Michael Capuano

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, maybe they can just say ``yes'' to that. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO. I certainly will yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CAPUANO. No, I don't yield.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide and to celebrate a people who despite murder, hardship, and betrayal have persevered. Throughout three decades in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, millions of Armenians were systematically uprooted from their homeland of three thousand 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 the Armenian people. From 1915 to 1923, the Ottoman Empire launched a systematic campaign to exterminate Armenians. In eight 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 a final step towards healing and reconciliation. 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. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my views on H.R. 5036, the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act. As both a Member of the Committee on House Administration which has considered this issue for many months and a former mayor who was responsible for overseeing elections for many years, I know how important it is that people have confidence in their votes. This bill is part of an effort to ensure that we improve that confidence, which has waned in recent years. There are good provisions in this bill. I believe firmly that the best way to ensure that votes are cast as intended and counted accurately, is to provide paper ballots that the voters themselves mark. This bill helps move the Nation in that direction by providing optional funding for many localities that wish to switch to paper ballots. For this reason, I support it. However, there are some shortcomings in this legislation that I feel must be stated for the record. I do not personally believe that it is the most effective use of Federal resources to give states funding in order for them to add on printers to Direct Recording Electronic devices (DREs). I don't believe that ``paper trails'' are an adequate substitute for real paper ballots and for this reason, I have concerns about giving states the funding to retrofit their DREs rather than simply incentivizing the switch to real paper ballots. Similarly, I am discouraged that the bill does not allow jurisdictions with DREs that produce a paper trail access to Federal funds to switch to real paper ballots. Many jurisdictions across the country have come to the conclusion that paper ballots, not electronic voting machines with paper trails, are the most reliable type of voting system. By denying some jurisdictions the Federal resources to make that positive switch, the bill fails to reward those who are making the commitment to switch to what many believe is the best system. However, I am supporting this bill. Because is not overly prescriptive, I hope that many jurisdictions consider utilizing its positive provisions, should it become law. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the committee and in the full House toward a better and more trustworthy vote.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, on Monday, April 14, 2008 for the entire legislative day and Tuesday, April 15, 2008, for part of the day, I was unable to be in attendance and missed several rollcall votes due to CODEL to Afghanistan and Pakistan that I was leading. I wish to state for the record how I would have voted had I been present: rollcall No. 183--``yes''; rollcall No. 184--``yes''; rollcall No. 185--``yes''; rollcall No. 186--``yes''; rollcall No. 187--``yes''; and rollcall No. 188--``yes.''

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank many of the people who participated in the work of the Task Force, either by coming to speak with us and share their views or by contributing on a staff level. A number of individuals attended meetings at the Task Force's request to share their past experiences and offer their opinions on the idea of an independent ethics office. We very much appreciate the time they gave us. They are Senator Ben Cardin, former Representative Louis Stokes, former Representative Robert Livingston, Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, Donald Wolfensberger of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith, Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission Executive Director Judge Anthony Wilhoit, President of the Ethics Resource Center Dr. Patricia Harned, Sarah Dufendach of Common Cause, Gary Kalman of U.S. PIRG, Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, Meredith McGehee of Campaign Legal Center, Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch, Lloyd Leonard of the League of Women Voters, Senate Ethics Committee Staff Director Robert Walker, and Senior Counsel to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct Ken Kellner. I would like to extend my particular thanks to Tom Mann, Norm Ornstein, Sarah Dufendach, and Gary Kalman, all of whom were very committed to seeing a responsible and practical proposal from the Task Force and therefore spent many hours in consultation toward achievement of that goal. The staff who assisted members of the Task Force also deserve our thanks and recognition: Bernard Raimo, Counsel to the Speaker; Paul Taylor, Chief Republican Counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties; Ed Cassidy, Senior Advisor & Floor Assistant to the Republican Leader; Robert F. Weinhagen, Jr., Senior Counsel in the Office of Legislative Counsel; Jean Louise Beard, Chief of Staff, and Kate Roetzer, Legislative Assistant to Rep. Price; Allison Havourd and Rob Guido, Legislative