Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 2833, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act, a resolution to promote democracy and freedom in Vietnam. Madam Speaker, last weekend many of us were celebrating Labor Day with our constituents and families honoring our country's proud traditions of democracy and freedom. But last weekend in Da Nang, Vietnam, a 61-year-old monk set himself on fire in protest of the communist authorities' repression of religious freedoms. Before his death, Ank wrote letters to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Commission of the European Union and other international groups, stating simply, ``I have decided that the only way I can protest is by setting my body on fire to denounce repression against the UBCV and all other religions.'' I have with me the Declaration of Vietnamese Priests Abroad, an open letter to the international community condemning the vicious repression of religious and other basic human rights in Vietnam. This letter, dated August 15, was signed by 144 Catholic priests worldwide and calls upon ``freedom-loving governments to defend the values of human rights which are being trampled on in Vietnam.'' Madam Speaker, I include the letter for the Record. Declaration of Vietnamese Priests Abroad We, the undersigned Vietnamese priests abroad, want to express our great concern about the present urgent situation of Vietnam's religious life in general, and the life of the Vietnamese Catholic Church in particular. Though living and serving away from the Fatherland, we as Vietnamese and as priests remain attached to our people and country. We always pray for our people to be truly free and for our country to be prosperous, in which every Vietnamese is loved and respected in accordance with his or her human dignity. As for religious life in Vietnam, we are convinced that religious freedom is absolutely a basic and spiritual need for man and society. For the future of Vietnam, religious freedom is not only a legitimate demand but also a matter of human rights that needs to be urgently solved. Vietnam will lose an opportunity to create a bright future if the Vietnamese people do not have true religious freedom. The history of Vietnam has proved that religious life is strongly tied with the destiny of the people. Once religion is free, society will be peaceful and healthy and a human development will be secured for the country. It is unfortunate for the Vietnamese people that what is happening in our country increasingly proves that religion is at risk of being used as an instrument by the Vietnamese Communist Government and enslaved by it to the point of dying away in the end. Using this as its strategy involves agonizing policies of the legal system (especially the procedure of begging the government permission and policies of discrimination), unreasonable administrative system, ``divide and conquer'' causing division among leaders of the same religion, etc. All of these aim to deprive religious belief of sacred values and to render it meaningless and finally useless. Religious freedom in Vietnam is being distorted and trampled brutally and shamelessly by the Vietnamese Communist Government. The present conditions of society are unstable and only conducive to bribery and power abuse at all levels. In the face of these great social problems, religious organizations do not have a right to truly speak out. If they say anything, they must espouse the policies of the government. Concerning the Vietnamese Catholic Church, we are in one accord with the pastoral approach of the Vietnamese Episcopal Conference as stated in the Joint Letter May 1, 1980: ``To live the Gospel in the midst of the people.'' It is also for the sake of living the Gospel in the midst of the people that we cannot fail to share the common concern of our people as stated in the above observations. In the spirit of those observations, we, the undersigned Vietnamese priests abroad, want to declare our position regarding several urgent issues of the present situation of religions in Vietnam as follows: 1. We fervently support the spirit of self-engagement of Reverend Thaddeus Nguyean-Vaen-Lyu, a Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Huea, and his demands regarding true religious freedom. At the same time, we also support other religious leaders' legitimate demands regarding religious freedom. We demand that the Vietnamese Communist Government guarantee religious leaders' safety and security and their right to freely exercise religious duties. 2. We demand the Vietnamese Communist Government, for the sake of the future of our people and country, bring to an end religious persecution and insidious and malicious strategy, which is ordered to use religions in Vietnam as instruments leading to their destruction. 3. We call freedom loving governments and international human rights organizations to defend the values of human rights, which are being trampled on in Vietnam, especially the right to religious freedom according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Declared in Washington, D.C. On the Fifteenth of August, 2001. Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Body and Soul, into Heaven. Signed by the following Vietnamese priests abroad: Rev. Msgr. Dominic Mai-Thanh-Loong, Archdiocese of New Orleans, USA Rev. Joseph Ninh-Coang-Huynh, Archdiocese of Philadelphia, USA Rev. Peter Nguyean-Thanh-Long, Archdiocese of Washington, USA Rev. Joachim Traan-Quyu-Thiean, Diocese of Arlington, USA Rev. Andrew Nguyean-Hoou-Lea, Diocese of Auckland, New Zealand Rev. Paul Traan-Xuaan-Taam, Archdiocese of Washington, USA Rev. Joseph Traan-Kim-Thiean, Archdiocese of Philadelphia,

