Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have been home for a while during the break and during these 3 weeks listening to constituents; and I understand there are a lot of constituents that are upset because the economy hasn't come back completely. But the economy is getting better, and a great indicator of that is the Dow Jones average which has gone up in the 10,800 range now. It has gone up tremendously this month.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, called the stimulus bill, has been maligned. But it has been responsible for at least 3 million jobs: firemen, policemen and teachers being kept on public payrolls and keeping taxes down and public employees hired.

The middle class has been threatened and threatened greatly. And as I sit in committee meetings and think about the future and what would happen if this House turned over to the other side, I realize the middle class would be greatly hurt. It is the middle class that is hurting. It is the middle that is concerned.

The middle class is most of the tea party, but the tea party is being led by some of the richest people in the country who are more concerned about the estate tax and getting 100 percent of their money sent to the next generation tax free, contributing greatly to the deficit, and to seeing that the upper 2 percent get their tax cuts given during the Bush years, which means a $700 billion addition to the deficit.

They talk deficit, and they also talk about taxes and spending. Well, you can't have it both ways. The bottom line is the richest people of the country are pushing the middle class in a direction that will run them off a cliff. And their home is with the Democratic Party that is helping small business and providing jobs.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the birthday of the late Mary Church Terrell, a scholar, political activist and woman of compassion. Mary Church was born in Memphis, Tennessee to Robert and Louisa Church on September 23, 1863, the same year President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Knowing the importance of an education, Ms. Church attended Oberlin College in Ohio, the first institution to admit women and one of the first to admit minorities. Upon her graduation in 1884, Ms. Church became one of the first African American women to graduate from college. She then went on to receive her Master's degree from Oberlin in 1888.

After graduation, Ms. Church moved back to Memphis and traveled to Europe before moving to Washington, DC where she married attorney Robert Herbert Terrell in 1891. During this time Mrs. Terrell took an active role in social reform and volunteer work. She befriended Susan B. Anthony and was active with the suffragist movement, working at the National American Woman Suffrage Association and several other black women's suffragist organizations.

Mary Church Terrell broke barriers by becoming the first African American woman to be appointed to the District of Columbia Board of Education from 1895-1906. She was also active in multiple black women's organizations, all of which strove to terminate both gender and racial discrimination. She was the architect of the merger of these clubs, forming the National Association of Colored Women (NACW) in 1896, becoming the organization's first president. She served as president until 1901 when she was named the honorary president for life.

In 1909, Mary Church Terrell, along with Ida B. Wells, befriended W.E.B. DuBois and later became a charter member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In 1910, Mrs. Terrell founded the National Association of College Women in 1910 and in 1913 assisted in the formation of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Incorporated where she wrote the sorority's creed. In 1933, Oberlin College recognized her as one of its one hundred outstanding alumni during their centennial celebration. Oberlin conferred upon Mrs. Terrell the honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters in 1948.

Mary Church Terrell passed away at age 90 on July 24, 1954, two months after the monumental Brown vs. Board of Education decision. From the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation to the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, Mary Church Terrell was here to witness great social reforms for African Americans. Hers was a life well lived.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize singer and songwriter Clare Burson for her work in bringing awareness to the Holocaust through music. Chronicled through research and stories from her family, her new album ``Silver and Ash'' remembers her family and pays tribute to the many Jewish men, women and children who suffered and died during this dark period in history.

Clare Burson had always been interested in learning her family's history since the young age of 8 years old. However, her grandmother, Joci Burson, was reluctant to speak about the events that caused her family to flee their home in Germany due to the painful memories. Joci, who lived in Memphis, Tennessee, would receive letters from family that fled to Latvia updating her on their condition. Receiving letters from only 1938-1941 was undoubtedly a sign that the worst had happened and forced Joci into mourning and silence about the tragedy that befell the family.

