Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the tragic and untimely passing of Stephen Leiter who was an outstanding attorney and business leader in the Long Island community. Most importantly, however, Steve Leiter was a close friend to me and countless other Long Island residents.

I had the privilege of knowing Steve Leiter and his wife Glenda for more than thirty years. During that time I always marveled how Steve could be so active in so many businesses, community, political and sports endeavors, be a loving husband and father, and still have so much time for his friends.

Steve Leiter was extraordinarily successful in his professional life, but even more so in his personal friendships. He was always there for those who needed him and he always had a ready smile and warm greeting for you.

I express my sincere condolences to Steve's widow Glenda, his son David, who worked for me several years ago, and his daughter Lindsay. As tragic as Steve's passing is, I hope that Glenda, David and Lindsay will find consolation in the knowledge that Steve Leiter's memory will be cherished by so many. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to an Anti-Secession Law that is being proposed by the People's Republic of China. While some positive developments in cross-strait relations between China and Taiwan have occurred recently, the consideration of an Anti-Secession Law by Beijing threatens to disrupt the status-quo. Recently, an agreement was reached by both governments to allow historic non-stop charter flights between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan during February's Lunar New Year holiday. And the arrival on February 1 of a delegation from China to pay their respects to the late negotiator Koo Chen-fu, former Chairman of the Straits Exchange Foundation, has been a welcome development as well. Unfortunately, China's National People's Congress Standing Committee is considering a bill that is expected to set up a legal framework to provide for the incorporation of Taiwan by China. This legislation, however, could be interpreted to legally require Beijing to move unilaterally against Taiwan in the event Beijing construed any acts or statements by Taipei as a move toward independence.

I have deep reservations about an Anti-Secession Law. Beijing until now has considered Taiwan to be a part of China but has refrained from attempting to legally extend its sovereignty over it. While this position leaves some flexibility for negotiations on unification, I fear that the enactment of this new measure will restrict the debate. In addition, there would also be great uncertainty among the thousands of Taiwanese who work on the mainland. Would Taiwanese businessmen in China run the risk of being jailed for actions interpreted as being supportive of Taiwanese authorities? Reactions from Taiwan to the proposed law have been universally negative among all of Taiwan's political parties and leaders. At a time when the differences between Beijing and Taipei can best be resolved through dialogue, the enactment of this legislation would make the resumption of these negotiations more difficult and inevitably increase tensions in the Taiwan Strait.

Both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan have a vital interest in maintaining peace in the region. My hope is that China will not enact an Anti-Secession Law or take any step, for that matter, which might prompt a confrontation in the Taiwan Strait.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 110) recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge during World War II.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 110. This joint resolution recognizes the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge and honors those who sacrificed their lives in the European theater of operations during World War II. From December 16, 1944, to January 25, 1945, 600,000 American troops and 55,000 British, Belgian, Canadian and other soldiers fought honorably in this battle. The defeat of Nazi Germany 4 months after the conflict would not have been possible without the success of the Allied forces during this crucial battle.

The Battle of the Bulge was a surprise German offensive against Allied forces and was intended to permanently defeat the Allied forces. The battle began before dawn on the morning of December 16, and the soldiers faced treacherous conditions of subfreezing temperatures, snow, rough terrain, limited supplies and limited manpower, but they never ceased to fight valiantly against the Nazi Army.

During this battle, Mr. Speaker, there were 81,000 U.S. casualties, including 19,000 Americans who were killed. Additionally, 1,400 British soldiers were killed.

There were many outstanding successes during this battle. For instance, the 101st Airborne captured Bastogne before the Germans could launch a siege of the city, and this was very strategic for this battle.

Mr. Speaker, it is also to be noted, though, that this legislation was introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, who has a supreme interest in all matters involving World War II. In fact, this past summer, I had the privilege of traveling to Normandy to commemorate the 60th anniversary of D-Day, and I know of the intense interest the Speaker has in honoring all the men and women of the Greatest Generation who sacrificed so much to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II.

