction we should continue to go in.

I gave the chairman tremendous credit 2 years ago when we adopted H.R. 1, which implemented many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, but this fundamental one still has not been done. And I realize that no one likes to cede jurisdiction, no one likes to give up turf, but the fact is we're talking about an issue that threatens the survival of our country, homeland security. And so long as we have this dysfunctional system where jurisdiction is spread out over so many committees of the Congress, I don't believe we can fully do the job that we should do.

The chairman does a good job, the staff does a good job, I believe we do a very good job on our side of the aisle, but we are limited because of these jurisdictional limitations. And so as we go forward on this debate today, I would hope we would keep that in mind, and as we go forward over the course of the year, we keep that in mind, also, as we try to do the job that we were established to do when we became a permanent committee back in 2005.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dent, the ranking member of the subcommittee, be authorized to control the remainder of my time, and I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is very basic. It's very direct. It specifies that any detainee who is housed at Guantanamo Bay will go on the No Fly List. Very simply, anyone released from Guantanamo will not be able to fly on an American commercial flight.

And I have listened to the debate in committee. I've listened to the debate on the floor, and quite frankly, I cannot understand the opposition to this amendment. We are talking about approximately 240 people who are still at Guantanamo. These are the worst of the worst, the most hardcore.

Mr. Speaker, we can have various positions on Guantanamo, whether the President was right, whether the President's wrong, whether he's partially right, whether he's wrong, whether there's going to be tribunals, what's going to happen. But the reality is that there's a likelihood that some of these detainees could be released into the United States, and very simply, we are saying if they are, they should not be allowed to fly on American commercial flights.

Now, recent reports from the Defense Intelligence Agency say that one of seven of those who have been released thus far have returned to the battlefield, have returned to take part in terrorist activities. Now, whether that number is actually one in seven or one in 14 or one in 15, I say to anyone in this House, do you want your son or your daughter or your grandson or your granddaughter possibly being on the same plane as one of those seven or one of those 15? It is too high a risk to pay.

What the majority did when this was brought up by Mr. Souder, who argued it very articulately in committee and on the floor, was to say that they would go on the No Fly List, the detainees, after disposition by the President.

``Disposition'' is not defined. What does ``disposition'' mean? If the President says that this person is dangerous, does that mean he doesn't go on the No Fly List? Suppose that case is still pending in court. Suppose he was released on bail. What does final disposition mean? What does it mean?

Why are we having this debate? I can see if we were talking about something involving the civil rights of an American citizen or somebody who was legally in the country and we were talking about electronic surveillance or stop-and-frisk. We're talking about a person who is a detainee at Guantanamo and we're saying they cannot fly on an American plane. What human right is being violated by that? Let's balance the equities.

I know in the Dear Colleague that my good friend the chairman sent out to his members, he uses a quote from the President, saying that we must have an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process and checks and balances and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the question of a balance here. What equities are we balancing?

Let's assume the worst from those who oppose this motion to recommit. Let's assume that someone who is in Guantanamo and really pure of heart and has no malice anywhere in the system, that person will not be allowed to fly on an American plane. Life is tough. If that's the worst he has to endure, I don't think that's going to shock the conscience of the Republic.

But suppose that person does return to violence and does blow up an airliner and hundreds of Americans are killed. Where is the cost- benefit ratio? What equities are we balancing here?

I would say the clear and correct thing to do here is to make it very clear that anyone released from Guantanamo should go on the No Fly List.

Now, if there are foreign policy considerations, if there are diplomatic considerations, the motion to recommit specifically says that the President can certify that that detainee is no longer a threat to American security and the President can take the person off the No Fly List.

So, if there is an injustice being done, if the President feels very strongly about this, then the President has the prerogative to exercise his power and take the person off the list.

Again, I just think this is a debate about politics for those who somehow think, if we talk about Guantanamo, that we're trying to inject some kind of fear. We're trying to protect the American people. And, to me, it's a clear issue if you ask any one of your constituency, people in your district, say to them, would they rather be certain that their relatives going on a plane will not have a detainee from Guantanamo sitting next to them or would they rather have the fact that that person may have to drive his own car or take a bus rather than fly in a plane.

So I would say in the interest of justice, in the interest of basic security for the American people and the interest of doing all we can to make this good bill much better and to give us the security that we need, that we vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.

In his statements, the chairman says that by not adopting this motion to recommit, or not using this language, that would make our skies more secure. How can our skies possibly be more secure unless we do everything we possibly can to keep Guantanamo detainees off our planes, off our commercial planes.

Those of us who lived in New York, any American, knows the horror of September 11. If we can do anything at all to prevent that without violating the civil rights of any American citizen, anyone lawfully in this country, then we should do it.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of justice and homeland security, I ask adoption of the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, today I rise and am proud to join my colleagues in supporting the George J. Mitchell Scholarship program. As someone who has long been dedicated to Ireland and Northern Ireland, I welcome the important work the United States-Ireland Alliance is doing to build a future for this relationship that reflects current realities.