Clare Burson spent much of her young adult life researching her family's history to gain a better understanding of how the Holocaust changed her family. Her research led her to move to Germany and to travel to Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine--the homes of her ancestors. As a result of her research and through her songs, she was able to convey resemblances of her sister to their great-grandmother in ``Look Close.'' In ``I Will/With You,'' Ms. Burson encourages her grandmother to share her memories so that she and others will forever remember their history.

In ``Baby Boy,'' Clare Burson describes a metaphorical hole in her great-great-grandmother's home after sending her son to Lithuania to escape conscription to military service in the German army. Although not in her lyrics, Ms. Burson shared a piece of her family's history saying that her great-great-grandmother sent her son to Lithuania in 1893 with a trunk of belongings and a wedge of cheese made by his mother. He then moved to South Africa and stayed there for 10 years before moving to Memphis, where he married her great-grandmother, Clare. They had 4 children including her grandmother who, when she passed away, gave her the cheese. That wedge of cheese still exists and is now 117 years old.

Sixty-five years after the Holocaust, the number of Jewish Holocaust survivors and those who lived during that time is decreasing. Like many events in our history, both good and bad, we must ensure the fundamental nature of the Holocaust is passed along to future generations. There must never again be such a display of intolerance towards any group of people. Thank you Clare Burson for giving us such beautiful music set to your family's memories and our shared history.

I want to thank Mr. Pallone for the time, and I want to thank Mr. Pallone, Mr. Andrews, and Chairman Waxman for their help in getting this particular proposal to the floor; and the minority side as well, Mr. Whitfield, my friend, Mr. Shimkus, and everyone who has worked on this.

Mr. Speaker, this is a particularly important bill to me, and it's an important bill to my district. September is Infant Mortality Awareness Month, and it's appropriate that this month this bill will be brought up for consideration, the NEWBORN Act. ``NEWBORN'' is an acronym. Everything in

Washington seems to be an acronym, and this acronym, ``NEWBORN,'' stands for ``Nationally Enhancing the Wellbeing of Babies through Outreach and Research Now.''

It is so important that we give children an opportunity to live and mothers and fathers an opportunity to see their children born and have a chance. My parents lost a child at about 4 months of age in 1946. They never got over it. There are so many people who have lost children, and it is something that stays with you forever.

In my particular city of Memphis--while we talked about the United States' rate, we know it is too high no matter what it is and how you keep statistics--the city of Memphis has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the Nation. It is said to be second by the CDC among the 60 largest urban areas in the year 2002. In one particular ZIP code in my district, 38108, in the year 2007--it's in north Memphis, a predominately low-income African American neighborhood. I say predominately; it's an entirely low-income African American neighborhood--had an infant mortality rate of 31 deaths per 1,000 live births. That is almost five times the Nation's 2007 rate of seven deaths per 1,000 live births. And that ranks 38108 as worse than the developing nations of Iran, Indonesia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Syria, and Vietnam in infant mortality for that year.

It's an issue that can strike people of any race, but it is divided largely along racial lines, and there's a great racial disparity. The Office of Minority Health at the CDC has found that African Americans have 2.4 times the infant mortality rate than whites, that African Americans are four times as likely to die as infants due to complications related to low birthweight when compared to white infants. The CDC study found that African American mothers were 2.5 times more likely than white mothers to begin prenatal care in their third trimester or not receive prenatal care at all. That's where a lot of research and outreach can be done, particularly the outreach. That is why the NEWBORN bill is so needed, and that is why our office decided to make this our top priority.

My chief of staff, Marilyn Dilihay; my district director, Randy Wade; and our whole team met in Memphis. Brittany Johnson, who is my legislative director in the area of health care, and my legislative director, Reisha Phills, the whole office worked on the issue and we brought it as a bill. But we also had it included in the health care bill that passed this House. And it was featured in the Speaker's bullet points about what it could possibly do for infant mortality. This would be the largest outreach program the Federal Government has ever engaged in. It's an authorization to find answers for the problem of infant mortality.

