Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. You have to show that you did not continually amend your application.

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time, not an enormous burden, I might add. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. LOFGREN. I will.

Ms. LOFGREN. Actually that is incorrect. In fact, the President of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, and I have spoken as recently as 2 days ago indicating it was his judgment the Rohrabacher substitute does not solve the submarine patent association, and, if I may conclude this, does not resolve the submarine patent issue, whereas H.R. 400 in his judgment would.

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time, I will see if I can get that done.

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time, I would concur with the gentleman's comments, noting that the National Association of Manufacturers, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Semiconductor Industry Association, the Software Publishers Association and the like have rarely been in favor of more litigation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say there has been much discussion of the Congressional Research Service. I would like to note that the commissioner of patents and trademarks, who actually is an expert in this whole subject area, has noted that the Rohrabacher amendment, in his words, would allow the patent system to continue to be misused by those who are not interested in obtaining patent protection early, and goes on to further detail the submarine patent provisions that would remain. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley]. (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Tauscher].

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wanted to make just a few remarks before the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] concludes, I believe, the debate for today. As a relatively new Member, I have found this entire process to be a fascinating one, unfortunately, I think sometimes a confused one. We have heard and I have heard debates, late-hour radio talk show discussions about patents for the first time in my life. We have heard about patents on talk shows, people thinking it had something to do with foreign governments or trade agreements or the Red Army. In fact, as Mr. Hyde knows, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, knows, it does not. And then people becoming concerned and alarmed and afraid and communicating to their Members of Congress, including myself, that they do not want the wrong thing for their country. Of course not. None of us do. None of us do. Then we get here today with, unfortunately and not unusually, most people in the country, I would venture and it has been said here today, most Members of the House not being experts in patent law, not having had a chance to take the courses in patent law or to practice patent law and to really familiarize themselves with it and then doubt and concern. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that Members have found this debated useful so that they can sort through the conflicting and occasionally extravagant claims to do what is right for our country because this is not a freebie vote. This is an enormously important vote for America. When I think about the companies and the inventors and the innovators in Silicon Valley and the role that they now play and will play in making sure our country advances technologically and has a wonderful quality of life, that we have high employment, that we have a bright future, that is dependent on this body going beyond its confusion and doing the right thing by defeating the Rohrabacher substitute and supporting H.R. 400. The bill that was crafted by Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Conyers, that was supported and nurtured by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, the chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, the ranking member, these are unlikely allies who have come together in the best interest of the Nation on a bipartisan basis. I will close simply by saying this. The White House conference on small business technology chairs have analyzed the debate, analyzed the talk show allegations and have found that the misinformation, they say misinformation, is part of an intense campaign of fear and xenophobia. They say the information being promulgated is simply wrong. They point out that legislation based on bad data is bad legislation. They urge defeat of the Rohrabacher amendment and they urge support of H.R. 400.

Ms. LOFGREN. I do not believe that is correct and the gentleman and I are both from California, we both taught law and we are both--I think the gentleman was formerly on the Committee on the Judiciary, and perhaps I am wrong on that. I am currently serving on the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. Certainly people can have divergences of opinion. But I do not believe that and I doubt very much that that would be the motivation for the intellectual property section.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a great debate in the public that has unnecessarily and I think unduly alarmed Americans who are not immersed or totally familiar with the arcane details of patent law, and it has become very difficult for people to sort through the various arguments that are being made back and forth, and I am sure being made in good faith. But I thought it would be helpful to this House to hear the comments made by the technology chairs of the White House Conference on Small Business, because much has been said that this might be a bill between the big guys and the little guys. For those of us who have spent the past 2\1/2\ years sorting through this bill line by line so it would represent a good, solid, bipartisan effort to protect American industry, we were encouraged that the technology chairs of the White House Conference on Small Business were assigned by the other small business men and women of America to take a look at the bill and to examine the various claims being made. It was very gracious of them to give the following report. I will not read their entire comments, but I would like to quote a few specific items. This is a direct quote: ``During the past year,'' all 10 chair persons say, ``Independent inventors and the small business community have been subjected to an intense campaign of fear, xenophobia, and misinformation. The White House Conference on Small Business researched many of the most emotional issues and found that much of the information being promulgated is simply wrong. Legislation based on bad data is bad legislation.'' And then they go through the issues. First, the 20-year system. They conclude that ``We believe most of the hysteria over the new 20-year term is based on misinformation.'' Regarding the