Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the previous days have offered a series of reports on conditions in Iraq. These reports have been consistent: Iraq remains dangerous, unstable, and political progress is virtually nonexistent.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. The President's escalation was supposed to give the Iraqi Government and the ethnic groups the room they needed to make political progress. That progress simply has not happened.

So now, after 4\1/2\ years, billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and countless new slogans, the Bush administration is just giving us the status quo. Instead of a new strategy for Iraq, the Bush administration is cherry-picking the data to support the political objectives and preparing a report that will offer yet another defense of the President's strategy.

We don't need a report that wins a Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. Americans are demanding the facts, an end to this open-ended commitment, a surge on the political and diplomatic front. In short, the American people want a new direction in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague from California for his leadership on this legislation. We will pass this legislation, and now the President's agreed to sign the most aggressive college student aid package since the GI bill 60 years ago. In an era where you earn what you learn, this bill will ensure that more Americans have access to a college education.

Today, the average student graduating from college graduates with $19,000 of debt. So, on graduation day, you get a diploma on one side and you get a $19,000 bill on the other side. This legislation will ensure that more and more Americans have the access to a college education. Not one of us would be here if it wasn't for the fact that we had had access to a college education and the ability to make something of ourselves.

This will ensure that middle-class families and their children do not suffer under the burden of the cost of rising costs of a college education.

I remember when I was running for office and I met a family in Chicago, Illinois. He was a police officer for 11 years. His wife was a teacher in a parochial school. They had two kids in high school, and they looked at me on their doorstep, and they had to make a decision: a third job among them, a second mortgage on their home, or burdening their children with $19,000 of additional debt.

This legislation ensures they are both good parents and their children have access to a great college education.

And I again want to compliment the leadership from my colleague Congressman Miller for producing this legislation in such a speedy time.

Right before our break, we passed and sent to the President comprehensive innovation legislation that allowed America to maintain its lead in the area of technology and investment in the R&D of this country. With this legislation, the patent reform, we are taking the second step in assuring that America, American companies and America's innovation, maintains its leadership in the world and the companies that are producing the jobs and well-paying manufacturing jobs here in this country.

I have only a small assortment of letters from the CEO and managements of these companies: Mr. Chambers from Cisco, Safra Catz from Oracle, the president and chief financial officer, the CEOs from Palm and the Micron company, and other companies.

Just to read the sense of what they are saying: ``As a company with several thousand patents, Cisco believes deeply in strong protection for intellectual property. Unfortunately, as you found during the hearing process, there are clear signs the current patent system is not functioning properly.''

This is from Mr. Chambers, the chairman and CEO of Cisco: These reforms you are debating today, this legislation will allow us to continue to innovate and help maintain our Nation's position as the world's technology leader.

This is essential legislation for American companies, America's innovation, and its ability to produce jobs for the future. Major CEOs from major companies that have maintained and also built America's leadership in the high-tech field all support this legislation, in addition to leaders of every major consumer group. So it is both good for consumers and good for business and good for the companies that are producing the jobs here in this country.

I would like to submit into the Record these letters from just an assortment of the companies that support this legislation because of what we are doing to maintain America's leadership in the production of new jobs, new technology, and new companies here in the country, formation of new capital, venture capital funding, et cetera. This, though, is the most important step to ensure that when people invent things and design patents that they have the notion and the integrity that those patents and their ideas are going to be protected.

Today we are taking a major step, forward as the CEOs have said in their own letters, in maintaining America's leadership in the production of not only new companies but the most innovative jobs and high-paying jobs that are the future of this country. I want to commend the leadership for producing this legislation and having it on the floor today for a vote.

Cisco Systems. Inc.,

San Jose, CA, September 6, 2007.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Howard L. Berman,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts,

the Internet and Intellectual Property, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Lamar S. Smith,

Ranking Member, Committe on the Judiciary, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Howard Coble,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on

Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, Chairman

Berman, and Ranking Member Coble: I am writing to applaud

your tireless efforts to pass H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform

Act of 2007. As the House prepares to debate this bill, I

want to reiterate to you Cisco's strong support for the

legislation.

In bringing the issue of patent reform to the floor, the

House of Representatives and the sponsors of H.R. 1908, have

demonstrated a genuine commitment to promoting innovation. As

a company with several thousand patents, Cisco believes

deeply in strong protection for intellectual property.

