Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to H.R. 2405 to enable EPA to continue to do research in assessment on climate change. Mr. Chairman, section 503(c) of the bill prohibits EPA from doing research in certain areas that do not match the vision of science in this country held by some. The change in the climate change research areas specifically outlines the work on the climate change action plan. In the broad area of global change research the bill reduces the funding level form $22.5 million to $2.4 million, a 90-percent reduction. The bill directs EPA to terminate its Global Change Research Program on the grounds that it is duplicative in research in other agencies. The only problem with the logic is global change in virtually every other agency is similarly terminated or drastically reduced. Mr. Chairman, we have seen the intensity of the view of some that environmental research is not what our country needs, but I believe that, and I think many others on the other side of the aisle do too, that we are well advised to know certain things. One of the things we need to know about is whether our climate is changing. We recently, as I mentioned in our previous amendment, noted that the Nobel Prize committee has recognized that the ability and actually the threat of human activity can indeed have an impact on the globe and on, potentially, climate. This is something that we need to research further so we can go well-armed for the future. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses the provision of the bill which is very dangerous because it ignores a large body of scientific evidence and critical scientific research by simply shutting down this program. The section 503 tells EPA that they can no longer spend money on an action plan that they have already developed. It says, ``Take your report back, get rid of it, pretend it never existed,'' but that is not a message that we should give to scientists. The EPA, as well as other agencies such as the Forest Service and DOE, was asked by President Bush to coordinate a strategy for responding to commitments made at the Rio convention several years ago. The whole idea was to make sure that the administration had a coordinated research and policy framework so that there would be no duplication of efforts or ambiguities regarding agency responsibility. There is now a plan which is continuing to be developed. The impact of the prohibition in the bill is to eradicate the plan. The EPA could not even mail the report out, much less continue the policy development process. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reinstate the climate action plan as a legitimate planning document and template for the policy actions over the next several years as the research on global changes matures. It is clear that some things can be done easily and cheaply. Others will be enormously expensive and difficult. It makes economic sense to know which is which, how long we can wait before taking any action, and indeed whether action needs to be taken at all. Mr. Chairman, the committee's prohibition on the climate action plan is not sensible in a very literal sense. It also reveals a deeper problem that I hope we can come to grips with which is direction of scientific research on the basis of our own druthers, on what we hope is true. The environmental problems that we face may be real. I hope they are not, but they will not go away simply by killing funding or refusing to mail out a report. Now, hearkening back to our earlier discussion in the last amendment, I was heartened that members of the committee on both sides of the aisle do not intend to preclude long-term global research. The amendment before us would not authorize any additional funds. It would simply, as in the prior discussion, eliminate the prohibition on research in this important activity, and I would urge that we, in a show of bipartisan embrace of our future and planted in the climate, accept this amendment.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the bill H.R. 2405, the so-called Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995, as it exists now. The bill has a grandiose title to mask its pernicious effects on the Nation's research and development system. We will hear again and again in this debate how the majority supports research, especially basic research. Would that their rhetoric was matched by their legislative language. [[Page H 9807]] Otto von Bismarck once warned that those who liked laws and sausages should watch neither one being made. This bill offers a stellar example of this principle. The legislation we consider here is not the product of in-depth consideration by the Science Committee. It is, rather, a large muddle made up of a jumble of small messes--slapped together authorization bills for agencies under our jurisdiction to create the unwieldy morass we are about to debate. If the component titles were more than the product of little thought and even less deliberation, this might be acceptable. H.R. 2405, however, is in the unenviable position of being less than the sum of its parts. The value of science and technology to the Nation and its people has, for the last 50 years, been an area where both parties have shared a common vision. Many economists credit innovation with up to half of U.S. economic growth. Both parties have also agreed that the Federal Government played a critical role in maintaining American leadership in these vital areas. The Federal Government has been an early adopter of new technologies; ask Cray Supercomputer how long it took their market to broaden beyond the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. The Government joined with industry to improve existing technologies or to adapt them to new needs. After the war, the Government injected vast new resources into the Nation's universities and reaped a network of laboratories and a supply of talent that is the envy of the world. Until now. H.R. 2405 marks wholesale retreat from this bipartisan consensus. The majority cry is, ``Less will