Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we have 47 million Americans without health insurance. Today, we are going to have an opportunity to vote on providing 10 million children with continued health care coverage that they are going to need. This is, as in the spirit of many of the good things we have done, bipartisan. The Governor of Vermont, Republican, supports it. Republican Senators Hatch and Grassley support it, done a tremendous job. The response from the President, unfortunately, is to veto this legislation.

It is hard to understand how it is that, when the cost of this program is the equivalent of 2 weeks' spending on the war in Iraq, we can't find it in our capacity to spend that money to make certain that parents, when they go to bed at night, know their kids, when they need a doctor, will have access to the health care that they need. Our opportunity here in this House is to send the President a message, in the hopes that he will do the right thing and sign this bill, with an overwhelming bipartisan bill that reflects the bipartisan work and bicameral work that was done to bring it to the floor.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 664 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only, and I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 664 provides for consideration of H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The rule makes four Democratic amendments and four Republican amendments in order.

H.R. 2881 is a very important piece of legislation last updated in 2003. We are here today to make very critical reinvestments in aviation. And I want to thank, on behalf of the Rules Committee, the excellent work of Chairman Oberstar, the excellent work of subcommittee Chair Costello and Ranking Member Petri.

This bill authorizes $37.2 billion for Federal Aviation Administration operations, $13 billion for FAA facilities and equipment, $15.8 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, and $1.8 billion for research and engineering development. The $13 billion provided for FAA facilities and equipment is significant and will work to accelerate the implementation of the next generation air transportation system. This enables the FAA to make needed repairs and upgrades. This is very important to small airports across the country, including 18 State, municipal, and private airports in my State of Vermont that were all satisfied with the work of this committee, that balanced the needs of small, medium and large airports. Quite an accomplishment.

I recently read the Department of Transportation estimates up to a tripling of passengers, operations and cargo by 2025. This obviously will require airports across the country to make capital improvements, as well as to make readjustments to compensate for this growth.

H.R. 2881 takes action to decrease delays. All of us will welcome that improvement in the current system. The funding levels will allow the FAA to replace and repair existing facilities and equipment to prevent outages and other equipment failures that are a cause of delay.

The bill adjusts for inflation the passenger facility charges for the first time in 7 years. These fees, essentially user fees, are used at airports all over the country to make important facility improvements that would otherwise not be possible. This has been very helpful again in small airports like Burlington in Vermont where the funding stream has made this a modern airport, very convenient for the people, and a competitive airport for the region.

The rule makes in order Mr. Oberstar's amendment, which includes the Essential Air Service Program, something that helps small regional airports get service that otherwise they wouldn't have. I speak from my own experience: the Rutland Southern Vermont Regional Airport has used this to provide service and help create economic growth in the Rutland County area.

Perhaps most importantly, the bill also takes steps towards ensuring our continued safety by increasing the number of aviation safety inspectors, funding programs to increase runway safety inspectors, funding programs to increase runway safety, and requiring regular inspections of foreign repair stations.

I was especially encouraged to see there are provisions within the bill recognizing the impact that the aviation industry has on the environment. This bill establishes landmark new environmental provisions to reduce emissions and energy consumption.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will just close by saying this is an important bill. It makes significant improvements to the aviation industry. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, H. Res. 664.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 664 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 667) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, while President Bush is asking Congress and the American people to give his failed policy in Iraq more time, even some of the President's closest allies don't believe the strategy will work.

Last week, it was reported that Hunt Oil Company of Dallas, Texas had signed an oil exploration and production deal with the Kurdish Regional Government. That Hunt Oil Company is owned by Ray Hunt, major campaign supporter of President Bush and a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. His decision to bypass the Iraqi Government in Baghdad and negotiate directly with the Kurds shows his lack of confidence that Iraq will develop a functioning government in the near future, and it undermined important efforts for the Iraqi oil sharing law, which collapsed last week.

While President Bush is asking our Nation to sacrifice more of our brightest young soldiers and to spend hundreds of billions more in taxpayer dollars in pursuit of his Iraq strategy, one of the President's closest allies and advisers is betting that his strategies will continue to fail and, in fact, is looking to profit from it.

May I engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Massachusetts?

Mr. Chairman, among other things, your bill balances the needs of smaller insurers and larger insurers. You have two provisions in there to try to help the small insurers play their part but not be overly burdened.

