Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my serious concern about the USA FREEDOM Act. First, it is important for all of the Members to know that what is being considered is not the bill that was marked up by the House Judiciary Committee. After it was reported out unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee, certain key elements of this bill were changed. I think it is ironic that a bill that was intended to increase transparency was secretly changed between the committee markup and its floor consideration, and it was altered in worrisome ways. The definition of ``selector,'' rather than being narrowed, has been defined in such a way that it would allow for the large-scale acquisition of data. This is a concern that has been expressed to me by both Republicans and Democrats. The way the definition is lodged, you could get first the southern half of the United States, then the eastern half of the United States, then Missouri. Those could be the selectors. I offered nine amendments. None were put in order. We should insist that we do better than this.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 863 to commission a study on the potential creation of a National Women's History Museum. As you know Mr. Speaker, women make up over half of our population, and yet we know their stories are often underrepresented--and underappreciated--in our history. Here in the Capitol, for example, we have over 200 statues, but only 12 depict women. As Ms. Magazine recently noted, ``The nation's capital includes museums for the postal service, textiles and spies, but lacks a museum to recognize the rich history and accomplishments of women in the U.S.'' Mr. Speaker, the stories of women tell the story of our nation's history, and they deserve to be enshrined for future generations to learn and celebrate. I'm so pleased that my colleagues Carolyn Maloney and Marsha Blackburn have introduced this important legislation to start the process of creating a museum where the achievements and lives of women are chronicled and celebrated. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a letter that I recently received from Chet Campanella of San Jose. Mr. Campanella is an Italian American who experienced firsthand the injustices committed against Italians living in America during World War II. He has been sharing his story, and his efforts to raise awareness resulted in a formal acknowledgment and apology from the State of California in 2010. Many are familiar with the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II, partly due to the enactment of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians Act in 1980, the Commission's report in 1983, and the subsequent Civil Liberties Act of 1988 that provided an official apology for the internment of Japanese Americans. What remains less well known is the mistreatment of thousands of Japanese and European Latin Americans, European Americans, and Jewish refugees that took place prior to and during WWII. The 1980 Commission did address the mistreatment of Japanese, German, and Italian Latin Americans, but only in the appendix to its report. Just one chapter of thirteen addressed the mistreatment of German and Italian Americans in the U.S. Moreover, no recommendations were made with regard to these populations and no official apology was issued-- unlike for Japanese internment. This is an issue that I've been involved with for several years. In 2008, I worked with a number of my colleagues to amend a Japanese- American internment resolution to include injustices committed against European Americans during World War II. As amended and passed by the House, H. Res. 1357 specifically expressed Congress' resolve to ``review the wartime treatment of . . . Italian Americans, to determine whether they should also receive an apology and reparations similar to that provided in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 for Japanese Americans interned during World War II.'' The following year, as Chair of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, I led a hearing that featured testimony from experts detailing the severe injustices suffered by Italian Americans and other groups during this difficult time in our nation's history. Under my leadership, the subcommittee also considered H.R. 1425, the ``Wartime Treatment Study Act,'' which called for a commission to study and issue a report on the treatment of European-Americans during World War II. Although the bill made it through the subcommittee and was reported favorably by the full Judiciary Committee, the bill was not taken up on the House floor. I urge my colleagues to take the time to read Mr. Campanella's letter. February, 2014. Hon. Zoe Lofgren, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Lofgren: My name is Chet Campanella, and I am writing this letter to ask that you and all members of Congress vote in favor of giving us Italian survivors a formal public apology on behalf of our United States government for the mistreatments and injustices suffered by Italian ``Enemy Aliens'' here in the U.S. during World War