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, it has been quite a week here in the House of Representatives. On Tuesday, we made it a felony for scientists to cure disease with stem cells; Wednesday, we gave $36 billion in tax goodies to big oil, gas and others, and allowed drilling in national refuges; and today, we see the perversion of a good idea, a law that would protect patients from insurance companies has been transformed into a bill that protects insurance companies from patients. The President's deal was obviously written by, or at least for, special interests. It would repeal California's responsible law and replace it with a new Federal preemption that would prevent wrongdoers who are insurers, even intentional wrongdoers, from being held responsible for their actions. Now, why is it that doctors, lawyers, nurses can be held responsible for their wrongdoing, but not insurance companies? It looks to me that the bigger the campaign contributions to the Republicans, the bigger the payoff with laws to benefit those same contributors. This body has morphed from a place where legislation is deliberated upon to the White House ATM machine. This week, start by making scientists criminals; midweek, trash the environment; today, destroy the patients' bill of rights. It is a good thing Congress is about to recess. I do not know if the country could stand another week like this one of Republican ``victories,'' where the special interests rule to the detriment of ordinary Americans.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I want to salute the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for working together as a bipartisan team. The portion of this bill that came out of the Committee on Science is pretty darn good. It has a balance of conservation and renewable energies, and I am very proud and satisfied with it. The Fusion Energy Sciences Act was also included and, for our planet, it is going to be key in the long run. The problem in the bill is the things that did not come from the Committee on Science. Here is what is wrong: It provides no help for California to collect the $9 billion that we are owed by out-of-state energy providers; it lacks protection for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; it does not increase the CAFE standards for motor vehicles. The bill that did not go through the Committee on Science is short on vision and long on special interests. With over $36 billion in tax breaks to fat cats, the United States is going to have to borrow the money to give these tax breaks. So if there is a Texas equivalent to a Bronx cheer, that is what the President is giving to California once again.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we close the debate on this research issue, there were several Members of the House in opposition to the Greenwood amendment who said that we dare not allow for the possibility of research, there was a slippery slope; that if we allowed research to occur, inevitably there would be those who would then go ahead and clone a human being, which all of us oppose. I think that that is a fallacious argument. It is a defective argument, because what that argument says is people will violate the law. Well, if that is why we cannot stand up for research today, if the worry is that if we allow for research, that some will violate the law that we passed prohibiting the cloning of human beings, then we would have to go and prohibit the selling of petri dishes and other scientific equipment. No, that is a defective argument. The real issue is whether or not the House of Representatives intends to allow stem cell research, the somatic cell nuclear transfer technology. We received in the Committee on the Judiciary a letter from a person who is the Director of the Ethics Institute, the Chair of the Department of Religion at Dartmouth College. This person was the founding director of the Office of Genome Ethics at the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute, a past president of the Society of Christian Ethics, the largest association of religious ethicists. This is what he told us: ``I wish to draw your attention to the devastating implications for medical science of H.R. 2505. As written, the bill would prohibit several research directions of possibly great medical benefit. Nuclear transfer for cell replacement would permit us to produce immunologically compatible cell lines for tissue repair. There is no intention on the part of those researching this technology to clone a person. Using this technology, a child suffering from diabetes could receive a replacement set of insulin producing cells. These would not be rejected by the child because they would be produced via a nuclear transfer procedure from the child's own body cells. Neither would the implantation of these cells require the use of dangerous immuno-suppression drugs. Using this same technology, paralyzed individuals might receive a graft of nervous system cells that would restore spinal cord function. Burn victims could receive their own skin tissue back for wound healing, and so on.'' Dr. Green goes on to say, ``As presently drafted, H.R. 2505 will shut down this research in this country. This would represent an unparalleled loss to biomedical research, and for no good reason. H.R. 2505, if it is passed in its present form, the United States will turn its back on thousands or millions of sufferers of severe diseases. It will become a research backwater in one of science's most promising areas.'' He goes on to ask that we amend the bill, and that is what this motion to recommit would do. It would allow for an exemption from the bill for medical treatments. The NIH has been discussed a lot to today, and they produced a primer on stem cell research in May of last year. They point out on page 4 of their primer that the transplant of healthy heart muscle could provide new hope for patients with chronic heart disease whose hearts can no longer pump adequately. The hope is to develop heart muscles from human pluripotent stem cells. The problem is, while this research shows extraordinary promise, there is much to be done before we can realize these innovations. First, we must do basic research, says the NIH, to understand the cellular events that lead to cell specialization in humans. But, second, before we can use these cells for transplantation, we must overcome the well-known problem of immune rejection, because human pluripotent stem cells would be genetically no different than the recipient. Future research needs to focus on this, and the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer is the way to overcome this tissue incompatibility. Some have talked about their religious beliefs today, and that is fine. We all have religious beliefs. But I ask Members to look at this chart. We have a cell that is fused, they become totipotent cells, a blastocyst, and then a handful of cells, undifferentiated, no organs, no nerves, a handful of cells that is put in a petri dish and becomes cultured to pluripotent stem cells. Now, some have asked me to consider that this clump of cells in the petri dish deserves more respect than human beings needing the therapy that will be derived from those cultured cells. My father is 82 years old. He suffers from heart disease and pulmonary disorder. He lived through the Depression, he volunteered for World War II. Do not ask me to put a clump of cells ahead of my dad's health.