Assistants to Rep. Camp; Christopher Hickling, Legislative Director to Rep. Meehan; Ben Taylor, Legislative Assistant to Rep. Hobson; Carla Murrell-Hargrove, Staff Assistant, and Rashage Green, Legislative Assistant to Rep. Scott; Jeff Kahrs, Chief of Staff to Rep. Tiahrt; and Emily Lawrence, Legislative Director to Rep. McCollum. Mr. Speaker, much of the debate on the Office of Congressional Ethics and the process followed by the Task Force in formulating these recommendations has centered on the issue of bipartisanship. Although my Republican colleagues declined to endorse the final proposal outlined in our report dated December 19, 2007, the process up to that point had, in fact, been incredibly bipartisan. This is to the credit of all of my colleagues on the Task Force. We had lively, open, and civil discussions in a series of meetings held over the course of a year, and we all value the cordial and professional way in which we were able to work together. A number of draft proposals were circulated to all members of the Task Force throughout the process, starting with an initial proposal that was floated in June. As we worked to craft a specific set of recommendations, all Members had the opportunity to offer suggestions and feedback--and all did. As we worked from a general outline of an independent office into a more specific legislative draft, we incorporated most of the ideas put forth by Task Force members. I would like to point out that the final proposal--as introduced in December and as amended for consideration on the House floor--contains a litany of concepts put forth by our Republican colleagues. They include: Term limits for OCE board members; Joint appointment of OCE board members; Requirement that reviews be initiated with bipartisan agreement; Only prospective consideration by the OCE--no retroactive reviews of allegations pertaining to acts that occurred before the date of adoption; Code of conduct for OCE board members and staff that includes avoidance of conflicts of interest; Financial disclosure form for OCE board members; Wording on OCE ability to ``solicit such testimony and receive such relevant evidence as may be necessary to carry out its duties''; 60-day blackout on referrals from OCE to Ethics Committee before an election was made mandatory, as opposed to being at the Committee's discretion; Provision requiring leaks to be investigated; and Provision on ex parte communications. One other issue to which I would like to respond is the internal memo from staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that was publicized via a Dear Colleague letter on March 11th and submitted for the Record that same day. This memo came in the form of an email exchange between Ken Kellner, Senior Counsel to the Committee, and Bill O'Reilly, Chief Counsel and Staff Director. I would like to be absolutely clear that while the written memo was never shared with my office prior to their release in the Dear Colleague letter, its contents and the concerns of the Ethics Committee were shared in November 2007--prior to the introduction of H. Res. 895 on December 19, 2007. While some of the concerns raised by the Committee essentially rose from a basic objection to the creation of an independent ethics office within the House and could therefore not be addressed without compromising the fundamental concept, others were valid and reasonable issues that we took into consideration and modified based on Committee staff's suggestion. I call Members' attention to five key changes that were made to the Task Force proposal in direct response: We built in a process for the Ethics Committee to unilaterally take a case from the OCE at any time if the Committee feels it necessary or appropriate. We removed a provision that would direct the OCE to provide a copy of its findings to the Member, officer, or employee who is the subject of a review. We agreed that it was not ideal to provide what could essentially be a ``roadmap'' for an investigation to the subject of a review. Therefore, the subject of the review would only see the OCE findings when they become available to the public--only after the Ethics Committee has a chance to deal with the matter. We altered the content of the findings so that cooperative witnesses could not be named publicly--precisely because we agreed that the OCE would not want to punish legitimate whistleblowers by publicly disclosing their names. The change specified that only uncooperative witnesses may be named in the findings. With respect to Committee concerns about publishing the board's findings even if the Committee has decided to handle a matter nonpublicly, we made sure to clarify that Ethics Committee rules would allow the Committee to dismiss a matter while also issuing a private letter to the subject or respondent. If the Committee felt the need to handle a smaller infraction privately, they could do so in this manner and no publication of the action is required. We expanded the ex parte communications prohibition to include ``any interested party'' as was suggested. These modifications were made to the proposal prior to the release of the final Task Force recommendations and introduction of H. Res. 895. Members deserve to know that the concerns of the Ethics Committee were taken into account by the Task Force and that, while this commentary caught many Members by surprise on March 11, we had already been briefed on its substance and had responded appropriately. The Task Force worked diligently over our 11 months of meetings to cooperate on a bipartisan basis and craft a set of recommendations that would improve the ethics process in the House of Representatives. While I regret that we could not come to a final agreement, I thank my colleagues on the Task Force for their efforts and for their commitment to this institution.