Also, it should be noted that the Speaker's ancestors come from Luxembourg, and he has a special interest in this legislation because the Battle of the Bulge forged distinctly close relationships between the Americans and the people of Belgium and Luxembourg. In fact, to this day, Luxembourg has numerous memorials and monuments honoring the great sacrifices made by the United States during World War II and specifically after the Battle of the Bulge.

So this joint resolution recognizes the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, authorizes the President to issue a proclamation calling upon American citizens to honor the veterans of the Battle of the Bulge with appropriate programs and ceremonies and activities.

This joint resolution not only reaffirms the bonds of friendship between the citizens of the United States, Belgium and Luxembourg, but encourages citizens of all countries to honor those who bravely fought for world peace in the Battle of the Bulge.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank my good friend from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his supporting comments and for the great work he does on behalf of our veterans, certainly World War II veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 110.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Merrick Little League Baseball Team as our New York State Champions. These athletes should be very proud of this enormous accomplishment. I know I share in the pride of their parents, coaches and residents of Merrick.

In fact, I would like to recognize and honor the following players who will certainly be ranked the best in the New York State Little League: Louis Eiler, John Eyerman, Chad Fuschillo, Zachary Goldstein, Frankie Leavey, Jordan Leopold, Alex Ras, Robert Rosen, Brandon Serota, Noah Shulman, and Thomas Viverto.

In addition, I want to extend special recognition to the Merrick Little League Coaches Robert Ras and Michael Serota, as well as Manager Jason Shulman.

On behalf of myself and the United States House of Representatives I congratulate the Merrick Little League Baseball Team on this wonderful achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 473, and I thank the gentleman from California for his efforts on having this on the floor today. And I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for the bipartisan support which he has given to this resolution. I also wanted to commend Senator Schumer in the other body for introducing a similar piece of legislation, because this is truly a bipartisan measure.

Mr. Speaker, the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, were obviously the worst national tragedy to ever affect this country. The deaths, the suffering which so many people went through certainly in my district and adjoining districts, there were many hundreds of people killed that day, certainly down here at the Pentagon there were many more killed, almost 3,000 people killed all together. And, again, it was a time of excruciating agony, torment, and suffering.

But as tragic and as terrible as those days were, we also saw something arise in this country, a sense of unity, a sense of people coming together, a sense of the country standing as one.

Obviously in a democratic society, a mood of total unity is never going to prevail for very long; and it is probably just as well that we do have our partisan differences, we have our ideological differences. That is what makes a democracy what it is. But on the other hand, I do wish we could bring back some of that sense of unity that we had in those days immediately following September 11, when people donated blood, when people raised funds, when people actually went to the site of the World Trade Center to assist the rescue workers who were there. It was just a tremendous sense of national unity.

What I have attempted to do with this resolution is to have the President establish a day which would commemorate September 11. It would call upon people to give of themselves. This is not going to be a holiday. We are not talking about giving people time off. We are asking people to go back to that sense of giving and donate their time and their efforts.

People could donate blood. People could take part in food drives. People could go to distribute food to the poor and to the needy. They can go to veterans hospitals. They could work with senior citizens. They could help Alzheimer's patients. They could just find a way to show a sense of giving which so prevailed in our country after September 11.

There are many ways we can honor the legacy of those who died on September 11. We can certainly do it by winning the war on terrorism. We can do that by establishing as much of a bipartisan policy as we can in combating terrorism. But we can also do it in a way which really crosses all ideological and partisan divides. That is by working together, by helping our fellow man, by helping our neighbor, by coming together. That is what this resolution attempts to do.

We call upon the President to designate September 11 as a national day of voluntary service, charity, and compassion. I strongly urge this House to adopt this resolution.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and all those who co-sponsored it with me.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 475) encouraging the International Olympic Committee to select New York City as the site of the 2012 Olympic Games.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Concurrent Resolution 475, the concurrent resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 475. This resolution encourages the International Olympic Committee to select New York City as the site for the 2012 Olympic Games and supports New York City's desire to host those 2012 Games.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the International Olympic Committee narrowed the selection for the 2012 Games to five cities, New York City being one of them. And in July of next year, they will make their final decision. As a New Yorker, but also as an American, I really urge the Congress to adopt this resolution asserting and expressing the support of the Congress for New York City to be given these Games.

