Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman and my good friend from Oklahoma for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this legislation to designate the Federal post office located at 6310 North University Street in Peoria, Illinois, as the Charles ``Chip'' Lawrence Chan Post Office Building.

Mr. Speaker, we are quickly approaching the 10th anniversary of the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. And while as Americans we can recall the events of that tragic day like they were yesterday, I offer this legislation in remembrance of all those Americans who died on that day. Specifically, this legislation would honor the life and sacrifice of Peoria, Illinois, resident Charles ``Chip'' Chan.

On September 11, 2001, Chip was a 23-year-old bond trader working for the brokerage firm of Cantor Fitzgerald on the 105th floor of 1 World Trade Center when terrorists flew an airplane into his building, killing thousands of individuals like Chip.

Chip graduated from my alma mater, Richwoods High School, in Peoria in 1995 and went on to attend the University of Illinois College of Commerce and Business where he graduated with a degree in economics. Soon after graduating, Chip received his first official job in, of all places, New York City. When trying to describe to family members or friends which tower he worked in, Chip would often say, The one with the antenna on top.

Chip was a member of the St. Thomas Catholic Church in Peoria Heights and was the son of John and Julie Chan. He was the oldest of six boys, brother to Christopher, Craig, Matthew, Mark, and Michael Chan.

When describing his son only days after September 11, his father John described Chip as a good athlete, a good learner, someone who was outgoing in

nature and with quick wit, always reading a book on business or economics to help him learn his trade.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that one of life's most urgent questions is What are you doing for others? Well, Chip, through the tragic and needless way that his life ended, along with close to 3,000 other Americans that day, did more for others in a way that united our country unlike ever before than many could imagine to achieve in 10 lifetimes.

As we approach the 10th anniversary of September 11, it is my hope that as a country we will remember what brought us together as a country in the days, weeks, and months after that horrific day. Today, I hope we draw upon that common unity, that sense of patriotism and pride for fellow mankind, as we look our neighbors and complete strangers in the eye and respect that while we may believe in different paths, that in the end we all share the same vision for a strong, secure, fair, and free America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 2548.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee for Mr. Bachus, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 2, drafted by the chairman and my friend, Mr. Bachus, to help solve a problem that is prevalent in my district as well as many rural districts across the heartland.

As you know, this flood insurance issue affects every town, but especially those along the riverbanks. And FEMA's new requirements that require many of these small towns to make necessary improvements in their upgrades of their levees and dams require significant investment, investment that America's small businesses, family farms, and private properties will have to come up with the revenue to pay for.

This amendment in no way seeks to get anyone off the hook but, rather, to give them the necessary time given the large investments that many of these small towns will have to make, given the economic times that we are in right now, and recognizing that many of these small towns will require more than the 3 years as is allowed in the underlying bill to make the necessary improvements.

It does require, however, in years 4 and 5, which this amendment allows for an extension of the years 4 and 5, to allow to make the improvements. But those communities have to show stated improvement or at least progress toward the final necessary improvements in years 4 and 5 in order for them to get the necessary extension.

So I think it makes sense. It's a pretty commonsense amendment.

And I just want to say thank you personally to Chairman Bachus for his work with other members of my delegation in Illinois and, I know, those along the Mississippi and other waterways whose towns are feeling the pain of many of these new unfunded mandates put forward by FEMA.

With that, I would urge passage of amendment No. 2.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the author of the amendment, the chairman of the committee, Spencer Bachus.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thought when we started this Congress that we had agreed to no more earmarks, no more handouts, no more special privileges for any specific industry. But based on reading H.R. 1249, it's obvious to see that it includes controversial language which does just that--section 18, which sets forth a new and different process for certain business method patents for any other patents seeking approval.

Section 18 carves out a niche of business method patents covering technology used specifically in the financial industry and would create a special class of patents in the financial services field subject to their own distinctive post-grant administrative review. This new process allows for retroactive reviews of already-proven patents that have undergone initial scrutiny, review, and have even been upheld in court. Now these patents will be subjected to an unprecedented new level of interrogation.

The other side will argue that somehow magically a number of these financially related patents breezed through the patent office and thus must be reviewed. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the allowance rate for these business method patents is the smallest of any of the art forms. In fact, roughly 10 percent of those business method patents applied for are actually approved.

At a time when these small entrepreneurs and innovators need to be dedicating their resources and new advancements to innovation, they will instead, because of section 18, be required to divert research funds to lawyers to fight the deep pockets of Wall Street, who will now attempt to attack their right to hold these financially related patents.

With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the cosponsor of this amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend and cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of my time remaining.

I now yield 1 minute to my friend from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, for so many reasons, this provision of the bill is flawed. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the repeal of section 18, and simply ask this:

Regardless of where your support lies as to the underlying bill, why are we doing something separate for financial services patents? Why are we doing something separate for the business method patents? Shouldn't all reforms affect all patents and all industries?