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I actually find very little in Mr. Dreier's comments I disagree with. I agree with almost everything he has said, and I commend him for that very thoughtful speech. Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the specifics, I'd also like to thank the members of the task force, especially Mr. Smith, who was the ranking member for Republicans. It was a great opportunity to become a friend of another Member. We did disagree in the end, but I found it to be a very thoughtful, fruitful, and enjoyable experience. I also want to thank other members of the committee: Mr. Price, Mr. Scott, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Meehan before he left, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Camp, and Mr. Tiahrt. I thought we had some great meetings, and it was a pleasure to me to engage in this endeavor. I also want to thank the Members of the freshman class of 2006. They're the ones who really kept the pressure on us to try to fix our ethics rules. They came here on the backs of public discontent with our actions, and they have kept our feet to the fire. I thank them for that. I also want to thank the many people that helped us walk through this. There are many people whom I will list in my extension of remarks at a later time because there are too many of them. I do want to point out one staff member, in particular my own, Christina Tsafoulias, who worked countless hours trying to get through this. I want to thank her publicly for that. On the specifics, again I think I agree with most everything Mr. Dreier said. This is really all about public trust, but the point that seems to be missed is the public does not trust us on ethics issues at this point. Maybe that's fair. Maybe that's unfair. Maybe it's based on reality. Maybe it's based on perception. But it is a fact. They do not trust us. They don't trust us for many different reasons. As I see it, I can point to two different issues in particular: the perception of the good-ol'-boy network. Now, maybe that's not fair, but it's certainly what our constituents think. They think we are all here protecting each other. They think that we operate beyond closed doors and smoke-filled rooms to make sure that no bad things get said about our colleagues. I don't think that is true, but that's certainly the perception. When people don't have trust in the system, they don't have trust in us, and I think that's an important thing to address. The other part of it, as was already pointed out, is transparency, or the lack thereof. That encourages people to think that the good-ol'-boy network is all that we rely on. As far as partisanship, I totally agree. Any system that results in partisanship on ethics matters is unsuccessful. But partisanship has two points: yes, there is partisanship to initiate witch hunts, and that is a concern, I believe, this proposal addresses that by requiring joint appointments and by requiring one Democratic appointment and one Republican appointment to initiate a review. It totally undermines any legitimate concerns about partisanship witch hunts. But the other side of the coin that nobody here wants to talk about is the potential for partisan stonewalling, which we have suffered in this House in the past where one party simply says, You cannot look at our Member. Period. End of discussion. And if you do, we will remove Members from the Ethics Committee who look at that Member, which has happened in this House, and everybody knows it. And to think that partisanship is only a one-sided witch hunt is a mistake. Partisanship is also stonewalling. It's also protecting our fellow colleagues who may or may not have done something wrong simply because they come from the same party as we do. That's just as wrong as partisan witch hunts, and I believe this proposal addresses that as well. I also want to comment on the two proposals that were dropped on us lately. One of them had been in one form or another for a while; but both of them, in their final form, were dropped on us lately. I will simply tell you that, yes, we did look at them; and I have an opinion here which I will submit to the Record from the Congressional Research Service and one from the House counsel that states by bringing non- Members into a Member-oriented item to have official votes on matters in this House is likely to be unconstitutional. Now, I know that some people don't want to hear it, and certainly it won't be definitive until the Supreme Court were ever to act on it, but there is all of these constitutional questions on everything we do. I, for one, am a lawyer. I try to figure out how unconstitutional an issue might be; and if the answer is it's more likely to be unconstitutional than not, I won't do it. If the answer is I think it's constitutional, you try it. If it gets knocked down in court later on, so be it. So these two proposals, according to two independent agencies we could get direct answers on quickly, believe that it's unconstitutional. As far as the rule goes, I have had a year's worth of debate, and I would have welcomed anybody to come to any of our meetings and participated at any time they wanted to have the hours-on-hours of discussion. At the same time, this is a pretty simple proposal. I know some people don't like the concept of an independent entity having something to do with our ethics process. I respect that opinion. I disagree with it, but I respect it. It is a fair concern. At the same time, that's what this is. An up-or-down vote on that, I think, is a fair thing for the American people to let them know how we feel about this concept. The material I referred to previously I will insert into the Record at this point. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, March 4, 2008. Memorandum Subject: Permissibility of Non-Members Being Appointed to a Committee of the House of Representatives. From: Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division. This memorandum responds to requests from congressional offices for a brief overview of the permissibility and constitutionality of allowing the House to appoint non- Members, that is, persons who are not current Members, Delegates, or Resident Commissioner, to a committee of the House of Representatives, with full voting privileges in committee. Although the House of Representatives has extensive authority and discretion concerning its own internal proceedings and rules, the Constitution requires that Members of the House be elected every two years by the people of the several states, and thus a rule which would allow persons who are not elected to the House to carry out the constitutional functions of the House of Representatives through full voting membership on one of its committees would raise constitutional questions. Each House of Congress generally has broad authority to determine its own internal, procedural rules, and to establish those procedures and internal structures within the body to assist in implementing the institution's constitutional duties. Under Article I, Section 5, cl. 2 of the Constitution, which grants to each House the express authority to ``determine the Rules of its Proceedings * * *,'' the institution of the House, within the framework of express constitutional requirements, has broad discretion concerning its own internal operations and functionings as befits a legislative assembly which is an independent, co- equal branch of government under our tripartite governmental system of separated powers. Under this authority, the courts have traditionally given deference to the explication, application, and definition of internal procedural matters in both Houses of Congress. As noted by the Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin: ``The question, therefore, is as to the validity of this rule, and not what methods the Speaker may of his own motion resort to * * * Neither do the advantages or disadvantages, the wisdom or folly, of such a rule present any matters for judicial consideration. With the courts the question is only one of power. The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. But within these limitations all matters of method are open to the determination of the house, and it is no impeachment of the rule to say that some other way would be better, more accurate or even more just. It is no objection to the validity of a rule that a different one has been prescribed and in force for a length of time. The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal. When there are interpretative and definitional ``gaps'' in language of constitutional provisions, for example, the courts have allowed each House to fill in the details of such constitutional provisions regarding its internal procedures. As noted by the Supreme Court in the case regarding the procedure that the Senate adopted to carry out its constitutional duties to ``try'' impeachment cases: ``As a rule the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require * * *.'' The Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States, thus deferred to the institution of the Senate in its determination under its own rules of proceeding as to the method that the Senate uses to ``try,'' as required by the Constitution, an impeachment of a federal judge. Specifically, the Court deferred to the judgment of the Senate to use only a small portion of the entire membership of the Senate body, in the form of a committee, to actually hear and take the evidentiary testimony (and then to report to the full Senate which votes to convict or not on the impeachment), since there was a ``textual commitment to a coordinate political department'' of the matter in the Constitution. The courts have thus recognized the authority of committees, and have allowed the committees broad investigative and oversight authority, for example, because committees of the House act as the House for those purposes that are expressly delegated to those committees by the Rules of the House (and have only those authorities and powers that are in fact delegated from the full institution). The Supreme Court has recognized the House's ``utilization of its committees'' to carry out a ``legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution.'' Since the committees act as and on behalf of the House pursuant to its Rules, are creatures of the House, and are in legal and actual essence a division or sub-entity of the entire institution (carrying out and exercising the constitutional functions of that institution delegated to them), there is a very strong indication that such committees exercising such functions may generally be composed only of Members of the House. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that Members of the House must be elected every two years by the people of the several States. Membership in the House, and by extension on committees acting for the House, would thus appear to require that a Member be elected by the people of the several states. In a brief review of legal sources, we have not discovered any precedent where non-Members of the House have been members of a House committee with full privileges and votes similar to any Member of the House, and thus we have found no judicial decisions and rulings on its permissibility, other than in the case of the elected delegates or resident commissioners in the House. In Michel v. Anderson, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, found that there exists what one might describe as an ``historical exception'' to the general constitutional proposition that the House must only be made up of Members elected from the several states, and that exception, recognized in law from the very first Congress (1 Stat. 50, 52 (1789)), was that people in territories and districts under the jurisdiction of the United States could have a non-voting delegate or commissioner in the House (that is, that such delegate may not vote on legislation on the floor) to ``represent'' them: ``The territorial delegates, representing those persons in geographic areas not admitted as states, then, always have been perceived as would-be congressmen who could be authorized to take part in the internal affairs of the House without being thought to encroach on the privileges of membership.'' Such non-voting representatives, in the form of elected delegates from the territories and districts not admitted as states, have in practice sat on House committees, and could, according to the court, if authorized by the House, vote in the ``Committee of the Whole'' (but only if their vote was not the determinative vote), but could not vote on legislation on the floor. However, the court in Michel v. Anderson expressly noted that this historical exception for territorial delegates was limited, and noted, in dicta, that such exception and permission for territorial delegates to participate in certain internal matters in the House could not be extended or applied to allow the House to adopt a rule putting other non-Members on House committees: ``The appellees, for their part, forthrightly concede that the House could not permit persons other than the traditional delegates to perform the role currently played by the delegates. It would, thus, not be open to the House to authorize by rule, say, the mayors of the 100 largest cities to serve and vote on House committees.'' In the case of allowing persons not elected as Members of the House to be full voting members of a committee of the House, such as in certain proposals concerning the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the precedent of allowing territorial delegates to participate in certain internal processes of the House, including voting in committee, may be distinguished on three basic grounds. First, there is historical precedent recognized from the first Congress for the people of territories and districts, not recognized as states, to have some limited, non-voting representation in the House. In the proposals seeking to add non-Members to the standing House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, no such purpose of representation of persons in geographic regions under the jurisdiction of the United States is provided, intended, or accomplished. Secondly, as discussed above, the court noted in its opinion that this historical permission for territorial delegates, provided by law, to participate in certain House proceedings, was a limited exception, and would not open the House to ``authorize by rule'' the addition of other persons (such as mayors of cities) ``to serve and vote on House committees.'' Finally, the court noted that the voting of a territorial delegate, even in a House committee or in the ``Committee of the Whole'' (with the revote provision), is ``largely symbolic'' because the vote could not immediately affect legislation, such as a vote on legislation on the House floor would. The duties and authority of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to both recommend the discipline of a Member directly to the House, and to issue a ``letter of reproval'' on its own accord, upon the requisite number of the votes of its members, may be seen as part of the express constitutional authority of the House under Article I, Section 5, cl. 2, to ``punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour.'' As such, these activities might be considered part of the direct and express constitutional function of the House, delegated to and exercised in some part by one of its committees made up of its own Members, and thus something more than merely the ``symbolic act'' which was the subject of the Michel v. Anderson case. A committee of the House, such as the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, could clearly employ staff to assist the committee in carrying out its functions, and could use an ``outside counsel,'' an advisory committee, or ``task force'' made up of non-Members (and even including on its membership some sitting House Members) to assist the committee in its investigative work, fact-finding, and even recommending to the Committee that it take certain action on matters. However, it may be argued that under existing decisions and precedent, allowing persons who are not elected as Members (or as delegates representing persons under the jurisdiction of the United States in geographic regions that are not states) to be full voting members of a House committee exercising the constitutional functions of the House delegated to it could, in the words of the U.S. Court of Appeals, ``encroach on the privileges of membership.'' Jack Maskell Legislative Attorney.