Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is designed to prevent the Department of Justice from enforcing a decision made recently by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Many of us know of the policy in China of forced sterilization and forced abortions, and this decision recently really ties into that.

As we also know, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stated that Chinese nationals are eligible for asylum if they're subjected to forced abortions or sterilization procedures in China.

A decade of Department of Justice policy has held that spouses or unmarried partners of those subject to brutal treatment are also eligible.

Recently in Lin, et al., v. The United States Department of Justice, the second circuit overturned years of that policy and previous judicial decisions allowing Chinese men to claim asylum if their wife or partner is subject to a forced sterilization in China.

Less than 1 month before the second circuit handed down their decision, the third circuit came to the exact opposite assertion in Jiang v. The Attorney General of the United States, where they clearly upheld the decade-old policy of the Department of Justice granting asylum to spouses of those physically harmed by China's policy.

The chilling effect of the second circuit's decision is already being felt in States covered by the second circuit. Just 1 day after the second circuit handed down its decision, an immigration judge in Manhattan was bound to order the removal of an individual because her claim of asylum was based on the fact that her husband was a victim of the forced sterilization.

The lady had three children in violation of China's barbaric population control policies, keeping the first two hidden from the government. Upon the

birth of her third child, the Chinese Government became aware of her violation of the law and came to her home to force her to undergo sterilization. Due to the complications from her third birth, the doctor was unable to perform the sterilization, so the government simply seized her husband and sterilized him.

The judge in her case was sympathetic to her story and indicated his wish to grant her asylum; however, he felt that his hands were tied by the second circuit's decision just 24 hours prior.

Mr. Chairman, I will include the entire story for the Record.

We also have heard from many immigration lawyers. In light of this decision, many immigration lawyers are actively recommending to their clients who are seeking asylum based on such inhumane treatment to leave the States covered by the circuit in order to avoid expulsion.

Chinese nationals make up the largest number of asylum seekers in the United States. Between 2000 and 2005, 35,000 of the 157,000 asylum seekers came from China. It is unclear how many were petitioning solely due to China's brutal population-control policies.

In her dissenting opinion in the second circuit case, Judge Sonya Sotomayor made the point well when she wrote, ``The majority clings to the notion that the persecution suffered is physically visited upon only one spouse. But this simply ignores the question of whom exactly the government was seeking to persecute when it acted. The harm is clearly directed at the couple who dared to continue an unauthorized pregnancy in hopes of enlarging the family unit.''

To me it is clear that the effects of China's brutal forced sterilization procedures do not harm only the mother, but also the father, or vice versa. If the Second Circuit Court of Appeals can't recognize that, then I feel it is our responsibility to protect such asylum seekers either until there is a consistent national policy, or Congress considers a legislative remedy if necessary.

The second circuit's opinion, as we mentioned, recognizes the split. There are contrary decisions in the third, sixth, seventh and ninth circuits between 2002 and 2007.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the statement on Jiang Meijiao.

Statement

My name is Jiang, Meijiao. I was born on August 19, 1967 in

Lian Jiang County, Fu Jian Province, P. R. China. I started

school at the age of nine and stopped going to school after

the second year of junior high. I stayed home to help with

family chores afterwards.

My husband and I were junior high schoolmates. We held a

traditional wedding ceremony on January 1, 1991. We were only

allowed to have only one child according to the family

planning policy because my husband belonged to city household

and worked in a government work unit.

I found myself pregnant in early 1993. We wanted to have

more children so I went to stay in my brother's home. I gave

birth to a girl named Chen, Xi and another girl named Chen,

Yu on September 18, 1993 and December 10, 1996 respectively

with help of midwives in my brother's home.

I was pregnant again in October 1999 and during the late

term of the pregnancy, I often experienced pain in my abdomen

area. I dared not to seek medical examinations in hospitals

so I went to a private doctor but was refused treatment by

the private doctor. The private doctor suggested that I

should go to a hospital. In the morning of June 12, 2000,

around four o'clock in the morning, my water broke. My

husband rushed to locate a midwife for help. When the midwife

learned about the frequent pain I had during the last phase

of my pregnancy, she refused to deliver my child but urged us

to go to the hospital. My husband had to take me to Fu Zhou

City No. 1 hospital immediately. I gave birth to our third

child, a son named Chen, Qi on June 12, 2000.

