Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about the really astounding and appalling reductions in the Advanced Technology Program. Actually reductions is too sugarcoated: the programs have been wiped out. This is a program that was initiated in the Bush administration and carried on in the Clinton administration. As we are all aware, we do have a need to get our fiscal house in order. I would suggest that cutting technology investments that have been the basis for job growth and economic growth in this country for the last two decades is going to aggravate severely our economic problems in the future. These cuts are foolhardy indeed. It is worth noting that our competitors around the world are going in the exact opposite direction. Both Japan and Germany are increasing their expenditures in applied R&D by 30 percent. We are doing an overall cut in science and technology research of 30 percent, creating for us a severe problem. I am aware that the chairman of the Committee on Science is philosophically opposed to the ATP program. I respect the fact that he is entitled to his faith and his belief, but I also know that every industrialized country in the world is doing the kind of investments that we are cutting in this bill. We will not pay for the cuts next year. We will not pay for them in 2 years. But 5 years from now, millions of Americans whose employment is tied to prior investments will not be employed, and they will have no one to blame but those who have suggested this foolhardy destruction of our future.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. When the bill came before the House last March, I was actually torn. The legislation brought before us then overreacted to what was a very real problem. I represent an area in California, Silicon Valley, that is home to numerous high-technology companies. These firms are high-growth, entrepreneurial companies with cutting edge new ideas. They are companies of the future. Due to the changeable nature of high- technology industries, stock prices for enterprises can be somewhat volatile. Current law allows these price fluctuations to form the basis for lawsuits even when no real fraud has occurred. Our local newspaper has found that 19 of the 30 largest companies in Silicon Valley have fallen prey to securities suits. Most of the others expect to be sued soon. Many high-technology companies accordingly now refuse to provide any information about their future performance in order to avoid liability, which deprives all investors of important information. This is a problem for our economy. Although I was concerned about the original House version of this bill, I am very pleased with the conference report, as it resolves most of the issues I saw at that time. Unlike the House passed bill, the conference bill has no loser-pay provision, preserves joint and several liability, adopts fair changes to pleading requirements, which are already the law in one Federal circuit, and codifies what I believe is a reasonable safe harbor provision that has already been endorsed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Speaker, I have opposed most of the extreme litigation reform measures pushed through this Congress, but this bill is quite different from those other proposals. Let me address one final point. This bill is not perfect. It does not address some issues that could have been addressed such as the issues of the statute of limitations and civil liability for aiding and abetting fraud. Those problems, if they are problems, can, if need be, be dealt with in subsequent legislation. But this bill does not create those problems. It does not solve those problems. It is neutral on those problems and is not a valid reason for not endorsing this very moderate, sensible bill that I hope our President will sign. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker knows and, I think, the American people know, we are not here doing actual business tonight. This is a time after our colleagues have gone home where those of us who want to stay until 11 or midnight can stand here and kind of pop off, and speak our minds, and I do not usually do that, but I did want to do it tonight because I feel strongly about something. Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the civic lessons from the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley] on how we got here, and I think it is important that we did that because the public, they do not know what a CR is, and most people do not, and I did not before I got elected and took office this year. But he stopped short of the civic lesson because the real reason why we need this emergency measure to keep the Government open is the fact that we have not done our job. We have to pass 13 appropriations bills, and we have only gotten three to the President's desk, and because of what we have to have these emergency measures. Now I think it was my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle], who mentioned that there are very serious disagreements on what we should do in this budget. I think there is general agreement that we need to have a balanced budget. There is very strong disagreement over how we should do that, what the spending priorities should be, whether it should be 7 years or 10 years. All of those things need to be resolved, and we should have debates over them, but they should