While Ireland is certainly suffering from the current economic crisis, it is no longer the poor country that it once was. And as peace has taken hold in Northern Ireland, it is important that we find new ways to strengthen this relationship for future generations. While my colleagues and I will continue to keep a close eye on Northern Ireland as it moves forward, I agree with the Alliance's view that the future of the relationship will be focused less on politics and more on education, business and culture. This shift is the sign of success of the many changes that have occurred in Ireland in the past 15 years and I am proud of the role the U.S. has played in bringing those changes about.

While we strongly support and fund the Mitchell Scholarship program, I welcome the Alliance's desire to build an endowment for the program and I welcome Taoiseach Brian Cowen's commitment to match everything the Alliance raises toward this important goal.

Madam Speaker, poet and Capitol Tour Guide Albert C. Caswell has penned a poem in honor of Sp. E4 Chris Levi of The North Brigade 410/230 10th Mountain, from Holbrook Long Island. On March 17th 2008, in Sadr City Iraq, Chris lost both of his legs when an EFP struck him. Miraculously, he somehow cheated death. And now like all of our magnificent heroes of the military, who have given their most precious limbs, Chris begins his new fight. A fight that he is winning, winning with his great heart of faith and courage. As like Bob Dole, he too will be an inspiration to us all, for the rest of his life, as we witness the true meaning of the word Hero, all in our time.

10th Mountain Men

10th Mountain Men . . .

Are but those my friends, who will this our nation so defend

. . .

Who but in times of war, all for country bore . . . the

greatest of all burdens, until the bitter end.

Brilliant Men, who run and fight . . .

Who climb mountains, knock down doors . . . and go through

walls to win that night . . .

Who with but their brave hearts so ignite, the fight for

freedom to so bring the light!

For well over the many years . . .

There have been so many magnificent heroes, so dear!

Men like Chris Levi, and Bob Dole . . . who are but our

Lord's greatest of all men endeared . . .

Are such Men to behold, who with but their fine hearts of

gold . . .

With such great inspiration inspire us all so . . . to so

warm one's soul . . .

To carry with us as we grow old, in heart's of love so . . .

such honor, for them we now so hold!

A New York Man . . . who so boldly in Long Island ran . . . .

Who from Suffolk, without fear . . . with such great courage

would so stand . . .

So stand, therein face of death . . . and then to return back

home with almost nothing left . . .

Who gave up but his two fine strong legs . . .

As he won't moan, and he won't beg. . . . As he starts his

brilliant life all over again . . .

With but his fine heart and soul, showing us all in life. . .

. But where lies mankind's true gold.

As step by step . . .

The new pain and heartache, somehow he so accepts . . . as

this hero is not done yet!

For He Will Reach Us, as He Will So Teach Us . . . as oh yes,

as each of us . . . he Will So Bless . . .

But, with his fine heart of honor so . . .

He now so stands, with all of his band of brothers . . . such

great respect he now so commands!

All of our hearts and souls, as he battles through those

winds so cold . . . making us all so understand.

That in the end, it's but only with our heart we win!

Arms and legs surely we all need, but without a great heart .

. . one cannot so breath . . . to succeed!

To start all over again . . . Chris, you are America's fine

son of faith and glory, bless you . . . Godspeed . . .

In life, there are so many Mountains we must climb!

But, only with such unshaken faith and courage, will one so

find . . .

All of those fine things, that which so bring such tears to

even the Angels' eyes . . . In Chris Levi . . .

We so surely see, what the word hero so implies!

And if I ever have a son, I but hope and pray. . . . That he

will be like you this fine one . . . Chris Levi . . .

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of naming the United States Postal Service building located at 46-02 21st Street in Long Island City, New York, the ``Geraldine Ferraro Post Office Building,'' after former United States Representative Geraldine Ferraro.

It is with great pleasure that I support this designation, which commemorates the life of one of New York's most remarkable women. Geraldine Ferraro has had a distinguished career marked with many achievements. She began her career as a New York public school teacher, while simultaneously earning her law degree from Fordham University at night. She worked as an attorney the Queens New York District Attorney's office, where she helped establish the Special Victims Bureau. In 1978 she ran a successful campaign to represent New York's Ninth District in the United States House of Representatives. Throughout her six years in Congress, she rose quickly through the ranks to become a notable leader in her party. As a result of her success, it is no surprise that in 1984 Walter Mondale selected her as his running mate on the Democratic ticket, making her the first female vice presidential candidate.

Although she did not win the election, she undoubtedly reshaped politics as we know it and paved the way for future women leaders. She has since authored several books and has overcome a battle with multiple myeloma, a dangerous form of blood cancer. She now remains active in politics, weighing in on the issues and candidates that influence and shape our country.

