Michael Grimm

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. I rise today to call on my colleagues to oppose the Schock-Waters amendment. This amendment would strike one of the legislation's most important reforms, a crackdown on low-quality business method patents, which have weakened the patent system and cost companies and their customers millions of dollars. Infamous patent trolls--people who aggressively try to enforce patents through courts in friendly venues--have made business method patents their specialty in recent years. These same patent trolls have funded an elaborate propaganda campaign targeting the reforms in section 18. Let us simply set the record straight. Section 18 allows patent experts to reexamine through temporary pilot programs legally questionable business method patents, a problem that the Patent Office has already said it is ready and willing to tackle. Opponents have asserted that the measure would help only the banks. This isn't true. The National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have endorsed this provision. Companies impacted include McDonald's, Walmart, Costco, Home Depot, Best Buy, and Lowes. These don't sound like banks to me. Opponents also claim that this section is unconstitutional.

Mr. GRIMM. Again, there has been a tremendous propaganda campaign basically to sell untruths that we simply need to get past. The truth is, this is best for the small guy. If we really care about the small inventors that create innovation in this country, then we should oppose this amendment. Don't take my word for it--read the words of Judge Michael McConnell--once the most influential federal appeal court judge in the nation--and now the head of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School: He said, ``There is nothing novel or unprecedented, much less unconstitutional, about the procedures proposed,'' and ``we can state with confidence that the proposed legislation is supported by settled precedent.'' I think it is time we stop listening to patent trolls who abuse our court system, and start listening to the businesses that drive job creation and economic growth in this country. Madam Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and oppose the Schock-Waters amendment to strike Section 18.

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the America Invents Act. This is a historic bill. It will drive innovation, create jobs, improve patent quality, and reduce frivolous litigation. This is a good bill for current and future patent holders--big and small. I do rise today with some disappointment, however, that opponents of this bill have recklessly spread misinformation about the bill and some of its most important provisions. The move to first inventor to file is wholly constitutional and it will strengthen the patent system for entrepreneurs and small businesses. They will no longer have to compete with big business to prove the validity of their patents after filing. Mr. Chair, I would also like to speak to one of the legislation's most important reforms--a crackdown on low-quality business-method patents, which have weakened the patent system and cost companies and their customers millions of dollars in extra fees. Infamous ``patent trolls''--people who aggressively try to enforce patents through the courts in friendly venues--have made business-method patents their specialty in recent years. These same patent trolls have funded an elaborate propaganda campaign targeting the reforms in Section 18. Let us set the record straight-- Section 18 simply allows patent experts to re-examine--through a temporary, pilot program--legally questionable business-method patents. A problem the patent office has said it is ready and willing to tackle. Opponents have asserted that the measure would help only banks. That isn't true. The National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have endorsed this bill. Companies impacted include Wal-Mart, Costco, McDonalds, Best Buy, Home Depot, and Lowes. Do any of these companies sound like banks to you? They don't to me, either. Opponents also claim that this section too is unconstitutional-- another untruth. Don't take my word for it--read the words of Judge Michael McConnell--once the most influential federal appeal court judge in the nation--and now the head of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School: He said, ``There is nothing novel or unprecedented, much less unconstitutional, about the procedures proposed,'' and ``we can state with confidence that the proposed legislation is supported by settled precedent.'' I think it is time we stop listening to patent trolls who abuse our court system, and start listening to the businesses that drive job creation and economic growth in this country. Support this bill and oppose the Schock-Waters amendment to strike Section 18.