During the delivery of my third child, I had bled severely.

I had to stay in the hospital for about a week. I was

diagnosed with hysteromyoma and the doctor gave me medicine

and injection as well. I was told to return to the hospital

to check up half year later.

I brought my newborn baby to my mother's home to stay after

being released from the hospital and left our two daughters

to my brother and his wife to take care of.

On October 9, 2000, six family planning cadres came to my

mother's home and forcibly taken me to Lian Jiang County

Family Planning Service Station and when the doctor tried to

perform the sterilization operation, they found out the

leiomyoma in my uterus was too big and they dared not to

continue with the operation.

The family planning cadres detained me at the family

planning office and went to my husband's work unit. They took

my husband to Fu Zhou No. 2 Hospital and sterilized him. I

was released afterwards. We were fined 20,000 on February 3,

2002.

I came to the U.S. on April 11, 2001 and returned to China

on October 3, 2001. I came to U.S. again on February 9, 2006.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we are all on the same page as to the decision itself. The consequence of what we are trying to offer this amendment for is to delay the deportation that is already occurring in the second circuit.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York and I share the second circuit as members of the New York City delegation, but what we are trying to do is at least provide a stopgap measure. We know quite clearly that just 24 hours after this decision was reached, a young lady, and perhaps her whole family, will be sent back to China. We are looking for a consistent policy.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work towards a legislative remedy, but until that time, we are trying to keep people here who want to seek and enjoy the American dream.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in strong opposition to this amendment, with much due respect to my friend and colleague from New Jersey.

And in large part it has been echoed, but let me repeat it. If anybody who was sitting on a runway, whether you are across this country, especially in LaGuardia or Kennedy, and in particular, Newark Airport, you would be stampeding this House to ensure that this redesign go through. The reason being, as has been detailed extensively, and who knows it better than the riding public, is that congestion is at all all-time high and only will get worse unless this plan is put in place.

The second, and perhaps I would, quote, in clean hands talk with respect to air noise with the people of Staten Island, that practically every plane that takes off to the south goes over Staten Island. So I can appreciate those who don't want more planes going over because the people in Staten Island suffer every day.

The preferred alternative in the plan will reduce traffic from Newark Airport from about 20 minutes to 12 minutes; will reduce air noise, as I said, over Staten Island; will reduce costs to airlines by $248 million by 2011; and a 1999 study showed that by 2010, we would hurt the U.S. economy by about another $4 billion, and the preferred alternative outlined in the plan could save our economy as much as 7 to 9 billion.

It is important and imperative that this plan go through. The riding public deserves it. Those sitting on runways now deserve it. Those waiting to get to Newark or any other airport deserve it. And I would just urge a speedy and urgent opposition to this amendment.

Madam Speaker, just over a week ago, the city of New York lost one of Its brave heroes. Police officer Russel Timoshenko of Staten Island was murdered in cold blood by a career criminal during what should have been a routine traffic stop in Brooklyn. He was only 23.

Officer Timoshenko was also a constituent of mine, and his death reminds us how precious life is . . . and how it can be stolen from us in an instant.

Officer Timoshenko embodied the American dream. He was born and raised in the former Soviet republic Belarus. His parents, Tatyana and Leonid, brought him to this country as a young boy in 1993 to give him a better life. They didn't speak English and arrived with almost nothing--all for their son. Russel grew up in Staten Island and, ultimately, chose to give back to the city he loved so much. He

joined the New York City Police Department just over a year and a half ago.

Much has been said about this brave young man. His friends and family have told us what an amazing person he was and how much he meant to them. But it is the words of his mother that speak volumes about Officer Timoshenko. So tonight, I wish to enter into the Congressional Record what Tatyana Timoshenko said about a proud American . . . a hero police officer . . . her beloved son.

Speaking of their decision to immigrate to the United States: ``I felt my child would have better opportunities here and a safer life. We were looking for a better life for our son . . . We wouldn't move just for us. We didn't speak English. We came here with nothing but six bags--two each . . . Do I regret it? A little, but at the same time, would he be the same person he is today if we didn't leave? I don't know . . . I know he was happy here.''