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I think what we are engaging on today has the potential of being truly historic. We need a vote on immigration reform. Several weeks ago, I was home in the district I represent. I go home every week. The Secretary of Commerce was visiting in Silicon Valley. She gave a good speech. After she finished her speech, she invited questions. The very first question was from a young man--a scientist-- who said this: I started a company. I am about to hire four Americans. But my visa is up next month. What am I supposed to do? As I was talking to that young man, another young man came forward-- another scientist who has just formed a company. He is about to go into a hiring mode, but his visa was about up. So when you take a look and listen to the people in Silicon Valley saying we are going to lose jobs in America because we have a dysfunctional immigration system, that shows the problem that we have allowed to fester. Recently, I met with farmers. They told me that they are not planting crops this year because they can't identify who is going to pick those crops. About 80 percent of the migrant farmworkers in America are here without their proper documents. Do I think that is a good situation? No, I do not. A number of years ago, when I chaired the Immigration Subcommittee, we had a wonderful witness, Dr. Richard Land, then the head of the Southern Baptist Convention, and this was his testimony. He said: We had for many years two signs at the southern border. One sign said, ``No Trespassing,'' and the other sign said, ``Help Wanted.'' Those farmworkers who are here picking the vegetables that we will enjoy at our meals responded to that ``Help Wanted'' sign. Sometimes people say you should do it in the legal way. Get to the end of the line. And this is from someone who was a former immigration lawyer. I used to teach immigration law at the University of Santa Clara. The truth is, there is no line to get into. We have created a dysfunctional system that does not serve American interests. H.R. 15 is not a perfect bill. No piece of legislation is. But it was a bill that attracted broad bipartisan support in the United States Senate. This discharge petition says just one thing: Let's have a vote. Why would the Speaker of the House and the Republican leadership refuse to allow this body to have an up-or-down vote on that bill? A discharge petition is something that has been in the rules of the House for many, many decades. It has been used occasionally in the past to actually un-bottle-up bills that the leadership didn't want the body to vote on. Most recently, campaign finance reform came to the floor of the House because of a discharge petition. A lot of Members of the House say that they favor immigration reform. Here is an opportunity to hold every Member of this House accountable. If you favor reform of the immigration system, you should favor having an up-or-down vote on H.R. 15. If you favor an up-or-down vote, we expect you, no matter what your party designation, to sign this discharge petition so the House of Representatives may have an opportunity to address this question and vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on this bill. I hope that members of the public who are aware of the need for immigration reform to reform a system that is not serving our economic interests, that is breaking up families and leaving children in foster care while their parents are deported, will call their Members of the House of Representatives and ask them to sign this discharge petition. It is in the rules. It is what we expect. We need a vote.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that on March 4, 2014, I would have voted in favor of H. Res. 488, supporting the people of Venezuela as they protest peacefully for democracy, a reduction in violent crime and calling for an end to recent violence. I am pleased that this resolution expressing support for basic human rights passed the House decisively.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns about two cases being argued before the Supreme Court this month, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius. I am a strong supporter of our Constitution, which allows for religious liberty, but religious liberty does not include the right to impose your own religious beliefs on others. If Hobby Lobby CEO David Green opposes birth control, he's entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to impose his beliefs on others by deliberatively refusing contraceptive coverage for his female employees. This coverage makes a difference, especially for women working in entry level positions that too often leave them below the poverty line. Women need to be able to make their own decisions about their reproductive health care without interference from their bosses. It is their right, and it should not be trampled upon.