Pete King

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk that was made in order under the rule.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Representative Clarke be listed as cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I insert into the Record a letter dated June 4, 2009, to Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers from virtually every law enforcement first responder head in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. New York Regional Joint Working Group on Securing the Cities, June 4, 2009. Subject: FY2010 Appropriations for Securing the Cities Program Hon. David E. Price, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Harold Rogers, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers: We are writing to urge you to include $40 million to fund the Securing the Cities (STC) program in your markup of the FY2010 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. This funding would be equal to the FY2008 appropriation for the program. Securing the Cities is a vital, federally funded effort to protect New York City from the threat of an improvised nuclear device or a radiological dispersal device (a ``dirty bomb''). The program involves equipping many different agencies in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut with state- of-the-art mobile radiation-detection equipment, training them in its proper use, and leveraging existing technology and infrastructure to deploy a permanent defensive radiation- detection ring around New York City. The STC program is the only federal initiative designed specifically to protect a U.S. city from a radiological or nuclear terrorist attack, which President Obama has called, ``the most immediate and extreme threat to global security.'' We never saw the program as a ``pilot,'' as some have suggested, but as an operational model, developed to protect the city that suffered the most on September 11, 2001, and that continues to be at the top of the terrorist threat list. Since the STC program was proposed by the Department of Homeland Security in 2006, we have: begun taking delivery of approximately 4,500 units of radiation-detection equipment; prepared to train all of our response personnel in the proper use of the equipment; conducted three full-scale exercises in which radioactive materials were intercepted by our agencies; developed detailed operational nuclear-interdiction plans for the region; begun developing the fixed radiation-detection systems that will be installed on bridges and tunnels into New York City; and, begun to implement a situational awareness system that will ultimately allow us to track and swiftly interdict radiological threats anywhere in the region. All of the money appropriated since FY2007 has been programmed, and most of it has been obligated. We expect to complete the purchase of our situational awareness system, developed with FY2007 funding, by the end of this year; we have begun taking delivery of radiation-detection equipment purchased with FY2008 funds; and, we have submitted our application for FY2009 funds. Additional funding is necessary to complete the final stages of development of the fixed radiation-detection system, which is on the verge of becoming operational, and to establish wireless connections among and between our mobile systems. The STC program was designed as a joint federal, state, and local initiative with significant investments and commitments at all levels. Federal STC funding only pays for a fraction of the cost of the total program. For example, the STC program benefits from the absorption of manpower and operational costs by state and local agencies. STC also leverages major existing New York City investments, including the fiber-optic lines that will be run to New York City bridges and tunnels as part of the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative and New York City's wireless network (NYCWiN). The total cost of the STC program as seen by Congress does not account for these significant outlays at the state and local level. Together, the STC partners represent three layers of government, three states, 60 counties, and over 80 law enforcement agencies. In our view, the STC program is an extraordinary example of interagency and intergovernmental collaboration, and one of the most successful DHS programs in existence. Zeroing this program out, as the President's FY2010 Budget has mistakenly proposed, would do great harm to the security of New York as well as the quality of our agencies' partnership with DHS. We understand the need for fiscal restraint in the current financial climate. However, this critical investment will ensure that law enforcement and emergency response agencies have the resources needed to protect our nation's largest city from the most damaging terrorist threat imaginable. For these reasons, we urge you to appropriate funding to the STC program at a level equal to the FY2008 appropriation--$30 million for acquisitions and $10 million for research, development, and operations. We welcome the opportunity to brief members of your staff on the progress of this program either in the New York region or in Washington,

Mr. KING of New York. I reserve my time.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chair, I recognize the gentlelady from New York, the cosponsor of the amendment, and a really zealous fighter on this issue, Ms. Clarke, for 90 seconds.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chair, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from California and the ranking member on the committee, Mr. Lungren, 90 seconds.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chair how much time remains?