Of course, because of the situation of the politics in the Senate and because we had to go to reconciliation, there wasn't a conference committee, and this part of the health care bill wasn't included because the Senate didn't have it, and reconciliation didn't allow consideration of proposals like this that didn't add to or decrease from the budget. This was an authorization. So it didn't make it through the final phase because of what happened in Massachusetts, and that hurt us in what could be an important step forward for mothers and children.

We hope that the bill will pass here today and that the Senate will pick it up. We hope Senator Mikulski or Senator Dodd or somebody will help us with it, or Senator Harkin, and see that it gets through the Senate and the authorization is approved.

It will authorize the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to award 5-year-long grants to 15 municipalities or States to create infant mortality pilot programs. The legislation sets forth guidelines on what practices the pilot programs may employ in their quest to lower the infant mortality rate of the area they serve, and those include outreach to at-risk mothers, increased access to educational clinic services for pregnant women or potential mothers and families.

The language suggests each program provide infant care counseling, postpartum care, additional care for at-risk mothers, a rural outreach program, and a public education program.

All of these can save money in the long run in health care because some of the most expensive treatment rendered is for premature babies, and care in these particular ages of life can be very expensive. And if we can have better prenatal care and less problems, not only is it the right thing to do in every way possible, but it also saves money.

It is my hope that those entities who apply for this funding will do so in conjunction with existing local, private, and not-for-profit groups that have already involved themselves in the fight against infant mortality. And there are several in Memphis that have done that. Our Governor, Phil Bredesen, and our city mayor and county mayor, A C Wharton, have headed up programs in our community, and our county mayor, Mark Luttrell, is continuing them.

The cultivation of partnerships between local leaders is essential in order to ensure the problem is addressed in as efficient a manner as possible.

I introduced the NEWBORN Act because of the number of devastating instances of infant mortality in Memphis, but I hope its passage and eventual enactment will help the incalculable number of people across the country who are possibly at risk to lose a child or grandchild in the years to come.

Again, I thank Mr. Pallone and the other Members, particularly Mr. Waxman, for their help in getting this bill to the floor, and I hope that we will have the help in the Senate that the mothers, children, and grandchildren in this Nation deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1375) recognizing the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, as amended.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 1375, introduced by the Honorable Jim Cooper of Tennessee, recognizes the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. The 19th Amendment, of course, is the Amendment that gave women the right to vote in this United States, and it was not until 1920 that women got that right to vote.

We didn't start off as a perfect Union. It's taken a lot of time, and we're still working toward becoming that perfect Union.

The 19th Amendment was ratified with the perfect 36th State, which happened to be Tennessee, the last State that could make it by three- quarters of the States needed. There were 48 at the time. Thirty-five had done it. The rest had said they wouldn't. Tennessee was on the spot, and it became the perfect 36th and gave women the right to vote.

It was an historic vote that took place in the Tennessee State capitol. Probably the most historic vote that's ever occurred in that capitol. One of which, a bas-relief on the wall, which I worked on getting placed there, commemorates that event when that vote took place.

One of my relatives, Mr. Joe Hanover, managed the bill in the House. And the Senate, of which I was a member, and Lady Blackburn, the Congresswoman on the other side, was also a member of that esteemed body, the State Senate in Tennessee voted with overwhelming numbers to approve the resolution. It was in the House where sometimes they have problems--unlike what we experience here in Washington--where they had difficulty getting the votes together.

And it was about an even vote until the last minute. And a Republican from upper east Tennessee named Harry Burn got a missive from his mother that said, ``Harry, do the right thing.'' And Harry did the right thing, and he cast that vote and it passed by one vote. So women have the right to vote because of the perfect 36th, the State of Tennessee in 1920, August of that year. And it was by one vote.

So it's an important story not only of how far this country has come, because our Constitution, as great as it was, didn't give women the right to vote. It permitted slavery, didn't give women the right to vote, and a lot of other problems. And it took a lot of efforts and civil rights and women's rights and human rights and all to bring us to where we're getting today. We still have a ways to go. But it also says how important one vote is, because one vote made that difference.

Prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment, only a handful of States allowed women to vote at all, and that was in certain elections. But even those modest gains were the product of decades of struggle by women's suffrage supporters. There were early events, such as the Women's Rights Convention convened in Seneca Falls,

New York, in 1848, and it helped encourage women's suffrage supporters to organize for full participatory rights throughout the State. And during the late 19th century, thousands of women's suffrage supporters nationwide marched, lobbied, and engaged in peaceful civil disobedience in the name of equal voting rights.

A resolution proposing an amendment extending the right of suffrage to women was first introduced in Congress in 1878, but it was not until 1916 that almost all major women's suffrage groups united behind a constitutional amendment. Yes, it was 42 years--even longer than it took to amend the Tennessee Constitution to get a lottery--42 years it took to get this amendment to a vote.

When New York enacted full women's suffrage in 1917 and President Woodrow Wilson announced his support for an amendment in 1918, the political tide finally turned in favor of a nationwide effort. And on June 4, 1919, the 66th Congress of the United States proposed to the legislatures of the several States the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

A year later on August 20, 1920, Tennessee became that perfect 36th State to pass and ratify that amendment, thus fulfilling the three- fourth requirements.

Today, House Resolution 1375 honors the generation of women's suffrage activists who persevered through adversity and doubt to secure the rightful place of women in our democracy. This resolution also serves to reaffirm this body's commitment nine decades later pursuing policies that achieve true political and social equality for women.

There is, of course, in the Rotunda a statuary of some of the great leaders in this movement. And I think it took years to get that placed in the Capitol on the second floor in the Rotunda to honor their work.

I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Congresswoman Blackburn brings up some interesting history. And it reminds me Brownlow was probably related to Parson Brownlow, who was the somewhat reviled governor of Tennessee during the Civil War period. And Senator Henry said some very awful things about Governor Brownlow and the things he did to the women of Nashville and the jeopardy he placed them in. I am sure that was some kind of secondary reprisal as this relative of Brownlow jailed the women that wanted the vote. He had put the women in danger during the Civil War. And Senator Henry talked about that on many occasions on the floor, as I am sure you remember.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

I yield such time as he may consume to the author of this resolution, the gentleman who represents the area where this historic Amendment was passed in Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee, the Honorable Jim Cooper.

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank Mr. Cooper for bringing this resolution. It's important that it be recognized on this occasion. I thank Mr. Smith, who was a distinguished leader. We like to think of Texas as southwest Tennessee, because we did so much to create it. So you are like a cousin and part of this great celebration. And Congresswoman Blackburn, who served with me in the Senate, she brought up the singular vote. She brought up the second one. I thought she was going to bring up the lottery, where she was one of my essential 22, and I continue to thank her for that.

With the memory of Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony whose visages remain in the Rotunda, I would ask that we all vote positively in favor of this resolution and pass the resolution as presented here, H. Res. 1375. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4862) to permit Members of Congress to administer the oath of allegiance to applicants for naturalization, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 4862, introduced by Mr. Serrano of New York, will allow Members of Congress to administer the oath of allegiance to naturalizing U.S. citizens.

The naturalization ceremony is a crucial landmark for immigrants. They have waited patiently to immigrate to the United States and have worked hard once they got here and have faithfully fulfilled all their obligations to this country that they have chosen to adopt as their home.

In applying to become U.S. citizens, they have made the choice to become full participating members of our community. Currently, only judges or certain officials in the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, are allowed to administer the oath of allegiance at naturalization ceremonies.

H.R. 4862 would allow Members of Congress to participate meaningfully in these solemn occasions by allowing them to administer the oath of allegiance at naturalization ceremonies. I have attended many. They are wonderful, heartfelt programs; and I think that the oath being given by a recognized public official such as a Member of Congress would mean much to the people that are becoming American citizens.

The bill, as amended, clarifies the role of a Member of Congress, the naturalization process that will be limited to administering the oath of allegiance. Furthermore, it prohibits a Member of Congress from administering the oath of allegiance within 90 days of any election in which he or she is a candidate to prevent even the appearance of any possible undue influence upon the election.