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would just like to note that, in 2010, the House of Representatives did pass the DREAM Act. Eight Republicans voted against it. It was killed by Republicans in the Senate, but we did our best to pass the DREAM Act. In fact, it did pass this House, and I still have the gavel that Speaker Pelosi used while presiding over that measure displayed proudly in my office. I think, also, as we discuss matters, we can help undercut confidence in our system of government. Yes, we are fans of article I because we are in the Congress, but article II has its role as well. I think it is important to note that the Supreme Court itself has, as recently as last year, noted--and that is in the Arizona case--that Federal immigration officials have broad discretion, including ``whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all'' as part of their authority under the Constitution. Further, we have delegated to the President by statute, 6 U.S. Code 202, for the administration using its article II authority to establish the national immigration enforcement policies and priorities, which is what the President did. So let's not instill anxiety and confusion among our constituents by somehow saying, when the President uses the authority that we have granted to him that the Supreme Court has noted he has, that somehow that is improper. It is not. I would say further, on the merits of the case, this is not just random authority, as the gentleman from Arizona suggested earlier. It is the majority who specifically mentions the DREAM Act on page 2 of their report--of the committee report, as being problematic and a reason for this legislation. It was the majority report, not me, who suggested that. I think it is very mistaken and wrong on a policy matter, wrong on a legal matter, and wrong constitutionally.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, either this bill does nothing because it is vague or it does something that is a serious problem. In the committee report for this bill, it specifically calls out as something that is wrong the DREAM Act, apparently suggesting that the DREAMers should be deported. Now, I don't believe that what happened with the DREAMers, the deferred action, was beyond the President's authority. And I have this letter here that was sent in 1999 signed by the late Henry Hyde and two Republicans who went on to chair the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith and Mr. Sensenbrenner, urging then-President Clinton to do the same thing that President Obama has now done, which is to come up with actual standards that are then applied. So I don't think that this bill should change that. But let's say it does. Let's say that we would have to report each time a DREAMer applies for deferred action. I think what we are talking about is that 500,000 or so DREAMers, their names and addresses, would have to be reported in to the Congress. Is that really what we want to do, to have all those kids be reported in to the Congress? Let's talk about another thing mentioned in the earlier bill, specifically on page 14 in the committee report, the so-called point 3, unlawful extension of parole in place. What the President did--as prior Presidents have done--is to parole the immediate family, the husbands and wives, of American soldiers who are in immigration trouble. The reason for that, and the military asked us to do that, the last thing you want, you have a soldier in Afghanistan dodging bullets, you don't want that soldier worrying about what is going to happen to his wife, the visa got lost and she is facing deportation, and so parole in place was used. Now, we believe, and I mentioned, there is a specific statutory authority for that, section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but apparently the majority believes it is unlawful. So what would this bill mean? I guess that all of the wives and husbands who are not deported, and I guess their little children, their names and addresses should be reported in to the Congress. So we have a little list here of people who are Americans in every way but their papers, whose husbands are off fighting for our country, but we are going to create a list of them. I think they are going to feel exposed and at risk. If the bill does anything, it does something very dangerous and wrong. We should not vote for this. I oppose it. I oppose the deportation of the DREAMers, as the majority has asked be done in these two bills, and I hope my colleagues vote against it.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, if you look at the actual statute that is being proposed here, it says the report shall be made by any Federal officer, undefined, establishes or implements these policies, to refrain. I would note, and it was hardly a secret when the deferred action program was started, it was a memorandum on June 15, 2012. It was made available to the committee and to Congress, and it points out on page 2 that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion will be made on an individual basis for those who fit within the category. So I think if this means anything, and it may not because it is vague, it means that each time an individual receives the benefit of that prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis, they would have to be reported to the Congress. Now, what information would be reported? I don't know; presumably the name or the case file or the phone number. There are many John Smiths in that group of kids, so I presume that you would need more than just the name, perhaps an address or other identifier. The point is, we are creating a little list here. It is a little list that I think will feel very dangerous to those who are identified, and unwarranted by those whose hearts are very touched by DREAM Act kids who were brought here as children. As the principles released by the Republican leadership pointed out, these are young people who committed no offense, whose only country is the United States; and but for pay-for, they would be Americans. I don't think it is something that we should do, to have their names released, to deport them, to turn our backs on them, as this bill would do.