I would argue this is an earmark and a special provision for one industry, and for so many reasons would ask for a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, if you want to be reminded of what an American hero is today, you don't have to search far within the ranks of our military to find one. Today, I'd like to share the story of a couple of such heroes--in fact, a family of them.

Army Specialist Ron Gebur was a 23-year-old sniper who was killed by an IED in Iraq 5 years ago. Ron's wife, Bethany, also served as an Army medic.

At the time of Ron's death, they had a 9-month-old son, Gage, and Bethany had just received orders to deploy to Iraq herself. Her orders would have required her to leave well before Ron was scheduled to return home from his service in Iraq.

Recently, Ron's mother-in-law contacted me. She asked me to stand up for these dual military families to ensure children like Gage don't grow up as orphans or have to go through the experience of seeing both Mom and Dad deployed at the very same time.

Today, I am offering an amendment that would give these dual military families with children some flexibility, knowing that they have an option to defer concurrent deployment into a war zone. We need to ensure that these families don't have to choose between serving their families and serving their country.

Specialist Ron Gebur gave the ultimate sacrifice, and I offer this amendment in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Offered By: Mr. Schock

Amendment No. 278: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Schock

Amendment No. 279: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Schock

Amendment No. 280: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Schock

Amendment No. 281: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, it's a great honor to talk for a few minutes this afternoon about our 40th President--Ronald Reagan.

I am sure many are asking how the youngest Member of Congress can relate to the oldest President. Well, the truth is while growing up in the 80's I can only admit knowing of the President by seeing him on TV, but it was the eight years of his presidency that helped define the principles I hold today.

In my mind, President Reagan is still as relevant today as he was during his presidency. In fact, many of the issues we face today are eerily similar to those we faced in the 1980's--Tax Code reform, volatility in the Middle East, discussions about America's strength and role among the global community and our uniqueness, but most importantly the role of government in our lives.

It was Reagan who took on the daunting task of Tax Code simplification, and he got it done. He helped America regain her economic footing again; and it's the same level ground we are seeking today.

It was Reagan that always displayed that characteristic optimism of America's brilliance that was so vital to the American mindset back then. It's with that optimism that we found our strength especially during difficult times.

Communism was plaguing the world--we defeated it.

The tragedy of the Challenger--it was Reagan that comforted us, but reminded us that ``the future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.''

Today, we find ourselves facing a dangerous ideology that runs counter to ours, and we are constantly reminded that the future we strive towards is no less challenging and risky than that of previous generations. We are witnesses to new and vital democratic movements around the world, and yet again today we are going through the growing pains of what government means to us.

As I conclude my remarks, I think it is only fitting to do so with a Reagan quote that encapsulated the final words of his third State of the Union, and that sums up the legacy he left behind, that we strive for again, and why my generation and I are able to stand before you today . . . .

``Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time; that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.''

Well, Mr. President, job well done. We'll take it from here.

Mr. Gallegly, I was not.

To my friend from California (Mr. Gallegly), I appreciate the deference. No, I was not born when Ronald Reagan became President, but what a tribute to President Ronald Reagan this is. Rarely in Congress do we run out of time when we're talking about an issue, but Democrat-Republican time has expired. I had prepared all kinds of flowery remarks that I was going to make in tribute to the President who hails from my home State of Illinois that I represent--Eureka College, his alma mater--but I can't think of anything more to say other than the fact that so much has been said that we've run out of time. And I can't think of a greater tribute. It's why east coast, west coast, Midwest, Republican, Democrat, the oldest Member, the youngest Member have taken time to come to the floor today. And I thank you, Mr. Gallegly from California for organizing this hour.

I like California weather.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this month I read articles about President Obama's reelection campaign plans on raising upwards of three-quarters of a billion dollars. There is no system of public financing for our Presidential elections that can accommodate anywhere near that level of spending. That is why I believe the President's strong opposition to legislation abolishing a system the President himself found unworkable in reality is profoundly hypocritical.

Putting out a statement of administration policy that states repealing the public financing system would, quote, ``force many candidates into an endless cycle of fundraising at the expense of engaging with the voters on the issues; and to place a premium on access to large donors or special interest support, narrowing the field of otherwise worthy candidates''--what incredible audacity. This is like the proverbial arsonist child who kills his parents by setting their house on fire and then appeals for sympathy by exclaiming he is an orphan.

The President's statement is absolutely saying one thing while doing the opposite. A New York Times editorial on January 24 of this year said, ``Eric Cantor is targeting for extinction the publicly subsidized Presidential campaign finance system adopted in the wake of the Watergate scandals.'' Wrong. It was President Obama who killed it and made a mockery of public financing of Presidential campaigns with his arrogant pressing of self-advantage, his unprecedented move to decline public financing for the first and only time since the adoption of this system.