There are any number of reasons, Mr. Speaker, but, first of all, I am sure while my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), and I do not agree on every issue in this House of Representatives, we agree that New York certainly is the best place in the world and where the Olympic Games should be held in any year, especially 2012.

In many ways, New York City personifies what the Olympics are all about. I was looking at the numbers, and there were 202 countries in the last Olympics. There are students or children representing 199 of those countries in New York City's public schools. That is 199 out of the 202 countries who will have representation in New York City. Virtually every country coming to the Olympics, in effect, will be a home team in New York City.

It is that diversity, that strength and also the facilities that make New York so perfect. The facilities are available; more are being constructed. The Mayor and the city officials, the State officials will do whatever has to be done to make sure that all of the events can be accommodated. New York City certainly showed, just last month, during the Republican convention the level of security its police force can provide, the safety and security and hospitality to people from all over the country, and certainly, they will show in 2012 that they can do it for people all over the world. We have the mass transit, and really, we have whatever has to be there for the Olympics.

Also, if we can say, this will be one final step, one further step away from September 11, 2001, showing that New York has come all the way back, not just in the eyes of the city, the State and the country but, indeed, in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in closing to just commend the author of this resolution, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for the tremendous job he is doing on this and on so many other issues affecting New York, and also the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, who has shown tremendous leadership on this.

Again, this is the essence of bipartisanship, a Republican mayor working with a Democratic congressman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the entire New York delegation stands behind this, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), who is a prime co-sponsor of the resolution.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is probably no issue that we will be debating in this session which has more significance to me or the other members of the New York delegation than the entire issue of funding for homeland security. In my district and in adjoining communities, we lost hundreds and hundreds of people on September 11. We have to do all we can to make sure that that never occurs again.

I commend the chairman for the work he has put into this bill; but later this evening, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), and I will be offering the point and making the case why we believe more money should be allocated to high-threat areas such as New York. New York City, the downstate areas, and the entire State are running up well over $1 billion in expenses related entirely and just to homeland security and counterterrorism. This is a threat which must be met, and it is an issue which is going to be discussed later this evening. I look forward to that opportunity. I thank the chairman for giving me the opportunity to raise these points at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sweeney amendment.

On September 11, 2001, in my district and in the adjoining communities, hundreds and hundreds of innocent Americans were murdered. I made it my vow at that time never to allow that to happen again, do all that I possibly could to prevent that from happening again. We can have all the pages in this bill, all the money. The reality is it is only going to work if the money is going where it is needed. It is not a question of being fair. This is not some egalitarian movement here. This is to send the money to the areas of the country that need it the most. No area needs it more than New York City and New York State.

New York City was attacked in 1993. There were subsequent attacks thwarted in the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, Federal buildings in New York, the Brooklyn Bridge; and, of course, there were the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001. The New York City Police Department alone, and this only encompasses 8 million of the 18 million people in the State, New York City alone spends almost $500 million in the NYPD. When you add the fire department and the OEM, it comes to almost $1 billion a year. Yet we are nowhere near being compensated for that. I am not saying this out of any parochial interest because I do not actually represent any area in New York City, but I live close enough to it to see the terrible damage that was done.

Mr. Chairman, right now we have hearings and investigations going on asking how could 9/11 have happened; why were we not better prepared. In many instances, it is unfair to look back in hindsight and say, well, this was wrong and that was wrong. But if it happens again, we have no excuse because we have been told what is going to happen. We know where it is going to happen. And I would ask those who oppose this amendment to say, what will they say if there is another attack and there is another 9/11 commission and asking why did you allow money to be spread all over the country rather than concentrate it on the areas that need it the most?