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chair, I wish to strike the last word. I rise today in support of an amendment to restore $320 million in funding to the Department of Homeland Security's FIRE/SAFER grant programs that help provide firefighter jobs, equipment, and training for local fire departments. Yesterday, I attended a rally in my district on Staten Island to save one of our fire companies, Engine 157. As it stands, New York City's proposed budget will cut twenty fire companies from New York City--three from my district in Staten Island and Brooklyn. While I have no vote on the City's budget, I do have vote in Congress, and I will not let the federal government turn its back on our nation's firefighters. As a first responder during 9/11, I worked beside these brave an4 selfless first responders on the bucket brigade. I know how important it is to have well-equipped and well-trained firefighters when it comes to saving lives--whether they're saving victims from a major disaster or rescuing someone from a burning building. As our nation remains on high alert, and as New York remains the number one terror target in the nation, we must remain vigilant and prepared to respond to any situation. Cutting FIRE/SAFER grants will only make that task more difficult. Our nation's firefighters work tirelessly around the clock for our safety and protection. They deserve our full gratitude and support, and that is why I stand today in support of restoring funding to the FIRE/SAFER grants program and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 344, I was unavoidably detained and the amendment was gavelled closed before I could cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment honoring the brave members of the intelligence community, military and civilian, for their role in the mission that killed Osama bin Laden on May 1st, 2011. On September 11th, 2001, Osama bin Laden and members of his terrorist network struck at the heart of our Nation, carrying out attacks that took the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Of those killed, 2,752 were in my hometown of New York City, including over 400 Firefighters, Police Officers and First Responders. The largest percentage of these Americans, and their families, called my district of Staten Island and Brooklyn home. So I have good reason to stand here today and congratulate the men and women of our intelligence community for the role they played in locating and killing Osama bin Laden, a man who was the embodiment of evil and oppression. To this day the wounds of 9/11 still run deep within all our communities: every night in my district, families sit down to dinner at tables with empty chairs and children grow up without their parents. I stand before you today to give voice to all those who demanded justice. I speak for them when I express our profound gratitude to the members of our intelligence community for their commitment to making sure Osama bin Laden received the proper punishment he was long overdue. The result of over 10 years of hard work and dedication, this historic operation was truly a team effort and an achievement shared by the members of every intelligence agency and our Armed Forces. But we must remember those who put the pieces together to make this possible. Intelligence gathered from detainees played an important role in the successful takedown of bin Laden. While we're all congratulating the CIA and everyone else responsible for this victory, we must recognize that behind the scenes the Department of Justice is still considering prosecution of CIA interrogators who most likely gathered pieces of the important information that helped us find bin Laden, using techniques that were authorized by the Department of Justice, 9 years earlier. You can't have it both ways. The members of America's intelligence community are faceless warriors whose heroic accomplishments rarely see the light of day. They deserve our undying gratitude for their role in this extraordinary mission and deserve our praise, not prosecution. With mission and purpose, they have reaffirmed America's commitment to follow those who wish to do us harm to the ends of the earth in the pursuit of justice. After the attacks of 9/11 the American people have demanded nothing less, and I am proud to commend them on a job well done.

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on my amendment that was offered earlier today by my colleague Mr. Reed on my behalf and was included in the Intelligence Authorization Act. My amendment honors the brave members of the intelligence community, military and civilian contingent, who played a vital role in the mission that killed Osama bin Laden on May 1. On September 11, 2001, bin Laden and members of his terrorist network struck at the heart of the Nation, carrying out attacks that took the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. Of those killed, 2,752 were in my hometown of New York City, including over 400 police officers, firefighters, and first responders. The largest percentage of these Americans, and their families, call my district of Staten Island and Brooklyn home. So I have a good reason to stand here today to congratulate the men and women of our intelligence community for the role that they played in locating and killing Osama bin Laden, a man who was the embodiment of evil and oppression. The members of America's intelligence community are faceless warriors whose heroic accomplishments rarely see the light of day. So I urge this administration: Mr. President, please, these men deserve our undying gratitude for their role in this extraordinary mission; and they deserve our praise, not our prosecution.

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chair, I applaud Chairman Paul Ryan for his bold leadership in finally addressing solutions to our debt crisis in terms of deficit reduction and entitlement reform. There is no question that our health care entitlement programs are on an unsustainable path, and bold action must be taken if we are going to improve our nation's financial stability and preserve these health safety nets for future generations. Medicare costs are growing twice the speed of our economic growth, and elected officials who choose to turn a blind eye to our nation's economic distress are doing current and future beneficiaries an enormous disservice. Chairman Ryan's budget plan shows a clear vision of our choice between two futures. I believe he has found innovative solutions to curb the unsustainability of Medicare and Medicaid, balance the budget, and pay off the debt, without raising taxes. Our social safety net is clearly ripping at the seams and reforms must be made if we intend to protect our most vulnerable populations. Many governors have urged Congress to instate block grants for their state health programs in exchange for more flexibility and freedom to find efficient, effective ways to cut Medicaid costs without denying essential health care services for those most in need. Health care is clearly not a one-size-fits-all issue. In my home state of New York, Governor Cuomo has already shown leadership and found innovative ways to control Medicaid costs in his Medicaid Redesign Team. New York has an extremely diverse demographic in our Medicaid pool, and transforming the federal government's role into a solid Medicaid block program could seriously hamper efforts by state agencies that are already working hard to redesign the program and cut costs on their own. A block program in New York could result in additional cuts in Medicaid reimbursement for hospitals and physicians, and possibly cut services to institutions that serve the disabled. In the last two years, the state has cut Medicaid reimbursement by $5.3 billion, and further cuts would only create more hurdles in their efforts to provide quality health care to New Yorkers who need it. If a block grant is adopted, I believe states should have the ability to opt out of the program in exchange for benchmarks to cut costs. New York should have a chance to continue their efforts to fundamentally redesign the Medicaid system. If New York is forced into a block program, the state may not have time to truly fix the system for the long haul. Nearly 686,000 hospital and health system jobs fuel New York's economic activity in communities across the state. Officials must balance the need for reform, and pragmatic approaches to secure services for current Medicaid beneficiaries.