be more.'' That's unlikely. The cost of maintaining leadership is not shrinking, it is rising. Indeed, in some fields we have admitted that we cannot afford to maintain progress with our resources alone. Mr. Chairman, there will be an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered to correct the short-sightedness that permeates H.R. 2405. The substitute recognizes that every element of Federal activity will be squeezed in the effort to balance the budget, but that reducing investment in future productivity is the worst of all possible ways to do this. The substitute will authorize less spending than that actually spent in fiscal year 1995. It is less than the President requested for fiscal year 1996. But it is above the level authorized in H.R. 2405. Historians mark the zenith of the Confederacy as the day Pickett's soldiers charged into the teeth of Union cannon on Cemetery Ridge on July 3, 1863. At least they died with guns blazing and on the attack. With H.R. 2405, the majority furls our flag and skulks from the field. We should not be surprised if history records the end of American scientific and technological leadership with the passage of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote in favor of the substitute to H.R. 2405.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment and I would like to say just a couple of things about why. I do not have a national lab in my district, but I have a very great interest in the national labs because, like other Americans, I believe that science and research really holds the key to our economic future as a country. I think it is important to outline what the Galvin report did say and did not say. The Galvin report never said to put our national labs up for sale. In fact, when Mr. Galvin testified before the Committee on Science, that question was posed to him. He said that that was not a good idea, that it was impossible to imagine who would have the money to bid on these labs. What the Galvin report suggested was a different type of management structure for the labs. Actually it is an issue that I think, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has said, deserves additional analysis and study. I for one believe it is something that we ought to explore, but never once did Mr. Galvin suggest that the national labs go outside of the ownership of the Federal Government. I think the concept of selling the national jewels is one that ought to be rejected. Finally, I would like to note that the complex arrangement of some of these labs, for example, the linear accelerator at Stanford University is not readily susceptible to a bid as is suggested in the amendment. I would say in closing that the only people who have lobbied me to eliminate our investment in the labs are foreign companies. Our economic competitors have lobbied me to cut the labs. No one else in America has.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mary Ellen Heising, a woman who, for 20 years, has led the charge to end hunger in Santa Clara County, CA and across our Nation. Ms. Heising joined the Food Bank of Santa Clara County in 1975, engineered a merger with the Food Bank of San Mateo County and has served as Executive Director of the resulting Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties for the past 17 years. Today, Second Harvest is the seventh largest food bank in the Nation and helps feed as many as 183,000 people every month in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. It is arguably one of the most successful non-profit agencies around and deservedly received the nationwide Excellence in Food Banking Award as Food Bank of the Year in 1994. Under Ms. Heising's skillful leadership, Second Harvest Food Bank runs some of the most innovative and effective programs to aid those in need. Ms. Heising began Operation Brown Bag, which provides a weekly bag of groceries to some 10,000 low-income seniors. It is the Nation's largest private supplemental food program. The Food Bank operates the Nation's biggest canned food drive too--involving 1,200 companies, 150 schools and thousands of individuals. Those who know Mary Ellen Heising know that it is her spirit and dogged commitment to the welfare of our entire community that have made the Second Harvest Food Bank a success. She has helped thousands maintain health and dignity. Mr. Speaker, this week at a luncheon in San Jose, CA, Ms. Heising is being honored by colleagues and friends for her intelligent and passionate leadership. I would like to invite my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join with me in expressing gratitude and appreciation to Mary Ellen Heising for her efforts.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1601, the international space station authorization. Space station Freedom represents a challenge for the 21st century. Not since President John Kennedy challenged this country to land a man on the Moon has this country had such an opportunity to respond. The space program has already given us new technologies and products that have enhanced the quality of our lives. Technological spinoffs from space research have produced important benefits for our society. The development of high-speed computers and the creation of programs and software has improved industrial engineering. Other advances in computers, miniaturization, electronics, robotics, and materials have dramatically affected industrial production and U.S. technological competitiveness. Advances in biomedical technology from the space program are abundant, particularly in the areas of monitoring, diagnostic, and testing equipment. Devices such as the electroencephalograph [EEG] and the electrocardiogram [EKG], pacemakers and medical scanners have their origins in equipment developed for the space program. Other medical advances include surgical tools, voice operated wheelchairs, and an implantable insulin delivery system. New products such as photovoltaic power cells, improved thermal underwear, digital clocks, battery-powered hand tools and scratch- resistant