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this is about deporting the DREAM Act students. On page 13 of the committee report, the majority calls out for condemnation the exercise of prosecutorial discretion relative to the DREAMers. It is quite a departure from when Republicans joined with Democrats to say that it is well established that prosecutorial discretion can be used in immigration cases and asking that guidelines be developed and be implemented and used for categories of individuals. In fact, the ``discretion'' in ``prosecutorial discretion'' comes from the Take Care Clause. That is what the Supreme Court has told us. That is the guidance we have from the highest law in the land. What this is really about, Mr. Chairman, is about the majority's apparently voracious appetite to deport these young people. That is why the deportation of DREAMers is called out in the committee report. It is why they oppose prosecutorial discretion. I think it is quite a shame.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this legislation isn't just about bringing a lawsuit. I think it is important to note on page 13, 14 of the committee report, item 3, it says, unlawful extension of parole in place. I think that shows what the majority thinks about that, and shockingly enough, that is the action that was taken by the President pursuant to express statutory authority, section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to allow the wives of American soldiers to not be deported. In July of 2010, a letter was sent to the Department signed by nine Democrats and nine Republicans. I will insert the letter into the Record. And we said this: Although many of the immigration issues experienced by our men and women in uniform require legislative action, Congress has already given you tools to provide some relief to these brave soldiers and their families. We urged them to consider deferred action, to favorably exercise parole authority for close family members and to forbear from initiating removal in certain cases. Now, this is nothing new. We have used parole authority pursuant to the Immigration Act in faithful enforcement of the law to prevent Cubans from being deported back to Cuba since John F. Kennedy was President of the United States. For the majority to suggest that keeping the wives of American soldiers who were under fire in Afghanistan from being deported is, and I quote, ``an unlawful extension of parole in place,'' I think it is a truly shocking, and I would say, very distressing and disturbing phenomenon. We knew that the majority wanted to deport the DREAM Act kids because they voted for the King amendment last year. When Democrats took the DREAM Act up for a vote, all but eight voted against it. But that you want to deport the wives of American soldiers in Afghanistan, I am sorry, is a new low. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 9, 2010. Hon. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Napolitano: We write to commend your attention to a May 8, 2010 New York Times article entitled, ``Illegal Status of Army Spouses Often Leads to Snags.'' It describes the struggle of U.S. Army Lt. Kenneth Tenebro to serve his country while at the same time navigating a complex immigration system that has, thus far, failed to grant legal immigration status for his wife, Wilma. The article explains that Lt. Tenebro, served one tour of duty in Iraq, dodging roadside bombs, and he would like to do another. But throughout that first mission, he harbored a fear he did not share with anyone in the military. Lieutenant Tenebro worried that his wife, Wilma, back home in New York with their infant daughter, would be deported. Although Lt. Tenebro would like to continue deploying for combat, today he does not volunteer for deployment for fear of losing his wife to deportation and because he does not know what would happen to his three-year-old daughter while he is away on a military mission. Lt. Tenebro is not alone. Many soldiers are unable to secure legal immigration status for their family members, even as they risk their lives for our country. Some have testified before Congress about their own stories and those of fellow soldiers they seek to assist. This is not only an issue of keeping U.S. citizen families together. It is a military readiness issue. After 33 years of service, Retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, a former commander of ground forces in Iraq, stated in a 2008 letter to the House Committee on the Judiciary, ``We should not continue to allow our citizenship laws and immigration bureaucracy to put our war-fighting readiness at risk.'' He explained: As a battlefield commander, the last thing I needed was a soldier to be distracted by significant family issues back home. Resolving citizenship status for family members while serving our country, especially during combat, must not be allowed to continue detracting from the readiness of our forces. When soldiers have to worry about their families, individual readiness falters--which can lead to degradation in unit effectiveness and the risk of mission failure. I have personally witnessed this on the battlefield. Although many of the immigration issues experienced by our men and women in uniform require legislative action, Congress has already given you tools to provide some relief to these brave soldiers and their families. We