not in my opinion be resolved in a crisis mode. We should do that in the ordinary budget process, and that is why I came here at a quarter to 11 tonight, to pop off because I think that we ought to stay through the weekend and keep working. Now I remember when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader, mentioned this. He was asked about this a few days ago, and he said, well, Sunday is the Sabbath, and we need to go to church, and I looked up, and there was our Chaplain, Reverend Ford, and I thought we got a chaplain. Maybe we should take our chaplain and go out on the front lawn of the Capitol and have our service, put on our coats and have our service out there, and maybe, if we prayed together, we would have an easier time of coming to grips with the disagreements that we have. I would like to say another thing. For some of our Members the Sabbath is Saturday, and there has been very little concern given to those individuals, and their religious beliefs, and their sacred day, and I think that that is a problem as well. As my colleagues know, I have a 10-year-old son, and a couple days ago he said, ``Now, Mommy, I do not understand this. Two weeks ago you didn't work on the--the Congress did not meet on Monday, and you didn't meet on Tuesday, and you started at 5 o'clock on Wednesday, and then you were out on Friday, and Saturday, and Sunday, and then you started in at 5 on Monday, and now the government shut down,'' and, you know, I did not quite know what to tell my 10-year-old son because he knows when he has not done his homework he does not get to go to the movies, when he has not cleaned up his room, he does not get to turn on the TV set. You keep working until you get your task done. [[Page H 13288]] We have not done that. So I am here today, popping off at this special order time, because the Democrat freshman class had what we thought could be a privileged resolution. We are newcomers, we did not know you could not set the schedule with a privileged resolution, but we wanted to ask this House to go ahead and say, ``Let's just meet. Let's start early tomorrow. Let's not give up at 1, like we said. Let's go to 8 or 9 or 10 at night and let's start again. Let's meet out in the front lawn with our chaplain at 8, let us pray together, and then let us come back in here and let's work all day Sunday until we get the job down, and Monday,'' Because we have got thousands and thousands of Americans who are waiting for this crisis to be resolved, waiting for us to pass these appropriations bills. We have got thousands of Americans who may not get a veterans check soon. My father, who is a disabled veteran from World War II, is one of those people. Now, luckily, my fathers life is not gong to crumble if his disability check does not come, but he has friends from World War II, and if their check does not come, they are in tough shape, so I think we need to resolve this issue. We need to keep working. I know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are diligent people. They do not want to goof off, either. But I think we just ought to insist that we stay here, and we keep working until we have all 13 appropriations bills passed.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct privilege for me to rise today to recognize and honor S. Reid Gustafson, a man who, for many years, has contributed greatly to the community of Santa Clara County, CA. On Tuesday, the 21st of November, 1995, Mr. Gustafson is being honored as the 1995 Distinguished Citizen, at the 21st Annual Distinguished Citizen Award Dinner of the Santa Clara County Council of the Boy Scouts of America. The dinner will take place in the Imperial Ballroom of the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose, CA. I am honored to join with the Santa Clara County Council of the Boy Scouts of America in congratulating Mr. Gustafson on this momentous occasion. As the Santa Clara County Council of the Boy Scouts of America has noted in their event program from the Distinguished Citizen Award Dinner, Mr. Gustafson is, ``a person who exemplifies a commitment to the community, integrity and leadership.'' Those who know Reid Gustafson know that his spirit and dogged commitment of the community, make it a better place for all of us to live and work. By profession, Mr. Gustafson is a leader in the housing industry, having been president of Shea Holmes of northern California for the last 12 years. In spite of a very busy work schedule, Mr. Gustafson has also found the time to become involved in numerous community programs and activities, and is a role model for all of us in terms of his outstanding commitment to community service. From a personal standpoint, I admire Reid Gustafson very much for this dedication to the people of Santa Clara County. Mr. Gustafson's extensive community involvement includes serving as the current chairman of the Board of Directors of the San Jose Symphony. Mr. Gustafson also serves on the board of directors of the San Jose Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, and is a past chairman of the board of managers for the central branch of the YMCA in Santa Clara County. Mr. Speaker, I also want to honor Mr. Gustafson for the very important role he has played in raising funds for many outstanding community based programs. Through Shea Holmes, Mr. Gustafson has played an integral part in supporting