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, this initiative is extremely essential not just for New York but the entire Nation because it is very much expected that the next attack upon a major city will be launched from the suburbs, whether it is New York, Los Angeles, Chicago or wherever. Now, on the issues raised by the chairman, I have great respect for the chairman. The fact is all of the 2008 funds have been designated. All of them, once all the materials come in, will be paid. Every penny has been designated. Similarly for 2009, that money has been designated as well. There was a delay, not because of New York City, but because the department took so long in getting out the application. Once they were out, the city applied, and the money has been allocated and has been designated. When the chairman mentioned the increase in New York funding since 2006, he picked 2006. That was the year that New York was cut by 40 percent. So that is really not a good barometer to be using. The fact is New York is the number one terrorist target in the country. New York remains the number one terrorist target in the country. My district lost well over 100 people on September 11. We dread the thought of another attack, certainly a nuclear attack. This program works. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I join with Congressman Engel in mourning the passing of Paul Fino, who among other things, was I believe the last elected Republican congressman from the Bronx. He was an outstanding Congressman. He was a member of the New York State Supreme Court. In his retirement years he moved to Nassau County, and he never lost his love and his interest for Congress. In fact, every year he would call me to remind me to send him a program of the congressional baseball game. He loved this institution; he loved the Congress. He was a great man. And for those of us old enough to remember the 1961 mayor's race, he was the middleman on the most famous, ethnically balanced race in the history of New York of Lefkowitz, Fino, and Gilhooley. They touched all of the ethnic bases at that time. He was unsuccessful in that race, but he was successful in all his others. With Mr. Engel, I mourn his passing.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2892--the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Peter T. King Bill Number: H.R. 2892 Account: Science & Technology/Research, Development, Acquisition, & Operations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Long Island Forum for Technology Address of Requesting Entity: 111 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11706 Description of Request: $1,000,000 will be used to continue a pilot program to identify and transition advanced technologies and manufacturing processes that will achieve significant productivity and efficiency gains in the homeland security industrial base. It is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds because this project will increase quality while reducing the costs of products delivered to first responders.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2487--the Commerce, Justice, Science, & Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Peter T. King Bill Number: H.R. 2487 Account: COPS Law Enforcement Technology Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Glen Cove, NY Address of Requesting Entity: 9 Glen Street, Glen Cove, NY 11542 Description of Request: $615,000 will be used by the Glen Cove Police Department for updating technologies, which include equipment for the Emergency Command Center, technology for conversion to digital frequencies, and equipment to allow interoperability with regional responder facilities. Requesting Member: Congressman Peter T. King Bill Number: H.R. 2487 Account: OJP-Byrne Discretionary Grants Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Nassau County Police Department Address of Requesting Entity: 1490 Franklin Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501 Description of Request: $385,000 will go to the Nassau County Police Department's Heroin Abatement Program to help mitigate the recent proliferation of heroin in Long Island communities through saturated law enforcement and investigations. Requesting Member: Congressman Peter T. King Bill Number: H.R. 2487 Account: OJP-Byrne Discretionary Grants Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Parents for Megan's Law, Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 1320 Stony Brook Road, Suite 201, Stony Brook, NY 11790 Description of Request: $300,000 will be used to support the Sex Offender Registration Tips (SORT) and Support Programs giving the public two interactive resources for confidentially reporting sex offenders that fail to comply with registration, supervision requirements, and other criminal activity. Requesting Member: Congressman Peter T. King Bill Number: H.R. 2487 Account: OJP-Byrne Discretionary Grant Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Suffolk County Police Department Address of Requesting Entity: 30 Yaphank Avenue, Yaphank, NY 11980 Description of Request: $250,000 will be used by the Suffolk County Police Department to combat computer and internet crime with upgraded computer forensics technology and training coupled with on-line sting operations and educational programs on internet safety for the public. Requesting Member: Congressman Peter T. King Bill Number: H.R. 2487 Account: NOAA--Operations, Research, and Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Science Address of Requesting Entity: 526 Bay Avenue, Point Pleasant, NJ 08742 Description of Request: $600,000 will go to the Partnership for Mid- Atlantic Fisheries Science (PMAFS), a multi-state partnership, that will use the funds to address the most urgent scientific issues limiting successful management summer flounder and black sea bass fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic region. Better management of the fisheries is essential to the success of Long Island's recreational and commercial fishing industries.