Of the kind of person that her son was during his short life: ``He never walked the stairs, he just flew up, skipping a step . . . And this flying, his steps, I can't forget them, I still hear them. I still can't believe it . . . He was truly unique. I want him to be remembered as a jolly, funny, kind boy. He was a leader and a hero.''

Remembering the day her son became a member of the New York City Police Department: ``We ordered sushi. It was a real holiday for him . . . He was really proud. I wanted him to be happy in life. He went to the academy, and I didn't want him to, but it made him happy.''

And finally on the passing of her son: ``I'm happy that we had such a miraculous child. That he died, it struck me in the heart, but there is nothing we can do now.''

For Russel Timoshenko, his life was lost much too early. I offer my condolences to the Timoshenko family. My words cannot possibly ease your suffering or bring light to these dark days, but I want you to know that we grieve with your family . . . say a prayer for healing . . . honor Russel and his service to New York . . . and thank you for raising a young man of immense character and integrity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of H. Resolution 345 honoring the 200th anniversary of the Archdiocese of New York. I thank Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis for helping pass this resolution. And I thank the gentleman from Queens, Mr. Crowley, for helping spearhead this through, as well as Mrs. Maloney from Manhattan, who were instrumental getting this passed last week out of committee.

Let me briefly say at the outset, it was somewhat of a bumpy road to arrive at today's vote. We are nevertheless here to honor the Archdiocese of New York. When we introduced the resolution in May and set about to secure the 50 cosponsors, we got it pretty quickly. It was heartening to see the outpouring of support. Initially the committee balked because of the reference to Cardinal Egan. And on a personal level, I thought it was insulting to the cardinal and professionally, by extension, I thought it was insulting to the millions of Catholics who comprise the archdiocese.

Cardinal Egan is the head of the archdiocese and is a significant spiritual leader of Catholicism in the United States and a man of great integrity and honor. Like those who have come before him, Cardinal Egan has carried forward the mission of his Catholic Church and helped to provide spiritual guidance to millions. I am proud to say the committee realized and recognized the appropriateness of recognizing the role of the archdiocese, and today the Congress has an opportunity to pass this resolution honoring the Catholic Church and the Archdiocese of New York in particular.

Mr. Shays provided some very compelling statistics about the archdiocese so I won't repeat them.

We know that the resolution pays tribute to the dedication and character and compassion and values that embody the archdiocese; and, by extension, I think it honors the service and deeds of so many Catholics who have enriched this Nation.

And you really can't tell the American story without telling the story of Catholics who have come to this country and enriched and made this country better and stronger. Lord knows, over the last couple of hundred years, there have been some great, not just contributions, but some great controversies.

In the 1800s there was a political party that was formed in large part, called the Know Nothings, rooted in anti-Catholicism. Fortunately, they have gone away, and the archdiocese of New York, like so many across the country, have remained steadfast and have been institutions that uphold the dignity of life.

Mr. Crowley mentioned Elizabeth Seton, and Seton Hall University is named in her honor in part. The Seton Foundation for Learning, for example, on Staten Island is a school that is principally designed to help children with developmental disabilities and all disabilities and are a strong reminder of the value and wonder of all human life.

The archdiocese includes over 3,700 charitable organizations, touching practically every neighborhood across New York City's region, and we know that Catholic Charities alone provides 5 million free meals annually to the less fortunate.

As I mentioned, you can't tell this American story without telling the Catholic story. There is probably no more rich archdiocese in this country than the one in New York, and you can't tell the New York story without knowing the archdiocese of New York.

So many people who have served in private life have also served their church through faith and in the local neighborhoods I mentioned, and so many police officers and firefighters and civil servants, who not only serve this country with honor and distinction but also serve through their faith the archdiocese. And we saw that very clearly on 9/11 when firefighter after firefighter and their families were laid to rest in the Catholic Church.

Those are some of the stories by which we can tell a compelling tale for America; but, today, the Congress, I say thank you to Mr. Davis and Mr. Shays and all who essentially set a little time aside to honor a great institution and celebrate 200 years of serving the poor, the less fortunate with dedication, compassion, and pure social outreach.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to engage Mr. Dicks in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Tiahrt, for their willingness to work on an important issue to my district in Staten Island.