That is the issue before us tonight. It is not a question of so- called fairness. It is a question of the money being properly spent. If you are a police chief or you are a police commissioner and you are in a town or a village or a city, it is not your job to spread the police all over equitably. It is to assign them where they are needed the most, into the high-crime areas, the areas where the most danger is. The most danger right now, and this is not something that we ask for in New York, but by every account, New York is the prime target. That is where the money should be going. Instead, there is to me a dramatic shortfall in the money.

No, we cannot solve everything. We cannot give all the money that is needed, but it makes no sense at all to be moving back and to have that disparity grow larger and larger each year. We again will have to account to history if something happens again. We are here tonight. We can talk about, again, the various titles, the various sections, and the various allotments; but the gut question is, are we going to base this on a threat analysis? We have an Air Force which can only protect so many cities. Depending on the size, which are the cities most likely to be attacked? We do not send planes everywhere in the country. We put them over the cities where there is the highest threat. That is the way we have to allocate this money. It is not impossible to figure out. Give the Secretary of Homeland Security that discretion.

I realize because the amendment was ruled out of order that we cannot do all that should be done, but certainly the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) today to just put back in the money the President has asked for, we certainly on this side of the aisle should be those leading the charge supporting what the President of the United States wants to do to defend the country against terrorists coming to our land to destroy our people.

What I am saying in the interest of justice and to, certainly, people on this side of the aisle, stand with the President of the United States in the war against terrorism and remember that history will be our judge. If this amendment is voted down, we will have failed the test of history.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise and join my colleagues in honoring a unique man and a graceful diplomat.

After 4 years of exemplary service as the head representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO), the quasi- embassy of the Republic of China (ROC), Ambassador C.J. Chen is returning to Taiwan. In fact, since joining his country's foreign service 37 years ago, Ambassador Chen has continuously been involved with U.S.-Taiwan relations in his many job assignments both in Taiwan and in the United States.

In 1979 when the United States severed diplomatic relations with Taipei and recognized Beijing, Ambassador Chen was then working in Taiwan's embassy in Washington. He spent days and nights negotiating and communicating with U.S. government officials and lawmakers in helping draft the Taiwan Relations Act (P.L. 96-8). Signed into law on April 10, 1979, this important legislation has enabled Taiwan to grow both economically and politically during the last quarter century.

In subsequent years, Ambassador Chen has played many key roles in Taiwan's foreign ministry. He has encouraged the U.S. to act as a balancer and facilitator in handling its relations with both Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (PROC). In addition, Ambassador Chen and other leaders in Taiwan have been successful in urging the U.S. to continue to provide Taiwan with military aid necessary for its self- defense.

During the last 4 years, Ambassador Chen has aimed to strengthen U.S.-Taiwan relations which are now at their highest point since 1979. While there have been no major changes in U.S. policy toward either side of the Taiwan strait recently, the U.S. stance toward Taiwan has improved significantly, largely due to Taiwan's democratic government.

In addition to the Bush Administration's goodwill towards Taiwan, support on Capitol Hill continues to grow. Since the start of the 108th Congress, both the House and Senate have introduced and/or passed various resolutions relating to Taiwan including support for: (1) Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization (WHO); (2) A U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement and; (3) Taiwan's security. Ambassador Chen has played a critical role in building support for each and every one of these resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, while Ambassador Chen is indeed leaving Washington, I have no doubt that he will continue to contribute to the enhancement of U.S.-Taiwan relations in the future. I wish C.J. and his wife Yolanda all the best. They will be greatly missed here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, as Memorial Day approaches, today I rise to honor the many men and women who have died in the service to our great country. Throughout our nation's history, men and women have fought for freedom and democracy; not only here in the United States, but also around the world. These people have put themselves in harm's way and paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we can continue to live the lives that we do.

This year's anniversary has special meaning for two reasons. First, our country is again at

war with members of our armed services deployed to hot zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. While these two conflicts are challenging, we are committed to staying the course and assisting the new governments in creating democratic institutions. Second, the long overdue World War II Memorial will finally be dedicated this Saturday to honor arguably the ``greatest generation'' of Americans. This is a fitting tribute to the millions of veterans who served overseas as well as those civilians who worked on the home front.

