Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 1908--the Patent Reform Act of 2007. I do so reluctantly, and hope to work with my colleagues when this bill moves to conference to produce a final product that will adequately address the concerns of all sectors of our innovation economy.

As the Representative of the 8th Congressional District of Massachusetts, I feel immensely privileged to represent many of the nation's leading innovators. The 8th District is home to some of the best institutions of higher learning in the nation, teaching hospitals, high tech businesses, financial services firms, and biotechnology companies big and small. I recognize how absolutely vital the strength and efficiency of our patent system is to each of them and I take the reform of that system very seriously.

H.R. 1908 is the most comprehensive update to the patent system in generations. The bill makes changes to our patent system that are important to improving the business environment for many sectors of our economy. However, the bill also alters our current system in a way that could potentially prove damaging to other sectors. I oppose this legislation reluctantly because the committee, in particular Chairman Berman, has worked diligently to improve this legislation at every stage.

I was very pleaser, for example, to see the in the manager's amendment wording to strike the ``prior use'' sections of the bill. This change was important to ensuring that those who infringe on patents continue to have to meet a reasonable threshold if they assert a ``prior use'' defense. I was also pleased that the bill as reported from committee eliminated the ``second window'' of review after patents are granted. While this section may need additional changes, significant progress has been made to improve it.

I remain concerned, however, about the ramifications of the damages section of H.R. 1908. While I understand that the Chairman and the Committee have made several improvements to this section as well, as it is currently constituted in the bill the damages section will unnecessarily elevate apportionment as a method of determining damages when a patent has been infringed. This provision could produce devastating consequences for some innovators. I believe we must be cautious when implementing such a serious change, and that ensuring flexibility is of paramount importance.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee in order to produce the most balanced Patent Reform bill possible.

Mr. Speaker, reasonable people have differences of opinion on the base bill. There are a lot of things in here that I think different people can have different opinions on, the 15-year time limits and the triggers in the deductibles. A lot of them, almost all of them, are reasonable best guesses based on experience, and that is it. They are open to discussion. They are open to debate. There is no definitive answer as to which one is right. This bill is the classic example of compromise upon compromise to try to get to a bill that as many people can support and feel comfortable with as possible.

If the debate here right now or later on is on the base bill, that is hard to argue. That is a gut feeling. There are no definitives and no real answers. But I will tell you that when the argument turns to fiscal responsibility and there is this false argument that someone is more fiscally responsible than someone else, it bothers me. It bothers me a lot, because I think that is beginning to get into the great lie to the American people: ``We are more responsible than you. We are more responsible. We do this; you do that.'' Well, the truth is, not a single penny of taxpayers' money will be paid out in this bill under this rule unless Congress acts again. Not one penny.

Now, I understand that some people find that uncomfortable. I respect that. If there is another route to take, fine. I am open to discussion. I am open to the proposals. But to pretend this bill is somehow going to spend taxpayers' money when it is not is ludicrous. To pretend that people here are more fiscally responsible than others when they are not bothers me even more.

We had one major vote on PAYGO. One. And that was November 14, 2002, when the Republican-led House put forth a bill on this floor that basically gutted and terminated PAYGO. Only 19 Members of this House voted against that bill. Not a single Republican voted against it. Not one. And it gutted and killed PAYGO, according to CRS, to the tune of $560 billion. That was real money and real PAYGO that threatened a real sequestration over 5 years. Yet, the Republican-led House then, after the 9/11 attack, while we were in the middle of war, decided PAYGO was not important then. They killed it. If it wasn't important then, and yet today we are taking an action that we guarantee that no taxpayer money gets spent without additional action by this House, then I don't understand the logic. I see it as nothing but hypocritical.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Reach Out and Read, ROR, for receiving the 2007 Confucius Award for Literacy from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, UNESCO. The theme for this year's prize was ``Literacy and Health,'' and Director-General of UNESCO, Koichiro Matsuura, made the award on the recommendation of an international jury. He honored ROR's success in reaching low-income children most at risk of school failure by offering literacy guidance to their families and promoting a reading culture.