I commend our colleague, Jose Serrano, for his leadership in introducing this bill and thank Ranking Member Lamar Smith and Immigration Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren for their support of this measure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of this legislation, Mr. Serrano of the great State of New York and the home of the Yankees and Frank Sinatra across the river.

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

I yield back the balance of my time and ask that we pass the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1614) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that law enforcement service dogs and their handlers perform a vital role in providing for our Nation's security and should be recognized for their service.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1614 expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that police service dogs and their handlers perform a critical role in ensuring our national security and deserve to be recognized for their service.

Federal, State, local, and military law enforcement agencies work with service dogs to perform a variety of tasks to prevent and solve crimes and to keep the public safe. Search and rescue dogs often perform a number of functions, such as searching for victims in avalanches, collapsed buildings, and people missing in the wilderness.

Service dogs are also used to capture escaped offenders or suspects from crime scenes. These dogs are trained to search for items bearing human scent and are utilized in crime scenes to find evidence thrown away by a suspect.

In addition, dogs are trained to search through buildings, cars, and luggage, and can alert on more than one kind of drug despite the best efforts of smugglers.

Law enforcement service dogs can be trained to alert on guns and bomb-making materials. And often these dogs deter dangerous crimes at sporting events, train stations, airports, and other places by their mere presence.

Due to the dangerous situations these dogs and their handlers are frequently put in, many dogs have given their lives in the performance of their duties.

Today, this resolution recognizes the extraordinary efforts and dedication of these service dogs and their handlers.

Mr. Speaker, my first bill I had as a State senator in 1983 was one to make it a crime to shoot a police service dog, and to make it such because to shoot the dog was really to shoot at law enforcement personnel to try to stop that policeman from having that dog in the pursuit of its duty, and the next bullet would be for the officer. Of course they are valuable and important.

I commend Mr. Coble for bringing this bill recognizing the contribution that these dogs make to our society and to police practices. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) to speak on behalf of man's best friend.

I just want to thank Mr. Coble for bringing the bill.

As I said, I know from where he comes. That was my first bill. I started as a police attorney, and I know about police dogs and about the bonds between policemen and their K-9 companions. They do a tremendous service, and they ought to be protected and respected. I ask that we vote in unanimous support of this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Memphian and NBA star Lorenzen Wright. Mr. Wright was born in Memphis, Tennessee and attended the historic Booker T. Washington High School. After graduating, he attended the University of Memphis where he helped lead the team to the ``Sweet Sixteen'' in the 1995 NCAA tournament. While there, he was selected Third Team All-American by the Associated Press and earned the nickname ``The Howl'' because of his tendency to yell after exciting plays.

In 1996, after playing two seasons for the Memphis Tigers, Mr. Wright entered the NBA draft and was selected 7th overall by the Los Angeles Clippers. After three seasons with the Clippers, he played for the Atlanta Hawks for two years before returning home to play for the newly relocated Memphis Grizzlies in 2001.

For Lorenzen Wright, playing for his hometown team at the professional level gave him a chance to play alongside some of the best athletes for the city he loved. During his tenure with the Grizzlies, he became an emotional leader of the team, bringing passion and dedication to each and every game. Friend and former NBA star Penny Hardaway recalled the fans' love for Lorenzen and how ``he attacked the game every single night.'' After five seasons with the Memphis Grizzlies, he was traded back to the Atlanta Hawks and has since played for the Sacramento Kings and most recently the Cleveland Cavaliers until his retirement in 2009.

Off the basketball court, Lorenzen Wright was a devoted family man and a loyal friend. He is survived by six children, Lorenzen Jr., Loren, twins Lamar and Shamar, Lawson and Sofia, his parents Herb Wright and Deborah Marion and a host of family and friends. Lorenzen Wright's passing is a great loss to our city and the basketball world. I will miss him as a friend and appreciate all he did for Memphis.

Madam Speaker, yesterday in Memphis, Tennessee, a tragedy was discovered that has affected our city and its professional sports world, a great basketball player and Memphian, Lorenzen Wright, was found murdered.