hope that you will use all the power at your disposal to assist Lt. Tenebro and other soldiers, veterans, and their close family members to attain durable solutions. For example, DHS can join in motions to reopen cases where there may be legal relief available; consider deferred action where there is no permanent relief available but significant equities exist, such as deployment abroad; favorably exercise its parole authority for close family members that entered without inspection; forbear from initiating removal in certain cases where equities warrant exercise of prosecutorial discretion; and, other tools that would ease the burden for soldiers suffering from immigration-related problems to the extent that the current law allows. Of course, we expect that you will continue to conduct all necessary national security and criminal background checks before providing relief in any case. As this country is engaged in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must do everything we can to address the immigration needs of our soldiers. As Lt. Gen. Sanchez stated, It matters greatly that those who fight for this country know that America values their sacrifices. As leaders, it is our duty to sustain the readiness, morale and war-fighting spirit of our warriors. We must not fail them for America's future depends on their sacrifices and their willingness to serve. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your immediate response. Sincerely, Zoe Lofgren; John Conyers, Jr.; Mac Thomberry; Mike Pence; Howard Berman; Silvestre Reyes; Solomon Ortiz; David Price; Henry Cuellar; Xavier Becerra; Susan Davis; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Sam Johnson; Michael Turner; Adam Putnam; Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Mario Diaz- Balart; Anh ``Joseph'' Cao.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, in the committee report that accompanies these bills, on page 13 and 14, there are three items that the majority says that the President can't do. One is to defer action for the DREAMers, young people who are brought here innocently in violation of immigration laws; two, to allow the wives of American soldiers who are undocumented to stay and not be deported; and, finally, to allow parents who have been arrested for immigration to try and preserve their parental rights. Is it legal for the President to take these actions? Certainly, it is. In Heckler v. Chaney, as well as in the Arizona v. United States court decision, the Supreme Court makes clear that, in immigration, the ability to enforce or decide not to enforce is part of the broad executive authority; and further, the United States Congress has actually delegated to the executive branch, at 6 U.S. Code 202, the national immigration enforcement priorities and policies to the President. Now, is this anything new? No. We have paroled-in-place Cubans since John F. Kennedy was President. In 2010, a bipartisan group of members, including Congressman Michael Turner and Mac Thornberry from the Armed Services Committee and myself wrote and said: Please, Mr. President, don't deport the wives of American soldiers. The President used his authority to do that as prior Presidents had done. The use of parole in place is delegated to the President and nothing new. Now, why is this important? These bills are drafted to keep the President from doing the things that he did to allow the children to stay and to allow the wives of American soldiers not to be deported. I think that what the majority wants to do is to not only have a do- nothing Congress, but to have a do-nothing President. When it comes to immigration, this is very serious. We have had one vote on immigration here in the Congress that was on Congressman King's bill to deport the DREAM Act kids. We have heard a lot of discussion about a bill supposedly that is going to be brought forward by the majority about the innocent children who have been brought here, but we haven't seen a bill; instead, we see these bills, which would allow the Congress to overrule the President's action, so that the DREAM Act kids will be deported, so that the wives of soldiers who are in battle in Afghanistan would be deported, so that individuals who are caught up in an immigration problem would lose their children to social services, would lose their parental rights.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the amendment. I would note that the late Henry Hyde signed the letter urging for prosecutorial discretion. That is part of the law recognized by the Supreme Court in the Arizona case. I do not believe that the late Henry Hyde would have urged the administration to do something that did not comport with the Constitution or the law, and I include for the Record this letter. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, November 4, 1999. Re Guidelines for Use of Prosecutorial Discretion in Removal Proceedings Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Hon. Doris M. Meissner, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Reno and Commissioner Meissner: Congress and the Administration have devoted substantial attention and resources to the difficult yet essential task of removing criminal aliens from the United States. Legislative reforms enacted in 1996, accompanied by increased funding, enabled the Immigration and Naturalization Service to remove increasing numbers of criminal aliens, greatly benefitting public safety in the United States. However, cases of apparent extreme hardship have caused concern. Some cases may involve removal proceedings against legal permanent residents who came to the United States when they were very young, and many years ago committed a single crime at the lower end of the ``aggravated felony'' spectrum, but have been law-abiding ever since, obtained and held jobs and remained self-sufficient, and started families in the United States. Although they did not become United States citizens, immediate family members are citizens. There has been widespread agreement that some deportations were unfair and resulted in unjustifiable hardship. If the facts substantiate the presentations that have been made to us, we must ask why the INS pursued removal in such cases when so many other more serious cases existed. We write to you because many people believe that you have the discretion to alleviate some of the hardships, and we wish to solicit your views as to why you have been unwilling to exercise such authority in some of the cases that have occurred. In addition, we ask whether your view is that the 1996 amendments somehow eliminated that discretion. The principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established. Indeed, INS General and Regional Counsel have taken the position, apparently well-grounded in case law, that INS has prosecutorial discretion in the initiation or termination of removal proceedings (see attached memorandum). Furthermore, a number of press reports indicate that the INS has already employed this discretion in some cases. True hardship cases call for the exercise of such discretion, and over the past year many Members of Congress have urged the INS to develop guidelines for the use of its prosecutorial discretion. Optimally, removal proceedings should be initiated or terminated only upon specific instructions from authorized INS officials, issued in accordance with agency guidelines. However, the INS apparently has not yet promulgated such guidelines. The undersigned Members of Congress believe that just as the Justice Department's United States Attorneys rely on detailed guidelines governing the exercise of their prosecutorial discretion, INS District Directors also require written guidelines, both to legitimate in their eyes the exercise of discretion and to ensure that their decisions to initiate or terminate removal proceedings are not made in an inconsistent manner. We look forward to working with you to resolve this matter and hope that you will develop and implenent guidelines for INS prosecutorial discretion in an expeditious and fair manner. Sincerely, Representatives Henry J. Hyde; Barney Frank; Lamar Smith; Sheila Jackson Lee; Bill McCollum; Martin Frost; Bill Barrett; Howard L. Berman; Brian P. Bilbray; Corrine Brown; Charles T. Canady; Barbara Cubin; Nathan Deal; Lincoln Diaz-Balart. David Dreier; Bob Filner; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Sam Johnson; Patrick J. Kennedy; Matthew G. Martinez; James P. McGovern; Martin T. Meehan; F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.; Christopher Shays; Henry A. Waxman; Kay Granger; Gene Green; Ciro D. Rodriguez.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I was delayed at the airport. I just wanted to indicate my opposition to the bill since it has been changed, noting that Public Knowledge in the Los Angeles Times said today that we would be better off doing nothing than the bill as changed. I have talked to the chairman about this, but I wanted to make my position clear. If we do not pass this bill because of the Obama administration's deal with the telecoms, consumers will still be able to unlock their phones. This is a step backwards. I very much appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding.

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of myself and Representatives Honda, Eshoo, and Speier to recognize the service of Ms. Mary Simon to San Jose and the Bay Area community. Ms. Simon, the founder and executive director of Resource Area for Teaching (RAFT), will retire in the spring of 2014 after 20 years at its helm. She will greatly be missed. After 12 years of teaching math and science to second and third graders, Ms. Simon founded RAFT in 1994 with a mission to help teachers transform children's learning experience through hands-on education. RAFT is a nonprofit organization that provides educators with prepared teaching kits and idea sheets for activities in mathematics, science, and art. Additionally, RAFT helps teachers access education specialists who can assist with planning lessons and projects as well as locate affordable teaching supplies. Ms. Simon's remarkable vision had been to create a place that celebrates and supports great teaching. Through her hard work, Ms. Simon was able to bring together countless volunteers, donors, and companies to collaborate in this effort. Under her leadership, thousands of teachers joined RAFT to improve the quality of education in the Bay Area. Under Ms. Simon's guidance, RAFT became an important resource for educators and continues to foster community involvement. With Ms. Simon's effort and unwavering commitment, RAFT grew into a 10,000- member organization and continues to enrich the education experience of hundreds of thousands of students. RAFT's products, services, and teaching supplies improve the educational experience of over 825,000 kids per year. We wish to congratulate Ms. Mary Simon on her impressive and impactful career and commend her years of service to the San Jose and the Bay Area community generally. Continued efforts and innovation in education of generations to come must be one of our top priorities as a nation, and Ms. Simon's efforts in this area are invaluable. Ms. Simon worked to create a place where teachers could come together for the support and respect for the important, essential work that they do for our children. Because of Ms. Simon's vision, creativity, and dedication, RAFT will continue to make a positive impact on our educators and students. Ms. Simon's service has made our community a better place, and she will be dearly missed.