The nationally recognized program, started at Boston Medical Center in 1989, makes imaginative use of pediatric medicine to encourage early literacy. Parents trust their pediatricians, and Reach Out and Read has built upon this relationship. Through this program, parents receive a free book to read aloud to their child at every well-child check-up. This innovative program will distribute more than 4.8 million books to 2.8 million U.S. children this year, and operates in all 50 States to reach about 25 percent of children who live at or near poverty in the United States.

I have the deepest admiration for Reach Out and Read, and I congratulate them on this well-deserved honor. This award will help ensure that Reach Out and Read continues to grow and change the lives of American children for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the third anniversary of the congressional declaration of genocide in Darfur. It's not a happy occasion; it's a sad one. And I hope we don't have to do this again next year or any time after that.

I also want to thank the American people, the American taxpayers and the American activists in this country who have kept the pressure on us, on the administration, on the United Nations and on the world to try to stop this genocide.

I have been to Darfur, and I will tell you that as an American taxpayer you can't be more proud than when you look out, and unfortunately these poor people have been chased out of their homes, and families killed and massacred, but at least when you look out, all of their shelters are covered with U.S. flags. Now, it's because we have to send all the aid to feed and take care of them. But those shelters are made out of the bags that carry the wheat and the rice that feeds them.

The American people are doing our job. The administration is doing something, but not enough. The U.N. is doing way too little. And I hope that next year we won't have to come back and do this.

Offered By: Mr. Capuano

Amendment No. 28: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the passage of S. 966, a bill that will help ease the lengthy delays that citizens are experiencing obtaining a passport.

The House will have the opportunity to pass amendments to S. 966, the Passport Backlog Reduction Act. The Senate passed the bill, originally introduced by Senator Schumer, by unanimous consent on June 29.

After hearing from many constituents about problems they were having, I introduced my I own bill, H.R. 2960, the Department of State Crisis Response Act of 2007. Along with my colleagues Representatives Louise Slaughter, Ruben Hinojosa, Ted Poe, Al Green, Mac Thornberry, Charles Gonzalez, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Shelley Berkley, Henry Cuellar, Carol Shea-Porter, Jerry McNerney, Peter Welch and Jason Altmire, I introduced this legislation to enable the Department of State to respond to a critical shortage of passport processing personnel by re- employing vital former employees. I am pleased that the House Foreign Affairs Committee decided to send the Senate bill, similar in purpose to my bill, to the floor in an effort expedite the process. With passage of S. 966, the State Department can begin working to reduce the passport backlog.

I am hopeful that this legislative action will go far to ease the difficulty and delay many of our constituents have experienced in getting or renewing their passports.

Mr. Chairman, several questions I guess I heard. Number one, about earmarks in general. I respect that. That is a legitimate debate to have. I personally thought I wasn't elected just to rubber- stamp the President's desires or his administration's; I was elected to also exercise judgment, judgment on behalf of my constituents and judgment on behalf of the people of America. One of the things I think is important is to educate the children of America.

This particular earmark goes to a private college that has entered into a private, private partnership with Merck to build a new science lab, to educate the children from, I would dare say, some of them might be from the Fifth District of Texas. This is a private university run by nuns. And, by the way, if Sister Janet ever called you and asked you for a favor, you would do it, too, if you had any brains, because I wouldn't say no to Sister Janet. So I don't know exactly what the debate is. This particular one is to educate our own children in an merging field of biotechnology and other sciences.

Now, I know that some of the people that don't like this amendment also don't want us to bring people from overseas for those jobs. I question, where would they come from? Who will we hire? If we don't want people coming from overseas, which is a fair comment, and we don't want to educate our own children, where is the next generation of scientists coming from if we don't help?

Mr. Chairman, this is just another ploy to get some kind of philosophical opportunity to make marks. It doesn't help the country, it doesn't address the specific item at hand, it is just a way to make some television time; and I urge this amendment be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that people don't like to pay taxes. Neither do I, unless those taxes are used for wise and important purposes. And if the gentleman is so concerned about every taxpayer that doesn't want to pay taxes, then why are we still in Iraq?

The amounts of money you are concerned with you said is a very small

amount of money. And it is, to you. It is not to Sister Janet and to the students at Emmanuel College. And if you are that concerned with it, all you have to do is just shut down Iraq for less than 30 seconds and you would have this money available to us. So I don't believe that the real concern is tax money, because if it were, we wouldn't be having this debate. We would be having a debate on another matter that is much more financially irresponsible.