In recent years, forests in Staten Island and other parts of New York, yes, New York City does have forests, have been under attack by the Asian Longhorned Beetle. The beetle has already eliminated 8,400 trees and, according to a recent New York Times article, Federal and State officials are expecting to eliminate 10,000 trees on Staten Island and Pralls Island due to the infestation of this invasive species. This does not include the additional 13,000 trees that are going to be sprayed with pesticides. In the United States, 35 percent of all urban trees are at risk, at a combined replacement value of $669 billion.

An infested silver maple tree located on a private wooded lot in Bloomfield in Staten Island is the first evidence of Asian Longhorned Beetle found. It was detected on March 22nd of this year. Thankfully, its early detection gives hope that the threat can be contained before it spreads to the nearby Staten Island Greenbelt Forest. However, without having the proper control mechanism in place by the July hatching period, Staten Island's 2,800 acre Greenbelt is in peril.

In May of this year, after the discovery of this on Staten Island, I wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture urging him to direct the U.S. Forest Service to develop a plan to address the Asian Longhorned Beetle in New York City.

The Greenbelt is one of the largest natural areas within the five boroughs of New York City and provides the most extensive system of connected trails within it. In contrast to other parks, such as Central Park and Prospect Park, the Greenbelt is maintained in a more natural state, both in the forested hills and the low-lying wetlands, and provides New York City residents a place to camp without having to drive 2 hours or more upstate.

In 2001, the United States Department of Agriculture forecast that the Asian Longhorned Beetle would be eliminated by 2009, but, unfortunately, due to a lack of funding, the Department of Agriculture now estimates it will take at least until 2033 to eradicate this 1\1/2\ inch beast. These funding setbacks reveal that the beetle will not only stick around in areas in which they currently reside, but they will also spread to new urban forest areas.

The bill before us today increases the Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management program by $9 million over the President's request of $47 million. With these additional funds, it is my hope that the United States Forest Service will dedicate some of these additional resources to fighting the beetle and eventually eliminate it from our forests.

Mr. Chairman, this is an urgent and serious problem for Staten Island and the rest of New York City's forests. I look forward to working with you to make sure the Forest Service has the necessary funding to eliminate this beetle and protect the trees that have thus far survived the beetle but may not be able to live much longer.

I would like you to be willing to work on this issue.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 547, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I very strongly urge the adoption of this amendment. The focus, as we all know, should be on preventing another 9/11, as the police commissioner from New York has underscored many, many different times, that to place this ring around New York City and major urban areas will be a strong deterrent to anybody even contemplating. So I strongly urge the adoption of this great amendment by my good friend from Long Island, New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the Crowley-Matsui-Fossella-Garrett amendment. I want to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for their work on this legislation.

Time after time we come to the floor to ensure that homeland security dollars are allocated on a reasonable and rational basis, and that is to protect the American people and those who come to our country.

Time after time, we wake up and realize that places like New York City and other high-threat areas are the subject of potential terrorist attack. There are many, including myself, who believe that our homeland security dollars should be based on the threats and the vulnerabilities and the consequences that come with the potential; or, God forbid, an attack itself, as was the case, the catastrophic case, on 9/11.

As has been mentioned, our amendment would add $50 million in funding for the high-risk, high-threat cities to fight terrorism. The additional funding would be directed to the Urban Area Security Initiative, which is the only homeland security grant program which distributes funding based on a risk-based formula, which is a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

The President's budget on the underlying legislation funds UASI at about $800 million, $50 million short, we believe, of the all-time highest appropriation, which occurred in fiscal year 2005.

Despite the fact that America has not been attacked since September 11, our Nation is still at war with an evil enemy. Indeed, just a month ago, law enforcement captured four alleged terrorists on charges that they were plotting to blow up Kennedy Airport in New York City. Their plan was to top the attacks of the World Trade Center, to massacre more people, destroy more property, inflict more damage, and leave our city in ruins.

The threat of terrorism remains very real, making it essential for cities that face the greatest risk to have the tools and resources they need to stop attacks before they occur. The amendment will help our first responders prepare, train and be ready to protect innocent Americans from acts of terrorism.

