Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my congratulations to Steven B. Reneau, a Staten Island resident and recent graduate of Staten Island Technical High School. Steven is the Iron Man of the city school system. You see, since he entered the first grade in 1994, Steven has not missed a single day of school--translating to roughly 2,160 consecutive days of class.

Steven never gave much thought to the distinction until his eighth- grade teacher at St. John's Lutheran School on Staten Island noted that his attendance had been unblemished. From this point forward, Steven made attending class every day his priority.

Instead of being held down by illness, bouts of exhaustion, or pressure from his peers to cut class, Steven says his perfect attendance drove him to keep going--with a few tough love nudges from Mom. Steven even postponed an all-expenses-paid trip to M.I.T. because the visit was in the middle of the school week.

His persistence has paid off. Steven, who was elected class president three times and was a member of the swim team, has received three scholarships to Yale University to study economics and history with an eye toward graduate school--with perfect attendance--no doubt. Again I want to congratulate Steven on his outstanding achievement and I wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I remember a very dear friend of mine, Robert Allen Muir, Jr. of Staten Island, New York, who recently passed away. Bob was one of the kindest, most sincere and genuine people I have ever met--and I long considered him a member of my family.

Bob was a widely respected election lawyer who worked with candidates from both sides of the aisle, including Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Steve Forbes and myself. Bob also was an aide to Mayor Lindsay and Congressman Freddy Richmond. He had a great legal mind and he put his expertise to use helping those leaders he felt could make a positive impact on New York City, State, and the nation. In addition, Bob was filled with common sense. He understood the concerns of average Americans, and he was able to express them in simple language that always made the point.

Bob was born in New York City and moved to Staten Island in his early 20s. He later lived in Brooklyn and New Jersey until finally returning to Staten Island and the New Brighton community in 2003.

A graduate of Peddie School in Hightstown, New Jersey, Bob earned his bachelor's degree from Villanova University and his law degree from Fordham University School of Law in Manhattan.

Besides a great friendship, Bob and I also shared another passion, the New York Yankees. Bob reserved his Friday nights during baseball season for trips to the Bronx to watch his beloved Bronx Bombers. He also enjoyed outings on his boat, cooking, and gardening. He and his wife, Ilsa, were set to begin their new life in their new home. Bob designed this beautiful home himself to resemble a traditional Colonial residence. Everything was looking great until the Almighty called him home.

Along with Ilsa, Bob leaves behind two daughters Karen and Heather. All who knew Bob were grateful for his kindness and compassion. He was always fighting for the most vulnerable among us. New York State and City are a better place because of Bob Muir. We miss him dearly.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for this bipartisan effort to help law enforcement.

We know the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program provides the necessary funding to protect local law enforcement officials. In my hometown of New York City, we received 10 percent of the money they spent on bulletproof vests over the last 2 years from the program, especially in Staten Island and Brooklyn, which I am proud to call home. We have probably more active and retired police officers than any other county in the country.

Mr. Chairman, we know full well, whether it is in Staten Island, Massachusetts or anywhere else in the country, that the line between this great country and anarchy is our police department. Even more devastating is when we hear from time to time, and it happens, when a police officer is shot and killed because he did not have the protection necessary.

Recently, we had an officer in New York City, Officer Dillon Stewart, shot during a high-speed chase. The bullet hit him just under his arm, just a fraction of an inch above his bulletproof vest, which eventually killed him. That is the horror, not only for the people who really appreciate the sacrifice of law enforcement, but for the Stewart family and so many others, who probably question if he just had a little more protection.

That is what this bulletproof vest program does. It allows cities like New York, Boston and all cities across the country to step up and get the resources to provide our law enforcement men and women with the tools they need. When we hear of a high-speed chase or we hear of a shooting, we can rest a little better knowing that we have done in Congress a good thing for them by giving them the protection that they deserve, expect and, frankly, need.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you in advance for accepting this amendment and giving the $12 million. I know you have a lot of difficult choices to make in this appropriations process, but in this case I think you are doing what is right for the American people and law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK) recently embarked on a new and exciting chapter in the history of Korean-American relations. June 5, 2006 marked the start of formal negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA) between our two countries. I would like to recognize this important event, which I believe will lead to significant economic opportunities for Koreans and Americans alike.