The question is this: Our small insurers in Vermont that do business in a good and friendly way usually are in the range of $100 million. That is above your limit. The requirement that they will have to, in effect, indicate an insolvency risk threatens their rating which would adversely affect their business.

My question is, as you go forward, and as new information becomes available, my hope is that you and the committee would be willing to make what adjustments are feasible within the context of the overall goal.

I very much appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Courtney.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of us want to be here talking about the war because it's a tragedy, and I believe the American people have come to that conclusion. Whether they supported going into the war or they opposed going into the war, they figured out that at this point our military men and women have done all they can do. They toppled Saddam. They reported back truthfully that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and they allowed stability in Iraq so that Iraq had three democratic elections. At a certain point, it is up to the Iraqis to step up and build their own institutions and their own democracy. We obviously can help and we have some responsibility. But the American people, those who supported the war, those who opposed going into the war initially, have come to a pretty commonsense conclusion: We have done our job, the military has performed ably, and it is time for the Iraqis to take our place.

The fundamental question that the President has put to this Congress and to the American people is this: Is it the proper role of the United States military to be refereeing a civil war? That's the question. Now, Republicans and Democrats in the past have been united that our military has a primary responsibility for defending us in fighting wars, not for refereeing civil wars.

A couple of things. One, there has never been an example in the history of the world where a third-party military has actually refereed a civil war to a peaceful political and economic conclusion. There are examples of third-party militaries, outside militaries, coming in on one side and, through force of arms, imposing an outcome. But that is not the policy even of the Bush administration.

Is this a civil war? Here's what is going on in Iraq right now: There are several different civil wars that are underway. In the south in the Basra region where our ally Great Britain has

basically taken its 44,000 troops down to 5,000 troops and redeployed them to a base, there are three different Shia wars going on. They're not fighting about democracy. They're not fighting pro- or anti-Iran primarily. They're not fighting about the future of Iraq as a united country. They are fighting about oil. It is about who is going to be in control of that port and that refinery in Basra.

You then go to Kurdistan. Kurdistan has been, in effect, independent since 1991, Mr. Speaker, after the first Gulf War. And they have actually built an economy. They have outside investment coming in. They will not even allow the Iraqi flag to be flown in Kurdistan and are bent on achieving their own independence. But they want oil as well and are threatening, and they have an independent military, the Peshmurga, to take significant forceful action if they don't, from their perspective, get their share of oil in the Kirkuk region.

Then you have Baghdad. Baghdad has been the site of the most extreme ethnic cleansing. Before the fall o Saddam, Baghdad had 65 percent population that was Sunni. That was the seat of Saddam's power. Now it is 75 percent Shia.

A neighborhood that I visited, Mr. Courtney, when I was with a delegation to Iraq, the Dora neighborhood, had previously been Sunni and was now Shia, and peace came about basically by displacing the people who used to be there and putting new people in.

And the overall dislocation in Iraq is astonishing, as you mentioned, my friend from New Hampshire: 2 million Iraqis displaced internally, 2 million exiled; 4 million people already, about 60,000 a month, are affected by this. And that is the equivalent in the United States, 20 percent of our population or about 50 million people. Think about it if 50 million people were displaced, either thrown out of the country or fleeing the country or had to move from Texas to Vermont or Vermont to New York because of force and fear.

Then you have the provinces around Baghdad. The Sunni Triangle, Anbar, Diyala, a couple of provinces where General Petraeus was arguing that there was, quote, ``progress.'' Well, again, no one is going to quibble about a military person's estimation of whether there is military progress, but what has happened there largely is that there has been dislocation. The Sunni tribal leaders have done what most analysts expected they would do: They would turn against al Qaeda because they are nationalists. They are much more concerned about Iraq than they are accommodating this radical ideology and they would, quote, ``work with the United States.''

But what's the price that we are paying? What is the tactical decision that was made? The decision was made to arm tribal chiefs. Now, that can work in the short run. It gives them arms to fight alongside American soldiers in some particular circumstances. But what is the overall policy of the Bush administration? It is a strong central Iraqi Government centered in Baghdad. So what you have now is a United States policy that arms factions in the provinces, which is a momentary truce of convenience, that has no loyalty to the central government in Baghdad. And down the road, as what happened in Afghanistan when the United States, to pursue its interest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, armed the Taliban, and that Taliban then became the monster that produced an Osama bin Laden. But we have our policy where we are literally doing two things against the middle: arming factions who are hostile to a central government even as we say our goal is to have a strong central government.