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LOFGREN. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the scientific research exception is meaningless. It allows for research, except that which is not specifically prohibited. If Members read section 301 of the bill, it prohibits somatic cell nuclear transfer, so any kind of representation that research is accepted is incorrect. It is tautological and it is bogus.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary and the Speaker received a letter signed by 44 scientific institutions and this is what they said: This bill bans all use of cloning technology including those for research where a child cannot and will not be created. Therefore, this legislation puts at risk critical biomedical research that is vital to finding the cures for disease and disabilities that affect millions of Americans. Diabetes, cancers, HIV, spinal cord injuries and the like are likely to benefit from the advances achieved by biomedical researchers using therapeutic cloning technology. This was signed by the American Academy of Optometry, the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of Professors of Medicine, the Association of Subspecialty Professors, Harvard University, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International, and the Medical College of Wisconsin. I will take my advice on medicine and research from the scientists, not from the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this bill bans human cloning. Almost all of us agree with that. The problem is, the bill does much more. It makes cutting-edge science a crime. It would make somatic cell nuclear transfer a felony. An egg is stripped of its 23 chromosomes, 46 chromosomes are taken from the cell, say, of a piece of skin, and inserted into the egg. In 2 weeks, there is a clump of cells, undifferentiated, without organs, internal structures, nerves. Each of these cells may grow into any kind of cell, to cure cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, even spinal cord injuries. Use of one's own DNA for the curing cells avoids the danger of rejection. Just last week, as reported at the annual meeting at the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans, stem cells derived from somatic nuclear transfer technology were used with primates, paralyzed monkeys. Astonishingly, the monkeys were able to regain some movement. For paraplegics, this is a bright ray of hope. Since when did outlawing research to cure awful diseases become the morally correct position? I believe that scientific research to save lives and ease suffering is highly moral and ethical and right. Some disagree and oppose this science. Well, they have the right to disagree, but nobody will force them to accept the cures that science may yield. If your religious beliefs will not let you accept a cure for your child's cancer, so be it. But do not expect the rest of America to let their loved ones suffer without cure. Our job in Congress is not to pick the most restrictive religious view of science and then impose that view upon Federal law. We live in a Democracy, not a Theocracy. Vote for the amendment that will save stem cell research and then we can all vote for a bill that bans cloning humans, and only that.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. I include for the Record two articles that outline the research by Johns Hopkins University about the cure of paralysis that was reported last week at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans. [From the Yale Bulletin & Calendar, Dec. 1, 2000] Team Uses Primate's Own Cells to Repair Spinal Cord Injury (By Jacqueline Weaver) A Yale research team has transplanted stem cells from a primate to repair the protective sheath around the spinal cord in the same animal, an accomplishment that some day could help people with spinal cord injuries and multiple sclerosis. ``The concept is not ready for people, but the fact that it can be achieved in a primate is significant,'' says Jeffrey Kocsis, professor of neurology and neurobiology at the School of Medicine. ``Cells were taken from the same animal, with minimal neurological damage, and then injected to rebuild the myelin.'' In multiple sclerosis, the immune system goes awry and attacks the myelin. Damage to the myelin builds up over years, causing muscle weakness or paralysis, fatigue, dim or blurred vision and memory loss. Using the primate's own cells to repair the myelin, which is a fatty sheath that surrounds and insulates some nerve cells, sidesteps a common problem in transplanting organs, explains the researcher. Patients generally have to take drugs to suppress their immune systems so that their bodies do not reject an organ obtained from a donor. ``We didn't even need to immunosuppress the primate,'' says Kocsis, who presented his findings last week at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans. The experiment involved collecting small amounts of tissue from the subventricular area of the primate brain using ultrasonography. The neural precursor cells, or stem cells, then were isolated and expanded in vitro using mitogen, an agent that promotes cell division. At the same time, myelin was removed from the primate's spinal cord. the stem cells were then injected in the same spot to form new myelin to cover the nerve fibers. ``The lesions were examined three weeks after transplantation and we found the demyelinated axons were remyelinated,'' Kocsis says. ``These results demonstrate that autologous transplantation of neutral precursor cells in the adult non-human primate can remyelinate demyelinated axons, thus suggesting the potential utility of such an approach in remyelinating lesions in humans.''