publication of patent applications, they say, ``The vast majority of American patent applications are also filed in foreign countries where they are automatically published. Failure to publish these applications in the United States gives our foreign competitors a huge advantage. They can read our applications but we cannot read theirs. We need a level playing field with our foreign competitors.'' Finally, on the issue of stealing American inventions, the small business men and women said, ``It is misleading to suggest that the opportunity to copy U.S. inventions would be newly created by either of these bills.'' To that they refer to the predecessor bills to both H.R. 400 and the Rohrabacher amendment. Mr. Speaker, the feared opportunity already exists. Foreigners are presently free to read and copy any U.S. patent. The publication provision of either of these bills will have no effect on this reality. ``Stealing'' is a false issue. ``The barrage of misinformation has caused great confusion and alarm,'' they say. ``Further attention has been diverted from the much- needed modernization of U.S. Patent Law.'' Then they go on to endorse the elements that are encompassed in H.R. 400. Mr. Speaker, it is important for the many citizens and Congress Members who are watching this debate today to understand that it is easy to make wild allegations, but hard, to do the tough work done by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]--to go through the bill that protects American inventions and fosters prosperity for this country.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, about 2 weeks ago, Members of this body went to Hershey, PA, to learn how we might disagree in a civilized manner, and I think this issue is challenging and testing the commitments we made at that time to deal and disagree with each other in a way that is respectful and civilized. This is an issue that American people have very strong feelings about, and those strong feelings are shared by Members of this body. I think it is important that we state where we agree and where we disagree because there are some agreements. I do not believe there is a single Member of this body, and I definitely include myself, who believes that abortion ought to be an elective procedure post viability, and to the extent that any of us have suggested otherwise, we should stop doing that because we do not believe that. That is not where our disagreement is. There are those of us in this Chamber who believe, and oftentimes it is a matter of religious belief, that abortions should be made illegal in all cases. I am not among those who believe that. But I respect the Members of this body who do. The disagreement is over who should make the decision to terminate a pregnancy post viability, when a woman's life is in danger or she is facing a serious health consequence, and then prior to viability who should make the decision in every case. There has been a lot of discussion about numbers and who said what when. The issue is this, simply this. If there is even a single woman, and I know one, Vickie Wilson, who needs access to this procedure in order to protect against a very serious health ramification, then in my judgment she and her family, not the Congress of the United States, ought to make that decision. That is what this issue is about. We have an alternative that would prohibit abortions post viability on an elective basis. I think we ought to adopt this alternative and I think we ought to allow the woman and her family to decide when serious health consequences and her life are at risk.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, the issue of comptime and flexible work schedules is extremely important among the workers and employers in my district, and I believe most Silicon Valley workplaces would benefit from changes in current requirements. Therefore, I would very much like to support legislation that would provide flexibility to employees and businesses, while protecting workers everywhere. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 falls short of these objectives. If we were certain that all employers in America would never try to be unfair to employees, then H.R. 1 would probably be a sound proposal. However, in that case, most of our labor laws would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, history has shown us that Federal labor protections such as the minimum wage, fair labor standards, workplace safety, and family and medical leave are necessary to protect many American workers. While H.R. 1 might benefit both employees and employers in many work settings, it fails to protect many unrepresented, private sector workers in our country who are concerned about their job security, and are wary of taking actions against their employer to defend their rights. Amendments were offered in committee to improve worker protections, but unfortunately these were all defeated on party line votes. The Democratic substitute offered by Congressman Miller includes specific provisions to ensure that comptime is voluntary, uniformly available, and more flexible for employees, and I support the Miller substitute. I cannot support H.R. 1 as it is now written, but I am hopeful that after it is defeated, Congress will work toward useful reforms similar to Congressman Miller's proposal. I, for one, am eager to sort through the controversial issues surrounding H.R. 1, because I would very much like to see a sound comptime bill become law in the 105th Congress.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, Tom Harney, an attorney in San Jose, CA, has written a thought-provoking article in a recent edition of Stars and Stripes which concerns the debt we owe our veterans and soldiers. For those who do not regularly receive Stars and Stripes, I wish to make this useful article available. [From the Stars and Stripes, Jan. 26, 1997] Will An American ``Tommy'' Please Stand? (By Thomas Roy Harney) Rudyard Kipling's poem ``Tommy'' rose from the depths of my so-called brain recently, triggered and recalled from those depths by the print-media news. Tommy, a lawyer's guide to veterans affairs, is the name of the quarterly newsletter published by the Veterans Law Section of the Federal Bar Association, but I had somehow previously failed to make the obvious connection between the poem and the newsletter. The poem ``Tommy'' is from a different time, 1892; a different country, Great Britain; and almost a different language, English Cockney; yet it is right on point concerning American veterans and all Americans today. ``Tommy Atkins'' or ``Tommy'' is the British equivalent of the American GI (e.g., Bill Mauldin's Willie and Joe in his popular cartoon series ``Up Front''), and ``Tommy Atkins'' is the speaker in Kipling's poem. The speaker is calling our attention to the gross disparity in the value that the citizenry places