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. At the outset, let me thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros- Lehtinen for the support they have given me on this resolution and for bringing it to the House floor. Also, let me thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Meeks) for being the prime cosponsor of the bill and for his support in pushing it forward. And of course Mr. Faleomavaega, who does a truly outstanding job as chairman of the subcommittee, I want to thank him as well. Mr. Speaker, when I first introduced this resolution back in March, it was clear then, obviously, that Korea was a major threat to world stability and a major threat to the national security of the United States, and of course also to its Asian neighbors. Well, since then, the situation has only gotten worse. As Mr. Bilirakis pointed out, it has been step after step of aggressive action, provocative action, action defying world opinion, defying resolutions of the United Nations, and absolutely defying agreements that have been made with the Six Parties over the previous years. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton reached out and tried to engage North Korea, President Bush obviously reached out and tried to engage North Korea, began the Six-Party Talks, made China a part of that process; and yet at every stage, when it comes to weaponizing uranium, plutonium and moving forward, North Korea has refused to respond in good faith. And when they do make a feeble attempt at good faith, it is obviously a ploy, and they renege as soon as any concession is made by the United States or any of our allies. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we send a message to the North Korean Government. And let's be clear about this. When we are talking about the North Korean Government, we're really talking about an organized crime family masquerading as a state. Kim Jong Il defies every standard of decency that is built up in the community of nations. I think it is important to realize that, especially when North Korea is contrasted with the Republic of Korea, which has become a model democracy and it is such a strong and staunch ally of the United States. So as we go forward, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the President and the Secretary of State to know that Congress will stand behind them if they have to take stronger action, if they have to really lean back and push back against North Korea. I think everything should be on the table. The fact is that we now have a situation where, with going forward with its nuclear program, North Korea really puts its neighbors in jeopardy, and perhaps soon after that Europe and the United States, with their missile system, with the delivery system, with the nuclear relationships. And I think everything should be on the table, including a very strong missile defense system. And we should have an open debate, put partisanship aside and stand together as Americans to confront what could be a mortal danger to our allies and also causing the situation in Asia to spiral out of control. I certainly think when Japan sees what North Korea is doing, as far as advancing its nuclear program, we could well see Japan considering a nuclear program. We have strong friends, such as Taiwan, who now will be in danger. Also, it is time for China to realize that they have a major role to play in solving this crisis. The fact is, North Korea could not survive if it did not receive its energy and its food supplies from China. And China should realize that this game can only go on for so long where they somehow take a certain delight in North Korea antagonizing the United States. And also, they feel they can buy off North Korea with their food and energy, and they don't want refugees streaming across their border. But this has now gone beyond the stage where we are just talking and sitting down; we are talking about the very security of the United States being in danger here. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this resolution. Yes, we have to continue constructive dialogue, we have to engage, to the extent we can, with North Korea; but the fact is that, as Mr. Bilirakis said, when the President reached out in good faith--President Clinton, President Bush, and now President Obama have reached out in good faith--the response to them has been an iron fist, it's been missiles, it's been rockets, and it's been weaponizing of nuclear fissile material. So rather than be caught short, rather than our being victims of something which we should anticipate now, let us stand together, and I certainly reach out across the aisle so that all of us, as Republicans and Democrats and as Americans, can stand with the President as he goes forward, and hopefully he will, to stand up to this really blatant aggression, I believe, by North Korea and send a message to Kim Jong Il, whether it's him or his son, no matter who ends up controlling or calling the shots in North Korea, that it will be met by concerted action from the United States. And also call on countries such as China to start doing what they should be doing, and to reassure our allies such as Japan and Taiwan that the United States will do all it can to prevent and stop North Korea from becoming a nuclear power. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2765, legislation that would prohibit the recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services. This bill, like legislation (Free Speech Protection Act) that I introduced earlier this year attempts to deal with the issue of ``libel tourism'' that threatens not only Americans' first amendment freedom of speech but also their ability to inform the general public about existential threats; namely, who are the terrorists and who are their financial backers. Let me begin by stating the main threat posed by libel tourism is not just the clever exploitation of foreign courts' libel laws to win financial judgments against American authors. It's not even the risk that Americans are losing their First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech (although that is quite troubling). The danger is that foreign individuals are operating a scheme to intimidate authors and publishers from even exercising that right. And it's actually scarier because, in many of these cases, the journalists are trying to write on topics of national and homeland security. Therefore it is imperative that Congress address the issue and pass legislation to stop this nefarious activity at once. The issue of ``libel tourism'' threatens not only Americans' First Amendment freedom of speech but also their ability to inform the general public about existential threats; namely, the identity of terrorists and their financial supporters. As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, it is my duty to oversee policies for protecting our nation from potential terrorist attacks--a charge I take very seriously. I receive regular classified briefings on dangerous