From a commercial perspective, the Republic of Korea-United States FTA (the ``KORUS FTA'') is the most important bilateral trade agreement the United States has negotiated in over a decade. After a remarkable recovery from the devastating effects of the Korean conflict, ROK has risen to become the 10th largest economy in the world with a GDP approaching $1 trillion and per capita income of over $20,000. ROK consumers have the means to purchase our goods, and ROK investors have the wherewithal to invest in our country.

The Republic of Korea is now our seventh largest trading partner, and represents our sixth largest market for agricultural exports. Two-way trade exceeds $70 billion annually. And Korea is a growing market for U.S. service providers. The United States actually boasts a services trade surplus with ROK of $4.3 billion.

But there is much more opportunity for growth and an FTA will serve as the catalyst for trade promotion. ROK's average tariff on goods is just over 11 percent--three times higher than the U.S. equivalent. The average tariff applied by ROK on agricultural products is even higher-- 52 percent.

This comprehensive trade accord will eliminate tariffs and address other barriers to trade in the United States and the Republic of Korea, thereby stimulating U.S. export growth and investment. As the U.S. International Trade Commission noted, U.S. goods exports to ROK could increase by 50 percent and U.S. agricultural exports could increase by 200 percent with a fully implemented KORUS FTA.

New Yorkers, in particular, could realize substantial benefits from the KORUS FTA as tariffs and other barriers are eliminated. In 2005, New York exported $1.4 billion in goods to the Republic of Korea, including machinery, computers and electronic products, transportation equipment, and chemicals. And the FTA would liberalize ROK services markets, creating exciting opportunities for New York's financial services providers.

Agriculture is also very important to New York's economy. Our state is one of the top dairy producers in the country, along with apples, hay, and cattle. If we are able to lower ROK trade barriers on these goods, New York producers will increase sales as they expand their market share in the Republic of Korea. ROK, for example, applies a 45 percent duty on apple imports.

Despite our close bilateral alliance, U.S. market share in the Republic of Korea has actually decreased in recent years due to the influence of other emerging economies in the marketplace. Enhanced and preferential access to the ROK market for U.S. exporters and investors will improve our economic position in Asia and allow us to compete more effectively in the very challenging global marketplace.

Further, the Republic of Korea has FTAs with several other countries, and is currently negotiating with Canada. The KORUS FTA will level the playing field for U.S. exporters who would otherwise experience a competitive disadvantage in the ROK market.

In addition to the economic benefits an FTA could provide, it is also important to note ROK role as a long-standing U.S. ally.

The United States and the Republic of Korea have a mutual defense treaty that dates back to 1953, and ROK has supported U.S. military efforts abroad, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, ROK pledged over $30 million in aid for relief and recovery efforts--the fourth largest amount donated by any foreign country.

I strongly believe that this new partnership between the United States and ROK is positive development for both of our countries. As the trade negotiations proceed, I look forward to working closely with the U.S. and ROK negotiators, my New York constituents, and fellow colleagues so that we can ensure this agreement is a win-win for both countries.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to extend my remarks noting this important occasion. I hope that my colleagues will join me in recognizing and supporting the KORUS FTA negotiations.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for yielding, and I also want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member for crafting a very good bill.

I rise in support of the amendment and to echo Mr. Lipinski. I think the money in this amendment would actually allow and provide for rail grants throughout the country. It will provide another needed funding stream for States and municipalities wishing to alleviate traffic and improve air quality through rail transportation, whether in Chicago or my hometown of Staten Island.

We face some of the worst commute times in the Nation. And let me be fair: A primary reason for their transportation problems lies with the fact that we have a Metropolitan Transportation Authority which has neglected our borough for decades. Our sole direct transit link to Manhattan remains the Staten Island Ferry and limited express bus routes. The island is also only served with one passenger rail line on its east shore, the State Island Railway.