So none of us know what all the details are, but what you have is an incredibly internal complexity: a Shia south where there is Shia factional fighting, a Sunni Triangle where there is a temporary alliance of convenience, you have ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, and you have a Kurdistan that is insisting upon being independent.

Incidentally, on this question of being independent, even the President's friends who have business interests are getting it. You read the report last week about Hunt Oil. Hunt Oil is owned by Mr. Hunt, a very good friend of the President, a big contributor and a member of the Foreign Policy Advisory Committee that the President pays deference to, listens to. Mr. Hunt bypassed the central government in Iraq and is entering into a direct oil agreement with Kurdistan. So he not only has made his bet that the President's policy is going to fail, he is making arrangements to profit by that failure.

So why is it that we are asking the American military, the American taxpayer to continue pursuing a dead-end policy? There is one reason that the President now offers to defend a policy that is bankrupt, that is a dead end, that has a history of failure. That argument that the administration is making is this: If we leave, there will be chaos.

Now, think about it. Those who oppose the war, those who voted against it argue that if we invaded Iraq, in all likelihood the outcome would be the quick toppling of Saddam and the long-term chaos and violence that would follow. The argument that the President rejected then he is embracing now.

All of us who oppose the war really do so with a heavy heart because we know that the choices that are available to this country and to the people of Iraq are very constrained and there is going to be untold suffering that lies ahead. We don't have good choices, but the question is what is the right choice that is going to mitigate the suffering? And that right choice has to be to redeploy our troops because the continued presence of the United States through the military emphasizes a military approach to a political problem. And that's why all of us are here doing everything we can to change our direction in Iraq.

And I thank you for my opportunity to participate with my wonderful colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Science & Technology Committee for their efforts in bringing H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2007 to the House floor. This legislation is important and very necessary.

``Green chemistry and engineering'' is the term used to describe the environmentally conscious design of chemical products and processes that are made safer to human health and the environment by reducing or eliminating the use or creation of hazardous and harmful substances.

Like many Americans, I am dedicated to reducing the causes and effects of global warming. Many of the solutions to global warming and other serious environmental problems need to be addressed at the molecular design level. This legislation does just that. It provides a path forward so that our chemists and engineers are able to conduct their work and research in an environmentally friendly manner.

This bill is also in alignment with the innovations legislation that was signed into law in August. It will help to sustain the United States' position as a global leader in the science and engineering fields and promote our ability to compete with other nations. The National Academies report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'', commissioned by the House Science & Technology Committee, points out the growing concern for America's ability to compete in today's global economy. H.R. 2850 supports innovation by:

Authorizing funding for green chemistry and engineering research;

Investing in young researchers;

Fostering collaborative R&D partnerships among our universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations;

Promoting education and training of undergraduate and graduate students, as well as professional chemists and chemical engineers;

Recognizing the value of the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships in the adoption of green chemistry and engineering innovations; and

Providing for much needed science research to identify barriers to commercialization of safer chemistry and engineering practices.

This legislation is supported by my constituents who are members of the Green Mountain American Chemical Society. This organization includes members from Vermont's universities and colleges, and from Vermont industries, such as IBM, BF Goodrich, Seventh Generation, and Biotek. Other supporters of H.R. 2850 include Vermont's Manufacturing Extension Partnerships and the Vermont Technology Council.

Vermont's business community is advocating ``green chemistry and engineering'' research. Vermont-based Seventh Generation Inc. is a leading nationwide distributor of environmentally sensitive household soaps, detergents, paper products and diapers. According to Jeff Hollender and Martin Wolfe at Seventh Generation, on the face of it, green chemistry is pretty basic: find ways to make non-toxic or less harmful chemical alternatives from non-toxic or less harmful raw materials using processes that don't create pollution, and manufacture goods using less water, energy, and other natural resources. While the concept is simple, the reality is far from it. However, instead of representing failure, the current lack of alternatives just means that a lot of work still needs to be done.

Educators in Vermont are also supportive of increasing resources for green chemistry research. Dr. Daniel Savin of the University of Vermont is doing critical green chemistry research on the development and use of biodegradable plastics that are derived from renewable biomass resources as an alternative to the traditional petroleum-based plastics, whose production results in harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Dr. Savin is investigating the extraction of the feedstock for a new plastics material from whey-protein, a natural byproduct of Vermont's very important cheese production. These plastics could be used in pest control applications, weed suppression, and water retention; reducing the use of harmful chemicals and the depletion of natural resources. This is just one example of the value of investing in green chemistry and engineering research.