such worthy organizations as the Boy Scouts of Santa Clara County, the YMCA Current Support Campaign, the Crippled Children's Society and the new Children's Shelter of Santa Clara County. Throughout his career, Mr. Gustafson has served on numerous building industry associations, and has helped to shape the planning of numerous homes and communities throughout California. He has served as the past chairman of the board of directors of the Building Industry Association of northern California, and has also served on the boards of both the State and National Homebuilders' Association. In addition, Mr. Gustafson has served as a commissioner on the Bay Vision 20/20 Taskforce, a key regional planning body in northern California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite you and my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join with me in expressing gratitude and appreciation to Reid Gustafson for his efforts to make our community a better place. I also would like to thank the Santa Clara Council of the Boy Scouts of America for their outstanding leadership in our community, and for giving me the opportunity to share in their recognition of Reid Gustafson as the 1995 Distinguished Citizen Award recipient.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am a brandnew Member of Congress; I have been here just about 11 months and was not here to hear the flowery rhetoric of last year. These gals think there is a problem with the bill before us. I want to raise an issue that I raised in the committee and it has to do with the law of unintended consequences. At least, I believe they are unintended. Several States of our union have passed laws that allow victims of child molestation to sue the person who harmed the child and collect under punitive damage statutes. I think that is terrific. As a matter of fact, I offered, earlier this year, an amendment in committee to impose life imprisonment on child molesters, but that was ruled nongermane. I think the tougher we are against those who abuse children, the better off society is. I note that, unless the Conyers motion to instruct is approved, those statutes would in essence be repealed because we are federalizing the laws of the 50 States. I know that the chairman, who I truly admire and respect, does not intend this result. But the facts are that a child has no economic damages that are easily quantifiable. If an individual rapes a woman, she maybe able to quantify damages and lost wages from the trauma inflicted upon her. That case is very difficult to make if the victim of the molestation and rape is an 8-year-old. Under this bill, that child would be limited in recovery. However, because of the money that potentially maybe needed for counseling for that child, I personally believe that if we can go after the wrongdoer in that case and make them pay as much money as possible, that is a good thing to do. We should punish that person criminally. We should punish that person civilly. Without the motion to instruct, the laws of the States that are moving in that direction, and I would say in an orderly fashion and with a lot of justification, will be preempted by the Federal Government. I think it is a mistake. I would like to raise one other additional caution. In the Committee on Science we are going to be working on reform of the FDA, which Lord knows needs it. I am concerned that if the FDA exception in this bill is enacted at this time, it may have an unintended consequence on that serious work. In the end, it may be something we want to do, but I think the jury is still out. I think it is a mistake to do that without tying it into the overall FDA reform effort. With that, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Conyers], my esteemed ranking member.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, in many ways I feel very sad that we are here discussing this issue today. I have heard a lot of rhetoric. We saw charts, but one of the things that has been a real help to me in this discussion is the fact, through an odd quirk of fate, that I know real people who have had this procedure. I know a real family that has a mother today because this late-term abortion procedure is legal in America. It was about a year ago last spring that Suzy Wilson, my long-time colleague on the board of supervisors, confided to me and her other friends that she was going to be a grandmother again and she was so happy that she would have a little Abigail. Her son, Bill, and daughter-in-law, Vicky, were expecting. And it was late, very late in the pregnancy that Vicky and Bill discovered, much to their horror, that the birth defects of little Abigail were so severe that this child could not survive. They went to doctors seeking surgery in utero, could anything be done, and the sad truth was, no, nothing could be done. Now Vicky had had very strong contractions and believed that that meant this was a very strong child in her excitement. The truth was that little Abigail was having seizures in utero because this child's brains had formed entirely outside of the cranial cavity. And those brains that did form were not normal brains. This child could not live. Mr. Chairman, I voted to ban the use of charts, the cartoon charts, so I show this picture of Abigail with some trepidation but with the permission of the Wilson family. As Members can see, this child's brains are completely formed outside the cranial cavity. This child was a love child. The Wilson family is raising money in Abigail's memory for a playground in their hometown. The fact that Abigail had these life- threatening deformities did not make her any less loved by her mother and father. What it did mean is that Abigail could not live. Because of this procedure, which the California Medical Association has said is the safest, and the safest in several respects, Abigail's mother is still alive to be a mother to her other two children. If this bill passes, Vicky Wilson would be dead and her two living children without a mother. I urge defeat of this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak against H.R. 1833, the so-called partial birth abortion bill. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I had heard that this bill had been introduced, and, like I think a lot of Americans today, I thought, what the heck is that? I called around trying to find out what this procedure was, but it turned out that I knew someone who had to utilize this procedure. As the Speaker knows, I have been in this body for under 11 months. I started in January. But for many years I was a member of the board of supervisors in Santa Clara County, and I served with a wonderful woman, Susan Wilson, who is a typical American person. She grew up in Texas. She was a cheerleader, she married her high school boy, and they moved to San Jose, where she volunteered in her Methodist church, taught sewing, and was a youth counselor. She had three fine sons. A year ago April, Susie was so excited to tell me she was going to have another granddaughter. Her son Bill and daughter-in-law Vickie were expecting their third child. It was going to be a girl. They even picked out the name Abigail. Towards Easter time they found out a very sad thing. They found out late, it had been missed in the early tests, that Abigail would not live. Abigail's brain had formed outside of her cranial cavity, and the brain tissue that had formed was malformed. This baby could not live. It was a devastating piece of news for Susie and for Vickie and Bill and for all of us who loved and knew that family. We cried a lot. But one of the things that was important to Vickie and Bill and to all of us was that Vickie not also die, because they have two children who need a mother. So Vickie and Bill did as much research as they could to see, could the child be saved? They found out regrettably, no, and they found out what was Vickie's risk. They found out, much to their dismay, that unless there was an intervention, Vickie could die. Certainly Abigail was going to die in any case. They hoped to have another child. They found if they did not do something, that Vickie's possibility of having another child would be seriously threatened. So they did engage in a late term abortion to save Vickie's life and to preserve the opportunity to have another child. They know now that little Abigail is in heaven, and they are grateful for that, and they know that Vickie is still alive to be the mother, the good mother she is, to her children. In the Committee on the Judiciary I heard a lot of angry rhetoric, but I did not hear a willingness to listen to the truth, to the real families that have real tragedies that they have to cope with. And I know that they do not need the guidance and help of the Congress of the United States on this very personal and horrible situation. What they need is the help and guidance of God, not the Congress.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the seniors, working families and especially children in my district, I strongly oppose this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2491, the Budget Reconciliation Act. This bill ignores the priorities of the American people by its cavalier attitude toward children and working families. One key purpose of this bill is to provide tax breaks for the wealthy; most Americans will get nothing back or even pay more under this so-called tax break plan. My district is made up of hard-working American families and they have sent me a loud and clear message: they want thoughtful and measured cuts in our Government, coupled with strong safeguards for our elderly, our families, and our children. This bill ignores that message. Mr. Chairman, almost 8,000 children in my district will lose their health coverage under this bill, and thousands of working families will suffer from the cuts in student loans and higher taxes. My district, Santa Clara County, will lose $564.6 million in Medicaid funding over 7 years and health care officials warn that emergency clinics, local clinics, public hospitals, nursing homes and private hospitals could be forced to close their doors. These measures aren't part of the message I receive from my district. This bill also cuts into some of the most important tax provisions that benefit my district. I know that many of my colleagues are dismayed that the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provides a true incentive to people trying to stay off welfare and into the work force, would be a target of this Congress. Scaling this back really amounts to a tax increase for low-wage-earning Americans. I am equally disappointed that the Majority has seen fit to eliminate the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. In 1993, two-out-of-three