This amendment will make much needed funding available to enhance and expand rail projects like many being considered on Staten Island. We have been working to reactivate a passenger rail line along the island's north shore. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have projected 11,000 to 15,000 passengers would ride this line daily. This amendment will allow the State or the MTA to apply for money to complete studies needed to get the project off the ground, building on money already in this bill for the same purpose.

Other potential projects this amendment could help advance are a light rail along the island's west shore and improvements on the existing Staten Island Railway.

While we would like to see the grant program funded at higher levels, this amendment would be an excellent start in expressing Congress's commitment to passenger rail, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fossella-Crowley amendment, and I first want to thank Chairman Rogers for the tough task he has of putting together a good bill.

My amendment would increase by $20 million the High Density Urban Area Program by transferring that same amount from the TSA Transportation Security Support appropriation of $523 million. The President's budget funded the High Density Urban Area Grant Program, also known as UASI grants, at $838 million. The underlying legislation funds it at $750 million, an $88 million shortfall.

In short, Mr. Chairman, we are here in large part because of what happened on September 11. It happened in 2001 and it happened in New York City. So it is a grim reminder of what needs to be done in protecting our homeland. Just yesterday, a Pakistani man was convicted for plotting to plant a bomb at the Herald Square subway station in midtown Manhattan.

It is clear that New York City, like other major cities, still remains exhibit A, and this grant program helps cities combat terrorism. New York City alone dedicates $200 million and 1,000 police officers to combat terrorism, and they are still $263 million short to do that for the people of New York City and those who tour.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I just would like to thank my colleague from New York as well, Mr. Crowley, for being supportive; and perhaps the gentleman from New Jersey would yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. I was deeply concerned when I learned that the Hamas party was elected to take control of the Palestinian Authority. In FY 2005, the United States appropriated $275 million to the West Bank and Gaza, with $50 million of that funding going directly to the Palestinian Authority. But now, with Hamas in control of the Palestinian Authority, not one dollar of taxpayer money should go to this terrorist organization. The Palestinian people have every right to elect a terrorist organization to control their government--and the United States has every right to eliminate any financial assistance for it.

Under H.R. 4681, the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority would become eligible for United States foreign assistance only when Hamas renounces violence, dismantles the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza, recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and accepts all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

Hamas is responsible for countless homicide bombings that have killed hundreds of Israeli citizens. They have waged a terror war with the sole intent of murdering innocent people. Hamas is responsible for some of the most horrific terrorist attacks in recent years, including the March 2002 Passover Massacre that killed 30 people; the June 2002 Patt Junction Massacre which killed 19 people; and the 2003 Jerusalem Bus attack which killed 23 people. And recently, Hamas backed the Apri1 2006 bombing of a Tel-Aviv restaurant that killed 9 people.

The Hamas Charter reads: ``Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.''

Hamas' victory further jeopardizes the peace process and creates greater instability in the region. I have no confidence in Hamas as a responsible leader of the Palestinian Authority nor do I believe the terrorist group wants peace with Israel. I urge the new government to proceed with caution and exercise restraint as it assumes power. Any provocation on their part will rightly be met with fierce resistance by the Israeli people.

H.R. 4681 does allow for humanitarian assistance, including providing funds to Fattah party member Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority. Under this bill, the Palestinian People may be eligible for additional aid on a case-by-case basis. While strong against Hamas, this bill is not need-blind to the people of Palestine. Just recently,

the United States sent $10 million worth of pharmaceuticals to local clinics in the Gaza Strip on May 10.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 5122, the 2007 Defense Reauthorization.

In February 2006, I introduced legislation that would allow military families to mail packages postage-free to their loved ones serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the help of Chairman Hunter, Sub-Committee Chairman McHugh, and Chairman Tom Davis, this legislation has been included in the underlying legislation we are currently debating.

I drafted the legislation in response to concerns expressed to me by many military families that it was becoming too costly for them to send regular care packages to their loved ones overseas. I heard story after story of families that were 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 bring a touch of home to our servicemembers--like pictures, cards and school projects from their children. But they also provide our military men and women with basic necessities like shampoo, powder, and phone cards.