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, it is worth reading the bill that is before us today. If we do read the bill, as I have and the other members of the Committee on the Judiciary, we will see that the bill outlaws somatic cell nuclear transfer. It makes it a felony with a 10-year sentence. If we read further in the bill, there is a ban and also a felony remedy for those who ship or receive any products that are derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer. Now, what does this mean? This means that scientists in labs around the country who are doing research and who may have cultures of cells that are products of somatic cell nuclear transfer will soon become felons in their labs if they ship or send these cells to colleagues in the scientific world. Further, under the bill, it is illegal, it is a crime, to accept a cure that is developed outside the United States if a cure for a disease is the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer. Now, that is a very realistic possibility. Just last month, this month, the head of stem cell research at the University of California in San Francisco announced that he was leaving the United States because he could not do his research in the United States. He is moving to England. When he joins other scientists in England, there is quite a good chance that they will come up with cures for horrible diseases that are suffered throughout the world, including America. If we pass this bill, we are saying Americans are not allowed to get those cures. That, too, would become a crime. The National Institutes of Health mentioned in their recent report that the human ES-derived cells could be advantageous for transplantation purposes if they did not trigger an immune rejection. They also point out in the next paragraph that ``potential immunological rejection of human ES-derived cells might be avoided for by using nuclear transfer technology to generate these cells.'' I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. It is preposterous that we are allowing ourselves 2 hours of debate to decide whether we should call to a screeching halt research that has the promise of curing cancer, of allowing those who have suffered spinal cord injuries to recover, allowing Alzheimer's victims to recover, allowing Parkinson's victims to recover. We should reject this bill. We all agree that cloning of human beings is something we ought to outlaw. Let us not outlaw research along with that.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 55, a resolution denying the President's waiver for Vietnam from Jackson- Vanik freedom of emigration requirements. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. I am proud to represent a community, Santa Clara County, that has been greatly enriched by the contributions of its Vietnamese American residents. For many years as an immigration attorney, a local elected official, and now as a Member of Congress, I have had the opportunity to work with these Americans on two issues close to their hearts and to mine, immigration and human rights. So it is these two issues that are at the forefront of my own thoughts as we discuss trade with Vietnam. I continue to hear constantly stories about religious persecution, political repression, and unwarranted detentions coming from the Vietnamese American community in San Jose and from contacts overseas. That is why several weeks ago I along with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) hosted a hearing on human rights in Vietnam here in the Capitol. Let me tell you what we learned at that hearing: Religious persecution is common in Vietnam despite the guarantees in chapter V, article 70 of the Vietnamese Constitution that citizens shall enjoy freedom of belief and religion. Portions of the Vietnamese penal code indirectly contradict guarantees of religious freedom. For example, Vietnamese citizens can be prosecuted for ``undermining national unity'' and ``promoting divisions between religious believers and nonbelievers.'' Additionally the government of Vietnam has consistently violated article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that ``everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.'' This is borne out by the treatment that the Catholic church, the Buddhists and the Christian Montagnards have experienced at the hands of the Communist government. In the course of this debate, we must not forget the names of those fighting for freedom in Vietnam: Father Nguyen Van Ly, Father Chan Tin, Le Quang Liem, Father Nguyen Huu Giai, Father Phan Van Loi, the Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, the Venerable Thich Quang Do, Rev. Thich Tri Sieu, and Rev. Thich Tue Si. Mr. Speaker, we must make sure that we use this tool that we have. I am a firm believer in trade, but I also know that we have individual relationships with each country, and we must use the tools available to us. We have a window of opportunity with Vietnam, and I know that if we insist that Vietnam improve its human rights record as a condition of trading with America, we would gain human rights advances in Vietnam. So I think it is a tragic mistake for the United States to decline to use this tool that is available to us that would be effective in gaining freedom for those who are oppressed because of their religious beliefs in Vietnam. For the priests and the devout who are persecuted today in Vietnam by the Communist government, I can only offer my embarrassed apologies that President Bush and this Republican leadership would turn a deaf ear to your suffering.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight the bill's science funding. Because this is the bill that funds six different agencies, funding requests for veterans and the homeless are pitted against science programs and space exploration. Unfortunately, this is an institutional reality the members of the Appropriations Committee face every year. Given that reality Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Mollohan have succeeded in providing additional funding for science and technology. The National Science Foundation and NASA have received a 9 percent increase in funding and 4.5 percent increase over current year funding respectively. While some Members and members of the scientific community wanted more--this bill is a good start to proper science funding. It is noteworthy that the committee has funded more than $200 million to educate K-12 students and their teachers in math, science and technology education. The Congress is doing the heavy lifting that the President failed to do in his budget blueprint. I am very concerned about the President's priorities when it comes to science. It is interesting that the Bush administration has proposed to double funding (a 13.5 percent increase over current year funding) for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and it proposed a 1.3 percent increase for the National Science Foundation, 1.3 percent increase for NASA and reduced funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science by less than 1 percent. I do not often quote Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, but when it comes to science funding--he has it right. ``To double NIH without doubling the broad base of science means in the long run we