A daughter of Italian immigrants, Geraldine Ferraro has been a trailblazer and role model, not just for women, but for all Americans in search of living the American dream. From congresswoman to vice presidential candidate to author to cancer survivor, Geraldine Ferraro is a true inspiration and deserves to be honored for her achievements through this designation.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of Jack Kemp who left us this past Saturday.

While his passing saddens all of us, Jack lived a full life that was truly remarkable. In addition to being a wonderful husband and father, Jack achieved outstanding success as a professional quarterback, United States Congressman, Cabinet Secretary, and Vice Presidential candidate. This is a man who excelled both personally and professionally. His economic policies formed the heart of the Reagan Revolution. Even after his political career ended, he made sure to continue his public service by writing, speaking, and continuing to tackle some of America's greatest problems. Jack Kemp always had ideas to offer and he was most often right.

Jack not only shined but took a leadership role in everything he did. Whether it was on the football field leading his team to victories or being a driving force in the House of Representatives, he was always in the middle of the action. Jack Kemp certainly embodied what Theodore Roosevelt said about the ``man in the arena.'' His was the face that was [literally] ``marred by dust and sweat and blood'' during his many athletic and political battles over the years.

And even though he was able to achieve so much during his time here, we grieve for what he still had to contribute. This is a man who continuously pushed himself in whatever profession he found himself in.

I was proud to know Jack Kemp for more than thirty years and to be his friend.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Joanne, his wife of more than fifty years, his four children, Jeff, Jennifer, Judith, and Jimmy, and his seventeen grandchildren.

Jack Kemp was a great man and a true public servant who touched so many lives in a positive way during his life. He will be sorely missed.

Madam Speaker, it is my duty to inform the House of the death of our friend and former colleague Congressman Jack Kemp.

Madam Speaker, Jack Kemp served in this House for 18 years. Subsequent to that he served in the Cabinet of President Bush. And prior to all that, he played for 13 years as a professional quarterback, achieving the status of All Pro on a number of occasions, being the AFL MVP in 1965, and to this day holds many lifetime records as a quarterback in the AFL.

But Jack Kemp went beyond being a football player, beyond being a congressman, and beyond being a Cabinet Secretary. To all those who knew him, he was an inspiration. He was a man of tremendous energy and enthusiasm and vibrancy. As a Republican, I can say that he revolutionized our party, and,

indeed, his economic policies were the heart and soul of the Reagan Revolution.

But his influence and his friendship went across party lines. He was a man who was beloved by those of his own party and those in the opposition, even though I don't think he ever called them the ``opposition.''

I was fortunate enough to know Jack Kemp for more than 30 years. I'm proud to have considered him a friend. His passing will be mourned by all of us. He was really a truly outstanding American. And certainly my thoughts and prayers go out for his wife, Joanne, and his children, all of whom loved him the way all of us who knew him loved him and cherished him.

And with that I yield to the dean of the New York delegation, Mr. Rangel.

Madam Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence for Congressman Jack Kemp.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 479, the Wakefield Act, which will reauthorize the Emergency Medical Services for Children program for an additional four years.

Since its establishment in 1985, the Emergency Medical Services for Children program, also known as EMSC, has provided grants to all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories to ensure that every child in America has access to quality, appropriate care in a health emergency. The EMSC program has improved the availability of child-appropriate equipment in ambulances and emergency departments, supported hundreds of programs to prevent injuries, and provided thousands of hours of training to EMTs, paramedics, and other emergency medical care providers.

In my home state, New York's EMSC program is working to provide ongoing assessment and improvement of medical care for critically ill or injured children. The state EMSC Advisory Committee continually meets to discuss plans for designating health care resources to optimally serve the needs of critically ill or injured pediatric patients. This Committee is currently designing a road map of resources, standards, and roles for hospitals within the state and for the statewide EMS system as a whole. The plan will improve the state's ability to bring children to the hospitals that are best equipped to treat them as well as establish a general set of interfacility guidelines.

Kids are not just small adults. Methods to treat children in emergencies vary greatly from methods used with adults in the same situations. The EMSC program is an integral part of preparing our nation's healthcare providers and giving them the tools they need to treat children in an emergency. This is especially significant at a time in our history that disaster preparedness, both due to natural disasters as well as potential terrorist attacks, is so important.

I would like to thank Representative Matheson for his leadership on this issue, as well as Representatives Castor and Reichert for their continued support. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this imperative bill.

Madam Speaker, the American Red Cross has been on the

front lines of disaster prevention and response for more than a century. This elite humanitarian society is among the most effective and recognized disaster relief organizations in the world. We have an opportunity this month to recognize the essential role the Red Cross plays in our communities. Since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt served in office, every President of the United States has proclaimed March to be ``Red Cross Month.''