on its soldiers. The unjust disparity he observes is the miserable treatment accorded the soldier and ex-soldier in peacetime, contrasted with their treatment when the winds of war are blowing or, as Tommy puts it, when ``there's trouble in the wind.'' Kipling's tribute to Mr. Thomas Atkins is relevant today, because in 1996, more than 100 years after it was penned by him, an American ``Tommy'' wouldn't have to look too far for modern-day American examples to support his disparity contention. Were he writing today, Kipling's Mr. Atkins could have cited the statement released by Pentagon officials recently that the military logs for an eight-day period during which thousands of American troops might have been exposed to nerve gas and other Iraqi chemical weapons shortly after the Persian Gulf war appear to have been removed or lost and cannot be located despite an exhaustive search. There are several mysterious gaps in the otherwise meticulous combat logs. The gaps include the period in early March 1991 in which American combat engineers blew up the sprawling Kamisiyah ammunition depot in southern Iraq, an event that exposed thousands of American troops to nerve gas. One wonders if ``Mr. Tommy Atkins'' would feel the need to point out that at one time the Defense Department had denied to Congress that such combat logs even existed, and the DoD released the logs last year only after a Georgia veterans group sought them under the Freedom of Information Act. Only recently has the Pentagon acknowledged that the nerve gas sarin and other chemical weapons had definitely been stored in the Iraqi ammunition depot at Kamisiyah that was destroyed by U.S. troops in March 1991. That event at the Kamisiyah ammunition depot exposing thousands of U.S. soldiers to a cloud of the nerve gas sarin and other deadly chemicals, poisoning from anti-nerve gas tablets, and poisoning from pesticides are the presumptive sources of the disabling physical health problems that have been plaguing veterans and children of veterans of the Persian Gulf War. As an attorney, I respect the way Kipling's speaker, ``Mister Atkins,'' makes his case; his supporting examples are clear and visual, his logic is straightforward and his closing line poses a clear point for all Americans to ponder. The concerned but muted and fragmented chorus of American voices would do well to find a present-day point man like ``Tommy Atkins'' who, armed with fresh examples to support his disparity contention, could forcefully champion the rights of responsible Americans and blast his closing line to Pentagon officials, the Defense Department, the VA and others--shouting, with the last words of the poem, ``Bloomin fools'' we're not.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the Presidential finding that family planning appropriations should be released on March 1 because any further delay would seriously impact this very important program. Congress should support family planning programs because they are a crucial tool in international efforts to curb global overpopulation. At current growth rates, we will add more humans in the next 50 years than in all previous 500,000 years of human history. In the next decade alone, world population will increase by 1 billion people. This growth means more than longer lines at Safeway or at the local drug store. Unrestrained population growth devastates environmental resources, exacerbates immigration pressures, and raises the specter of worldwide malnutrition and the spread of infectious diseases. I also support family planning funds because I support healthy families. Numerous studies have documented that mortality rates for women and children are highest when births are too close together, when women have many children, and when women give birth at very young and old ages. These family planning funds will enable mothers and fathers around the world to raise the healthiest children they can. In addition, U.S. family planning aid often goes to families that have no other recourse. It is estimated that 77 percent of the couples using contraceptives in developing countries, excluding China, depend on publicly financed family planning programs. We only need to look to Mexico for indices of the success of family planning. Due in part to foreign family planning assistance, the average Mexican woman now has 2.7 children, a dramatic reduction from the average of 6.7 children in 1970. Family planning is about thinking ahead. It's about giving families, especially poor families, the chance to make choices for their future. Let's not make the choice for them.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker. In an era when hard work and dedication to the public good sometimes seem outdated, we need to be reminded what personal character and long-term commitment mean. It is the men and woman who work hard, raise children and contribute to the quality of their neighbor's lives who are the true heroes of American life. Jim Lenihan is such a person. Jim graduated from the University of San Francisco, married his wife, Nancy, and began a long and successful career in the insurance business which lasted forty years. During this time, Jim and Nancy raised their five children, while Jim found time to engage in a host of civic activities in Mountain View and Santa Clara County. A dedicated family man who also worked hard to give back to his community, Jim is much loved in Mountain View. In 1960, Jim began his other career in the water resources field by being elected Board Director of the Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District, the predecessor to today's Santa Clara Valley Water District in San Jose, CA. Jim has served for 36 years on the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board as a guiding force for thoughtful water resources management. During his tenure, Jim had a leading role in the critical decisions facing the District in the development of a reliable water supply for the County. Specifically, Jim was involved in the development of the San Felipe Water Importation System, the Guadalupe River Flood Control Project, the State Water Project and a host of state and federal water policy issues. His early involvement and effective leadership to secure local, state and federal finding in support of the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project has helped make Santa Clara County and the State of California leaders in the stewardship of our water resources. One of Jim's key successes and one which our County long profit from was Jim's hands-on involvement and support for the approval and construction of the San Felipe Division of the Central Valley Project. This project, for the first time, brought federal water into our County. His leadership was critical at a time when many did not think it was possible to overcome all the hurdles involved in bringing