of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cosponsored legislation in 1993 to make this credit permanent. It made sense in 1993 and it makes sense now. The city of San Jose has called this tax provision ``the single most important source of funding for the development of affordable housing.'' Since 1991, 1744 affordable units have been developed in San Jose, with a total tax credit of $100 million and a total economic impact of a quarter of a billion dollars. Mr. Chairman, this credit, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, helps people toward self-sufficiency, spurs local economies, provides jobs for local workers and provides affordable housing for struggling families. Under this same bill, 7,685 children in California will have to go without basic housing. We need housing for these children and their families. Why are we sacrificing effective credits in favor of tax breaks for those who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? But this bill is about more than tax credits and tax breaks, Mr. Chairman. It's really about our children themselves. Kicked off Medicaid, deprived of school lunches, and inadequately protected from hunger, homelessness and abuse by the provisions of this bill, children are going to suffer. Did you know that over 50 percent of all Medicaid recipients are children? These children are the real losers in this bill. And to top it all off, this reconciliation bill is going to cap welfare assistance, meaning even less money will be available for these needy children. My colleagues, it is clear that the current majority lacks interest in struggling families. When this budget takes effect, working America will be squeezed even more. What will this mean? More working families unable to afford health care, housing, education, child-care and even food; more problems with unemployment, homelessness and more stress in our local communities. Do we want this? Is this what the American people really asked for in November? I know that the people who elected me last November certainly did not.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo] for taking the lead in this colloquy as well as my other Bay Area colleagues on both sides of the aisle for coming together in support of the Tasman light-rail project. I particularly would like to thank the chairman for reaffirming his commitment to local transit agencies and their authority over transit funding decisions.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on the behalf of the thousands of senior citizens, parents, children, women, hospitals, doctors, nurses, health- care providers and workers who live in my district and have written to me, talked to me and pleaded with Congress to stop these ill-conceived cuts to Medicare. Thirty years ago the Congress made a promise to the American people. That promise was a bold commitment to entitle older Americans, poor children, families, and the disabled to health coverage through the Medicaid and Medicare Programs. Today, our new Republican leaders are turning their backs on that promise. Why? The facts are that they cut Medicare so deep to pay for their tax breaks. American seniors will be forced to pay more out of their pockets, will have less choice in selecting their own doctor and will receive a lower quality of service, so that the Republicans can use savings for a tax cut. None of the $270 billion that the Republicans are cutting out of the Medicare Program will go back into the Medicare trust fund--not one cent. It will all go back into the general Treasury. The Republican lockbox is a gimmick. It does not change the fact that the cuts are there to be counted in determining whether the budget is balanced and you can't give those tax breaks, and balance the budget--not without cuts. Did the Republicans cut defense to pay for their tax break? No, they cut Medicare and Medicaid. The Medicare trustees say that the proposed cuts are more than three times greater than the $89 billion recommended to keep the Medicare trust fund solvent. I doesn't take a Ph.D. in mathematics to figure out that the $270 billion in Medicare cuts will cover the cost of the $245 billion tax break. When I came to Congress in January as a freshman Member of Congress, I expected Congress to take care in passing laws. Not in this Congress. The Medicare cuts that are before the House today got 1 day of hearings--1 day. And, the committee members didn't even have the real bill in front of them before the hearing started. Today we have 1 day of debate, with no amendments allowed, on the basic health care program relied on by millions of Americans. We spent all of yesterday on the floor of the House talking about fish--seems to me we could have waited to deal with fish and used at least part of that time to deliberate on the fate of American's seniors. The impact on the State of California will be large. California will lose $27.5 billion in Medicare funding over 7 years. California will lose $816 million next year alone and the losses will only increase as each year passes. The combined potential loss in Federal health care spending in California over 7 years will be at least $44.1 billion. In 1996 California will lose $1.5 billion in Federal health care spending and the loss per year will increase every year after 1996 reaching a whopping loss of $12.1 billion in 2002. To put this in