H.R. 2850 represents an important investment in green chemistry and engineering research and education. I am pleased to support its passage and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 636 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 636.

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

H. Res. 636 provides for consideration of H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for five amendments: a bipartisan manager's amendment, three Republican amendments, and one Democratic amendment.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1908 is a necessary bill and landmark legislation. The last time that our patent laws had been substantially updated was 1952, over a half century ago. Much, obviously, has changed in the United States and the world in those 50 years, and that is quite an understatement. Unfortunately, the U.S. patent law has failed to keep up.

Before I discuss the merits of the underlying bill, I must commend Chairman Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Mr. Smith for their tireless work on this bill. It has not been easy to make the reforms that are so intricate and complex in such a complicated system, but these gentlemen worked hard with their committee and did so admirably, bringing to us a patent reform bill that is going to move America forward.

I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge the tremendous contribution of Senator Leahy, who happens to be someone I am particularly proud as he is the senior leader of our delegation here in Congress. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he spent years working on the patent system and has become a driving force behind getting this legislation to the floor.

All of us, I believe, in this House see this bill as major progress in reflecting a commitment to the protection and support of the Nation's intellectual property. This system was built to sustain and protect the nuts and bolts of the American economy, our ideas and innovations.

The legislation does enjoy very strong bipartisan support. Both Ranking Member Smith and subcommittee Ranking Member Coble, who have done great and hard work, are cosponsors. It is the product of 4 years of hearings, debates, negotiations, and compromises. Since 2001, there have been over 21 hearings on patent issues at the subcommittee level, and the subcommittee chairman and ranking member sought input from, among others, the Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Solicitor General, National Academy of Sciences, and businesses ranging from high tech and biotech companies to traditional manufacturing and pharmaceutical companies, as well as from our university community and from labor.

H.R. 1908 reforms our outdated patent system, which currently encourages patent speculation, increases litigation, often harms small inventors and impedes innovation.

First, the legislation moves the United States into a pure first-to- file patent system. Right now the United States is literally the only major industrialized country to retain the first-to-invent system. This change from first-to-invent to first-to-file will inject clarity and certainty into the process and relieve the U.S. system of some extremely burdensome requirements such as protracted interference proceedings often costing up to a million dollars to determine which of many applicants deserves a patent and detailed record keeping. Both of these often disadvantage smaller inventors who might not have the resources to initiate such proceedings.

This change to a first-to-file system puts the U.S. in sync with every other industrialized country. Greater harmonization is obviously going to make it easier for U.S. inventors to secure patent rights in other countries as international patent protection becomes increasingly important to their ability and the ability of United States inventors to compete on a level playing field.

Next, this legislation makes important improvements to the patent system by which patents can be reexamined. By providing for reexamination of issued patents, H.R. 1908 eliminates the ability to intentionally ``game the system'' by speculating on the issuance of very poor-quality patents, nothing added to the intellectual capital of this country, but used as a device to increase private gain. This provides a streamlined alternative to costly patent litigation. This ability to have a quality check on patents that have already been issued is crucial to the integrity of the patent system as patents of questionable value can stifle innovation.

Companies around the country are much like some companies that operate in Vermont, including IBM, which has been a leader in the number of issued patents for the past 14 years in our State. They were awarded in 10 years 3,621 patents in the U.S. in 2006; 360 of those, fully 10 percent, came from the IBM office in Essex Junction, Vermont. That is 10 percent of their total patents from Vermont alone. They have been in business for decades, and improving the quality and security of the patent system is extraordinarily important to them, and obviously to

other individuals and companies large and small around our country.

This bill also allows third parties to submit documents relevant to the examination of a patent application. This provision addresses the growing concern that patents have been issued on inventions that were publicly known and in prior use to the filing of the application. This is particularly important in the newer areas of technology in fields that do not yet have a fully well-developed tradition of publishing findings such as computer systems and software and business methods.

Finally, this bill makes some crucial improvements to the calculation and apportionment of damages. H.R. 1908 allows for the reasonable royalty calculations that more accurately reflect the value of any invention that is being infringed. Our patent system is far too important to be behind the times. Quality patents must continue to be issued. They must continue to be protected for those who have legitimately created a new invention.

This legislation is a huge step in modernizing this system for decades of American innovation to come. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I close by making two comments. Number one, this bill was the product not just of exhaustive hearings by the subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. It's really been the work of a couple of Congresses.