The Red Cross responds to more than 70,000 natural and manmade disasters each year, caring for victims of fires, floods, hurricanes, hazardous materials spills, explosions, and many other kinds of incidents. Volunteers provide food, shelter, and health services to meet the most basic human needs of victims and first responders. The Red Cross also provides critical blood supplies to hospitals, first aid classes to the public, and disaster aid to the international community.

In responding to disasters small or large, the Red Cross has proven its incomparable worth time and again for over 127 years. Just this month in my district in New York, fire destroyed a North Massapequa home, and Nassau County's Red Cross arrived on the scene to offer assistance. Timely response to such daily but devastating small-scale disasters is one of the Red Cross' most important humanitarian services.

Large-scale disasters also demonstrate major successes. Immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, relief workers rushed to the World Trade Center, to the Pentagon, and to the fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The Red Cross played an invaluable role in assisting over 59,000 individuals and families affected by those horrific acts of terror.

No matter the response, volunteers are the key to Red Cross efforts, representing 96 percent of the organization's workforce. They cannot do what they do without the support of donated manpower, finding, and supplies. The Red Cross, the dedicated individuals who serve in the organization, and the thousands of citizens who fund relief efforts epitomize the humanitarian spirit of the American people.

I join with my colleagues today to recognize the Red Cross, and thank the organization's staff and volunteers for all of their continued assistance to American communities.

Mr. Chair, today I rise in support of H.R. 1388, the GIVE Act, which would encourage a new generation of Americans to answer the call and get involved in service to their communities and their country. However, there is one provision of particular importance to me and my constituents.

The GIVE Act will authorize a call to service campaign, encouraging all Americans to observe September 11th as a national day of service. As the representative of a district that lost over a hundred people on 9/11 and includes thousands more who worked in the area or were involved in cleanup efforts, I believe it is right that we as a nation honor the lives lost on 9/11 by giving back to our country.

In my district office in New York, I have hosted a blood drive on the anniversary of 9/11 and I know that many others in my home state have taken part in similar activities. I am pleased that this bill will encourage all those across the United States to join in this effort, which is important not only for the 9/11 families, volunteers, rescue and recovery workers, but for the entire country.

America came together in the aftermath of 9/11, reminding us what it truly means to be part of this great nation. By making 9/11 a national day of service, that same spirit of giving will continue in a day of remembrance, unity, and selflessness. Let us never forget the unity we felt as a nation following the tragedy of 9/11.

I would like to thank my friend and colleague Representative McCarthy for her work on this issue, as well as Jay Winuk and David Paine of the organization My Good Deed, who pioneered the 9/11 day of service movement. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to ensure that we always remember 9/11, particularly to preserve the spirit of patriotism we all felt as Americans in the months and weeks following the attacks.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 201, recognizing the service of 9/11 widow Beverly Eckert who was killed aboard Continental Flight 3407 last month.

This resolution is a fitting memorial to the life and service of Beverly Eckert. After her husband, Sean Rooney, was killed in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Beverly dedicated her life to keeping alive the memories of Sean and the nearly 3,000 others killed that day. It was my privilege in the dark days following 9/11 to meet Beverly and work with her to obtain justice for the families of those who were murdered.

I was deeply saddened to learn about the death of Beverly and so many others on that flight to Buffalo last month. She was truly an advocate for the 9/11 families, and her strength and resolve will be missed.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the American Legion's Post No. 1066 in Massapequa, New York and recognize its contributions to our country and their community on the occasion of its 75th anniversary.

Members of this post have served in many foreign wars including Korea, Germany, and Vietnam, actively defending the freedoms and liberties that we cherish so much as Americans. Furthermore, several members of Post No. 1066 have also served as members of our local police and fire departments, as well as local emergency responders. As the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee, I am particularly appreciative of their dedication and hard work.

Over the years, these veterans have served my district on Long Island in a number of ways. They have opened their doors to the community to serve as a food collection site for the Interfaith Nutritional Network and to collect items to send to our servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, they have collaborated with the American Red Cross to act as a disaster shelter for their neighborhood. They actively support local charities and host fundraisers for their benefit.

I am proud to represent these veterans who have served our country. They duly deserve praise for their continued participation as active citizens of New York and the United States. I would like to thank them for their leadership and continued service to our country.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership Standards on Earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY2009 Omnibus.

Requesting Member: Rep. Peter King

Bill Number: H.R. 1105

Account: Energy & Water--Army Corps of Engineers (Construction)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2109, New York,

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership Standards on Earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY2009 Omnibus.

Requesting Member: Rep. Peter King

Bill Number: H.R. 1105

Account: Energy & Water--Army Corps of Engineers (Construction)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2109, New York,