I believe it will also provide greater consistency to UASI, which has been beset by funding fluctuations of hundreds of millions of dollars from year to year.

It is clear that major cities like New York remain the center of the bull's-eye for terrorists. UASI helps us fight terrorism, and ensures our first responders have the equipment they need to protect the American people.

In a way, just in the last couple of years, a number of attacks have been foiled thanks to the efforts of law enforcement and intelligence gathering, much of it because of the funding that has gone through programs like UASI. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we can keep having the news media focus on foiled terrorist plots rather than counting caskets.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

Madam Speaker, on roll call no. 395 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, on May 18, 1957, Carol and Peter Carroll were married in St. Malachy's Church and went on to raise five children: Kathleen, John, Peter, Helen, and Paul.

Peter and Carol met while they were students at St. John's University. Peter was a starting center for the St. John's Redmen, and he and Carol met at a post-basketball game party.

Peter Carroll spent 40 years as a supervisor for Brooklyn Union Gas and coached basketball and baseball for St. Charles Parish and the Great Kills Little League. Carol worked for New York Telephone and then worked full time raising five children while also volunteering at the St. Charles School.

The Carrolls are proud grandparents of 17: Kathleen, Virginia, Caroline, Thomas, Amanda, Lindsey, Katie, Kevin, Billy, Andrew, McKenzie, Jennifer, Thomas, James, Victoria, Lauren, and Matthew. They currently split their time between Staten Island, Florida, and Long Beach Island.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Carrolls on this momentous occasion and wish them 50 more years of marriage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this budget, which significantly raises taxes on the American people. The Conference Report represents an enormous tax increase on hard-working American families--families that cannot afford to send more of their money for politicians and bureaucrats to spend.

My staff analyzed the original House budget resolution and determined that it would cost an average family on Staten Island or Brooklyn nearly $4,000 more a year in Federal taxes. My friends across the aisle hail this resolution because they say it raises taxes less than the budget Resolution--as if that is an achievement to be proud of. The simple truth is that this Budget still raises taxes when we should instead be working to reduce them.

In fact, the reduced tax increase is only achieved if certain triggers are hit--triggers that are based on projected surpluses. But you don't need a degree in economics to know that surpluses will only be hit by restraining spending, which this Resolution most certainly does not do.

How are we supposed to have a surplus large enough to avoid raising taxes when this Resolution does nothing to reign in spending--and also includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending without proper offsets? The math does not add up.

I cannot support a budget resolution that will ultimately cost families on Staten Island and Brooklyn $4,000 more every year in Federal taxes or a New York City Police Officer $1,300 more, a New York City public school teacher $1,500 more, and a New York City Firefighter $2,000 more.

The other side claims to support a ``Pay As You Go'' system when, in reality, this budget Resolution amounts to ``Buy Now, Pay $400 Billion More in Taxes Later.''

I urge my colleagues to vote against what is one of the largest tax increases--if not the largest tax increase--in American history.

Madam Speaker, as we return from Mother's Day weekend, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for H.R. 1157, the Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act, and urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

This weekend we honored our mothers and grandmothers and the immense contributions they have made in our lives. As we celebrate these women, we should also take the opportunity to renew our focus and efforts on an issue that affects far too many women in the United States: breast cancer.

There are more than three million women currently living with breast cancer, and each year tens of thousands of women die from the disease. While we have made important progress in treatments and research, we still do not know what causes breast cancer or how to prevent it. And the alarming nature of these uncertainties is compounded by the fact breast cancer rates are on the rise. A woman in the United States has a 1 in 7 chance of developing invasive breast cancer in her lifetime-- this risk was only 1 in 11 in 1975.

While it is generally believed the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, scientific evidence about the extent of its role is minimal. Studies have explored the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides and electromagnetic fields, but in most cases there is no conclusive evidence, and they cannot be translated into real ways in which women can better protect themselves.

The Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act will create a competitive, peer-reviewed research program at the National Institutes of Health to study the potential links between breast cancer and the environment. Less than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors, and there are many understudied factors suspected to play a role that could be valuable in understanding the causes of breast cancer. H.R. 1157 will start a collaborative, comprehensive and national strategy to study these issues.