coating for glasses are only a few of the useful innovations that are a direct result of the space program. All of these advancements have provided great benefits to our society, but as I said during committee consideration of the space station: The truth is we don't know all of the innovations, discoveries, and prosperity the space station will bring to us. Detractors of the space station will argue that during these times of tough budget decisions we just can't afford it. We have problems in this country, and we need to tend to them. Having said that, I would point out that cutting the space station Freedom is not going to solve them. Our country will not be stronger, greater, braver, or more prosperous if we pull back and retreat from human space exploration. In fact, it will be just the opposite. It is during times like these that we have to rekindle the human spirit and intellect. To look forward to the future with hope, daring, and vision. To do less would be to quit. Give up. That is not the spirit that has made this country great. There is a quote from Tennyson on the wall of the House Science Committee hearing room that says, For I dipped into the future, far as human eyes could see Saw the vision of the world and all the wonder that would be. Tennyson held in wonder the world--we now hold in wonder the universe. I ask my colleagues to support space station Freedom.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join with my colleagues tonight to pay tribute to our distinguished colleague and my dear friend from California, Congressman Norman Y. Mineta who is leaving Congress after 21 years of service. When I came to Congress in January of this year, I was excited about the prospect of a long-working relationship with Norm in representing the people of San Jose and am sad that he is leaving so soon after my arrival. I have long admired Norman Mineta not only for his astounding record of achievement as a public servant, but also for his sense of dignity and grace. Norm is a true gentleman and has earned the reputation of being one of the brightest, most respected, and well-liked Members of Congress. Before coming to Congress, Norm distinguished himself as a highly respected businessperson and public servant. He assumed his first public post in 1962 as a member of San Jose's human relations commission followed by an appointment to the housing authority board of directors. In 1967, he was appointed to fill a vacancy on the city council and in 1969 won election to a seat on the city council and then became vice mayor by appointment. In 1971 he was elected mayor of San Jose and served in that capacity until his election to Congress in 1974. As a freshman in the 94th Congress, he quickly distinguished himself as one of the leaders of the 75 new Democratic Members and was elected to chair the New Members Caucus. Although he enjoyed many legislative accomplishments, the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provided reparations for Japanese-Americans imprisoned during World War II was the most notable in his congressional career making him a hero to the Japanese-American community and other Americans who cherish civil rights and liberty. Norman's broad legislative expertise includes transportation, trade, high technology, NASA, the American space program, the Federal budget, civil rights, and issues of specific importance to Americans of Asian and Pacific Islands ancestry. During his tenure in Congress he continued to maintain strong ties back home as a friend to Silicon Valley and the environment and at the same time keeping a close eye on local issues. As chairman of [[Page H 9577]] the House Public Works and Transportation Committee in the 102d Congress, he was successful in directing hundreds of millions of dollars for South Bay highways, railways, and wetlands. It is with a sad heart that I say goodbye to my dear friend. Norm you have been an inspiration to me and a great void will be left with your departure. The world and this country is a better place because of your service. You have been a true friend to the people of California and indeed all Americans and we wish you well and best of luck in this new chapter of your life. general leave

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I will bet that there are not very many parts of the country where Senator Exon's amendment has been on the front page of the newspaper practically every day, but that is the case in Silicon Valley. I think that is because so many of us got on the Internet early and really understand the technology, and I surf the Net with my 10-year-old and 13-year-old, and I am also concerned about pornography. In fact, earlier this year I offered a life sentence for the creators of child pornography, but Senator Exon's approach is not the right way. Really it is like saying that the mailman is going to be liable when he delivers a plain brown envelope for what is inside it. It will not work. It is a misunderstanding of the technology. The private sector is out giving parents the tools that they have. I am so excited that there is more coming on. I very much endorse the Cox-Wyden amendment, and I would urge its approval so that we preserve the first amendment and open systems on the Net.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, like many of my colleagues, I have heard from Baby Bells, long-distance carriers, until I am really tired of hearing from them. What I have done is call Silicon Valley, who basically does not care about the Bells or the long-distance carriers. They do care about competition. Mr. Chairman, the advice I have gotten is that there should be a little role for the Department of Justice. I realize that there are some on the Democratic side of the aisle, including the White House, who feel that this measure is way too weak; that we should have a much bigger role. Honestly I disagree with them. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] got it exactly right. A very high threshold, a 180-day turnaround, and a break in case things do not turn out the way we hope. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, arguably, the most important thing about telecommunications reform is not in this bill, and that is affordable access to the Internet for the Nation's schools. Myself and the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] offered such an amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary. We were asked to withdraw it in the hopes that it would be worked on in this bill. The gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] and I went to the Committee on Rules for her amendment, and it is still not being considered. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] what our posture would be, if I may, in a colloquy, with the Senate version of the language that does ensure Internet access for schools that is affordable.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment and for the space station. Mr. Roemer is a very fine and valued Member of this House and of the Science Committee where we serve together. But in this amendment I believe he is incorrect. This amendment was also offered in the Science Committee authorization process, where it was defeated. During our discussion various members suggested specific benefits that may flow from the space station, including advances in the cure for cancer and the understanding of tumor growth. These benefits may very well flow from the space station, but in speaking for the space station in committee I advanced this view: The [[Page H 7925]] truth is that we don't know all of the innovations, discoveries and prosperity the space station will bring to us. And that is the most compelling reason to enthusiastically support our space program and in particular the space station. I remember well the first flight of humans into space by Yuri Gagarin. As a young girl in elementary school my imagination was stretched by the new horizons available to human kind. Our Nation rallied in a national effort to go to space. A young President told us that if we had the national will, we could go to the Moon. And so we did, exciting a generation about a new kind of future. The daring men and women in the space program have served as models and heroes for our country's young. As a nation, we learned that we could accomplish what we intended to do. In the process, we saw side benefits such as the advancement of computer technology and countless other technological innovations that have transformed our world. What will our space station bring us? We don't know, and that is good. If we knew, our dreams and horizons would be too limited. We have problems here in our country. We have a need to attend to many of them and, quite frankly, I am opposed to the retrenchment from domestic problems that has characterized the 104th Congress. Having said that, the answer to these problems is not cutting the space station Freedom. Our country will not be stronger, greater, braver or more prosperous if we pull back and retrench from human space exploration. There is a difference between spending money and investing money. The space station is an investment in our future and one that I urge our country to make. We owe it to ourselves and our children to keep faith with those who came before us, to continue to venture beyond the confines of this planet and to the great frontier of space before us.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, debating the rule, I showed everyone my tie that my son got me, and my wonderful flag earrings that my 13-year-old daughter got me. I wore it today because if this amendment were to become part of the Constitution, I could be arrested for wearing this. I do not feel unpatriotic. We fly our flag at home on holidays. I love my country. I love the flag. What I love more than the flag, Mr. Speaker, is the Constitution that stands behind that flag. We have had our Bill of Rights for 204 years. I have heard that this is not about the first amendment. That is not so, because the Supreme Court has made a ruling, and the Constitution provides that it is the Court that decides final questions of law, not the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I will never vote to amend the first amendment. I think real conservatives do not want to amend the first amendment or any of the Bill of Rights. Real conservatives do not try to amend the Constitution three times in 6 months.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I am wearing an American flag tie that my son picked out for me, and American flag earrings that my 13- year-old daughter picked out for me for the Fourth of July. I love the flag, and when I see the flag flying here over the Capitol, I choke up. However, we are talking not just about the symbol of our country today, we are talking about the Constitution that governs our country. The first amendment says ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' The Bill of Rights has served our country for 204 years. An hour of debate to discuss amending the Bill of Rights is not good enough.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today in the Capitol hundreds of students will be visiting with each of us protesting the proposed cuts in student loans. Why? Because these cuts are like opening up with an assault weapon on the American people. As my colleagues know, 8,000 students at San Jose State University in my district received help in education last year, and many of those students would not be able to go to college without the loans and grants and work student programs that have been provided. I was terribly shocked to read in the paper the other day the supposition that somehow this is class warfare, that the high school graduates of the country should not be asked to use their tax money for students to get ahead and become college graduates and even more. I think the person who said that does not understand blue collar America. I grew up the daughter of a truck driver and secretary, and I will tell you the thing that mattered most to my parents and every adult on the block, none of whom had college degrees, was that all the kids get ahead and be successful. Do not cut down on the American dream. Allow students who work hard to get good grades to get ahead.