In my district of Staten Island and Brooklyn, residents joined together and raised money to help military families send these packages over seas. I was inspired by the outpouring of support for our service men and women in Dyker Heights, Brooklyn, where postal service employees raised money to cover the postage for every package sent to our troops. On Staten Island, several groups dedicated to helping miltary families also raised money to help offset the cost of postage.

It was these acts of genorosity and partiotism that prompted me to introduce my legislation. And today, with the strong, bipartisan support of 133 of my colleagues, the House of Representatives will show our enduring support for our service men and women and their families.

It goes without saying that our servicemen and women are making enormous sacrifices fighting the War on Terrorism and defending freedom and liberty. They face great challenges under trying circumstances, and often without the benefit of basic necessities like blankets or toothpaste. It falls upon their families back home to get them these supplies and to cover the cost of shipping them overseas. This bill will help make life better for our soldiers and to ease the financial burden on those back home. It is a simple way to bring a touch of home to America's heroes overseas.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and allow our military families an easier path to sending care packages to their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker,

Whereas it is the sense of the House of Representatives to

recognize and commend those American universities which have

achieved world renown and brought pride and honor to our

Nation through their traditions of academic excellence;

Whereas attendant to such concern, and in full accord with

its long-standing traditions, the House of Representatives is

justly proud to honor the Fordham University School of Law

upon the occasion of its 100th Anniversary;

Whereas on September 28, 1905, the Fordham University

School of Law opened its door in the City of New York to 13

students; since that time it has evolved into one of the

largest, most diverse and most respected law schools in the

Nation, with nearly 1,600 students and over 200 full-time and

adjunct faculty;

Whereas to commemorate this milestone in the life of the

school and the educational history of the City and State of

New York and the Nation, the Fordham University School of Law

has designed a year-long celebration commencing on September

28, 2005;

Whereas the Fordham University School of Law's Centennial

Celebration will feature symposia, lectures, galas and, in

keeping with its dedication to serving others, a commitment

by its alumni, faculty, and students to contribute 100,000

hours of public pro bono work to help those that are less

fortunate;

Whereas for 100 years, the Fordham University School of Law

has been defined by unparalleled standards of learning and

has produced countless leaders throughout the world; and

Whereas with great admiration, the House of Representatives

is proud to pay tribute to this eminent university which

stands at the threshold of the future with its legacy of

outstanding achievements and its impressive body of

distinguished alumni;

Therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives

honors the Fordham University School of Law upon the occasion

of its 100th Anniversary, fully confident that in its future,

it will enjoy the same success which has so characterized its

past.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be very brief in support of the amendment, but also the underlying legislation which I think is a natural extension of where this country has gone over the last several years as we seek to ensure the safety and security of the American people.

We know that the most fundamental responsibility of our Federal Government is to ensure the safety of its people and to protect and ensure our National security. And clearly port security has been left in limbo.

But not until today have we seen a more comprehensive and in a way bipartisan approach that acknowledges that indeed we are vulnerable in our ports. And events over the last couple of months obviously have catapulted this to the top of the headlines, if you will.

But for someone who represents Staten Island and Brooklyn, proudly, the mouth of New York-New Jersey Harbor, practically every cargo container that comes and finds its way into the northeastern region goes underneath the Verrazano Bridge. And I want to know, as much as I can, that the people that I represent are safe and secure.

We recognize the importance of commerce. We recognize the importance of jobs and what that cargo means to consumers across the country, especially in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut and the northeast. But that does not mean we have to keep safety at the door.

So I commend Chairman King and all of those Members who have worked so diligently over the last couple of months to bring this bill to the floor. I think, as I say, this is a natural extension to let those who want to or are contemplating ways to wreak havoc on the American people know that we are serious about protecting its people here, and that we are going to do everything possible to ensure that cargo that comes into our ports is safe and nonthreatening.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

First, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for allowing me to bring this amendment forward in the Rules Committee.

One of the essential elements of government responsibility is to communicate effectively to the American people, especially in time of a potential terrorist attack or a natural disaster.

On October 6 of 2005, New York City was made aware of several reports that terrorists were planning a large-scale attack on the subway systems. That evening, as New Yorkers watched the news, they had to struggle with two conflicting messages about the day's events. City officials, led by the mayor and the police commissioner, announced that a credible threat was aimed at New York City subway system, and stated that the threat was specific enough to warrant an immediate and overwhelming response.