Unfortunately, as you found during the hearing process, there

are clear signs the current patent system is not functioning

properly. H.R. 1908 provides a series of needed reforms,

which will modernize and restore balance to the patent

system. These reforms will allow us to continue to innovate

and help maintain our nation's position as the world's

technology leader.

Passage of comprehensive patent reform is Cisco's number

one legislative priority for 2007. We have made this issue a

priority because we believe a modernized and balanced patent

system will promote innovation throughout our economy and

thus improve our nation's ability to compete in the global

economy.

I believe the time has come for patent reform legislation,

and I deeply appreciate your commitment to passing H.R. 1908.

Kind Regards,

John Chambers,

Chairman and CEO, Cisco.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 49, recognizing the 75th anniversary of the Military Order of the Purple Heart and commending recipients of the Purple Heart for their courageous demonstrations of gallantry and heroism on behalf of the United States and in support of S. 27, supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Purple Heart Recognition Day.''

The Purple Heart is the oldest military decoration in current use. It is awarded to members of the Armed Forces who are killed or wounded during conflict with an enemy force or while held as prisoners of war.

The Purple Heart was originally awarded during the Revolutionary War by the order of then-General George Washington. In 1932 the practice of awarding this prestigious medal was reinstated to honor the 200th birthday of George Washington.

The Military Order of the Purple Heart is the only veteran's organization comprised strictly of combat veterans. It was created for the protection and mutual interest of those who have received the Purple Heart. Since the reintroduction of this high honor, over 1.5 million soldiers have been awarded the Purple Heart; 550,000 of these brave individuals are living today.

Madam Speaker, the recipients of the Purple Heart have made an invaluable contribution to our country that will not be forgotten. They put their lives on the line and made great sacrifices while in service to our country and deserve our deepest respect. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 49 and S. 27, and I thank all of our Nation's veterans for their service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Representative Bean's name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 380. Her name was inadvertently added.

Madam Speaker, in 2002, when I was campaigning for Congress, I met Dolores Sweeney, who had three children. She worked full time at an insurance company, was too rich for Medicaid and too poor to get her own private insurance because her company didn't provide it.

Today, her three children are enrolled in SCHIP. Those kids, today, have health care because we did right, where, between private sector not providing health care and Medicaid, a woman who worked full time did right by her children, got healthcare for her kids, and her 19- year-old today is going to college and doing the right choices.

The question we have before us, as my colleague from South Carolina just asked, are we going to provide our constituents with the healthcare that our own children and Members of Congress get, that taxpayers pay for? That is the question that is going to be before us today: Are we going to do right by the Dolores Sweeneys of the world in the same way that our constituents do right by us, as Members of Congress, and for our own children? These are people who have worked full time, at no fault of their own, whose children don't have health care. And we will provide those children, 11 million children, the health care that their parents cannot provide.

Mr. Speaker, in 2002 when I ran for Congress, I met Dolores Sweeney. She works full time in an insurance company, but for years she and her three children did not have health insurance until SCHIP. Her children are enrolled in the health care program.

She did right by her family. She worked full-time, had three children. She's trying to be both a good worker and a good parent, and SCHIP allowed her to do both of those and do them well.

I just talked to her the other day. She has a 19-year-old now and a 14-year-old and a 12-year-old. This bill did right by her because her children are three success stories out of the 6 million who did right.

So we stare at the 11 million children and ask, whose parents work full-time, that are too wealthy for Medicaid, yet cannot afford private insurance, are we just going to throw up our hands to them? Dolores Sweeney and the other parents, they will get the same health insurance that we ourselves will get and our children get. And the question before us will be, are we better than these 11 million children?

You know, Dick Cheney gets a checkup every other day. Don't America's kids deserve a visit to the doctor, I ask you.

And also I just want to say something to my colleagues who now say they're for SCHIP. I was there when President Clinton proposed it. Speaker Gingrich was against it. You were against it before you became for it. I appreciate your conversion, but you originally were opposed to it.

When President Clinton said that, you said you opposed it. Then you said only pediatric care. Then you agreed to pediatric care, and then eye and dental visits which is what President Clinton proposed, and I do appreciate that you're for it.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, Republicans were opposed to this bill before they were for this bill, and what has happened is that pediatric care and the eye and dental care that is in this bill was a principle that President Clinton had and there would be no agreement on a balanced budget until those kids had that bill.