I proudly stand in support of the Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act. I hope you will join me in cosponsoring this important, bipartisan investment in breast cancer research.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chairman, most people don't realize while our troops are in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq, that their family members back home, if they want to send them a care package, whatever that care package may consist of, from a young child's homework assignment or a drawing or an artist's rendering, to just something from home to help them in their time of trouble, right now those families must pay for it. And on average, it's not unusual for a family to incur about $1,500 a year in postage to mail those packages.

My amendment would authorize free mailing privileges for family members of our servicemen and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe the amendment offers tremendous opportunity to increase the morale of our troops overseas which, as we are well aware, is a necessary component to have a confident and fully prepared military.

I would like to thank, of course, Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member Hunter, Personnel Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Snyder, and my good friend, John McHugh from New York, for helping to bring this amendment to fruition.

I drafted the amendment in response to concerns expressed to me by many family members that it was becoming too costly to send those regular care packages to their loved ones overseas. I heard story after story of families that are already finding it hard to make ends meet now having to spend as much as $1,500 a year to mail care packages.

These packages, as I mentioned, bring a touch of home to our servicemembers. Pictures, cards, school projects from kids, and I'm told there's not good pepperoni in Afghanistan yet, so that comes as well. But they also provide the military men and women with basic necessities like additional shampoo or powder or perhaps phone cards.

In my district of Staten Island and Brooklyn, residents join together and raise money to help military families send these packages overseas. I was inspired by the outpouring of support for our servicemen and women, particularly in Dyker Heights, Brooklyn, where postal service employees raise money to cover the postage for every package sent to our troops. In Staten Island residents formed the Staten Island Project Home Front, Incorporated, a nonprofit organization dedicated to serving our deployed troops and their families by sending thousands of care packages. This month alone they sent over 230 packages to our soldiers overseas. It was with acts of generosity and patriotism such as these that prompted this amendment.

The amendment has also received the support of organizations such as the VFW, American Legion, National Association of Uniformed Services. And to quote the VFW, ``Letters and packages from home do wonders in boosting morale of our men and women serving in harm's way, and high morale transfers to combat ready and effectiveness.'' Comments such as this I wholeheartedly agree with.

It goes without saying that our servicemen and women are making enormous sacrifices fighting this war on

terrorism and defending freedom and liberty. They face great challenges under trying circumstances, and often without some necessities such as blankets or toothpaste. It falls upon their families back home to get them these supplies and to cover the cost of shipping them overseas. The amendment will make life a little easier for our soldiers and to ease the financial burden on those back home. It's a simple way of bringing a touch of home to America's heroes overseas.

In short, what it would do would give each family member a voucher, the equivalent of sending a 10-pound package every 2 months, and would reduce that cost to those families.

Madam Chairman, I'd also submit for the Record letters in support from the VFW and the American Legion.

Veterans of Foreign Wars of

the United States,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2007.

Hon. Vito Fossella,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Fossella: On behalf of the 2.4 million

members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States

(VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I am pleased to offer our strong

support for the ``Supply Our Soldiers Act of 2007'' (H.R.

1439), which provides for free mailing privileges for

personal correspondence and parcels sent to members of the

Armed Forces serving on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan.

As you are aware, letters and packages from home do wonders

in boosting the moral of our men and women serving in harms

way; and high moral translates to combat readiness and

effectiveness. Unfortunately, too many military families are

financially strained and cannot absorb the cost of postage to

send parcels on a recurring basis. Your initiative goes a

long way in eliminating that burden.

Thank you for taking the lead and introducing this measure.

We look forward to working with you to ensure it is enacted.

Sincerely,

Michael H. Wysong,

Director,

National Security and Foreign Affairs.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On October 6, 2005, New York City was once again the site of a potential terrorist attack, an apparent plot to hide bombs in baby strollers, briefcases, and packages and set them off in the city's subways. Unfortunately, New Yorkers who tuned in to the news that day for information received conflicting messages.

On one hand, local officials announced that a credible threat was aimed at the city's subway system; on the other hand, Federal officials downplayed the severity of the threat, even describing it as ``specific yet noncredible.''