plots to attack the United States so I know just how grave these threats are. We cannot allow foreigners the ability to muzzle Americans for speaking the truth about these dangers! Libel tourism is a recent phenomenon in which certain individuals attempt to obstruct the free expression rights of Americans (and the vital interest of the American people) by seeking out foreign jurisdictions (``forum shopping'') that do not provide the full extent of free-speech protection that is enshrined in our First Amendment. Some of these actions are intended not only to suppress the free speech rights of journalists and others but also to intimidate publishers and other organizations from disseminating or supporting their work. Unlike in the United States where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the publication was not only false but also malicious, in countries such as the United Kingdom it is actually the reverse. And some of these ``tourists'' claims of jurisdiction are tenuous at best. In many cases, not only are none of the individuals (author, litigant, or publisher) associated with the case living in the venue of jurisdiction, but the books aren't even published there. These ``libel tourists'' stretch the law by claiming a handful of copies of the book purchased over the internet and delivered to an address in a foreign country gives them standing. Since the burden of proof is on the author in the United Kingdom, the author must then hire an attorney, travel to the foreign country, and defend herself or likely face a default judgment. Consequences include, but are not limited to, stiff fines, outrageous public apologies, the removal of books from bookstores and libraries, or even their destruction. We cannot change other countries' (libel) laws, nor would we want to. We must respect their laws, as they ought to respect ours. However, we cannot allow foreign citizens to exploit these courts to endanger Americans' First Amendment protected speech; especially, when the subject matter is of such grave importance as terrorism and those who finance it. Just to be clear, we're not talking about journalists who carelessly or maliciously slander an individual. In this case we're talking about authors who, after conducting exhaustive research and carefully sourcing their work, are providing us glimpses into a dark and secretive world. We ought to rely on a variety of sources for this information and we cannot allow foreign litigants or foreign courts to tell us what can be written or published in the United States. That is a dangerous path we do not want to follow. Some of the plaintiffs bringing such suits are intentionally and strategically refraining from filing their suits in the United States, even though the speech at issue was published in the United States, to avoid the First Amendment protections that Americans enjoy. But this issue is also very troubling for the authors, journalists, and even publishers who attempt to write on these subjects. Already we have seen examples of authors having difficulty getting their articles or books published because publishers fear of being sued overseas. Some companies have even gone as far as to pay large settlements at the mere threat of legal actions. So not only are authors being injured for the works they have previously written but they and their publishers are being intimidated from writing future articles on these important topics. The free expression and publication by journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others of the information they uncover and develop through investigative research and study is essential to the formation of sound public policy and thus the security of Americans. In turn, the American people are suffering concrete and profound harm because they, their representatives, and other government policymakers rely on the free expression of information, ideas, and opinions developed by responsible journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others for the formulation of sound public policy, including national security policy. Having said that, the United States respects the sovereign right of other countries to enact their own laws regarding speech, and seeks only to protect the First Amendment rights of Americans in connection with speech that occurs, in whole or part, in the United States. That is why last year I introduced the Free Speech Protection Act (H.R. 1304) to defend U.S. persons who are sued for defamation in foreign courts. This legislation would allow U.S. persons to bring a federal cause of action against any person bringing a foreign libel suit if the writing did not constitute defamation under U.S. law. It would also bar enforcement of foreign libel judgments and provide other appropriate injunctive relief by U.S. Courts if a cause of action was established. H.R. 1304 would award damages to the U.S. person who brought the action in the amount of the foreign judgment, the costs related to the foreign lawsuit, and the harm caused due to the decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research, or generate funding. Furthermore, it would award treble damages if the person bringing the foreign lawsuit intentionally engaged in a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights. It would allow for expedited discovery if the court determines that the speech at issue in the foreign defamation action is protected by the First Amendment. Nothing in H.R. 1304 would limit the rights of foreign litigants who bring good faith defamation actions to prevail against journalists and others who have failed to adhere to standards of professionalism by publishing false information maliciously or recklessly. The Free Speech Protection Act does, however, attempt to discourage those foreign libel suits that aim to intimidate, threaten, and restrict the freedom of speech of Americans. I am proud to have worked closely with Senators Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman, and Chuck Schumer who introduced companion legislation in the Senate. The King/Specter/Lieberman/Schumer legislation also has the backing of various organizations including the Association of American Publishers, College Art Association, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress, American Library Association, 9/11 Families for a Secure America, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, and the American Civil Liberties Union. In addition, various columnists and editorial boards have written in support of our approach including