Madam Speaker, more than three million American women are currently living with breast cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates that this year, approximately 179,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed among women in the United States and that 41,000 women will die from the disease. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), breast cancer will affect one in eight women over the course of their lifetime. Although important advances have been made in screening for and treating breast cancer, we still do not know what causes this disease, or how to prevent it.

There is currently a dearth of studies providing conclusive evidence regarding the effects of environmental factors such as pesticides and other toxins on the development of breast cancer. Further study of these and many other factors, suspected of playing a role but not yet comprehensively examined, could be invaluable in helping to prevent breast cancer.

Many of us have voiced our support for this critical research by co- sponsoring the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act over several Congresses. The legislation, H.R. 1157 in the 110th Congress, would authorize $40 million a year for five years for the National Institutes of Health to make grants on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis, for the creation of multi-disciplinary Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Centers of Excellence. The Centers would be the first federally funded entities established specifically to study the potential links between breast cancer and the environment. The Centers would be required to collaborate with community organizations such as those representing women with breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a disease that has unfortunately touched the lives of almost every family in our country. Those of us who have supported programs such as the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and the DOD Breast Cancer Research program must be equally willing to support efforts to uncover the causes of this terrible disease. H.R. 1157 is an important piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to sixteen heroic veterans of the D-Day landing on the beaches of Normandy. On Saturday, May 19, 2007, the 250th anniversary of the birth of the Marquis de La Fayette, M. Francois Gauthier, Consul General of France in Boston, presented the cross of a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor to sixteen citizens of Massachusetts: George Belesoz, Peter B. Bennan, Espen H. Christensen, John B. Crawford, James H. Curran, Mario J. De Cristofario, Michael Delisle, George DePaulo, James A. Foster, Milton Issengberg, George A. Jonic, Robert H. Lubker, John E. McBurney, Thomas I. Powers, Seymour L. Schnuer, and Riley P. Shirley. These remarkable men were already a highly decorated band of brothers: twelve had earned the Purple Heart; nine, the Bronze Star; two, the Silver Star; and three had previously been awarded the Croix de Guerre. Representatives of the Mohawk Nation also received honor and thanks for their contribution to the Allied victory.

M. Gauthier read a letter from His Excellency Jean-David Levitte, French Ambassador to the United States, who had returned to Paris to serve as national security adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy. M. Levitte praised the heroes who, as young men, risked their lives for freedom: They came to Europe because they believed in the power of liberty and democracy; they believed in the power of human rights. They came to liberate populations from oppression and tyranny. And for this we are and we will always be grateful.

I thank the government and the people of France for the honor bestowed on the soldiers and sailors of Massachusetts, and, like them, we must never forget the sacrifices of the greatest generation. I look forward to close friendship and continuing cooperation between our sister Republics as we carry on the struggle for human rights and human dignity.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka and to a man who, were he not a brave and determined patriot, might be my constituent. Jehan Perera came to Massachusetts as a student and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1982. After winning a traveling fellowship, he returned and earned a J.D. from the Harvard Law School in 1987. He could have chosen to remain in the United States, practice law, and become an exemplary citizen here. Instead, he chose to work for peace in his native country. The son of a distinguished Sinhalese family, he learned Tamil and devoted himself to national reconciliation. He serves as the Executive Director of the National Peace Council and from that forum he has, for almost two decades, urged moderation and restraint, mutual respect and understanding. Jehan Perera is a fearless but thoughtful and nuanced critic of intransigence from any quarter. He has never ceased to call for magnanimous policies that respect both democratic decision-making and minority rights, and, of course, individual human rights. He has been active worldwide in encouraging representatives of civil society to work to resolve communal tensions. He rejoiced in a ceasefire negotiated in 2002 between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). I share his profound sorrow that the hopes it inspired have not been fully realized.

In April of this year, Jehan Perera was honored in a ceremony at the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation in New Delhi addressed by Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India. Dr. Perera had been chosen by the Inter Faith Harmony Foundation of India to receive its 2006 National Award for Peace, Tolerance & Harmony. A few days later, as friends gathered in Colombo to congratulate him, Jehan Perera received a death threat, the first addressed to him personally.