You said then it was an entitlement program. Now you have Governors, Senators of both parties, who are for this. The American Medical Association is for this. Pediatric care is for this. AARP is for this.

And the ultimate question to those children who don't have health care, this time we leave no child behind and give these children the health care they deserve and the parents work full time and do right by their children.

Madam Speaker, last year, we promised to break the link between lobbyists and legislators here in Washington and to fundamentally change the culture of corruption that has become accepted practice here. This new law is on the doorstep of becoming law.

Today, we will pass this bill that fixes an institutional problem with an institutional solution. Our bill mandates unprecedented disclosure of lobbying activities and turns the spotlight on special interests who have grown too comfortable with their special access.

Most importantly, our legislation levels the playing field between the special interests and the voters. When the gavel comes down on the Speaker's podium, it is intended to open the people's House, not the auction house.

The American people, and not paid lobbyists on behalf of the special interests, should have access to their government 365 days a year. Election day should not just be a formality.

Now the Senate must do its work and pass this legislation. Americans have waited long enough for this Congress to pass real lobbying reform. It is time to turn this bill into law and give the American people a government as good as its people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished history of Engine Company No. 110 of the Chicago Fire Department on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. Over the last century Engine Company No. 110 has selflessly served the community to keep it safe.

The local firehouse is an important, traditional, and valuable resource in the neighborhood. Engine Company 110 strives for perfection to better help those in the community.

I have visited Engine Company No. 110 many times. This company has always epitomized the exemplary values of honor and protection that the Chicago Fire Department and the Maltese Cross have become known to symbolize. All too often we take for granted the heroic efforts of these dedicated public servants.

Fire Marshall and Chief of Brigade, D.J. Swenie originally established Engine Company No. 110 on September 7, 1907. Today, Captain Dave Dietz continues this tradition of bravery and service for our community.

The anniversary celebration honoring Engine Company No. 110 will take place on September 8th at the current firehouse location at 2322 W. Foster Avenue. This will be a wonderful event that will memorialize this important anniversary.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of the north side of Chicago and the constituents of the Fifth Congressional District of Illinois, I wish to recognize the past and current firefighters of Engine Company No. 110 for their dedication and commitment to service. Moreover, I wish all the best for the future firefighters of Engine Company No. 110 and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the Chamber for rollcall votes 748, 749, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, and 757 on July 27, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 748, 749, 751, 752, 754, 756, and 757, and I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 750, 753, and 755.

Madam Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding.

The other day there was a story in the newspaper about dead farmers who were still collecting benefits up to about $1 billion. This amendment would cut down on that type of fraud and bring real accountability to the system.

I am from Chicago. In Chicago we kind of appreciate the ability of dead people to do spectacular things, but this would even bring an alderman to blush. A billion dollars to dead farmers still getting government benefits. I think a Chicago alderman would be jealous of this type of benefit.

So after that report, a number of us put in an amendment to bring the type of accountability to the Department of Agriculture for the type of benefits that are applied and should only be applied to farmers who are farming, obviously, their farm and working, but not to dead farmers and to people who should not be receiving what they estimate is close to $1 billion.

So I want to thank the chairman for allowing me to offer this to track down the fraudulent payments that have gone on in the Department of Agriculture and eliminate the type of waste, fraud, and abuse that exist.

Madam Speaker, Republicans and Democrats throughout the Nation agree no child in our Nation should go without health care. In States across the country, Democratic and Republican Governors have supported strengthening the Children's Health Insurance Program. In the Senate, Republicans have come forward and said they support the Democratic plan to give millions of children health care.

Now the only question is whether our Republican colleagues here in the House will join our effort to give 10 million children the care they need and deserve. Remember, this is the same guarantee our own children have. The kids of Congress men and women get the health care they need and the health care they deserve. The question is are we going to provide that for our constituents' children?

The Children's Health Insurance Program has broad bipartisan political support, and we are on the brink of providing 10 million children that quality care. That is millions of children who will be able to see a doctor they deserve when they are sick. And it is millions of children and their families who aren't interested in our political battles or political posturing that won't heal a sick child or give them comfort when they are ill.

Republican Senators have stepped forward. Now the children across America and their parents are waiting on this Congress to act. And the question is, will this Congress give our constituents' children the same health care that their own children have?

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota, who has been a leader on the Great Lakes issue, and also my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because this issue is not a Democratic or a Republican issue; it is an issue between right and wrong.