will cripple the evolution of science, because NIH cannot, in the long run, progress beyond physics, chemistry, mathematics, etcetera.'' Recently E. Floyd Kvamme, the President's co-chairman of the Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, wrote that NSF and NASA will receive ``increases.'' ``In the case of NSF, its budget will grow 15 percent between 2000 and 2002,'' he said. That may be true. What he did not write was that that 13 percent of the increase occurred during the Clinton administration, according to the Congressional Research Service, with Bush requesting less than 2 percent under the rate of inflation. The administration seems to be practicing fuzzy math to prop up its lack of leadership when it comes to Science and Technology. We know that government support for science has a direct impact on innovation at universities and technology transfer in the private sector. As someone who represents Silicon Valley, my constituents and I know there is a direct link between competitiveness and innovation in science and technology. Without adequate research and development funding by the federal government, we put our high technology companies and students at a competitive disadvantage. The future is now. The U.S. has the opportunity to invest wisely in science and technology. Doing so keeps open the door to technological advancement. The door will slam shut without adequate research and development funding. Earlier this year, the Senate adopted the Bond/Mikulski amendment to the budget resolution. This amendment increased current year funding to NSF by $674 million, to NASA by $518 million and to DOE's Office of Science by $469 million. Though not included in the budget resolution conference report, I joined many of my colleagues in the House to support the science- funding goal of the Bond/Mikulski amendment as the appropriation process moves forward this year. This bill already makes a start. Let's work with those who supported this effort in the other body earlier this year as this appropriations bill moves forward. With the support of my colleagues in the House, it is my hope that the final appropriations bill contains the science research and development increases that the Senate agreed to earlier this year.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Judge Virginia Mae Days, who is retiring after more than 20 years on the bench of the Santa Clara County Superior Court. When Governor Edmund Brown Jr. appointed her in 1981, Judge Mae Days was the first Latina on the bench in Santa Clara County. A lifelong resident of the Bay Area, Virginia Mae Days was bom in San Jose in 1934. She served in the US Navy WAVES during the Korean War, earning both the National Defense Service Ribbon and the Good Conduct Medal. After the war, Judge Days attended the University of California at Berkeley for both her undergraduate and graduate years, earning her law degree there in 1963. Judge Days' long record of service to Santa Clara County includes 6 years as the mayor of Morgan Hill and terms on Santa Clara County's drug abuse commission, regional criminal justice planning board and human relations commissions. Immediately prior to her appointment to the bench, Judge Days was the Director of the California Department of Veterans Affairs. Throughout her tenure on the Court, Judge Virginia Mae Days has been a strong role model for the community. She summed this philosophy up best in March of 2000 at a dinner honoring the groundbreaking women jurists of Santa Clara County: ``The more the bench reflects the community, the fairer the process.'' I want to thank Judge Mae Days for her many years of service to our community and wish her nothing but the best in this next phase of her life.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, if we take time to review the details of this bill, we will see it is bad for America. The premise that religious people cannot help solve America's social problems is simply wrong. I spent 14 years in local government. We worked with Catholic Charities and many others. We do not need this radical departure from the Bill of Rights to work with Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, or Jains to solve America's problems. Consider the plain language of the first amendment: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' I think that is clear. But this bill would take tax money and give it directly to churches. How can that not run afoul of the constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion? Our country was started by people seeking religious freedom to worship, and this fundamental American value was put in the very first amendment to our Constitution. When government becomes involved in establishing or preferring religions, trouble follows. Will the Sikhs or Hindus receive the day care contract? Will the Muslims or Jews run the nursing home where your mother will live? Pity the local government who must decide. With government money comes interference and perhaps improper conduct. Do these funds go to friends of the President? Does the Salvation Army get a financial benefit for political work? Thomas Jefferson is famous for the observation that ``. . . intermingling of church and State corrupts both.'' Finally and incredibly, there are special interest provisions in this bill that do not even relate to religion. Look at section 104. Astonishingly, the bill creates a special class of victims without rights, nonprofit and religious groups who rent vehicles from businesses. An example: Corporation A leases a van with bald tires to the Baptist Youth Choir. The van overturns. With section 104, Corporation A cannot be held liable to help with the funeral and medical expenses. But if the same van is rented for the same price to a for-profit satanic rock group, corporation A can be held liable. Why should religious and nonprofit groups be victimized with impunity? This bill will result in outcomes not desired by the American people. It will end up undercutting religion as well as religious freedom. It will enrage Americans by using their tax dollars to subsidize religious beliefs they disagree with. It undercuts our Constitution, provides not one additional cent of tax money to help the poor, and will end up stimulating religious conflict and racial and religious discrimination. Please have the good sense to vote no.