In disparaging the majority leader, the Times went on to say that, ``We suspect his real motive is to give an even bigger voice to big- money contributors in Presidential campaigns.'' Once again, the record needs correcting. No campaign in American history had more maximum donors, at $30,400 per person, than Obama for America. Much has been made of that committee's legendary prowess in generating small donors over the Internet. But that committee also had a record-shattering haul among big donors, bundlers, and influence peddlers. But such is the right for Mr. Obama as a candidate in America.

However, when he alone has refused to participate in public financing of a general election for a Presidential campaign, his protestations ring rather hollow. No one has made more of the system operationally obsolete than Barack Obama. Actions do speak louder than words. And Barack Obama alone has refused to participate on the level playing field that existed in publicly financed Presidential general election campaigns in history.

It was not that the system was antiquated that forced Barack Obama to break a very sanctimonious campaign promise to participate in public financing. It was his decision to put expediency over his expressed support for the Democrat mantra of public financing. It was all about a ruthless pressing of self-advantage, despite a core campaign theme of promising to rise above self-interested politics.

Today, we will hear about on the floor measures to address the inadequacies of the system and the need to repair the system. First, I want to note an earlier New York Times editorial on June 20, 2008, which stated, ``Senator Russ Feingold, the ranking authority on campaign finance reform, rightly points out that while the primary cycle's public matching subsidies are `broken' and need updating for inflation, 'the system for the general election is not'.''

Secondly, I ask my Democratic colleagues this: Have any of you received the specifics of what it would take to change the law that would cause President Barack Obama's campaign to abide by public spending limits in the general election for 2012? Because without those specifics, this debate is not grounded in the reality that the incumbent President has zero intention of giving up his gargantuan financial advantage in his reelection campaign by opting out of one of the most perfect systems of public financing we could possibly adopt.

I ask the supporters of public financing for Presidential campaigns, are you willing to adopt a system that makes it mandatory for all candidates to participate in the system? And can you unequivocally pledge that the President's reelection committee will agree to be bound by your new system? And if not, I would suggest you are preaching at the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to recognize the thousands of Americans who have come to Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life. Starting as a grassroots movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's fateful 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the March for Life has grown to over 200,000 participants in recent years. I applaud this year's marchers who traveled across the country, including many from my home state of Illinois, to show their support for the unborn.

Abortion is one of the great tragedies of the last half century. In 2008 there were 1.21 million abortions in the United States, the equivalent of 100,000 abortions per month. I believe we need to continue to work with women, many of whom are afraid of the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, on the alternatives to abortion. Crisis Pregnancy Centers, for example, provide various services to pregnant women including pre-natal care, counseling, pregnancy tests and information on adoption.

Putting a child up for adoption is never an easy choice, but it is a preferred alternative to abortion. Adoption gives the pregnant woman the opportunity to bring happiness to another family that may not have the ability to have children of their own. According to the Administration for Children and Families and the U.S. Census Bureau, 57,000 children were adopted in the United States in 2009. Those 57,000 children will now have a better chance to have a successful and productive life.

On this, the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I applaud the hard work of all who were involved in this year's March for Life. I urge my colleagues to support legislation which honors the most innocent of human life.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the repeal of this job-killing health care law. How many times as American citizens did we hear the President say on national television, ``If you like your health care coverage, you can keep it?'' But for the rest of the Americans, let me talk to you. Well, ladies and gentlemen, wake up, because if you are one of the 80 percent of Americans who have an employer-provided health care plan that you like, you're about to lose it.

Simply put, the burdens placed on employers by this new law are too costly. The estimated cost for an employer to provide the ``minimum essential benefits'' package as prescribed by this bill will cost them per full-time employee $12,250 a year. As we speak, businesses all across America are crunching the numbers and figuring out that it's financially more beneficial for them as companies to pay the $2,000 per employee penalty and dump their employees into the government-run health care plan. The result, of course, will be that the 80 percent of Americans who currently like their health care coverage will be put in a government-run system that, of course, will be riddled with inefficiencies and limited options. Think the DMV or FEMA for your health care plan.

Additionally, this health care legislation is riddled with job- destroying regulations, burdens, and tax increases that will stifle private-sector growth and smother economic recovery in this country.

According to the National Federation of Independent Business and the Chamber of Commerce, this will cost 1.6 million jobs as it currently stands. I urge passage of this repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the International Preventing Child Marriage Act.

I had the opportunity to travel earlier this year in September with the well-respected nonprofit CARE to the country of Ethiopia. During that time, we visited the Hamlin Fistula Hospital and saw firsthand the atrocities and the realities of the situation with so many of these young girls who are forced into early marriages beyond their wishes, marriages that rob their potential to grow and mature both physically as well as mentally, for them to be able to establish their own life and their own goals and hopes and dreams for them to pursue.

As a leader here in our country and around the world in preventing world poverty and spreading goodwill, there can be nothing better that we can do as a country than to join with our international partners in trying to prevent child marriage, both in Ethiopia as well as other countries around the world, and give these young women the

hope and opportunity that people in our country have for themselves.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.