Floyd Abrams, Andrew McCarthy, the New York Times, New York Post, and the Washington Times. The impetus for a federal law is the case of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a U.S. citizen and Director of the American Center for Democracy. Dr. Ehrenfeld's 2003 book, ``Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop it,'' which was published solely in the United States by a U.S. publisher, alleged that a Saudi Arabian subject and his family financially supported alQaeda in the years preceding the attacks of September 11, 2001. He sued Dr. Ehrenfeld for libel in England because under English law, it is not necessary for a libel plaintiff to prove falsity or actual malice as is required in the U.S. After the English court entered a judgment against Dr. Ehrenfeld, she sought to shield herself with a declaration from both federal and state courts that her book did not create liability under American law, but jurisdictional barriers prevented both the federal and New York State courts from acting. Reacting to this problem, the Governor of New York, on May 1, 2008, signed into law the ``Libel Terrorism Protection Act'', commonly known as ``Rachel's Law.'' As I said last year, I believe any libel tourism bill should include punitive measures to discourage these ridiculous lawsuits from being filed in the first place. It was my hope that during this new Congress we could work together to introduce a bill that would solve this problem once and for all, legislation which would not only ban the enforcement of these foreign libel judgments but would also create a federal cause of action allowing American authors and journalists to sue those foreign plaintiffs here in the United States. This should be the essential component of any libel tourism bill. The real issue here is not the judgment or even the libel case itself. Rather, it is the attempt by certain individuals to muzzle those who dare speak out about terrorism and the financiers of it. Lawyers are cleverly exploiting foreign libel laws not only to injure American authors and publishing companies, but more importantly to shut them up. And it is working. But we must stop it! In September, I supported and the House passed H.R. 6146, legislation sponsored by Representative Cohen, to prohibit U.S. Courts from enforcing these outrageous defamation suits. At the time, I stated that I believed that bill did not go far enough to combat the threat of libel tourism and that pertains to H.R. 2765 as well. Nevertheless, I will support H.R. 2765 because it prohibits U.S. (domestic) courts from enforcing these outrageous defamation suits. We must stand up to the terrorists and their financers, supporters, and sympathizers. However, this bill does not go far enough nor does it resolve the problem of ``libel tourism.'' Foreign litigants will still be allowed to file these libel suits overseas with no worry of being countersued here in the U.S. If this bill were to be signed into law, the litigants would never see a dime of the judgments they are awarded, but it's not money they are after in the first place. They want the publicity, an apology, and they want these books to disappear. Most of all they want to intimidate authors and publishers. And it's working! Finally, I will support H.R. 2765 because it is a first step in the right direction. H.R. 2765 is an important and necessary part of any ``libel tourism'' bill. Unfortunately, it doesn't put an end to the problem and doesn't provide any deterrence from these suits being filed in the first place. I regret that we could not have come up with a more comprehensive bill on the House side but I pledge to work with our Senate sponsors to improve this legislation over in the other Chamber.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at the very outset, let me commend Chairman Thompson and his staff and the majority side for the cooperation that they extended on this bill for making a truly bipartisan effort. I also want to commend the chair of the subcommittee, Sheila Jackson-Lee, for her bipartisan spirit and also, in a special way, Congressman Dent, the ranking member of the subcommittee. This, as the chairman said, was a collaborative effort. There was tremendous cooperation. Obviously, there's some differences between what we wanted and what ended up in this bill, but basically, it's a fine bill. And, Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend the outstanding men and women of the TSA for the job that they do day in and day out in protecting us. I see Mr. Pascrell is here. Just in the New York-New Jersey region alone, last year they inspected 110 million passengers coming through those airports, and again, last week alone, they confiscated 23 illegal firearms that were going through airports. So they do a very, very dedicated and outstanding job. And also, as far as rail transportation, VIPER Teams have become a vital part of our homeland security apparatus. Having said that, let me just mention some of the concerns I do have about the bill. One is, Mr. Chairman, that there is, as of now, as of yet, no TSA administrator. Also, my understanding is that there is not even anyone in the wings. There's no one being considered, no one's being mentioned to be the TSA administrator, and yet we put together this bill, which I think is a good bill, but without any input from the head of TSA. And since this is a 2-year authorization, we're going to be basically laying out a plan, a plan of action for the next 2 years, I would have preferred that we could have waited until we got an administrator in place to work with us on it. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I raised the issue--and I think these two issues are now interrelated--the issue of an authorization bill and the issue of jurisdiction. This will be, as I see it, the second year in a row that the committee will not have done an authorization bill. And yet next week in the appropriations subcommittee, the Homeland Security appropriations bill will be marked up, and the appropriators will act without our committee's input on 80 percent of the Department of Homeland Security's budget. They will act without our input on 75 percent of the Department of Homeland Security's personnel. And they will consider funding of programs, like the 287(g) program, border security, student visa enforcement, FEMA's hurricane response capabilities, the Coast Guard's port security programs, Secret Service protection of the President, to name a few, all without guidance from this committee. Now, I believe the main reason for this--and I understand the position that the chairman is in--the main, I think, as I see the reason is that because of the multiplicity of jurisdictional claims to homeland security, it is very difficult for our committee to move forward. Now, the 9/11 Commission, one of their strongest recommendations was that homeland security be consolidated in one committee. Several years ago, there were 88 committees and subcommittees that claimed some piece of jurisdiction over homeland security. That number is now up to 108, and this should not be a partisan issue. Both Secretary Chertoff in the previous administration and Secretary Napolitano in the Obama administration have called for consolidation, and yet it's not being done. So, for instance, if we had gone forward and tried to do an authorization bill, we couldn't authorize the Coast Guard or FEMA because the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure would object. We couldn't authorize Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Secret Service, or U.S. Citizen Immigration Services because the Committee on Judiciary would object. And we can't authorize Customs and Border Protection because the Ways and Means Committee would object. So I think it's really important that we make an effort over the next year during this Congress to implement, again, one of the most fundamental concerns of the 9/11 Commission, and that was to consolidate jurisdiction in one committee, the Homeland Security Committee. And I believe that in 2005 and 2006, when this side of the aisle did control the committee, we did get authorization bills done, and there were jurisdictional disputes. We won them, and I think that was the direction we were going in, and the direction we should continue to go in. I gave the chairman tremendous credit 2 years ago when we adopted H.R. 1, which implemented many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, but this fundamental one still has not been done. And I realize that no one likes to cede jurisdiction, no one likes to give up turf, but the fact is we're talking about an issue that threatens the survival of our country, homeland security. And so long as we have this dysfunctional system where jurisdiction is spread out over so many committees of the Congress, I don't believe we can fully do the job that we should do. The chairman does a good job, the staff does a good job, I believe we do a very good job on our side of the aisle, but we are limited because of these jurisdictional limitations. And so as we go forward on this debate today, I would hope we would keep that in mind, and as we go forward over the course of the year, we keep that in mind, also, as we try to do the job that we were established to do when we became a permanent committee back in 2005. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dent, the ranking member of the subcommittee, be authorized to control the remainder of my time, and I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. KING of New York. I am in its present form.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is very basic. It's very direct. It specifies that any detainee who is housed at Guantanamo Bay will go on the No Fly List. Very simply, anyone released from Guantanamo will not be able to fly on an American commercial flight. And I have listened to the debate in committee. I've listened to the debate on the floor, and quite frankly, I cannot understand the opposition to this amendment. We are talking about approximately 240 people who are still at Guantanamo. These are the worst of the worst, the most hardcore. Mr. Speaker, we can have various positions on Guantanamo, whether the President was right, whether the President's wrong, whether he's partially right, whether he's wrong, whether there's going to be tribunals, what's going to happen. But the reality is that there's a likelihood that some of these detainees could be released into the United States, and very simply, we are saying if they are, they should not be allowed to fly on American commercial flights. Now, recent reports from the Defense Intelligence Agency say that one of seven of those who have been released thus far have returned to the battlefield, have returned to take part in terrorist activities. Now, whether that number is actually one in seven or one in 14 or one in 15, I say to anyone in this House, do you want your son or your daughter or your grandson or your granddaughter possibly being on the same plane as one of those seven or one of those 15? It is too high a risk to pay. What the majority did when this was brought up by Mr. Souder, who argued it very articulately in committee and on the floor, was to say that they would go on the No Fly List, the detainees, after disposition by the President. ``Disposition'' is not defined. What does ``disposition'' mean? If the President says that this person is dangerous, does that mean he doesn't go on the No Fly List? Suppose that case is still pending in court. Suppose he was released on bail. What does final disposition mean? What does it mean? Why are we having this debate? I can see if we were talking about something involving the civil rights of an American citizen or somebody who was legally in the country and we were talking about electronic surveillance or stop-and-frisk. We're talking about a person who is a detainee at Guantanamo and we're saying they cannot fly on an American plane. What human right is being violated by that? Let's balance the equities. I know in the Dear Colleague that my good friend the chairman sent out to his members, he uses a quote from the President, saying that we must have an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process and checks and balances and accountability. Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the question of a balance here. What equities are we balancing? Let's assume the worst from those who oppose this motion to recommit. Let's assume that someone who is in Guantanamo and really pure of heart and has no malice anywhere in the system, that person will not be allowed to fly on an American plane. Life is tough. If that's the worst he has to endure, I don't think that's going to shock the conscience of the Republic. But suppose that person does return to violence and does blow up an airliner and hundreds of Americans are killed. Where is the cost- benefit ratio? What equities are we balancing here? I would say the clear and correct thing to do here is to make it very clear that anyone released from Guantanamo should go on the No Fly List. Now, if there are foreign policy considerations, if there are diplomatic considerations, the motion to recommit specifically says that the President can certify that that detainee is no longer a threat to American security and the President can take the person off the No Fly List. So, if there is an injustice being done, if the President feels very strongly about this, then the President has the prerogative to exercise his power and take the person off the list. Again, I just think this is a debate about politics for those who somehow think, if we talk about Guantanamo, that we're trying to inject some kind of fear. We're trying to protect the American people. And, to me, it's a clear issue if you ask any one of your constituency, people in your district, say to them, would they rather be certain that their relatives going on a plane will not have a detainee from Guantanamo sitting next to them or would they rather have the fact that that person may have to drive his own car or take a bus rather than fly in a plane. So I would say in the interest of justice, in the interest of basic security for the American people and the interest of doing all we can to make this good bill much better and to give us the security that we need, that we vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit. In his statements, the chairman says that by not adopting this motion to recommit, or not using this language, that would make our skies more secure. How can our skies possibly be more secure unless we do everything we possibly can to keep Guantanamo detainees off our planes, off our commercial planes. Those of us who lived in New York, any American, knows the horror of September 11. If we can do anything at all to prevent that without violating the civil rights of any American citizen, anyone lawfully in this country, then we should do it. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of justice and homeland security, I ask adoption of the motion to recommit.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, today I rise and am proud to join my colleagues in supporting the George J. Mitchell Scholarship program. As someone who has long been dedicated to Ireland and Northern Ireland, I welcome the important work the United States-Ireland Alliance is doing to build a future for this relationship that reflects current realities. While Ireland is certainly suffering from the current economic crisis, it is no longer the poor country that it once was. And as peace has taken hold in Northern Ireland, it is important that we find new ways to strengthen this relationship for future generations. While my colleagues and I will continue to keep a close eye on Northern Ireland as it moves forward, I agree with the Alliance's view that the future of the relationship will be focused less on politics and more on education, business and culture. This shift is the sign of success of the many changes that have occurred in Ireland in the past 15 years and I am proud of the role the U.S. has played in bringing those changes about. While we strongly support and fund the Mitchell Scholarship program, I welcome the Alliance's desire to build an endowment for the program and I welcome Taoiseach Brian Cowen's commitment to match everything the Alliance raises toward this important goal.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, poet and Capitol Tour Guide Albert C. Caswell has penned a poem in honor of Sp. E4 Chris Levi of The North Brigade 410/230 10th Mountain, from Holbrook Long Island. On March 17th 2008, in Sadr City Iraq, Chris lost both of his legs when an EFP struck him. Miraculously, he somehow cheated death. And now like all of our magnificent heroes of the military, who have given their most precious limbs, Chris begins his new fight. A fight that he is winning, winning with his great heart of faith and courage. As like Bob Dole, he too will be an inspiration to us all, for the rest of his life, as we witness the true meaning of the word Hero, all in our time. 10th Mountain Men 10th Mountain Men . . . Are but those my friends, who will this our nation so defend . . . Who but in times of war, all for country bore . . . the greatest of all burdens, until the bitter end. Brilliant Men, who run and fight . . . Who climb mountains, knock down doors . . . and go through walls to win that night . . . Who with but their brave hearts so ignite, the fight for freedom to so bring the light! For well over the many years . . . There have been so many magnificent heroes, so dear! Men like Chris Levi, and Bob Dole . . . who are but our Lord's greatest of all men endeared . . . Are such Men to behold, who with but their fine hearts of gold . . . With such great inspiration inspire us all so . . . to so warm one's soul . . . To carry with us as we grow old, in heart's of love so . . . such honor, for them we now so hold! A New York Man . . . who so boldly in Long Island ran . . . . Who from Suffolk, without fear . . . with such great courage would so stand . . . So stand, therein face of death . . . and then to return back home with almost nothing left . . . Who gave up but his two fine strong legs . . . As he won't moan, and he won't beg. . . . As he starts his brilliant life all over again . . . With but his fine heart and soul, showing us all in life. . . . But where lies mankind's true gold. As step by step . . . The new pain and heartache, somehow he so accepts . . . as this hero is not done yet! For He Will Reach Us, as He Will So Teach Us . . . as oh yes, as each of us . . . he Will So Bless . . . But, with his fine heart of honor so . . . He now so stands, with all of his band of brothers . . . such great respect he now so commands! All of our hearts and souls, as he battles through those winds so cold . . . making us all so understand. That in the end, it's but only with our heart we win! Arms and legs surely we all need, but without a great heart . . . one cannot so breath . . . to succeed! To start all over again . . . Chris, you are America's fine son of faith and glory, bless you . . . Godspeed . . . In life, there are so many Mountains we must climb! But, only with such unshaken faith and courage, will one so find . . . All of those fine things, that which so bring such tears to even the Angels' eyes . . . In Chris Levi . . . We so surely see, what the word hero so implies! And if I ever have a son, I but hope and pray. . . . That he will be like you this fine one . . . Chris Levi . . .