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this bill because it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. This is exactly why I came to Congress. This bill hurts struggling homeowners. It doesn't help them, because it gives some type of perverse incentive for the banks to foreclose. That's what this program actually does. It purchases these homes from the lenders, from those who are already foreclosed. That is not helping struggling homeowners. I don't deny that the intent was very good, but it is not following through on that intent. It's reckless; it's being misused; and it's wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. It really ends up being nothing more than another bailout. That's the last thing that we need is another bailout. It's a double hit to the taxpayer. Why? Very simple. Because when the city or municipality purchases this home, that means there are no taxes paid. The argument is, ``well, there are no taxes being paid now because it's abandoned,'' but that's not true. There is something called a ``tax lien,'' and the private sector at some point will buy that tax lien, and that municipality will get its incentive. So for many, many reasons this bill is failing. It does not follow through on the intent. And we must stop the out-of-control reckless spending. And this is exactly where we need to start, this type of program, $1 billion of hardworking taxpayer dollars. Let's end the bailouts. Let's stop and remember that the answer to everything is not the government. Often, it is the government that is the problem.

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act. And I'm sitting here and I hear that we're mean spirited, and it makes me think of the last year that I had with my father before he passed away. I spent a lot of time with my dad because I was taking him to the hospital. He had lung cancer. And we had to sit and wait, often more than an hour, to see the doctor to get his tests or to get his chemo. And I asked my father, knowing that his life was nearing the end, what was the toughest thing that he ever had to do. My father told me the toughest thing he ever had to do was tell his children ``no.'' Sometimes when you're a child, you don't understand. You ask for things, whether it be new hockey skates or a new baseball mitt, or whatever it may be, and a good parent sometimes says they can't afford it. Well, I don't think it's mean spirited to step up and answer the message not that we're sending, but the message that the American people sent us that we cannot continue reckless spending. And this program, to put it right back on point, this program is the poster child of waste and reckless spending. It's not me. It's not anyone in this Chamber that said it's going to be subsidized 98 cents on the dollar, we will lose 98 cents on the dollar. The administration said that: 98 cents on the dollar. We cannot continue to spend on programs that are failing. That is the definition of waste. We were sent here to cut the spending, to stop the waste for one reason, so that we can grow the economy. And when we grow that economy, we actually create jobs. The whole point, if I understand the argument on the Democratic side, is that these people have lost their jobs.

Mr. GRIMM. For that reason, the answer is not more failed programs; it's growing the economy and creating a job. We need to give them hope, not false hope.

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Thank you, Chairman Bachus. You know, I just came back from my district in Staten Island and Brooklyn, and I visited several senior centers. And I'll tell you, the seniors are nervous, they're worried. You know what their number one fear is? Their number one fear is that their children and grandchildren will not have the opportunities that they had. I heard countless story after story that their children are out of work. So when I hear about another failed program, I think of the mandate--and it was a mandate. I'm not sure if everyone in this room heard it in this Chamber, but I heard it--and the mandate was very simple: cut the spending, grow the economy, and create jobs. This program is broken, and to think that somehow suddenly-- miraculously--it's going to work for seniors is outrageous. And I have to tell you, I cannot, in good conscience, go back to my district, go back to those senior centers, look those seniors in the eye and tell them that I supported another failed program because someone stood up and said, well, it's for seniors. You can label it any way you want, you can put anything you want on this, but at the end of the day it's a failed program. And for that reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the chairman and end this reckless spending.

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 92 I inadvertently voted ``no.'' I intended to vote ``yes.''

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 96, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against:

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GRIMM. I rise in support of Representative Bass's amendment, which supports the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The continuing resolution cuts the LIHEAP program by almost $400 million. Madam Chairwoman, this program is crucial to the homeowners of the Northeast, specifically in my district of Staten Island and Brooklyn, New York. LIHEAP helps low-income families and seniors remain healthy and secure from cold winters in the North and from hot summers in the South, as well as keeping them from having to face the impossible choice of paying their home energy bills or affording other necessities, such as prescription drugs and food. I am cognizant of the fact that at a time of record deficits and of reduced spending, we must tighten our respective belts. However, it is imperative that we make smart spending choices. That being said, I believe, when given the choice between ensuring that our seniors have the ability to heat their homes during frigid New York winters or putting even more money into the catchall slush fund at NASA, there is no choice at all. As I have stated numerous times, I absolutely believe that deep budget cuts are required to get our government back on a sound fiscal path. However, we must first look to cut spending that is truly wasteful. For that reason, I stand in support of Representative Bass's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the birth of President Ronald Reagan this past Sunday. President Reagan has left a lasting mark on our world, inspiring people to turn to democracy. He often spoke of freedom and made it a driving force behind his foreign policy. During his Presidency, Reagan was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union. He worked tirelessly; and with the words, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' he helped bring freedom to people under Soviet control. He left behind a legacy known for the spread of democracy and freedom throughout the world. Reagan also understood the value of conservative economic policies. In a 1982 address, he said, ``We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.'' Thirty years later, this message couldn't be more true. While Reagan may be best known for leading our country through a strong economic recovery or for the fall of the Soviet Union, the Great Communicator was known for his optimism. I hope that Americans can once again find that optimism as we move forward to put power back into the hands of the people. By returning to the same conservative principles on which Reagan relied, I am optimistic that we can restore the honor, individual liberties, and economic prosperity that once defined our great Nation.