Lorenzen Wright was a 14-year NBA star who played 5 years with the Memphis Grizzlies, and before that, 2 years with the University of Memphis, taking our team to the Great Eight in Kansas City, and before that, in high school at Booker T. Washington.

Lorenzen Wright was a family man. He was loved in Memphis, he was an outstanding citizen who cared about young people, he loved his children, and the city grieves for him today.

It is a great loss to our city and to the basketball world. I miss Lorenzen Wright as a friend. I appreciate all he did for my city.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1566) recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the pioneering of college students whose determination and nonviolent resistance led to the desegregation of lunch counters and places of public accommodation over a 5-year period.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, better known as SNCC, one of the organizations that served as the very foundation of the civil rights movement, the movement that brought America closer to its purpose, its established goals in the Declaration of Independence, which we had been striving to achieve and are still striving to achieve, as a place where there is equal opportunity for all people.

It was the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee that was responsible for conceptualizing and implementing the sit-in movement. College students came together in the name of justice and equality to desegregate lunch counters and other public places through nonviolent demonstrations.

I recently read a copy of the Smithsonian magazine in which there was an article about the sit-in movement. There was an interview with Joseph McNeil, one of the four students from North Carolina A&T who participated in the sit-ins at Woolworth's department store in 1960. While studying engineering physics at North Carolina A&T, Mr. McNeil would take the bus from New York to North Carolina and personally experience the shift in his status as he went from north to south. As an African American, he saw the differences in America traveling those distances, differences that should not have been allowed.

He is quoted in the article saying, ``In Philadelphia, I could eat anywhere in the bus station. By Maryland, that had changed.'' And in the Greyhound depot in Richmond, Virginia, McNeil couldn't buy a hot dog at a food counter reserved for whites. He further explained, ``I was still the same person, but I was treated differently. To face this kind of experience and not challenge it meant we were part of the problem.''

Well, the problem was America, and America needed changing. SNCC was one of the groups that came forth to change America and see that Thomas Jefferson's words weren't just words on paper as they were established in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence, but the practice of America, and that all

men were created equal and had those inalienable rights.

In honor of those students' heroic efforts, I would like to make three observations regarding their actions and their implications.

First, these sit-ins and other forms of nonviolent protests changed the climate and character of our country forever. As a direct result of SNCC sit-ins, protests, and boycotts, cities around the country, the South in particular, began to integrate their businesses in 1960, and thereafter, paving the way for the entire country to do so.

SNCC's work was not limited to integration of places of public accommodation. SNCC worked with the NAACP to achieve the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation not only at places of public accommodation, but also in schools, in hiring, and in voting registration. Shortly thereafter, in the wake of these achievements, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Second, despite SNCC's plethora of victories, their work was not easy, uncontroversial, or even safe. Those dedicated students faced clubs, tear gas, and high-pressure fire hoses at peaceful marches. Many faced harassment and beatings from racial dissenters, and many were arrested and even jailed despite their nonviolence. Some lost their lives.

These challenges posed by opposition did not stop SNCC. They continued to march, sit in, boycott, and to raise awareness for equal treatment and opportunities regardless of race--all shown on television--raising America's consciousness in seeing that morality was the future of this country.

For example, in Louisiana, student protesters were expelled from schools and were barred from the State's public colleges and universities. After the State barred these students from receiving the education they deserved, their peers boycotted classes for years.

The sit-in movement spanned across many States, including my State of Tennessee. The Nashville sit-in movement led to its being the first major city to begin the desegregation of its public facilities on May 10 of 1960. In Memphis, students from Le Moyne College and Owen Junior College also organized sit-ins at the main public library and local department stores.

Lastly, as I reflect on these important changes of the students that the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee brought about in our country to bring it closer to the democratic ideals on which it was founded, I cannot help but be reminded of how far our country still has to go to achieve the goals that were set out in the Declaration of Independence.