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of naming the United States Postal Service building located at 46-02 21st Street in Long Island City, New York, the ``Geraldine Ferraro Post Office Building,'' after former United States Representative Geraldine Ferraro. It is with great pleasure that I support this designation, which commemorates the life of one of New York's most remarkable women. Geraldine Ferraro has had a distinguished career marked with many achievements. She began her career as a New York public school teacher, while simultaneously earning her law degree from Fordham University at night. She worked as an attorney the Queens New York District Attorney's office, where she helped establish the Special Victims Bureau. In 1978 she ran a successful campaign to represent New York's Ninth District in the United States House of Representatives. Throughout her six years in Congress, she rose quickly through the ranks to become a notable leader in her party. As a result of her success, it is no surprise that in 1984 Walter Mondale selected her as his running mate on the Democratic ticket, making her the first female vice presidential candidate. Although she did not win the election, she undoubtedly reshaped politics as we know it and paved the way for future women leaders. She has since authored several books and has overcome a battle with multiple myeloma, a dangerous form of blood cancer. She now remains active in politics, weighing in on the issues and candidates that influence and shape our country. A daughter of Italian immigrants, Geraldine Ferraro has been a trailblazer and role model, not just for women, but for all Americans in search of living the American dream. From congresswoman to vice presidential candidate to author to cancer survivor, Geraldine Ferraro is a true inspiration and deserves to be honored for her achievements through this designation.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of Jack Kemp who left us this past Saturday. While his passing saddens all of us, Jack lived a full life that was truly remarkable. In addition to being a wonderful husband and father, Jack achieved outstanding success as a professional quarterback, United States Congressman, Cabinet Secretary, and Vice Presidential candidate. This is a man who excelled both personally and professionally. His economic policies formed the heart of the Reagan Revolution. Even after his political career ended, he made sure to continue his public service by writing, speaking, and continuing to tackle some of America's greatest problems. Jack Kemp always had ideas to offer and he was most often right. Jack not only shined but took a leadership role in everything he did. Whether it was on the football field leading his team to victories or being a driving force in the House of Representatives, he was always in the middle of the action. Jack Kemp certainly embodied what Theodore Roosevelt said about the ``man in the arena.'' His was the face that was [literally] ``marred by dust and sweat and blood'' during his many athletic and political battles over the years. And even though he was able to achieve so much during his time here, we grieve for what he still had to contribute. This is a man who continuously pushed himself in whatever profession he found himself in. I was proud to know Jack Kemp for more than thirty years and to be his friend. My thoughts and prayers go out to Joanne, his wife of more than fifty years, his four children, Jeff, Jennifer, Judith, and Jimmy, and his seventeen grandchildren. Jack Kemp was a great man and a true public servant who touched so many lives in a positive way during his life. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, it is my duty to inform the House of the death of our friend and former colleague Congressman Jack Kemp. Madam Speaker, Jack Kemp served in this House for 18 years. Subsequent to that he served in the Cabinet of President Bush. And prior to all that, he played for 13 years as a professional quarterback, achieving the status of All Pro on a number of occasions, being the AFL MVP in 1965, and to this day holds many lifetime records as a quarterback in the AFL. But Jack Kemp went beyond being a football player, beyond being a congressman, and beyond being a Cabinet Secretary. To all those who knew him, he was an inspiration. He was a man of tremendous energy and enthusiasm and vibrancy. As a Republican, I can say that he revolutionized our party, and, indeed, his economic policies were the heart and soul of the Reagan Revolution. But his influence and his friendship went across party lines. He was a man who was beloved by those of his own party and those in the opposition, even though I don't think he ever called them the ``opposition.'' I was fortunate enough to know Jack Kemp for more than 30 years. I'm proud to have considered him a friend. His passing will be mourned by all of us. He was really a truly outstanding American. And certainly my thoughts and prayers go out for his wife, Joanne, and his children, all of whom loved him the way all of us who knew him loved him and cherished him. And with that I yield to the dean of the New York delegation, Mr. Rangel.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence for Congressman Jack Kemp.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 479, the Wakefield Act, which will reauthorize the Emergency Medical Services for Children program for an additional four years. Since its establishment in 1985, the Emergency Medical Services for Children program, also known as EMSC, has provided grants to all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories to ensure that every child in America has access to quality, appropriate care in a health emergency. The EMSC program has improved the availability of child-appropriate equipment in ambulances and emergency departments, supported hundreds of programs to prevent injuries, and provided thousands of hours of training to EMTs, paramedics, and other emergency medical care providers. In my home state, New York's EMSC program is working to provide ongoing assessment and improvement of medical care for critically ill or injured children. The state EMSC Advisory Committee continually meets to discuss plans for designating health care resources to optimally serve the needs of critically ill or injured pediatric patients. This Committee is currently designing a road map of resources, standards, and roles for hospitals within the state and for the statewide EMS system as a whole. The plan will improve the state's ability to bring children to the hospitals that are best equipped to treat them as well as establish a general set of interfacility guidelines. Kids are not just small adults. Methods to treat children in emergencies vary greatly from methods used with adults in the same situations. The EMSC program is an integral part of preparing our nation's healthcare providers and giving them the tools they need to treat children in an emergency. This is especially significant at a time in our history that disaster preparedness, both due to natural disasters as well as potential terrorist attacks, is so important. I would like to thank Representative Matheson for his leadership on this issue, as well as Representatives Castor and Reichert for their continued support. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this imperative bill.