The patent reform system hasn't been changed in any significant way for literally over a half a century, and the changes that have occurred in our economy in electronic communications, in telecommunications, on software, on biotechnology, on every field that has produced wealth in this country have been extraordinary, yet the patent system has been stuck in 1952 mode.

The process that the chairman, Mr. Berman, the ranking member, Mr. Smith, and others have had to go through to try to accommodate the legitimate concerns of the inventor community, of the corporate community, and the complexities of that have been extreme.

This amendment that is being presented to you reflects an open process, not an open amendment with anything and everything on the table, but the product of an open process where everybody who had a concern was actually heard, and the best effort was made to accommodate them directly with specific legislation in the bill, in the manager's or in the amendments that were offered.

So the committee members, on a bipartisan basis, with Mr. Berman and Mr. Smith, have done everything possible to accommodate the concerns of the inventor community, the corporate community, our modern economy and the representatives in this body who are standing up for their constituents.

Secondly, there was some assertion that this is an anti-inventor bill. That is absolutely wrong. This is a bill that is being endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, by many in the university community, and by others who have, as their whole motivation, the expansion of knowledge and then the implementation of the benefit of that knowledge through a patent system.

So the committee has done an open process which has brought us to this point, and it has proposed changes that are 50 years in the making, that is going to strengthen and expand the rights of our patent community.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, House Resolution 636.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the bill (H.R. 954) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 365 West 125th Street in New York, New York, as the ``Percy Sutton Post Office Building''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on

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

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I rise in support of H.R. 954, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 365 West 125th Street in New York City as the Percy Sutton Post Office Building. This measure, which has the support of the New York delegation, was unanimously reported from our committee on July 19, 2007.

Madam Speaker, I have many remarks that I can make about Mr. Sutton, somebody that I don't know but read about as a young man growing up in, of all places, Massachusetts and then Vermont. But whatever I say is not worth listening to when we have another member of the New York delegation, remarkable in his own right, who actually knows Mr. Sutton and I expect is going to share some of his good qualities and be somewhat silent on anything else that may not be appropriate stories about the interactions of these two terrific men.

So I am going to reserve my time, and when the appropriate moment comes, allow the distinguished Member from New York to speak on behalf of the merits of Mr. Sutton, where he will be forever commemorated by having his name on a post office in the great city of New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a closing remark.

Percy Sutton was the embodiment of the American Dream, and he did it as a man who grew up with the kind of prejudice that the chairman just alluded to. It is just an honor, I think, for all of us to have the kind of inspiration that a person like Percy Sutton has provided to our country, service in the military, and really the most decorated service unit in the whole war and accomplishing that against enormous obstacles. People didn't want them to serve, yet they did, and they had confidence in us and our country despite the fact many in our country did not have confidence or even respect for them.

Then his array of accomplishments in politics, as a civic leader, a commitment to this community. Harlem, which the chairman called a village, at many other times had really tough times, and this man had confidence that this community and the people in it had as much a future as any other American. He then acted with the skills that he possessed, the energy that he had, and made Harlem into what is now, a very vital community in the City of New York.

So the Committee on Government Operations, with support from both sides of the aisle, is very proud to be bringing to the House for its full consideration the naming of this post office in honor of a great American.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 554) supporting the goals and ideals of National Passport Month.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Vermont?

Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H. Res. 554. This supports the goals and ideals of National Passport Month. H. Res. 554, with 55 co- sponsors, was introduced by Representative Barbara Lee on July 27, 2007. It was reported from the Oversight Committee on August 1, 2007, by a voice vote.

Madam Speaker, the creation and support of a National Passport Month signals to Americans the important role they can play as ambassadors for the United States by serving as agents of understanding, tolerance and mutual respect to citizens of other countries. The use of a passport and the desire to travel to other nations will bring personal enjoyment, enrichment and interest for both traveler and host, yet less than 25 percent of Americans have passports, thereby eliminating their ability to travel outside the United States. The passport and traveling abroad will create a connection with the global community and support goodwill throughout the world.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, Representative Barbara Lee from California, for supporting the goals and ideals of National Passport Month, and I support and urge the swift passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers on my side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 544) expressing the sympathy and pledging the support of the House of Representatives and the people of the United States for the victims of the devastating thunderstorms that caused severe flooding in 20 counties in eastern Kansas beginning on June 26, 2007.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

On June 26, 2007, a storm system lasting several days was responsible for bringing heavy and torrential rainfall to eastern Kansas. The affected communities received up to 21 inches of rain within a 4-day period, resulting in devastating floods throughout the region.