However, the news also reported that officials in Washington were down playing the severity of the threat. A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security described it as ``specific, yet noncredible.'' Other antiterrorism officials stated that the information gathered about the plot was not verifiable.

New York officials first learned of the threat earlier in the week. The information gained from a reliable informant indicated that the people in Iraq were plotting with people in the United States to hide bombs in baby strollers, briefcases and packages and set them off in the city's subways.

But the Department of Homeland Security had a different take. They released to law enforcement agencies an unclassified bulletin on the threat to the subway system, indicating that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security had doubts about the credibility of that threat. Yet the document also stated that a team of operatives, ``some of whom may travel to or who may be in the New York City area,'' might attempt an attack on or about October 9, 3 days after this warning. It also said that the terrorists might use remote-controlled or timed explosives hidden inside or underneath baby carriages and briefcases or suitcases.

Vetting and verifying information is one thing. Having our government sending out conflicting messages to the American people when conflict can be avoided is another.

I have always and will continue to be supportive of all efforts by antiterrorism forces at the Federal, State and local levels, but it pained me, and I am sure many others, to watch the confusion that unfolded that October.

The trend continued weeks later in Maryland. Officials responded to a bomb threat in the I-95 tunnel under Baltimore Harbor, which the closing of resulted in stopping of thousands of cars for hours along a major transportation corridor. However, Baltimore's mayor and police commissioner said they learned of the tunnel closure and the bomb threat from the news media. This is not the way the system should work.

Bear in mind, since 9/11, law enforcement at all levels has responded to a variety of threats every day such as a misplaced bag, a suspicious package or unknown substance. In general, these agencies and the men and women who work for these agencies are dedicated, responsible, diligent, and respond very well to these potentially dangerous situations.

But what clearly needs to be done and to be improved is how different levels of government interact with each other when these threats are elevated. We need to get everyone on the same page and, when a credible threat occurs, inform the public in a coordinated way. In short, what is needed is a 911 call center for first responders. To achieve that, my amendment works in the following ways:

It authorizes a study to be conducted by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to identify the problems and the success of terrorist threat information sharing between the Federal, State and local levels of government.

Number 2, in addition to identifying the best practices, it will recommend a formalized process between the Federal, State and local levels of government for communicating threats to the public in a coordinated way.

Once complete, the study will be made available to all Federal, State and local government entities involved in terrorist intelligence gathering.

Finally, based on the results of the study, three centers of best practices will be created; staffs of the centers tasked with developing techniques to teach State and local governments how to improve their information sharing and planning techniques in conjunction with the Federal Government.

The center's staff will ensure the results of the study are incorporated in the daily workings of homeland security preparedness and responsive activities through all levels of government.

And finally, let me just say it is a fact that not every city can dedicate resources to terrorism. On the one hand, we have New York City where more than 1,000, about 1 in every 40, police officers in New York City are dedicated to antiterrorism duties. The reality is New York City faces a threat every single day. New York can be Exhibit A. But for other municipalities developing advanced techniques on fighting the war on terrorism, it is not so important. They don't have the resources, the manpower to dedicate. This amendment is not limited to just New York. The other centers of best practices, a suggestion would be in Detroit and Los Angeles, and can disseminate and share their techniques with other cities, whether it be Topeka or Peoria.

The sad fact is that the same terrorist scenarios, if they occurred in five different States, there could be five different sets of responses to the American people. We need, at a minimum, a level of coordination on communicating threats to the public. This amendment, I believe, will achieve that goal. The American people deserve it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

I would just like to thank the gentlewoman for her efforts and that of your staff, especially Chairman Hoekstra, that of Chairman Peter King and his staff and Rob O'Connor. But I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and strong support.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, according to the nonprofit Center for Campus Fire Safety, between January 2000, and January 2006, 82 people from 25 States have been killed in student-housing fires. Common factors in these fatal fires are a lack of fire prevention technologies. Each year, an estimated 1,800 fires occur in dormitories and other college- owned houses. These fires are responsible for over $8 million in property damage.