At this time, I would like to make special mention of a constituent of mine who recently lost his life in Iraq. Marine Corporal Kevin T. Kolm of Hicksville died last month while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Once again, I would like to offer my deepest sympathies to Kevin's family. There is nothing more honorable or praiseworthy than serving one's country. It is because of brave servicemen like Kevin Kolm that our country will remain free and proud.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act.

On April 10, 2004, the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which has provided the framework for a strong and mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and the Republic of Taiwan (ROC), will commemorate 25 years since its enactment by Congress. The TRA has helped provide peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait making possible the extraordinary economic expansion and democratization that has taken place there.

In 1979, during the process of normalizing relations with Beijing, there was great apprehension in the Congress that American security and economic interests in Taiwan would not be protected. What evolved is the only law which oversees almost every facet of U.S. relations with a foreign entity in the absence of diplomatic relations.

The new law provided for the security of Taiwan, formed a legal framework to protect the close relationship between the United States and Taiwan, and established Congressional oversight of that relationship including requirements that the President inform and consult with Congress when confronted by anticipated danger to Taiwan.

Today the TRA has withstood the test of time. Taiwan has built one of the world's top economies with nearly $52 billion in trade with the United States, making it our eighth largest trading partner.

The Taiwanese constitution guarantees its 23 million citizens freedom of assembly, expression and association, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. In addition, Taiwan has established strong support for human rights, committing itself to the major international human rights conventions.

Taiwan has become an openly democratic society with free and fair elections held at all levels of government. Over 80 percent of voters participated in Taiwan's recent elections, demonstrating the vitality of Taiwan's democracy. President Chen Shui-bian who has already been certified as the winner by the central election commission has agreed to a recount and hopefully one will take place in the very near future.

But whatever the final result, the fact remains that Taiwan has provided a moving example of democracy in action and one can only hope that it will serve as an inspiration for the more than one billion Chinese living in the People's Republic of China who will one day have an opportunity to elect their own government in a comparably democratic fashion.

It also should serve as a powerful and poignant reminder of the extent to which Taiwan and the United States share a common commitment to the principle that governments should be elected by the people they serve as well as underscore the vitality of the TRA and the need for continued American support for this vibrant democracy.

Mr Speaker, earlier this year, I cosponsored the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 with my good friend, Congressman Tom Lantos, ranking member of the International Relations Committee. That legislation passed the House by a vote of 418-2, providing a strong mandate for the U.S. State Department to rally international support for Burma's struggle for freedom. I am proud of the support the House of Representatives has given to the 1991

Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi, and her struggle for freedom in Burma.

Over the past 2 weeks, Burma's military regime has again launched a brutal crackdown against dissent. When 900 Buddhist monks marched on the streets of Mandalay, the country's second largest city, the regime reacted violently, opening fire on the crowd and killing at least one monk and placing several more in intensive care.

At the same time, this regime instigated violence against the country's Muslim population, resulting in the torching of several homes and the murder of innocent civilians.

I am concerned that the international community has remained too silent. We need to take a serious look at the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General's special envoy to Burma, Razali Ismael. Are his efforts hampering or helping the struggle for freedom in Burma? Burma's exports of narcotics and refugees, ongoing human rights abuses present a serious threat to regional security yet this has never been addressed by the United Nations Security Council. Maybe it is time that a new envoy and a new approach by the United Nations will breathe new life into a failed process.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1821) to award a congressional gold medal to Dr. Dorothy Height in recognition of her many contributions to the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1821, the legislation under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 1821, legislation introduced by the gentlewoman from California, that would award the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor Congress can bestow, on the prominent civil rights activist Dorothy Height.

Dorothy Height has been one of the most influential leaders in the 20th century, and even now in the 21st century, fighting for racial and gender equality. Dedicating her entire life to breaking down the immense barriers that divide race and class, Ms. Height stands side by side with other civil rights heroes such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks.