The flooding forced at least 20 counties to evacuate and led to the destruction of more than 3,100 homes and businesses. It caused a petroleum refinery tank system to overflow into the Verdigris River, releasing an estimated 71,000 gallons of crude oil into the Coffeyville community and surrounding area.

This resolution expresses heartfelt sympathy for the victims of the devastating thunderstorms that caused flooding in eastern Kansas.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, Representative Todd Tiahrt, for introducing this legislation and urge the swift passage of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and my colleague Mr. Westmoreland and urge the passage of this resolution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 165) supporting the goals and ideals of National Teen Driver Safety Week.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

As a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I'm pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H. Con. Res. 165, which supports the goals and ideals of National Teen Driver Safety Week.

This resolution, which has 55 cosponsors, was introduced by Representative Charles Dent on June 6, 2007. The resolution was reported from the Oversight Committee on July 19, 2007, by a voice vote.

Madam Speaker, road crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. These crashes are more common among young drivers than among any other age group, with one in four crash fatalities in the United States involving young people from the ages of 16 to 24.

The first 6 months after a teenager receives his or her license, he or she is especially at high risk of being in a car accident. Unfortunately, this risk stays relatively high until the young driver reaches 25.

In an effort to improve road safety and reduce crashes among young people, the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the State Farm Insurance Company codeveloped a multiyear teen center research initiative to help young drivers develop safe, smart driving behaviors and skills.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague Mr. Dent from Pennsylvania for seeking to support the goals and ideals of National Teen Driver Safety Week, and I urge the swift passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work of my colleague, Mr. Westmoreland, the remarks of my colleagues, Mr. Duncan from Tennessee and Mr. Dent from Pennsylvania, and urge passage.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3052) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 954 Wheeling Avenue in Cambridge, Ohio, as the ``John Herschel Glenn, Jr. Post Office Building''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H.R. 3052, which names a postal facility in Cambridge, Ohio, after John Herschel Glenn, Jr.

H.R. 3052 was introduced by Representative Zach Space on July 16, 2007, and reported from the Oversight Committee on July 19, 2007, by voice vote. This measure has the support of the entire Ohio congressional delegation.

As America knows, Mr. Glenn, Senator Glenn, is a pioneering astronaut, pilot, former United States Senator, and a true hero with a distinguished and impressive career in service to our Nation. He was born on July 18, 1921, in Cambridge, Ohio. He entered the Naval Aviation Cadet Program in March 1942 and commissioned in the Marines Corps in 1943.

After completing advanced training, he joined the Marine Fighter Squadron 155 and spent a year flying F-4U fighters in the Marshall Islands.

During World War II, he flew 59 combat missions. After the war, he was a member of the Marine Fighter Squadron 218 on the North China patrol and

served in Guam. From June 1948 to December 1950, Mr. Glenn taught advanced flight training in Texas. He volunteered for the Korean War, flying 63 missions and shooting down three enemy aircraft. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross six times and several other medals.

He has many other accomplishments that I believe we will hear about from Representative Space when he has an opportunity to speak, but he is a person widely known to Americans, Republicans, Democrats, independents, people who are active politically, those who aren't, people who revere public service in the military and in politics as one of the most extraordinary Americans of our time.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, Representative Space, for introducing this legislation and urge the swift passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehner was allowed to speak out of order.)

Announcing the Passing of Congressman Paul E. Gillmor

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Madam Speaker, I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3106) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 805 Main Street in Ferdinand, Indiana, as the ``Staff Sergeant David L. Nord Post Office''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I'm pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 3106. This names a postal facility in Ferdinand, Indiana after David L. Nord.

H.R. 3106, introduced by Representative Baron Hill on July 19, 2007, was reported from the Oversight Committee on August 1, 2007, by voice vote. This measure, cosponsored by eight Members, has the support of the entire Indiana congressional delegation.

Madam Speaker, Staff Sergeant David Nord was killed on June 23, 1969, in Bing Long, South Vietnam. He was assigned to 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment at Camp Blackhorse, Vietnam as a scout section leader.

Staff Sergeant Nord was awarded the Bronze Star, along with several other awards for his bravery and sacrifice to his country.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, Representative Baron Hill, for introducing this legislation, and urge the swift passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Indiana, Representative Baron Hill, such time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, and yield back the balance of my time.