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt congratulations to Huu Dinh Nguyen, on the occasion of his retirement from the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency. Mr. Nguyen's commitment to social work has improved the quality of life of many people. I commend his tireless dedication and relentless self- sacrifice in the name of public service. Mr. Nguyen was born in Vietnam and earned a master's degree in literature from the University of Saigon. He later went to U.S. Army military schools in Georgia and Okinawa. A colonel in the South Vietnam Army, Mr. Nguyen came to the United States when North Vietnam overtook South Vietnam in 1975. Following a brief stay in Alabama, Mr. Nguyen moved to California and began working for the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency. He was assigned to the Child Welfare Service Unit where he managed children in foster and adoptive programs. He has recently been recognized with the Daniel E. Koshland Award for outstanding social worker of the year for the State of California. Mr. Nguyen's 15 years of service is commendable. Further, in his spare time, Huu Dinh Nguyen established Aid to Refugee Children Without Parents [ARCWP]. ARCWP is a nonprofit, volunteer organization which helps children in Southeast Asian refugee camps. Mr. Nguyen [[Page E1231]] has served on several boards and commissions committed to helping children in need. Mr. Dinh Nguyen is a shining example of what the United States of America is all about. This Nation was built on certain ideals including community, self-sacrifice, and caring. Mr. Nguyen has demonstrated, through his career as a social worker and by his voluntarism, that he is committed to those ideals that Americans value. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my own congratulations and gratitude to Mr. Huu Dinh Nguyen on behalf of my constituents in the 16th District of California and the U.S. House of Representatives.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise, today, to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt congratulations to Phyllis A. Ward and Forest Crumpley, who are being honored by the Committee on Political Education [COPE], as Outstanding South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council Volunteers. Ms. Ward and Mr. Crumpley will be honored at the COPE Award Banquet on Friday, June 2, 1995. COPE is about working people joining together to participate in our political process. Since 1955, COPE has fought to secure full rights for working people and to increase government responsiveness to the needs of the labor movement. This responsiveness includes a commitment to public service. [[Page E1135]] Phyllis Ward has a long record of public service, dating back to 1942 when she enlisted in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps [WAAC] during World War II. She was eventually promoted to the rank of captain, while serving at General MacArthur's Headquarters in Manila, Philippines. Ms. Ward served in the U.S. Foreign Service from 1952-1954, as a High Commissioner of Germany for Political Affairs. She then transferred to the U.S. Information Service [USIS] in 1954. Ms. Ward worked as an agent of the USIS in Kenya, Ethiopia, Germany, and Washington, DC., until 1964. After 1965, Ms. Ward returned home and worked as a social worker for the Santa Clara County Department of Social Services. She retired in 1981. Phyllis Ward has been an active participant in the political process. Dating back to 1947, when she worked for presidential candidate Harold Stassen, Ms. Ward has been a grassroots activist. She has encouraged political participation through voter registration and get out the vote efforts. Ms. Ward has been active in the Democratic Party, having served on the California State Central Committee for the past 10 years. Phyllis Ward is a shining example of what America is all about. She demonstrates principles of caring, giving, and self-sacrifice, that all of us should emulate. Mr. Forest Crumpley has long been committed to public service. Dating back to 1940 when he went to work for the Census Bureau, and became an activist for minority rights in Washington, DC., Mr. Crumpley has sacrificed his time and resources for the causes he champions. Mr. Crumpley's commitment to human rights and freedom led him to join the Army to fight fascism in World War II. After returning from the war, Mr. Crumpley became a lithographer. He eventually opened Fidelity Printing. The very first items he printed at Fidelity Printing were posters and leaflets for John Castro, a union plumber who was running for county supervisor. From that point on, Mr. Crumpley produced countless campaign materials for union endorsed candidates, and helped open the door to more diverse representation in local government. Forest Crumpley has been a voice for the voiceless, working on behalf of farm workers and the people of Chile, El Salvador, and Cuba. His work contributes to the empowerment of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my own congratulations and gratitude to Ms. Ward and Mr. Crumpley on behalf of my constituents in the 16th District and the United States House of Representatives.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I also support the Smith amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to say how proud I am to be involved with a movement that would allow boat people to be treated as the refugees that they really are. There are thousands of these refugees lingering in miserable camps throughout Southeast Asia, waiting for freedom. I think we need to stand by our former allies and make sure that they are treated as the refugees they are. Mr. Chairman, I remember a few years back refugees were forced out of the camps in Hong Kong, and a number of refugees committed suicide rather than return to the Communist regimes from which they fled. Mere economic refugees do not commit suicide when faced with repatriation. Mr. Chairman, I know lawyers who have been involved in the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights. They tell me what the gentleman has said, that the process has been flawed. We need to stand by our former allies. I remember when Vietnam fell 20 years ago, the efforts I made to save those who were escaping from communism. We must not forget them today. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I strongly urge support of the Smith amendment.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, I rise, today, to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt congratulations to Mr. Theodore J. Biagini, being honored by the county of Santa Clara, CA-Province of Florence, Italy Sister- County Commission as this year's recipient of the 1995 Medici Medal Citizen of the Year Award. Mr. Biagini will be honored at the Medici Masked Ball being held Saturday, May 20, 1995. The Sister-County Commission is committed to fostering the exchange of art, culture, education, and technology in many diverse areas between the people and governments of the county of Santa Clara and Province of Florence. Presentation of the Medici Medallion is reserved for prominent citizens of Santa Clara County, who typify philanthropic, intellectual, and cultural awareness as exemplified by the spirit of the Renaissance. Theodore J. Biagini has a long history of public service dating back to 1963 when he was president of the Student Bar Association of Santa Clara University School of Law. Since then, Mr. Biagini has served on numerous civic and charitable boards including the Italian American Heritage Association, the San Jose Sports Arena Task Force, Eastfield Childrens' Center, and the Santa Clara University Board of Regents. Indeed, Ted Biagini is a modern day example of a Renaissance man, turning his gifts and intellect to a wide range of activities, all of which have enriched our community and its people. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my own congratulations and gratitude to Mr. Biagini on behalf of my constituents in the 16th District and the U.S. House of Representatives.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, why are the Republicans cutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the well-to-do. I got a letter yesterday from California that says why. The gentleman wrote: You still do not get it; do you? Keep it up; we will win even more seats in 1996. We want tax cuts. Your 80 year old is not our responsibility. This Republican is entitled to his point of view, but I do not see it that way, because I would like to look at it from Emily's point of view. Her late husband helped protect our country when he was in the Air Force. Now Emily is elderly and she is sick. Her 40-year-old daughter has MS and cannot help. Today Emily has $17 a month after she has paid for room, board, and medical care. The Republican budget will raise Emily's out-of-pocket Medicare costs by $123 a month. There has been a lot of talk on the floor that the budget for Medicare is going up, and that is true. But the more pertinent truth is that this will not keep up with the number of new elderly entering the system, and the cost for individuals will go up. Only in Washington could someone tell Emily that her benefits will go up when it is going to cost her $123 a month more. After all the charts and rhetoric and angry talk have faded, Emily will still be facing this question. How is she going to cover $123 when all she has got is $17? The Republican businessman who wrote to me yesterday says Emily is not his responsibility. But when Emily's late husband went off to fight World War II, did he say it was not his responsibility?

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise as strong opponent of the arbitrary cap on research and in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. I believe that having spent now 3 weeks in Silicon Valley and listening to the CEOs of the most exciting and productive companies in our Nation that the key to our economic future is research and learning new things and cutting-edge endeavors. I believe that putting a cap on this research area will have an unfortunate and hopefully and quite possibly unintended consequence. The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] really picks one promising area of research out of all, and that is this hydrogen bill before us. I agree that hydrogen research is worthy of exploration and may, in fact, play a useful role in our country's future. But it is only one of a rich environment of research possibilities that include solar and even more excitingly fusion research. If we are going to put a cap on the amount of money that will be spent in this environment and then single out only one area of hydrogen for our research dollars, in effect what we are doing is saying here on the floor, without analysis in the appropriate committees, including Science on which I serve, that fusion research is not worth our time, that fusion research really is not going to receive the kind of support that I believe it needs if it is going to be the energy source for our country and, indeed, the world in the 21st century. When I think about a world that could be supported by fusion, I think of a nation that would have limitless supplies of energy, that is clean, nonpolluting and readily available for all. I think to imagine that country and that world really puts in perspective the reason why we need to protect the fusion program. I find it disturbing that in a backdoor way this bill would really direct the scientific talent of our Nation only to one area, that would be hydrogen, to the detriment of even more exciting, long-term endeavors. So I would strongly urge approval of the amendment of the gentleman from California and, frankly, should this amendment fail, I will be unable to support this bill because, in effect, it will be killing the fusion research program that I think really merits our attention more than anything else.