I honor and admire his fortitude. Active citizenship always demands some sacrifice, loss of privacy and leisure; hours and days spent in negotiations; the willingness, on occasion, to differ with our friends or to make common cause with old adversaries. In some places and at some times, politics, even the politics of peace and reconciliation, demands more than that. It calls for unflinching courage in the face of those who would threaten murder to kill even the hope of peace. I call upon all peace loving men and women to keep Jehan Perera in their thoughts and in their prayers.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Vera DeAngelis on the occasion of her 100th birthday. I have had the honor of knowing Vera for many years and am proud to call her a friend.

Together with her husband Albert, Vera raised seven children in Somerville. During her many years in the community, she worked to improve it in so many ways. Most notably, Vera volunteered in elementary school classrooms for more than twenty years, first at the Winter Hill School and later at the Little Flower School. She devoted countless hours after her own children were grown to making a difference in the lives of the young students she helped. Many of those young people have stories of their own about how Vera took the time to help them whenever they were in need.

Vera has always been concerned about the quality of life in her community and was very involved in Somerville Citizens for Adequate Transportation. In this capacity, she worked to lessen the impact of the highway on local streets and fought against its expansion into Somerville's Inner Belt.

Vera is also very active in local politics, closely following all of the local contests. Vera always makes the time to do more than just cast a ballot. She volunteers for her candidates of choice, holding signs, stuffing envelopes and spreading the word about her candidate's positions.

Vera possesses extraordinary organizational skills, and made the challenges of raising seven children seem effortless, regardless of the circumstances. She kept seven needles threaded with different colors in her pin cushion at all times, ready to fix a loose button or a torn sleeve at a moment's notice--an anecdote that her friends and family say best illustrates her superior ability to multi-task.

It is my privilege to have known Vera for many years and I wish her a very happy 100th birthday.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1678, Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2007, which was passed under suspension of the rules today. I rise also to pay tribute to those who provide these tragically essential services.

I am privileged to represent the Boston Center for Refugee Health and Human Rights. The BCRHHR, based at Boston Medical Center, cares for survivors of torture, slavery, oppression, and war. Its dedicated physicians, therapists, and social workers provide individual counseling and group support, as well as legal, social, and vocational services to individuals and families who, in many cases, have nowhere else to turn. Patients have suffered terrible injuries, both physical and psychic, and most are grieving the loss of close friends and relatives. Above all, the Center recognizes the essential connection between health and human rights. Its clinical work succeeds, I believe, because it helps people regain their sense of dignity and worth as human beings.

Doctors work closely with pro bono lawyers to support political asylum applications and to reunite families of refugees and asylum seekers. Shame and anxiety may keep torture survivors from seeking asylum because, in order to gain asylum, applicants must recount their sufferings in a judicial setting. Thus, in order to secure their patients' freedom to remain in the United States, doctors must help them as they relive their traumas. They give them courage to persevere and they sustain the hope that, once asylum is granted, surviving spouses and children can enter the United States.

One wishes our world did not need services for survivors of torture, but we do need them. We are privileged, as Members of Congress, for this opportunity to recognize and support this work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a people who despite murder, hardship, and betrayal have persevered. April 24, 2007, marks the 92nd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Throughout three decades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, millions of Armenians were systematically uprooted from their homeland of 3,000 years and deported or massacred. From 1894 through 1896, three hundred thousand Armenians were ruthlessly murdered. Again in 1909, thirty thousand Armenians were massacred in Cilicia, and their villages were destroyed.

On April 24, 1915, two hundred Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were arbitrarily arrested, taken to Turkey and murdered. This incident marks a dark and solemn period in the history of the Armenian people. From 1915 to 1923, the Ottoman Empire launched a systematic campaign to exterminate Armenians. In 8 short years, more than 1.5 million Armenians suffered through atrocities such as deportation, forced slavery and torture. Most were ultimately murdered.

Many of our companions in the international community have already taken this final step.

The European Parliament and the United Nations have recognized and reaffirmed the Armenian Genocide as historical fact, as have the Russian and Greek parliaments, the Canadian House of Commons, the Lebanese Chamber of Deputies and the French National Assembly. It is time for America to join the chorus and acknowledge the Armenians who suffered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. And let me stress that I am not speaking of the government of modern day Turkey, but rather its predecessor, which many of Turkey's present day leaders helped to remove from power.