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for the record, because I was unavoidably detained with responsibilities in my district, I was unable to be present to vote on Monday, February 10, 2014. I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2431, to reauthorize the National Integrated Drought Information System. The record drought facing California right now makes clear that reliable drought assessment and prediction information is critical. This information helps communities, farms and businesses prepare and respond. I would echo my colleague, Ranking Member of the Science, Space and Technology Committee Eddie Bernice Johnson, that while it is crucial that we reauthorize NIDIS, we would have liked to see an even more robust authorization level for this important program. I would also have voted in favor of H. Res. 447, Supporting the democratic and European aspiration of the people of Ukraine, and their right to choose their own future free of intimidation and fear. I am glad that so many of my colleagues also stood up for these principles of basic human rights.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, there is no tax money being used for abortions. That has been true since Henry Hyde served here with us. What this bill does is not address that issue. It really is intended to eliminate abortion coverage in private insurance plans. Our witness, Professor Wood, testified in the Judiciary Committee that eliminating the tax benefit, essentially raising taxes if a small business offers a broad insurance plan that includes abortion, will result in dropping that portion of the coverage. So this is really an extreme measure. I understand that not everyone believes that women should make this choice. If you are opposed to abortion, don't have an abortion. But don't put the Federal Government in charge of the decisions that are properly and legally made by women, along with their husbands and families. This is an extreme agenda. It is wrong, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, there has been a lot said today about taxpayer money being used for abortion. I think it is important to note that that does not occur in America today. That decision was made a number of decades ago recognizing that taxpayer funds will not be used. So what are we doing here? What we are doing is making sure that abortion can't be offered in the private insurance market. That is what we are doing here. It was said earlier that the CBO had indicated there would be a minimal impact from the tax increase on small businesses if a broad insurance plan was offered that included abortion. The reason for that is that it is anticipated that all of those small businesses will avoid the tax increase and drop the abortion coverage. So that is why there would not be a large impact, but there will be a large impact on women because, although there are exceptions for the life of the mother, there is no exception for the health of the mother, something that is required by the Constitution and our Supreme Court. In those cases, this can be a very expensive proposition. I will just tell you an example of a person whom I know, Vicki, who, unfortunately, her much-wanted child, all of this child's brains formed outside of the cranium. There was no question this wanted child was not going to survive more than a minute or 2. Unfortunately for Vicki, without an abortion, the expectation was that her uterus would be destroyed and she would not be able to have other children--not that she would die, but that she would not be able to have other children that she and her husband wanted to have. It is very expensive to get some of these procedures when your health is at risk. So, yes, we will not have increases on small businesses because they will drop these coverages, but the women of America are going to be told by this government, yes, we know better than you do. We are going to decide for you. Vote ``no'' on this very wrongheaded bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the service of Ms. Karyn Sinunu-Towery to the County of Santa Clara. For over 30 years, Ms. Sinunu-Towery has served the people of Santa Clara County in the District Attorney's Office. She has made enormous contributions to the office, and after her final day of service on December 20, 2013, she will undoubtedly be missed. Ms. Sinunu-Towery began her career in 1983 as a law clerk for the Santa Clara District Attorney. Two years later, on December 12, 1985, she became a member of the California Bar and joined the office as a staff attorney. After serving eleven years as a Deputy District Attorney