British Petroleum, who is now seeking to expand their refinery capacity in Indiana, has run advertising campaigns all over the country that they are ``beyond petroleum.'' If they are allowed to dump more ammonia and mercury and other metals into the Great Lakes, BP's ``beyond petroleum'' will become standard for ``big polluter.''

I say that not just as a way to embarrass them, although I hope it accomplishes that goal. They have the capacity to live up to what they are advertising; that they are a company that is sensitive to the environment.

Thirty-seven million Americans now get their daily drinking water from the Great Lakes. It is the largest body of fresh water in North America. It contains 20 percent of the world's freshwater supply. It is the economic heart of the Midwest.

As my colleague Mr. Oberstar noted, the fire at the Cuyahoga River and on Lake Erie galvanized the country. When I was growing up, prior to that bill, we used to run past the dead fish, dive into Lake Michigan, and swim 30 or 40 feet past all the dead fish to pop up. The Clean Water Act improved dramatically the environmental standard of Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Superior, Lake Ontario and all the Great Lakes. The question here is, are we going to move forward, or are we going to go back?

What is ironic about all of this is that this issue isn't about technology. They can do the refining to clean up and make sure that we don't dump ammonia and mercury and other environmental hazards into the lake. The question here is not technology or money. They are spending $3.8 billion to expand this facility, which is a good thing to do, because it will help on the energy supply.

The question is they said they don't have the land mass to deal with it. They have 2.6 square miles there. If you look on the Google map, you can see the size of what they have. It is 1,600 acres. They have the land capacity to do this.

Now, I compliment British Petroleum on one other issue. They brought Democrats and Republicans together on a single issue. They are a uniter, not a divider. Usually we are divided here on other issues, so I want to compliment BP for having brought Democrats and Republicans together in a unique act of bipartisanship realizing that Lake Michigan and other Great Lakes deserve our support.

We have made great progress. The question before us is whether BP will live not only up to their advertising, but what this Congress has committed to do, and every Congress has committed to do for the last 30 years, is that when it comes to our lakes, our drinking waters, whether we are going to go forward or backward.

I would hope that BP would take this notion that what they are seeing today on the floor is the beginning of a pressure, and that they realize that the decision they make, they can do the right thing. I think every one of us knows that if they made a decision to expand their refinery with the environmental qualities, every one of us would put a resolution on the floor the next day praising them for that decision.

So they have the choice: We will join them and say that they are right. They are a company that literally puts their money where their mouth is. Are they ``beyond petroleum,'' or will they be the company known as the ``big polluter''? They have a choice.

I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for having this resolution on the floor and taking the leadership and the time to commit to this.

Madam Speaker, there's a sad irony on this decision by British Petroleum, and that is, 10 years ago, 1997, when I was working in the White House, we had made a decision and Geolyse standards were negotiated at that point, coming on line just about now. It took all of the States, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, to set standards, as also the other States supported the Great Lakes, about polluting and what was allowed and permissible to pollute on the lakes and what wasn't. And those Geolyse standards that brought everybody together 10 years ago and started this movement to protect our Great Lakes in a way that we had not seen since the Clean Water Act, that negotiation and the product of that negotiation was just coming on line right now.

And just at that moment, we have this decision by British Petroleum, which is the most significant dumping in Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes and Lake Michigan since basically we started the Clean Water Act and reversing the trend of using the lake as nothing but a dumping ground.

Now, if this can happen in Lake Michigan, it can happen in other Great Lakes, which is why other Members of other delegations have stepped forward, and I want to repeat, all that British Petroleum has to do here is they have the technology to actually take a different course here. It's about the size of a land mass that they have to acquire, and if you look again at Google Map, they have plenty of land, 1,600 acres, to do what's right.

So many decisions we face on the environment are about jobs and the environment. You can both double the size of the refinery, create those 80 jobs, and also preserve our national commitment to the clean water of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes. It's not an either/or choice.

And what's so sad about the rush here is that this is a decision that could easily be won, that's a victory for British Petroleum, doubling the size of their refinery, but not doubling the size of the ammonia that's dumped into Lake Michigan and not increasing the amount of both mercury and other metals that are going to be untreated, dumped into Lake Michigan, and then we're all going to be asked to increase the money to clean up what they could have done in the beginning.