As I have in the past, as a member of the Congressional Armenian Caucus, I will continue to work with my colleagues and with the Armenian-Americans in my district to promote investment and prosperity in Armenia. And, I sincerely hope that this year, the U.S. will have the opportunity and courage to speak in support of the millions of Armenians who suffered because of their heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my thoughts on H.R. 1591: the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007. After a great deal of reflection, I have decided to support this legislation. With today's vote, we are taking an important step toward ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home.

This legislation does not go far enough for me. I pushed for a vote on a course of action that would have gotten us out of Iraq much sooner and stipulated that all funding go toward drawing down troops. The House Rules Committee did not allow a vote on this position, and even if they had, I know that there are not enough votes to support it.

Today's vote was a very difficult one for me and I have been carefully weighing the impact of this legislation for weeks. In the final analysis, I decided that H.R. 1591 carried enough practical and symbolic weight that if it needed my vote to pass the House, then I should support it.

For me, the most important component of this legislation is that it stipulates the withdrawal of troops must begin no later than March 1, 2008 and be completed within 180 days. It also establishes specific benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet, benchmarks that mirror the criteria President Bush himself set forth in his 2007 State of the Union address. If real progress on these benchmarks is not made by July 1, 2007, then U.S. troop redeployment will begin immediately and must be completed within 180 days.

President Bush has been threatening to veto this bill for weeks and I fully expect he will do so if it reaches his desk in its current form. Regardless, the House is sending an important message to the President today by passing this legislation. In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to do everything I can to end this war. There may not have been enough votes today to bring a faster end to this war, but there were enough to establish a date certain for withdrawal. With today's vote in the House we are closer than we have ever been to ending this war.

Mr. Chairman, I don't get it. I am just reading section 306 as being stricken now, and it says, this is a direct quote, blah, blah, blah, ``for the period that such household is eligible for such voucher assistance.'' Once the household is no longer eligible, the voucher disappears. What is permanent about that? Subsection 3 says, ``Such vouchers shall not be taken into consideration for purposes of determining any future allocation of amounts to such tenant-based rental assistance for any public housing agency.'' What is permanent about that?

Now I don't know, if you just don't like the section 8 program, I respect that. That is a respectful and honest difference of opinion on how to help people have a home, have a roof above their head. But let's just try to get rid of the entire section 8 program. Let's not just pick on the people that got hurt the most in this entire country and have been shafted from the day of the hurricane until now.

I haven't looked at the numbers, but your own numbers a few minutes ago where there were 8,000 before the hurricane and now there are 12,000, maybe I missed something. That is not as big an increase as I would have suspected would happen if there was such a big sham going on.

And by the way, if it is all about a sham, you have got to give these people in New Orleans credit. They had a house, they were poor, they qualified for a Federal program that has been around for years, and they somehow mysteriously worked it so that their houses would be destroyed so they could stay on this program. Their houses and their jobs, by the way; that is why you have 12,000 people eligible because they have no jobs. The economy hasn't come back. When they get their jobs back and the economy comes back, they will no longer be eligible and they will be off the rolls and we will be back to 8,000. This is not a permanent program.

Again, if you just don't like the section 8 program, I respect that. We will have a legitimate difference of opinion on that; that's above the board. I understand that that is a philosophical view that I don't share, but I respect it. But you can't just go and take the people in this country that got hurt the worst, for no cause of their own, and somehow think they are trying to scam the system because they happen to live in the path of the worst hurricane this country has seen in my lifetime.

You can't pretend that this is a permanent program when the language itself says it is temporary. As long as these people are eligible, they would have a section 8 certificate. If they get their jobs back and the economy comes back and they make enough money to no longer be eligible, they will be off the rolls, we will be back to the 8,000. And then maybe we will have the discussion we should be having, which I would disagree with then, but it is an honest one; we just get rid of the section 8 program altogether and that is the end of it.

In the meantime, quit trying to pick on the people that got hurt the most in this country, no cause of their own, no fault of their own. I can't imagine anybody down there, any little old lady is sitting there trying to figure out how to scam the system so they can rebuild the house that shouldn't be rebuilt, so they don't have a job. If that is happening, find me the three people that are doing that, and I will agree with you and we will get them off the rolls.

Other than that, let's get on with fixing New Orleans so we can get back on track for this country and for this world.