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out a couple of things that have been said. I think the general attitudes have all been mentioned, but there are a couple of points. Relative to this memo that came out today dated November 9, just in case people don't notice, the draft didn't come out until December 19. Almost every point made in that memo was addressed in the draft that was submitted December 19. There were a few things we couldn't address because they go to the basic point of whether you can have an independent entity or not. I can list it, and I will list it, but I didn't have time to do it between the time we got it and the time of the debate, but you will have a memo on your desk within the next few days addressing every single point made in that memo that was addressed in the proposal. As far as bipartisanship, I think people need to know I have a list of at least 10 items that were taken up specifically as Republican proposals, starting with term limits for the OCE board members and joint appointments of the OCE board members. Those are Republican proposals we adopted. There are several others we will go into at a later time. Finally, people have to understand that this is not something brand new. It might be new to Congress, but more than 25 States already have independent commissions that review their legislators. If it is okay by them, why are you so afraid of it here?

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I rise to explain the reasons and the scruples that led me to vote ``present'' on H. Res. 951. I would note, first, that the resolution as amended and passed is more acceptable to me than the original draft. Most important to me is that the amended resolution recognizes the suffering of innocent victims on both sides of the conflict. However, I continue to believe that resolutions containing language such as some of the language in H. Res. 951 do not advance us towards the most important goal relative to this issue: peaceful co-existence for the region. The resolution properly states America's support for the people of Israel and their right to defend themselves. It notes the near daily rocket and mortar attacks on southern Israel that have been launched from the Gaza Strip since Israel withdrew from Gaza in the interests of peace in 2005. It fairly condemns Hamas and other terrorist organizations. I have never wavered in my support for Israel's right to defend itself against terrorists. I approved their action against the Iraqi nuclear site. I was bitterly criticized for my defense of the ``targeted assassination'' of Sheikh Yassin in 2004. I led the resistance in the city of Somerville to a campaign to divest in Israel. I am a friend of Israel and I do not believe this resolution makes Israel safer. It fails to reconfirm our commitment to peace and to a process that can bring about peace. I believe this failure renders America less able to be an effective broker for peace in the region. In addition, I question the desirability and wisdom of reiterating the status of Iran and Syria as ``state sponsors of terror''. The Department of State has so listed them and, certainly, there is ample evidence that both countries have actively and passively provided aid and comfort to Hamas and also to Hizbollah. Certainly, the current leaders of Iran have publicly stated their vile opinions about Israel and their determination to eradicate it. No one can deny these facts. Nonetheless, I have always been of the opinion that finding a way to peace is more important than name calling--even if the names seem to be well-deserved. I believe that those who are truly committed to finding a peaceful solution--two democratic states, recognized by other nations and coexisting in peace--must not succumb to the temptation of name- calling. We cannot let terrorists shape our agenda. We must remain determined to pursue peace. I would ask anyone whether they are more or less likely to open their ears so they can hear their opponent if that opponent constantly calls them names. I would ask anyone whether they are more or less likely to believe that someone who calls them names can truly understand their concerns. We all suffer from the same human weakness that causes us to lash out at those who attack us. This is a natural and understandable emotional reaction. However, it is one that we must resist, especially when engaging in what should be seen as deliberative and thoughtful endeavors such as Congressional resolutions. That said, I believe every observer agrees that Egypt and Syria must be active participants in resolving this conflict. Many might agree that Iran must participate as well--or at least acquiesce. How then does it encourage them to do so when the Congress states or implies that they are to blame for the problems in the region? This question seems particularly relevant because the resolution, a condemnation of Hamas rocket attacks and an expression of solidarity with the people of Israel does not require us to condemn other regional powers. There is no need to ``poke our finger in the eye'' of governments able to thwart or advance a peaceful solution. I would point out that the Congress has taken this approach for years. We have passed numerous resolutions--too many, in my view, that are gratuitously confrontational. I ask: Have those resolutions moved us any closer to finding a peaceful solution? The approach has not worked thus far and I see no reason to believe it will start working now. I voted ``present'' rather than ``no'' because I was in sympathy with much of the resolution. I voted as a Member of Congress determined that the United States act responsibly in pursuit of peace.