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 50, the measure denying China Normal Trade Relations. Just last year, we approved historic legislation (HR 4444) providing for Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China conditional on China's accession to the World Trade Organization. Those talks have not concluded, so yet again, we are called on to vote on a measure denying Normal Trade Relations for China. I urge my colleagues to vote no. Now more than ever it is important that we engage China for domestic and foreign policy reasons. On the domestic side, access to China-our 4th largest trading partner is important to US workers and US companies, especially our high- technology industry. In 2000, the high-tech sector accounted for 29% of US merchandise exports and has accounted for 30% of GDP growth since 1995. This in turn has led to greater prosperity for American workers. In 2000 (according to AeA's Key Industry Statistics) the Average Wage in the High-Tech Industry was $83,103. An estimated 350,000-400,000 US jobs depend on our exports to China. The case for trade with China is clear on the domestic front. But the case on the foreign policy side is also compelling. Free markets cannot prosper in authoritarian regimes and authoritarian regimes cannot long survive the impact of freedom and free markets. Change in China will be incremental. Where American engagement with China will promote human rights, revoking NTR status for China would simply curtail American influence in this important area. At the beginning of a new millennium, we should not regress and isolate China, we should help engage China in the world community. It is my strong belief that helping to engage China in the world community will advance the cause of freedom. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.J. Res. 50.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the achievements of California State Assemblywoman Elaine Alquist, my fellow legislator from the Silicon Valley. Throughout her career, Assemblywoman Alquist has been a defender of women, children, families and seniors. The first Greek-American woman elected to the California State Legislature, she is now the senior member of the Assembly's Santa Clara County delegation. A former algebra and trigonometry teacher, Assemblywoman Alquist is the chair of the Higher Education Committee and co-vice chair of the Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education-Kindergarten through University. Assemblywoman Alquist is also the chair of the Select Committee on the Aging of Baby Boomers. Assemblywoman Alquist was the 2001 recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Women's Fund, and has been named the Legislator of the Year by such organizations as the American Electronics Association (in 1999 and 2000), the Alzheimer's Association, California Council, the California Association of Psychologists, and the California Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. I thank Assemblywoman Elaine Alquist for her years of friendship and offer the warmest congratulations from my family to hers.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have had this experience walking into the Capitol, especially at night when we are in session, and we see our beautiful American flag flying over the Capitol of the freest country in the world, and it is so moving it is almost hard to keep walking by. I think no matter where one comes down on this amendment, there is not a single Member of Congress who thinks it is good or right to deface or in any way dishonor the flag of the United States. If we felt that, we would not be elected to Congress. We would not be here serving the Nation in the freest legislative body in the world. Every day, we start our legislative session with these words: ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, for which it stands, one Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.'' The flag stands for something. It stands for the freest country in the world. Our country is free for a lot of reasons. It is free because brave men and women went out and heard the call to protect us, to take up arms, and to protect us over the decades and centuries when our country was attacked by those who would not allow us to have our freedom. But we are also free because we live under the rule of law. One of the most important aspects of that is the first amendment. Let me just refresh our memory on what the first amendment says. It says: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' The Supreme Court, which has been the interpreter of our Constitution since the beginning of our Republic, has said that destruction or wrongdoing towards our flag is protected by the first amendment. These are not liberal, wild-eyed justices, but Justice Scalia, probably the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, signed the opinion saying that flag-burning is protected by the first amendment. All of us, when we became Members of this body, took an oath of office. We said: ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and in this case domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office in which I am about to enter,'' and then we say, ``so help me God.'' I am not going to turn my back on the Constitution today.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Reverend John L. Freesemann of the Holy Redeemer Lutheran Church in San Jose, California, on the 25th Anniversary of his Ordination. On the 27h day of June, 1976, Reverend John L. Freesemann was ordained in the Lutheran Church. For 25 years he has served both his parish community and the people of Santa Clara County faithfully and devotedly. Reverend John Freesemann has been a tireless advocate of ecumenism in San Jose and the surrounding communities; he has provided a decade of responsible leadership as a board member and past president of the California Council of Churches, and is a founding member and the current president of California Church Impact. Reverend Freesemann has also served for eight terms as president of the Santa Clara County Council of Churches. Reverend John Freesemann gives tirelessly of his time and talents to support children and families as a founding member, two-term vice president, and current president of Resources for Families and Communities in Santa Clara County. As the pastor of Holy Redeemer Lutheran Church for 11 years, Reverend Freesemann has established his San Jose parish as a place of safety, of compassion and of hope. Under his loving guidance, Holy Redeemer has expanded its ministries to the community at large. I wish to congratulate Reverend John L. Freesemann on this, the 25th Anniversary of his Ordination, and to thank him for his many years of service to the people of San Jose. Our community is the richer for his faithful service.