Dorothy Height experienced racial and gender discrimination from an early age and embarked on a lifelong effort to guarantee all Americans their inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. Speaker, the Founding Fathers promised freedom and equality. Ms. Height worked, and continues to work at the age of 91, to make them come true for everyone.

To bring those promises to fruition, Ms. Height began her activist career at the Young Women's Christian Association, the YWCA. Because of her efforts, the once-segregated organization now serves as a model of racial integration.

Mr. Speaker, Dorothy Height's contributions to the civil rights movement certainly did not stop at the YWCA. She was also an active member of the National Council of Negro Women, an umbrella group for 240 local and 31 national organizations working for black women's rights. In 1957, she became president of the NCNW, and she worked closely with Dr. King in virtually every major civil rights event in the 1960s.

Mr. Speaker, the civil rights movement would hardly have been the same without Dorothy Height. She organized voter education drives in the North, and voter registration drives in the South. She helped plan the 1963 march on Washington, and led an effort to protect activists who ran freedom schools in Mississippi. For every civil rights effort, large or small, Dorothy Height was there.

However, Ms. Height's activism delved even further into the obstacles black Americans faced. She addressed important internal issues within the black community, and she will ever be remembered as the person who established the National Black Family Reunion Project to illustrate to current generations the achievements of their ancestors and the benefits of extended family.

Mr. Speaker, because of all her vital contributions to the improvement of American democracy, the time has come, in fact it is long overdue, for Congress to honor this remarkable woman. Dorothy Height has devoted her life to expanding the American Dream to every color, class, and gender. For her dedication, her deeds, and, most important, her dream, I am proud to stand in support of this legislation to award her the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the bill, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1680) to reauthorize the Defense Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1680, as amended, reauthorizing the Defense Production Act of 1950. The language we are considering today makes some important decisions to the text the Committee on Financial Services passed last spring. Reflecting input from the Senate, the legislation adds studies on the effect on the economy of defense offsets, not only on prime defense industry contractors but on subcontractors, and on the U.S. capacity to produce military-grade radiation-hardened electronics. The legislation extends the DPA authorities for 5 years as requested by the administration.

Mr. Speaker, this Chamber rarely considers legislation as important as the DPA. In peacetime and in war, it allows for the priority production of equipment and material necessary for national security and the public health; and with the addition of the language suggested by the Senate, now it will specifically authorize the act to be used to protect our critical infrastructure as well. The act also allows the careful tightly targeted use of Federal funds to ensure there is an adequate industrial capacity in this country to produce certain vital military equipment or material that otherwise would not be available.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the House act swiftly to send this amended legislation back to the Senate and that the other body quickly pass this compromise so that the authorities, which expired at the end of last month, are available to civil and military authorities. It is inconceivable that the priority production powers in the DPA not be available if needed for use in the case of a devastating hurricane or earthquake or in the unthinkable event of a terrorist's biological weapons attack or to speed up the production of equipment for our troops in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere in the world. The authorities were used after the September 11 attacks to speed the delivery of targeting sensors for the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle by nearly 2 years, to speed the delivery of equipment for airports that detected explosives, and to speed up production of new high-tech bulletproof vests.

Mr. Speaker, this 5-year reauthorization of the DPA will provide the necessary time for a much-needed study and reform of the DPA so that Congress may remove obsolete language and clarify or update other language. It has been impossible for nearly a decade to reform the act on anything other than a piecemeal basis because the reform efforts always coincided with reorganization. Decoupling them will finally give us the breathing room to do some thoughtful work on the act itself.

I ask all Members to join with me to pass S. 1680, as amended, and then join me in the next couple of years for a thoughtful update of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology, I rise today regarding the authorization of the Defense Production Act and the legislation that the House of Representatives and Senate have produced. I wish to make two points.

First, the House of Representatives and the Senate have agreed to include language that makes clear that all the authorities included within the DPA may be used for critical infrastructure protection and restoration purposes. I have been informed that in past administrations there may have been some confusion regarding the applicability of the DPA to critical infrastructure. The language included in the reauthorization legislation ends any debate that may have existed.