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the work and to mourn the loss of Judah Folkman, doctor and teacher, a brilliant scientist, a devoted clinician, an inspiring mentor. I am privileged to represent great universities, research institutes, and teaching hospitals and the men and women who make them great. Many of my constituents inspire the world's admiration and respect. Their work has assuaged suffering and prolonged lives and earned the heartfelt thanks of all they have helped. None to my knowledge are loved as Judah Folkman was loved, by his colleagues, students, and patients. The most fitting tribute seems that given by his friend and colleague, Dr. James Mandell, president and CEO of Children's Hospital Boston, which I here enter into the Record: Judah's wife said she was sorry for giving me this burden, to speak on behalf of the medical and academic community at his memorial service. It is actually a sorrowful joy to remember him on behalf of so many. I must also tell you however that despite the fact I have had so many speaking opportunities in my career, I've never been so worried about getting it right. It just isn't possible to sum up the life and work of Judah Folkman in these words, in such a short time. He was larger than life in so many ways, to so many of us. On a personal note--Judah and I were colleagues for a very long time. He was a generous mentor and wise guide to a young urology trainee 30 years ago when I shared an office in his administrative suite. I learned by his example. He treated every parent with unequaled kindness and respect and every child with patience and tenderness. When I returned to start the urology research program effort, he was there for me. When I went to Albany as dean of the Medical College, he was my first commencement speaker. And when I returned in 2000, he and Paula welcomed Val and me as neighbors. In fact, Val mentioned to Paula that perhaps if we walked to work together, my IQ might go up. His contribution to science, to medicine, and the world, are far too vast to enumerate here. We have all heard and seen tributes to him in every form of media all over the world in the last week. As a result of his vision and persistence, people all over the world are benefiting from his discoveries. Today, more than 1,000 laboratories worldwide are engaged in the study of angiogenesis. A million patients worldwide are now receiving anti-angiogenesis therapy for cancer and macular degeneration, and there are more than 50 angiogenic inhibitors in clinical trials. But Judah envisioned a day when people would have an annual blood test to screen for biomarkers of malignant diseases and if evidence of early stage, yet undetectable disease was found, they would be given nontoxic, angiogenic inhibitors to prevent disease from occurring. He said that location wouldn't matter. It would be just like heart disease, where statins are given for control of biologic markers of future disease like cholesterol. What a vision, Judah. I thought you'd be here to see it. Judah was honored by societies and foundations all over the world. The walls of his conference room on Karp 12 are lined with them. His awards were incredible in depth and breadth, including one he was particularly proud of--the Helen Keller award for his work in the prevention and treatment of blindness. He was a member of nearly every medical society, yet he was particularly proud of the fact that he was inducted as an honorary member of the Academic Society of Black Surgeons. He wrote more than 400 original publications and over 100 book chapters himself, but it was with such great joy that he brought over to my office a couple of months ago a book he didn't author or edit. It was the first clinical textbook teaching clinicians about how to treat cancer with angiogenic inhibitors. As I look around this room, I see, however, what will be his most lasting legacy. It is a living testament to one of his greatest gifts--his unique ability to recognize and cultivate talent and brilliance in others. He grew the program for vascular biology from the surgical research program at Children's, starting with one-half of a floor of the Enders Research Building. He expanded and nurtured it with devotion, commitment, and love. He was always in my office, lobbying hard for more space and ended up with two entire floors in the Karp Family Research Building. But more importantly, he had this gift of mentoring his staff in a way that is unequaled by anyone I have ever known. His work will continue in the hands of the incredible talent in vascular biology in the program he built. It consoles me to some extent that the work Judah started with a singular, seminal glimmer of an idea more than 40 years ago will continue to thrive, grow, and succeed in their hands. Judah's lasting legacy will continue to extend far beyond our walls, improving the lives of millions of people around the world. Farewell, our friend, and thank you.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, one year after the tragic killing of Hrant Dink, his loss remains acutely felt by many communities throughout the world. To observe this anniversary, I resubmit for the record my statement made at the time of his death, which calls for comity and peace in a time of such sadness. I supported H. Res. 102 and I condemn in the strongest possible terms the cowardly murder of journalist Hrant Dink in Istanbul on January 19, 2007. I find particularly contemptible the actions of those who seemingly chose a 17-year-old youth--the alleged killer--to commit this appalling crime. This despicable act should not, however, obscure the inspiring solidarity of tens of thousands of secular, Muslim, and Armenian Christian Turks who filed past Mr. Dink's bier and marched in his funeral procession. Western news media have estimated the crowds between 50,000 and 100,000. Important Turkish officials, such as Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin; Interior Minister Abdulkadir Aksu; the governor of Istanbul, Muammer Guler; the head of the security forces, Celalettin Cerrah; and two generals joined Arman Kirakossian, the deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia, and other Armenian officials at the funeral service. Everyone in the world who cherishes freedom and brotherhood must take heart when signs proclaiming ``We are all Armenians'' are carried through the streets of Istanbul. I wish to express my condolences to the family and friends of Hrant Dink. I want also to express my profound respect for all his fellow citizens who protested his murder and mourned his death.