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the high-technology industries based in Silicon Valley need effective patent protection for their inventions. Patents, in particular, are integral components of the valuation and structure of many companies, whether they are startups trying to attract venture capital or other funding, or established companies. The value of these rights, however, is dependent on the patents being valid and enforceable. What we recognize is that an invalid patent--a patent that either should never have been issued or which confers protection beyond what is entitled--can cause significant damage not only to individual companies but to competitors. Those individuals who rely on their patent and discover a defect, or those who face the threat of litigation on the basis of a patent that is invalid each have a substantial interest in having a mechanism to ``fix'' the problem with the patent. This is why I am calling for an enhancement of our patent reexamination system. The patent reexamination system was designed to be an efficient and fair procedure for reviewing the validity of patents when there is a substantial reason to call that validity into question. It was set up originally as an ``ex parte'' process that only the patent office and the patent owner could use. Congress tried to expand that system to allow more participation for third parties in 1999 in the American Inventors Protection Act. Unfortunately, these efforts fell short in making reexamination the system it should be. I believe a modest set of changes to the law will further our goal of providing a cost-effective and fair procedure for reviewing patent validity. Some of the changes have already been addressed in legislation introduced by Chairman Howard Coble and supported unanimously by the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property. Those bills, H.R. 1866 and H.R. 1886 address specific concerns with the AIPA inter partes system. The additional changes that I believe must be made address two general concerns. First, I am proposing to expand the grounds upon which one may initiate a patent reexamination. Under current law, reexaminations may be based only on patents or printed publications. In a number of fast- moving technologies, such as business methods and software, there is often a substantial body of information that is not formally published or found in patents, so that other information is not considered when making the determination to issue a patent. The Patent and Trademark Office has demonstrated its competence when evaluating other aspects of patentability beyond defects based on prior patents or printed publications available for review. I am proposing that we allow parties to start a reexamination proceeding on the basis of evidence, for example, an Second, I believe the original sanctions that would apply to parties who initiate reexamination procedures were too onerous. The instant the Patent Office issues its order to consider the matter, under the present system, the party requesting the reexamination is barred from going to court. For this reason, I am proposing to adjust the bar, the estoppel as it's called, until there is a final determination and that final determination would bar those parties who unsuccessfully participate in this reexamination procedure. Thus, a third party who participates in a reexamination procedure would, under my bill, at the conclusion of that proceeding be barred (estopped) from challenging the patent in any other judicial or PTO proceeding. Any issue actually raised or that could have been raised based on the evidence presented by that party and before the Patent Office will still be barred under my amendments. Thus, the adjustments to the law are fairly minor but, I think, fairly important as to the timing of the estoppel. These changes make the process fair and also perceived as fair. Let me emphasize that the legislation I am offering is not designed to preclude or substitute for the possibility of litigation over important and valuable patents. It also will not make reexamination a substitute for situations where complex factual or legal issues must be resolved to reach a conclusion on validity of the patent. Instead, the legislation makes important but carefully measured enhancements to the system without undermining either the current structure of the process or its balance. Indeed, this bill would ensure that the reexamination procedure retains important safeguards to prevent third parties from using the procedure to harass patent owners who hold valid patents. First, as noted, the estoppel imposed on unsuccessful challengers should prevent frivolous challenges. Those who challenge the patent in the PTO will not be able to challenge the patent later in a court on validity issues. Second, the PTO will still be required in every proceeding to first make an independent finding that there is a substantial question of patentability before it will start the proceeding. This is an essential component of the structure of the current law and any future system. Third, under the proposed system, no discovery or hearings will be allowed--meaning that a third party will not be able to conduct proceedings that will place the patent owner in a compromised situation. In short, the legislation removes some of the shortcomings of the current inter partes system, and should present a viable and beneficial option for addressing the validity of some patents without the necessity of costly and complex litigation in a court. Finally, I am honored that Chairman Howard Coble has agreed to be the principle co-sponsor of this legislation.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to one of the finest public servants to grace this floor, Joe Moakley. Congressman Moakley was a friend, a leader, and a gentle teacher to the scores of us who looked to him for advice and guidance. Much has been made of Joe Moakley being one of a ``vanishing breed'' of politician, but I don't think that's true. I think he was, and will always be, a shining example of the ultimate public servant, someone universally respected by his peers and revered by the constituents he never forgot. The crowds of people who came to say their final goodbyes to him along the streets of Boston are a far stronger testament to Joe Moakley's life than anything that we could ever say here. This is a man who lived his own saying: ``It is never a crime to speak up for the poor, the helpless or the ill; it is never a crime to tell the truth; it is never a crime to demand justice; it is never a crime to tell people their rights; it is never a crime to struggle for a just peace. It is never a crime. It is always a duty.'' I join my colleagues in gratitude to Joe Moakley for his leadership and his friendship during my years in this House. While we will never be able to fill his shoes, I hope my colleagues and I will try.