Federal water to our area. But Jim did. Throughout his career, the governors of California have sought out Jim's counsel and leadership naming him to numerous boards and task forces on California's more difficult water issues ranging from Auburn Dam to the transfer of the Central Valley Project to the state. Jim also served for ten critical years as a governor's appointee to the California Water Commission. This assignment brought him to Washington to make California's case for increased funding for our water initiatives. Many stories are told of Jim's tenacious, but thoughtful support for California's projects among the appropriations committee staff and federal agencies--and what a difference he made. I was privileged to see Jim in action last spring as he led a San Jose contingent to Washington to make the case for key funding levels for the Guadalupe River Project. His sincere feeling for the protection of his constituents, coupled with his knowledge of the appropriations process and his Irish wit and good humor made for a winning combination. This enabled the County's federal representatives to secure federal funding in difficult financial times. Jim's been working his magic for our County now for 36 years--we cannot afford for him to retire. But retire he will in late January 1997 to Watsonville, CA, with Nancy where he will enjoy his five children and plan for the next phase of his tremendous career. We know Jim will stay involved in California water issues and as the County's elder statesman on water policy, we look forward to calling on him for his wisdom and insight in the years ahead. And so Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my fellow Californians' utmost gratitude to Mr. Jim Lenihan for a job well-done earning him a list of sterling achievements rarely matched among our state's leaders in water policy development.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCOLLUM], and other committee members to explain.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] to discuss further the computer issue.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would like to say how pleased I am that we are able to enact this measure into law this night and have it become law and for the President to sign it. American companies have faced the fact, unfortunately, that our laws were written so long ago that they do not deal with the protection of ideas in the way that they should, and we know in this information society it is the great power of our information and ideas that will keep us on the cutting edge of the economies of the world. So I fully support this bill as well as the other Senate amendments. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wanted to make a couple of additional comments. We have been contacted by the Federation of State Tax Administrators, who have expressed very serious reservations about this bill and the precedent it might set. We have also heard from the Oregon Department of Revenue expressing reservations, concern, and perhaps even objections to this bill. The comments made by the previous speaker are some that would have been better explored in committee if we had had a hearing on this bill. In fact, the rule of law generally is that many States tax the income of nonresidents that is generated within those States. Oftentimes, and I would say it is the general rule, the State of residence of the taxpayer then gives a credit to the taxpayer for income that was earned and taxed in another State. The Constitution of the United States gives States the authority to tax residents' income and this does disrupt to some extent the constitutional scheme. It may be that this is a good exception. Many good rules sometimes require an exception. I think my point, however, is that the exception and the need to create one in this case, if it needs to be made, was not pursued properly. There were no hearings, there were no markups, there was no committee action whatsoever, and I think this is a cause of some concern.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not planning to object to this legislation, but I do think it is important to note that this bill is being brought up under a most unusual process and under procedures that do not allow for the appropriate degree of consideration by Members. First, this bill is being brought to the House floor on less than 24 hours' notice. There is no reason for taking action in this manner. The bill was in the Judiciary Committee for more than 6 months without any action being taken whatsoever. Second, we have absolutely no legislative record or background on the legislation before us. We do not know how many taxpayers will be affected, although it appears that it may affect only some 79 taxpayers. We do not know the current practice by the State of Oregon for taxing these individuals and do not know how much money this will cost the State of Oregon. It is ironic that a Congress that began the session solemnly declaring its opposition to unfunded Federal mandates on the States would end the session by passing an unfunded mandate on the State of Oregon. Because of this unusual expedited process, we have no CBO scoring letter, so we are completely in the dark about the degree of the mandate. Congress should be very careful in adopting special laws that limit State taxation prerogatives. At a time when we are sending more and more responsibility to the States, we need to preserve maximum flexibility for them. We need to be particularly careful when we adopt laws of special applicability that provide a benefit to only a small number of individuals, as this bill does. This may be the right thing to do in these circumstances, but unfortunately we do not have enough information to make that determination in a thoughtful, prudent manner. Given the late hour, I do not expect that we will seek a record vote on this bill, but I am certainly hopeful that in the future we can utilize a more deliberative and serious process when adopting a bill such as this. We owe this much to our constituents. This is a very bad process that would not be tolerated were it not for the complications of today's anticipated adjournment and the need to adopt an emergency spending measure to avoid another Government shutdown Monday, and also, I might add, because I fully expect that the Senate will undoubtedly kill this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the subcommittee, for an explanation of the bill.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object, I think this is a strong and good bill for a menace, methamphetamine, that is growing exponentially, especially in my own home State of California. The measures, having to do with control of precursor chemicals, will have a significant, positive impact in the reduction of the availability of this drug. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.