The incident in New York was not isolated. Just weeks later, Federal officials responded to a bomb threat in the I-95 tunnel in the Baltimore Harbor, a threat that local officials learned about from the news media. The information was either credible or not credible, but it certainly wasn't both.

I strongly support efforts by antiterrorism forces at the Federal, State, and local levels; but it disturbed me, and I am sure others, to watch the confusion that unfolded in these situations.

Where improvement is needed is how different levels of government interact with each other when terrorist threats are elevated. Everyone needs to be on the same page and, when credible threats occur, the public needs to be informed in a coordinated manner. In short, what is needed is a 911 call center for first responders.

To achieve that, my amendment works as follows: authorizing a study to be conducted by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to identify the problems and the successes of terrorist threat information sharing among the different levels of government;

Recommends a formalized process for that sharing;

And authorizes centers of best practices spread throughout the country, and would allow local governments, State and others, to interact and to share that information.

Because not every city, as we know, can dedicate resources to developing advanced techniques to fight terrorism, the Centers for Best Practices would be on the front lines providing advice to every city and State in our Nation on the most effective strategies to protect their citizens from new attacks.

This amendment would ensure an enhanced level of coordination on communicating terrorist threats to the public. But while it comes to matters of national security, our government must speak with one voice, a knowledgeable voice that can provide accurate information to the American people. Government cannot send conflicting messages at such critical times.

Last year during debate of this bill, the House approved this amendment by voice vote; and I notice the gentlelady from California who is here, Ms. Harman, said it probably best. She said at the time, We not only need to share information better horizontally, a point we have been making in this committee and one of the reasons we set up the Director of National Intelligence, but we need to share it better vertically. Some of the best ideas are in our hometowns and some of the best people to try to keep us safe are in our hometowns.

I support the Fossella amendment. It will help us through the establishment of Centers of Excellence to develop best practices to share information horizontally and vertically, and give best information to those in our hometowns trying to protect us.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for generations, Israel has been defending itself against hostile nations and terrorism in the midst of a region long plagued by turmoil and instability. The United States, now more than ever, must stand by its relationship with Israel. I want to take this opportunity to address in more detail my support of recent legislation before Congress regarding Israel.

I am pleased to see a key piece of legislation pass the House this week that I have cosponsored, H. Res. 125. The resolution expresses deep concern over the use of civilians as human shields in violation of international humanitarian law and the law of war during armed conflict. During the summer of 2006 conflict between Hezbollah and the State of Israel, Hezbollah routinely used this brutal and illegal tactic of embedding its forces among civilians to use them as human shields. This bill calls upon the international community to recognize the breaches of international law through the use of human shields and calls upon the State Department to make recommendations to prevent the future use of human shields during armed conflicts. The majority of civilian casualties of that conflict might have been avoided and civilian lives saved had Hezbollah not employed this tactic.

I am also very concerned about an issue facing the rapidly shrinking population of Holocaust survivors, and their right to research the facts of the unspeakable tragedy. Earlier this year, I signed letters addressed to the Ambassadors from Great Britain, France, Greece, Belgium and Italy urging them to expedite the process of releasing the Holocaust archival records of the International Tracing Service (ITS) located in Bad Arolsen, Germany. These millions of extensive records have remained inaccessible to Holocaust survivors, their families, and researchers alike for decades. Although progress was made last May when the International Commission of the ITS amended the Bonn Accords to allow each Commission member country to receive a digitized copy of the archives, some of the nations have yet to ratify the amendments. For the sake of these survivors and their families, I joined my colleagues in urging these governments to ratify this critical treaty amendment without delay. These letters led to the introduction of H. Res. 240, of which I am an original cosponsor and that passed the House this week. Mirroring the letters, the bill urges all countries that have not ratified the amendments to abide by their May 2006 treaty obligations and expedite such ratification. The bill goes on to urge all members of the International Commission of the ITS to consider the short time left to Holocaust survivors and unanimously consent to open the ITS archives should all countries not ratify the amendments by May 2007.

Since I was first elected to Congress, I have always supported strengthening the partnership between the United States and Israel. I am pleased to see these two important bills pass the House, and throughout the 110th Congress, I will continue to look for opportunities to bolster the relationship with our key ally, Israel.