Glaring inequality still exists in education, housing, health, marriage, and other civil rights. America still has a distance to go.

It is critical that we look to the accomplishments of the SNCC as an inspiration to work harder for civil rights that have not yet been met and not as a pacifier to convince ourselves that we truly live up to the name ``free country.''

With that said, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the sit-in movement that it sparked, which really sparked the justice movement in our Nation, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman who is the hero of the civil rights movement, a person who personally experienced the times of which we are speaking, who is, I believe, one of the founders of SNCC and a gentleman with whom we are privileged to serve and to know in America, who helped make America the country it is today and who is helping to move it forward to be the country that it needs to be, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman as much time as she needs.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reflect on why we're here. Mr. Lewis and I brought this resolution because it's the 50th anniversary of SNCC.

There were other civil rights organizations as well, the NAACP, there was the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, there was CORE, and there was SNCC. SNCC came about at a time when this country was ripe for change and helped really light the fire that ignited a Nation to see the injustices and bring about the change that came about in the sixties.

When you think about what's happened in 50 years, that we're here on the floor of the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, honoring the founding of SNCC, an organization when it was founded and it was exercising its purposes, it was sneered and jeered and disdained by most people in America because they were upsetting America. They were bringing about change that people didn't understand and people resisted. And there were a lot of people that thought that the people involved in these organizations should be jailed, they were un- American, they were Communists, they were Socialists. That same rhetoric that you sometimes hear today you heard 50 years ago about these organizations that helped make America the more perfect Union it is, and to bring about the liberties that we really should enjoy, that Jefferson wrote about, but that were words on paper, not in practice.

The people that were involved with SNCC and these civil rights organizations should be considered heroes and are heroes because they made America. They made America what it should be, the land of opportunity and justice and equality and liberty, and giving all people rights, which we didn't have.

We had Jim Crow laws that were enforced by this Nation's laws, that Brown v. Board of Education changed. But before that, we had separate but equal, Plessy v. Ferguson, and it took

the work of Thurgood Marshall and others to overturn that in the courts, and later to overturn it in these Halls of this Congress in 1965 and 1964, civil rights laws, civil rights laws that, unfortunately, caused the Democrats to lose their majorities and to lose their hold on the South because they did what was right for this country, and what that flag stands for and what this Nation stands for.

So we're here today to honor the people and the organizations that at one time were sneered and disdained. But now we understand they were right. And sometimes you have to look back at history to understand who the heroes are and the direction this country goes in and where it should be.

And so I respect Mr. Lewis. He was in the front line. He mentioned being arrested 24 times. He was beaten; he was hit. He was in the face of injustice in the picture of law and order, and stood up to it with a moral law that was higher than the law of the State of Alabama, and he made that law change.

And so it's fitting, appropriate, and proper that we honor those heroes and the anniversary of that organization and that this United States Congress pass this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my staff, Ms. Reisha Phills, who worked with me on this resolution with Mr. Lewis, and I yield back the balance of my time and ask that we pass this resolution here tonight.

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

Madam Speaker, you listen to the rhetoric in this hall and you hear a lot of talk from the folks on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, about the deficit. It's very simple. There are two ways you deal with the deficit. Number one, you reduce spending or, number two, you increase income, and the way you increase income is you have more tax revenue. The two biggest ways you can get more tax revenue is taxing the most wealthy people in the country who can afford it.

The Republicans don't want to eliminate the tax cuts to the upper 1 and 2 percent of the population, people making over $250,000 a year, and they don't want require that to be a PAYGO. They just want those people to keep getting those tax breaks that were reduced 8 years ago. They're concerned about the inheritance tax, people that might inherit over $3.5 million a person. They're concerned about them. That's who they're concerned about, not middle class families who got the largest tax cut in history with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that not a Republican voted for. It was a Democratic bill, and the balanced budget under the Clinton years, all Democrats, a balanced budget.