perspective, the State of California's entire budget for this fiscal year was $42 billion. The personal cost for Seniors in my State will be high. They can expect their premiums to double by the year 2002. Let me repeat that: California seniors will pay double what they are paying now in just 6 short years. And Medicare spending per beneficiary will be cut by $1,700 by the year 2002. In my district in Santa Clara County, CA the effects of these cuts will be profound. By the year 2002, Santa Clara County's Medicare [[Page H 10355]] loss will be $1.2 billion. Next year alone, Santa Clara will loss $33.4 million in Federal Medicare money. I was a Santa Clara County supervisor for 14 years and I can tell you from experience the ramifications of these cuts will be far-reaching. Counties and hospitals will be forced to thin the health care soup. Costs will be shifted and care will jeopardized. Patients in other insurance programs will feel it--their costs are likely to go up or coverage down. I have received letters from both private and public hospitals in my district that tell me they do not know how they will be able to cover the Medicare losses. Public hospitals form the backbone of the safety net in most counties. They provide substantial amounts of care to low- income populations and the uninsured. They rely heavily on Medicaid and Medicare to pay for that care. These hospitals also provide wide range of regional and community services that are often not otherwise available, such as trauma care, children's specialty services, spinal cord injury rehabilitation and burn care. Medicaid and Medicare ensure that these hospitals remain financially viable to provide these much needed services. In California the number of people who rely on public hospitals is growing. And, growing along with it at an even more alarming rate is the number of uninsured people. While the financial side of these cuts is important, the human question of serving people in need is paramount. On behalf of all of those people who live in the 16th district of California who have taken the time to write, to call and to speak up against these cuts, I ask my colleagues here in Congress, not to turn your back on this American promise. Don't turn your back on America's seniors and uninsured. It isn't too late to say: ``this goes too far.''

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to remove the words ``or inhibit'' from the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, it seems to me there is too much protestation for a group that says they are not opposed to long-term global research. I am not suggesting in my amendment the expenditure of a single penny more than is included in this bill. What I am suggesting, and what I am suggesting here, is that we not make the scientific judgment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the fact we have zeroed out this account, and, I would add, going back to the gentleman's earlier statement on mission-oriented science, I am also interested in whose mission it would be to pursue global warming research, since we have eliminated this active thing in EPA and NOAA and the Department of Energy.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, based on the chairman of the subcommittee's earlier comments, that since there is no intention on the part of himself or apparently the committee to preclude or inhibit long-term research, based on the gentleman's comment, that the language on the bottom of page 32 and top of page 33 of the committee report that seems to indicate otherwise would have an inhibiting effect upon the agency, since apparently it is not what the gentleman intended.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. I would note on page 94 of the committee report, next to the global category, there is a zero. We have zeroed the account out for global research. I am not suggesting that we add additional funding.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an important amendment to H.R. 2405 to clarify the confusion that exists over NOAA's role in carrying out climate and global change research. The bill intended to provide $86.7 million for NOAA's overall Climate and Atmospheric Research Program, a reduction of over 27 percent from fiscal year 95 spending levels and 46 percent from the request. This cut is far beyond what other programs in this bill have absorbed. Within this authorization, the bill does two things that must be regarded as profoundly narrow minded and deserve our special attention. First, the bill singles out climate change for a reduction of $37 million, over a 40 percent cut. Second, in the committee's report language, there is a directive that eliminates the very idea of studying long-term climate change. The intent of the bill, the report states is that climate and global change. . . has been rolled into the interannual and seasonal climate change research line to ensure research is relevant to near-term events. That is, NOAA is no longer permitted to study long term climate change. It is only authorized to have a program that studies season-to-season changes. What can be more short sighted than to first cut a program in half, then to dictate the scientific direction of the research such that it is prohibited from finding answers the Republican leadership may not want to know. We have seen time and again in this Congress the face of