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the birth of President Ronald Reagan this past Sunday, February 6th. President Reagan has left a lasting mark on our world, inspiring people to turn to democracy. He often spoke of freedom and made it a driving force behind his foreign policy. During his presidency, Reagan was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union. He worked tirelessly and with the words ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' he helped bring freedom to people under Soviet control, leaving behind a legacy known for the spread of democracy and freedom throughout the world. Reagan also understood the value of conservative economic policies. In a 1982 address he said, ``We don't have a trillion dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion dollar debt because we spend too much.'' Thirty years later, this message couldn't be more true. While Reagan may be best known for leading our country through a strong economic recovery or for the fall of the Soviet Union, the Great Communicator was also known for his optimism. I hope that Americans can once again find that optimism, as we move forward to put power back into the hands of the people. By returning to the same conservative principles on which Reagan relied, I am optimistic that we can restore the honor, individual liberties, and economic prosperity that once defined our great Nation.

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, healthcare reform is a real issue facing many Americans. In spite of protests heard around the country, last spring the Democrats pushed through a 2,000 page bill full of mandates, and taxes that do not address the growing expense of health care, and continues a reckless spending habit that has resulted in a $14 trillion deficit. The 2010 Midterm elections has allowed the 112th Congress to fulfill a promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with common sense solutions that address the rising cost, and the importance of providing affordable, accessible, quality care. In light of repealing this massive government takeover of the healthcare industry, it is our responsibility to replace it with thoughtful reforms that help insure the uninsured, protect those with pre-existing conditions, lower the growing cost of health coverage, and preserve the doctor-patient relationship. Instead of encouraging America's small business to grow and create jobs, the current healthcare plan will hurt small business by imposing burdensome regulations that will lead to lower wages, fewer workers, or both. The Affordable Care Act is projected to add $701 billion to the deficit over the next ten years, and is likely to pass on a $2.6 trillion price tag to our children and grandchildren. While forcing young Americans into a government run health care exchange, we are requiring them to pay for minimal services for an unlimited amount of time, with no promise of a sustainable program that will be available to them as they age. The bottom line is the American people deserve better than this budget-busting, job killing legislation, and most importantly they deserve open and honest legislation not the gimmicks used to cover up the cost and damage of ``Obamacare.''

Mr. GRIMM

Mr. GRIMM. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to come to the House floor to honor the victims of the tragic shooting in Arizona. The six individuals killed and the 14 wounded, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, were victims of a heinous and despicable act of violence. On behalf of the constituents of the 13th District of New York, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the victims, their families and friends, and to the staff of Congresswoman Giffords. We will continue to keep them in our thoughts and prayers. As we come together as a Congress and a country to mourn and reflect, I urge my colleagues not to lose sight of what we have been called here to do and what we are here to accomplish. Congresswoman Giffords was doing the exact thing I hope we will all continue to do--going out into her community and taking the time to meet with, to talk to, and most of all, to listen to her constituents. This is what keeps us connected to the heartbeat of our district. This is what allows us to effectively serve our constituents and our country. This is what democracy is all about. This is what we have been elected to do. Additionally, I implore my colleagues to resist the innate temptation to enact reactionary legislation or call for extreme measures that could adversely impact the institution of the House of Representatives. Giving due respect to the Capitol Police and the FBI, we should allow them to do their jobs, to thoroughly investigate, and afford them the time to offer us recommendations for our safety and that of our staff and constituents. I hope that moving forward we will not let this incident create distance between ourselves and those we have been sent here to represent. We cannot let this senseless, this completely senseless act of violence keep us from serving our districts as effectively as possible.

Mr. GRIMM. As we move forward, let us remember that, while we should remain aware of the danger around us, we cannot live in fear or isolate ourselves in a bubble. Today, I mourn with my colleagues and the Nation, and I will continue to pray for those lost and to pray for Congresswoman Giffords and the others injured in the attack and that they will have a full and speedy recovery.