Secondly, it is the intent of the House that the DPA be interpreted to allow the administration to exercise the authorities provided under Section 101 of the DPA to directly assist a private sector critical infrastructure owner or operator in furtherance of critical infrastructure protection or restoration.

The House of Representatives' desired interpretation, however, should not be construed, in any way, as limiting the applicability of the DPA's other authorities with respect to critical infrastructure protection and restoration.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Senate bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. I

thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his very generous remarks today. I am really proud to stand in support of this legislation.

At the outset, let me commend Councilwoman Mary McCaffrey from the Oyster Bay Town Board in Nassau County, Long Island. She is the one who initiated this proposal with me and has worked tirelessly with me and also the Hickey family to bring about this day.

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, we saw the greatest rescue operation in the history of the world; 25,000 people were rescued from the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan that day. This was brought about because of the heroic efforts of the New York City Fire Department, the police department, the rescue services, the emergency workers, all of whom answered the call, put their lives at risk, many of whom lost their lives that day to save so many of their fellow citizens, fellow Americans, and people who just happened to be in the World Trade Center that day. Because of the 343 men of the New York City Fire Department, because they were willing to put their lives on the line and die that day, 25,000 others were rescued. That is something we can never fittingly thank and show our appreciation to those who laid down their lives and thank them for what they did that day.

More than 100 people in my district were killed, many police officers, firefighters; but no one symbolized the heroism more that day than Brian Hickey. He was a member of the New York City Fire Department for more than 20 years. He was a captain. He commanded Rescue Company 4 in Queens. As was pointed out, he lost several of his colleagues several months before that in a terrible accident on Father's Day, and he was back on the job only several days before he went into the south tower, led his men into the south tower, unquestioningly, unflinchingly, went in and did what had to be done. That was really typical of Brian Hickey. He was a man who was wounded many times during his career with the fire department, but never, ever once did he back away from the challenge. Never once did he not show bravery and courage, which really does symbolize the FDNY.

It is very fitting that the post office facility in Bethpage be named in his honor, because Brian Hickey was raised in Bethpage. He met his wife, Donna, while attending high school in Bethpage. He raised his four children in Bethpage. He was a member of the Bethpage Volunteer Fire Department and was elected a member of the Board of Fire Commissioners. So he really is a man of Bethpage. And to me it is so appropriate and so fitting that when people walk past the postal facility on Hicksville Road, they see the name Brian Hickey, that it reminds them of what Brian Hickey did and also what all of the members of the FDNY did on that terrible day back on September 11.

Mr. Speaker, the attack on the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon on September 11, that was really the first great battle and the first great war of the 21st century. Now we almost take it for granted that the right thing was done in responding to that. We take for granted so many of the men and women charging into the Twin Towers to rescue their fellow human beings. But the fact is, suppose they had not? Suppose there had been a sense of panic or caution, or just a moment's hesitation. Think of the signal that would have sent to the world. But instead, the signal that went out from the Twin Towers was one of indomitable courage on behalf of the American people.

So really, what Captain Brian Hickey and the other firefighters and rescue workers did that day was send a message to the world that America was going to fight back, that America was in no way going to be cowed or intimidated by what was done by this terrible attack. So as horrific as the attack was, the bravery of the men and women that went into the Twin Towers was unsurpassingly greater than that. They showed the true essence of Americanism.

Brian Hickey, those who knew him knew what a gutsy guy he was, what a courageous guy he was. He often told his wife that he would rather die in a fire tragedy than have some long illness. This is what he wanted to do, was to be there with the other firefighters entering whatever call they were given, responding whenever they had to, doing what had to be done. That is the FDNY. That was Brian Hickey. Twenty years of his life he gave to the FDNY, and then he gave his entire life to the world by surrendering that life in such a valiant cause on September 11.

So on behalf of Donna Hickey and her four children and all of the constituents of the 3rd Congressional District, I want to thank all my colleagues who bring this to a vote today. I urge a speedy adoption. I can assure you if anyone deserves to be honored, it is Brian Hickey.