So if you want to reduce deficits, you need to support the Democrats who do the hard lifting and see that we have revenue as well as responsible spending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

A Victory for Writing

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

anything of real substance by a unanimous vote. But an

important bill that protects Americans from the whims of

foreign libel judgments was passed earlier this week by

unanimous consent. Once it passes the House and is signed

into law, it will provide a safeguard to authors and

publishers threatened with ruinous foreign judgments.

In the United States, a plaintiff alleging libel must prove

that a statement is false and defamatory, and public figures

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

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

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

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

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

To sidestep American protections, subjects of books have

sued publishers and authors in British courts where they have

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

tourism, counts on a system in which American courts will

enforce British fines and penalties.

The bill passed by the Senate on Monday would prohibit

American courts from enforcing foreign defamation judgments

if the judgments are inconsistent with First Amendment

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

American author has committed libel but has not conducted the

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

judgment against the author would be void in the United

States. Americans who are found overseas to have committed

libel can also sue in federal court to have that judgment

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

law.

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

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

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

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

Khalid bin Mahfouz, of providing financial support to Al

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House has already passed a similar bill and is expected

shortly to support the version approved by the Senate, giving

authors in the rest of the country the same protections that

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

government to take the hint and follow through on the promise

it made earlier this month to review and overhaul its libel

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

themselves freely.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am encouraged that the newly elected Dr. Dervis Eroglu, President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, has, like his predecessor, expressed his commitment for a ``just and lasting comprehensive settlement through the ongoing negotiations'' under UN auspices for a Cyprus settlement.

The Cyprus problem started not in 1974, but in December 1963, after the 1960 Partnership Republic of Cyprus was destroyed by a Greek-backed coup. The UN Peace Keeping Force, UNFICYP was stationed on the island on March 4, 1964, but was unable to prevent inter-communal violence which erupted in 1967 and 1974.

The embargoes on the Turkish Cypriot side existing since 1963 are especially unacceptable given the fact that it was the Turkish Cypriot people who overwhelmingly in 2004 voted to adopt the Annan Plan to end the division of the island. The Greek Cypriots, who voted ``no'' on the referendum three to one, was rewarded with European Union membership, thereby further isolating the Turkish Cypriots.

Although the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Organization of Islamic Conference adopted resolutions calling for the lifting of restrictions on the Turkish Cypriots, their situation has not changed. This, even after the European Council of Foreign Ministers on April 26 invited the Commission ``to bring forward comprehensive proposals. . .to put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and to facilitate the reunification of Cyprus by encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot Community.''

The Cyprus dispute has a great impact, not just on the Island, but across Europe and

throughout the international community. The island's situation remains a source of contention between NATO allies, Turkey and Greece. Additionally, past negotiations have impacted the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States. Therefore, I believe a swift resolution should be encouraged by the United States.

I want to thank Congressman Hastings for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue to the American economy and the American public. My friend from North Carolina suggests that economists don't think this is a good thing. Well, Mark Zandi, who's the chief economist at Moody's, who was one of President Bush's economists and supporters, says, ``No form of the fiscal stimulus has proved more effective during the past 2 years than energy UI benefits, providing a bang for the buck of $1.61,'' for every dollar put in.

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist--that's not a bad little opportunity prize to win--``One main reason there aren't enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. Helping the unemployed, by putting money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support consumer spending. That's why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus.''

Timely, targeted, and temporary are the three keys to stimulus spending; and unemployment compensation goes to people who are the Purple Hearts of this economic recession, an economic recession caused by George W. Bush.

My friend from North Carolina says we're forgetting history. I'll tell you about history. Under Bill Clinton, we had a budget surplus. Under George Bush with a misguided war built on lies and tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country, we built up budget deficits, which we have had to increase because of the need to get out of this worst economic recession since Herbert Hoover--George Bush's ideological father--put us into the Depression some 80 years earlier.

No more American, independent, private-spending person than Warren Buffet has said that unemployment compensation should be passed. It helps the economy and it's just the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do for the economy, for the people who've gotten the Purple Hearts of this economic downturn, and for our country. And I urge everybody to use their brains and their hearts and to support this proposition.