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, the substance of the bill has already been outlined. I just want to rise to thank the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Mica, and the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Duncan, for moving this forward; also thank the staff for working out a few items that need to be worked out. And I would also want to take a moment just to thank the National Transportation Safety Board. This legislation was done in conjunction with them. We had a tragedy in Boston that led me, no different than any other American. I didn't come to Congress knowing that tunnels were not inspected, and I have not met anyone, anyone who thinks that they are not. And when they find out that they are not, it's one of those deals where, well, why not? Of course you should. This legislation will fix this. The National Transportation Safety Board took their duties investigating a tragedy we had in Boston and went, I think, the extra step, and I think the proper extra step, to call on us to pass legislation just like this. I think it was the right thing to do, the courageous thing to do. I think it's good for the country. And again, I want to extend my thanks to those people that made this possible.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, many insurance companies excluded terrorism events from their insurance policies, leaving businesses vulnerable to the threat of future terrorist attacks. In response, Congress passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, TRIA, in 2002 and extended it in 2005 to create a federal backstop to protect against terrorism related losses. As a result, TRIA has helped make terrorism insurance available and affordable to businesses, particularly those in our major urban areas. If TRIA were allowed to expire at the end of this month, many major development projects across the country would come to a halt, putting many jobs and economic development opportunities at risk. Although I am disappointed that the stronger House version of this legislation did not get enacted, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2761 so that this important program will continue for years to come.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice and congratulations to the Red Sox on behalf of the entire Red Sox Nation, which has always been strong but now growing across the country. Every road game they played, they filled up stadiums, and they filled it up both with supporters of the opponents, because they came to see good baseball and with Red Sox fans they found everywhere across this country. I will tell you they epitomized, on behalf of all of us, what is good about sports and what is good about America. Baseball is still America's game; it's still America's pastime. We all love watching it, but I will tell you, I will admit that, as a lifelong Red Sox fan, I always had my doubts until the last play of the last game. I always figured we could find a way to blow it like we did for 86 years. They are slowly turning me around, and one by one, one game at a time, now two in the last 4 years, maybe I will get over the initial years of my Red Sox days always figuring, come late in the season, the Yankees would sneak up on us and clobber us from behind. I will tell you that it is nice to begin the new century this way, but I also remember that we started off the last century pretty well too, but then we hit a wall. I don't expect that will happen, I expect this will continue on and on for the Red Sox. As you have probably noted, the Red Sox didn't just keep it all to themselves. They have now handed it off to the Patriots and the Boston College Eagles, and hopefully the Celtics will be able to gain the same type of traction that the Red Sox did. I end my remarks by simply saying congratulations to the Red Sox. Thank you for a wonderful year on behalf of all of my constituents.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to you for some of the pain that this moment may be inflicting. I didn't expect you to be in the chair. I just want to express my personal regrets that you have to suffer through this as a lifelong Yankee fan.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. 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.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. 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. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. 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. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. 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.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. 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. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. 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. CAPUANO. 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.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. 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.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. 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.