extremism. If we define ``ignorance'' as ``the act of ignoring'' we can honestly say we have a conspiracy of ignorance in this Congress. Every agency which has been charged by Congress to study and assess the potential for long term climate change has been savaged in this budget cycle. And in the case of NOAA, there has been this additional insult of micromanagement. I know that most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle must know that problems do not simply go away if they are not studied. Global warming may or may not occur in the future--there is a legitimate margin of scientific uncertainty that must be narrowed through serious research. Recently, it was reported that the United Nations-sponsored intergovernmental panel on climate change has reached the conclusion that the weight of evidence now supports the finding that green house warming is occurring. We are told that the subtle changes in the global heat balance will result in a greater incidence of severe weather such as hurricanes, tornadoes and severe winter storms. Certainly this past year should give many pause to wonder. I do not think it is necessary for my colleagues to decide today whether they accept or do not accept the findings of the IPCC on global warming. What is necessary is that we continue to ask the right questions and make sure we know the answers in plenty of time to take action. The Reinsurance Association of America has estimated that natural disasters from climate related events have recently risen to losses of $1 billion a week in the United States alone. They have taken a strong position in support of the Federal Climate Change Research Program for a very simple reason--continued research is a wise insurance policy. More than a third of the GDP in the United States is directly linked to climate conditions in areas such as farming and forestry management, transportation, and public utilities, and real estate. If for no other reason than to provide for our future economic security, it is incumbent on this Congress to continue this vital research. The amendment I am offering today does not deal with funding levels, although I feel this bill is woefully inadequate. Over the long term, I am hopeful that the appropriations conferees will see the value of this research even in a fiscally restrained environment. My amendment would reestablish NOAA's mission to carry out long-term climate studies. It would recognize that a balanced research program must include both short-term studies of climate phenomena such as El Nino and long-term phenomena such as global warming. All of these studies, of course, are interrelated and contribute to our overall understanding of our planet. My amendment would remove the irrational directive in the committee's report that seeks to hinder this research by only allowing NOAA to solve half the problem.

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to make a couple of comments, Mr. Chairman. I think this is sounding a little like a partisan issue, and I honestly think it should not be. We have all, on both sides of the aisle, discussed our commitment to basic research because that is important to understanding our [[Page H 9944]] world, and it is important to the economic vitality of our country. Basic research is mission-driven in a whole variety of agencies throughout the country, because there is value in the diversity of different approaches in basic research. We come up with different answers. That is why we do not have a science czar that directs all scientific inquiry. I think this is somewhat similar to that. I would just add this. All of us will be grievously distressed and our citizens will be distressed if we fail to take action in an appropriate manner and our country pays a terrible economic price. We are now on the Rs for hurricanes, the first time I think that has ever happened on names. I am not a scientist. I notice that the Nobel Committee thinks something is going on with climate change. I think it is up to us to put aside our partisanship and to let scientists move forward into a legitimate inquiry in this.

Ms. LOFGREN. The point I am about to make, sir, on the preceding pages in the committee report, we say we are limiting study to near and mid-term climatic events. What I am suggesting is it would be inappropriate for us as Members of Congress, not scientists, to impose our judgment on the scientists in that nature.

Ms. LOFGREN. That is my point.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. The Interagency Task Force on Global Change in EPA was created in 1989 by then President George Bush, as my colleagues are aware, not by Vice President Gore. I did not vote for President Bush, but he was my President, too, and I am glad he started this endeavor. The fruit of his efforts has now been completed. We have a plan that unless this amendment is passed cannot even be distributed. Talk about taking money and flushing it completely away. I think that is foolhardy indeed. Second, we have talked a lot in this committee and in this Congress about using sound science, about cost-benefit analysis, and part of what we need to do is to have judgments that can be made based on sound science. We have talked about ozone. How do we know the benefit of regulation of ozone if we do not know at least in part the impact on our climate? That may be part of our sound science.