In New York alone, there was an average of more than 300 campus fires per year between 1997 and 2000, with roughly 160 of them annually in dormitories.

Mr. Chairman, more people are alive today because of fire detection and prevention technologies, and this amendment, I think, is an important one that can benefit both colleges and universities around the country. The amendment I offer does not create a new program or any additional cost to the Federal Government. It simply allows fire alarm detection, prevention and protection systems to be eligible for funding under the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education. Fire detection plus fire suppression equals fire safety. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

As many know, and especially those who may have young sons or daughters at colleges or universities, the last thing you want to hear is a call that perhaps one of your children was injured or, even worse, lost their life in a tragic fire at a dorm or campus housing. We know of many colleges not just in New York but across the country

who would love to install and have in place fire prevention and detection systems given the new technology, and we would think that this is an amendment that could be supported to allow these colleges and universities to become eligible for these grants and also leverage those public grants with private resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, when President George Bush traveled to South Korea late last year to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, Summit in Busan, he and President Moo-Hyun Roh agreed that while the strategic partnership and evolving security alliance between our two nations were ``mutually beneficial,'' increased and more efficient communication were still required.

Against this backdrop, Presidents Bush and Roh agreed to launch a strategic dialogue called Strategic Consultation for Allied Partnership, SCAP, at the ministerial level for consultations on bilateral, regional and global issues of mutual interest. Currently, the U.S. only holds such consultations with Australia, Saudi Arabia and Japan.

The first of these meetings took place in Washington on January 19, 2006, when South Korea's Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ki-Moon Ban, met with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. According to the State Department, among the key initiatives Secretary Rice and Foreign Minister Ban laid out as topics for continued discussion include: coordination of efforts to promote freedom, democratic institutions and human rights worldwide; strengthened cooperation on fighting terrorism and exerting common efforts for the observance and implementation of international security cooperation regimes for the prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; coordination of efforts to develop comprehensive international strategies to fight transnational pandemic disease; maintaining a strong U.S.-ROK alliance to contribute to peace and stability in Northeast Asia; and developing common approaches to reinforcing peace and stability through multilateral peacekeeping and improved collaboration on crisis response and disaster management.

It is clearly evident that the shared agenda of the United States and South Korea is both broad and comprehensive. South Korea is one of our country's principal trading partners, with over $72 billion in trade volume each year and the fifth-largest purchaser of U.S. agricultural products. In fact, on Thursday, February 2, 2006, the U.S. and Korea announced the launching of negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement, FTA, which would represent, according to U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman, the ``most commercially significant'' free trade pact since

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 8, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, it is with both great pride and sadness that I remember Mrs. Olga DeFelippo, a distinguished, life-long member of the Bay Ridge, Brooklyn community, a tireless advocate for the developmentally disabled, and an exemplary American, who recently passed away on November 3rd at the age of 88.

Today, I honor her memory as a selfless defender for those who could not defend themselves. As a mother of a developmentally disabled child herself, whom no school would accept, she understood personally how children with no voice of their own suffered injustice at the hands of a society that did not comprehend their plight.

This emboldened her to undertake a righteous crusade to render justice and dignity to the thousands of others like her son. She organized other parents and founded the Guild for Exceptional Children, an organization that today still works to help people reach their maximum potential and help families cope with the responsibility of caring for disabled family members at home. With the support of numerous elected and civic leaders in New York State, she lobbied exhaustively, and successfully, for legislation that guaranteed children with developmental disabilities the same right to an education as all other children, and to bring these human beings out of institutions and return them to the comfort of real homes, where they would be surrounded by those who could love and care for them.

Joining the ranks of our Nation's great reformers like Dorothea Dix, Mrs. DeFelippo's efforts to restore dignity to those, less able than we, cannot and will not be forgotten. Olga departed leaving behind her three children, Joseph, Vivienne, and Noel, and her two grandchildren Michael and Peter. However, while we mourn her loss, we as a Nation should smile proudly at her life and her deeds, for there is no greater credit to her accomplishments than having left this Nation and our world better than she had found it.