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I hope this body can come together on this very sensible plan that we have discussed today to protect birth control, yes, birth control, in the international aid program. We know that the Republican party is opposed to choice, but what is at stake here is not the fight about abortion, it is whether poor women in the Third World are going to be able to have access to birth control so that they can plan their families. Surely this House is not so radical that it will oppose birth control and the family planning program.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1696, legislation to fast-track the Construction of the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. This bill is necessary because it takes into account the crucial element of time; time that is running out for many veterans. Every day, we lose more than 1,000 World War II veterans. Today, less than 6 million remain alive. The intent of the World War II Memorial is to honor the 16 million Americans who served in uniform during the war, the more than 400,000 who gave their lives, and the millions who supported the war effort on the homefront. World War II was a point of transition in American history, a point at which America's adolescence ended and a mature American mission emerged. This mission, as defined by President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, was a call to all Americans to work to end tyranny and poverty wherever it is found. World War II also marked a time of rapid advancement for America. In order to meet the materiel needs of the worldwide war effort, America's factories manufactured goods at an astronomical rate. To sustain this level of production while so many American men were putting on uniforms and going off to war, women entered the workforce in mass numbers for the first time. This forever changed the face of American industry, while also changing the way many women saw themselves and their role in American society. The benefits provided to returning veterans, including financial assistance for education and home purchases, allowed many Americans to attain a level of freedom and independence that was not even imagined before the war. The Montgomery GI Bill provided countless veterans with a college education. In many cases, these veterans were the first in their family to go to college. Above all, World War II was the moment in history when the United States helped save the world from fascism and tyranny. And, as Senator Bob Dole said, ``It is time to thank the World War II veterans for doing what they believed was their duty--to help their country save the world. We must build a monument to bear them witness. Witness to young men who, armed with courage, liberated whole continents from tyranny. Witness to young soldiers who willingly died for a future they would never see.'' As a testament to the urgency of this matter, I read in today's Washington Post, the obituary of Barbara Lazarsky. During World War II, Ms. Lazarsky served in the Women's Air Force Service Pilots. She contributed to the war effort by ferrying planes across the Unites States so that men were free for combat overseas. When the WASP program was disbanded after the war, Ms. Lazarsky became an aircraft accident analyst for the Air Transport Command. In 1947, she became a military and air attache in India. Her recent death demonstrates the necessity of expediting the construction of the World War II Memorial. This World War II Memorial honors those who served, and those who gave the ``last full measure of devotion,'' while also commemorating the indelible mark left on American society. It is time to create a lasting monument to the legacy of those who gave so much and asked for so little. While we may disagree on the style and form of the memorial, we all agree on the moral imperative to honor those who served their country in its hour of need. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1696.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Bill Walsh, the vice president and general manager of the San Francisco 49ers, who has been named San Jose State University's 2001 Tower Award winner. The Tower Award is presented annually to an individual ``who has made a significant contribution to the university community through his or her outstanding work.'' Bill Walsh has twice graduated from San Jose State University: once with a bachelor's degree in education in 1955, and then with a master's degree in the same field in 1959. Mr. Walsh began his coaching career as an assistant at Monterey Peninsula Junior College in 1955, before heading back to San Jose State as a graduate assistant in 1956. After stints at the University of California and Stanford, Bill Walsh joined the Oakland Raiders as the offensive backfield coach. His illustrious career includes coaching slots with the Bengals and Chargers organizations. Hired in 1979 as the head coach, Bill Walsh coached the San Francisco 49ers to three Super Bowl championships in the 1980s and was a 1993 inductee into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Mr. Walsh retired from active coaching in the NFL in 1988 with a career record of 102 wins, 63 losses. Bill Walsh now serves as an assistant to the coaching staff of the 49ers. Bill Walsh was one of only 14 coaches in the history of pro football to be elected to the NFL Hall of Fame, and the first coach in team history to reach the 100-win plateau. He was twice named NFL Coach of the Year and was later named NFL Coach of the Decade for the 1980s. He is the author of two books, ``Finding the Winning Edge'' and ``Building A Champion.'' San Jose State University president Robert Caret said of Bill Walsh, ``[his] role as a coach, an author and as an executive in the industry has brought a new level of professionalism to the sports industry. It is a great source of pride that he is an alumnus of the university.'' I congratulate Bill Walsh on this truly prestigious award, and thank him for his support of San Jose State University. My family and I wish him the best.