They're spending $3.8 billion. For a fraction, they could actually not only increase the refinery, but increase the capacity to treat these chemicals, and then we're all going to be asked to increase the money to clean up Lake Michigan with something that never should have happened and hasn't happened for 10 years.

Now, this unusual unity here is because all of us have constituents that don't regard this as a party issue, a partisan issue; they regard it as a commitment. We have had a tremendous increase in the consciousness of folks about the importance of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes to the environment.

If this was the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone, there would be no question. Lake Michigan, Ontario, Superior, Erie and all the Great Lakes are the Midwest's national parks. They stand as the largest body of fresh water in North America. Twenty percent of the world's entire fresh water is right there.

It is America's third coast. We would never consider doing this to any other national treasure. BP should not consider it here. They can double the size of the refinery, which is a good thing; they can increase employment by 80 jobs, a good thing; and they can be true to their advertising, ``Beyond Petroleum,'' and being the most green energy company if they decide to take the right actions. We'll help them if they want to do that.

But to act intransigent, like they have, is wrong. We are going to be meeting with the North American executive this afternoon. I know the Illinois delegation is. We are going to meet with them to let them know that they have a choice here to live up to their word.

I want to again thank all of my colleagues for stepping forward and giving a voice to their constituents who are outraged across the area with the decision by British Petroleum to do something no other company has decided to do in the last 10 years and reverse the standards and the progress we have made on the environmental quality of our Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I was listening to my friend from Arizona, which is a State with a desert that has both Lake Powell and Lake Havasu that have been built with Federal money so they can have water. Talk about Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes, the largest body of freshwater in all of America, in fact, 90 percent of the freshwater in the United States, 20 percent of the world's freshwater. Thirty-seven million Americans get their daily drinking water from Lake Michigan and other Great Lakes.

The Shedd Aquarium, as you noted, has more visitors, 2 million people, in fact, people from Arizona come to see the Shedd Aquarium. More people visit that aquarium than any other aquarium for the last 10 years.

This program actually has bipartisan support, as you probably know, in the Commerce, State, and Justice bill. My good friend from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a Republican, got resources to help the Shedd Aquarium.

The reason we are doing this, and you may not have known this and obviously those of us in the Great Lakes States care greatly about it, but BP, British Petroleum, the other day has gotten a waiver now to dump more untreated ammonia in the Great Lakes. It is our greatest national treasure like Yellowstone Park, like the Grand Canyon and others. The freshwater that surrounds Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio is a great national treasure. It provides, as I said, 37 million Americans with their daily drinking water. And the Shedd Aquarium educates other people to the importance of the Great Lakes.

And I always noted the State of Arizona actually had a plan on the books, and I think got an earmark for this once, how to build a pipeline from the Great Lakes to provide water to Arizona. You have got a desert; we have got the Great Lakes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who has been a supporter of the Shedd Aquarium.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Here it states, ``37 million Americans get their daily drinking water.'' It's the largest body of fresh water in North America. In fact, it's 90 percent of the water as it relates to body water.

In that effort, this is a bipartisan effort because we are dealing with the contamination of the Great Lakes, and the Shedd Aquarium is at the forefront of preserving and helping us make sure that the Great Lakes are here for future generations.

And the reason the Hoover Dam and other projects are relevant here, not the process about how they were authorized or appropriated, Arizona still seeks Federal subsidies for its water rights, which we still subsidize.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to welcome President Lech Kaczynski of Poland to our nation's capital. After taking office in December of 2005, President Kaczynski has strengthened Poland's already close ties with the United States.

Under the leadership of President Kaczynski, Poland has been one of the United States closest allies in strengthening democracy in Europe. Poland is a partner in the war against terrorism and provides support and stability to American efforts throughout the world.

President Kaczynski is scheduled to meet with President Bush today, and both presidents plan to discuss the possible inclusion of Poland in the Visa Waiver Program. As I have said before, Poland is a first class friend of the United States, and should not be treated like a second- class citizen.

I look forward to working with President Kaczynski and President Bush in modernizing the Visa Waiver Program to provide our closest international partners the opportunity to travel to the United States while simultaneously strengthening our security.

President Kaczynski's leadership has been vital to continuing the dialogue between Poland and the United States on important issues ranging from the war on terror to economic issues, and I look forward to continuing to work with his government.

On behalf of the more than 110,000 residents of the Fifth Congressional District of Polish decent, I welcome President Kaczynski to Washington and thank him for his fine work and commitment to democracy.