and the Supervisor of the Sexual Assault Unit, prosecuting over 50 jury trials, Ms. Sinunu-Towery was promoted to the executive position of Assistant District Attorney. In this role, she has lead-by-example, and provided valuable counsel to the District Attorney. Throughout her career Ms. Sinunu-Towery has been known for her fairness, resilience, professionalism, and commitment to justice. Ms. Sinunu-Towery has a reputation as a reformer who truly cared for the victims she was charged with protecting. She wrote Victim's Rights manuals that were distributed throughout California and developed a model procedure for the investigation of child-abuse investigations with the goal of reducing the trauma to the children involved. Ms. Sinunu-Towery was just as vigilant when it came to ensuring that the accused received fair treatment. She worked with local police chiefs and the Sheriff to create fairer line-up procedures to accurately identify suspects, and guidelines for the interrogation of mentally ill suspects. She personally worked to free defendants wrongly convicted and is a model for prosecutors everywhere in this regard. Ms. Sinunu-Towery was a trailblazer when it came to the use of technology to better administer justice. She was instrumental in the office's transition from paper to electronic data storage, and continued to push for greater technology use. I wish to congratulate Ms. Karyn Sinunu-Towery on her impressive career and commend her for 30 years of service to the Santa Clara County community. She leaves the District Attorney's Office a better place and will be dearly missed.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to note the remarkable career of Larry Horton who will retire from his post as Senior Associate Vice President and Director of Government and Community Relations at Stanford University at the end of 2013. His academic and professional tenure at Stanford spans a combined 52 years. Born in Louisiana to a railroad switch operator and a homemaker, Larry came to Stanford in 1958 by way of Arkansas and Southern California. After earning his undergraduate degree in political science, he was drafted to serve in the U.S. Army in Europe for two years. He returned to Stanford to complete a master's degree in history. By 1970, the year of my own graduation from the university, he had been appointed an associate dean of student affairs. In this capacity he oversaw the integration of the sexes in coed university housing. During this period he helped ensure that egalitarian American principles and the recognition of the value of diversity that blossomed in the 1960s and '70s was reflected in University policies. Next he served as a special assistant to the secretary of Health and Human Services in both the Ford and Carter administrations. Returning to Stanford again in 1977 with new experiences in dealing with Washington, he was appointed Associate Director of Government Affairs. From this post he helped Congress to shape the landmark 1980 Bayh-Dole Act. These efforts fostered free-market innovation by encouraging inventors and institutions to pursue ownership of patents for products created with the aid of Federal Government resources. For all his accomplishments at the Federal level, some of Larry's most challenging and rewarding projects have involved local government. The cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park and the Counties of Santa Clara and San Mateo as well as various state and local land and water authorities, have required skillful attention. He negotiated many cooperative land-use initiatives, sometimes in the face of disagreement from some of Stanford's neighbors. He made sure there was careful sensitivity to threatened wildlife like the California tiger salamander, for which the University built a tunnel under Junipero Serra Boulevard to encourage migration from Lake Lagunita to a new, more secure habitat in Stanford's foothills. Beyond his admirable professional achievements, Larry is a thoughtful intellectual, host to authors debuting their books and is a friend and supporter for those who are writers, artists and, most particularly, friends of Stanford. This year, for his dedication to Stanford he was awarded the Cuthbertson Award during Stanford's graduation ceremony. Today I praise my good friend Larry Horton, whose intellect, humility, talent, tenacity, empathy, and dedication to our alma mater are unparalleled. Although his retirement will provide him with more time to spend on his personal loves--history, opera, Stanford Athletics, literature, theater, and his partner of 35 years, George Wilson--he will be deeply missed not only by his Stanford colleagues, but by those of us in Washington, Sacramento, and the Bay Area who have shared in the privilege of knowing him. He leaves a formidable legacy.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 125th Anniversary of the Lick Observatory. On January 3, 1888 the Lick Observatory's great refracting telescope saw ``first light.'' Its construction on top of Mt. Hamilton was made possible by a $700,000 donation from James Lick. By many accounts the wealthiest man in California, Mr. Lick gave almost his entire fortune to advance science and public welfare. When finished, the ``Lick Refractor'' was the largest, most powerful refracting telescope in the world. Today, it is assumed that an observatory should be built on a mountain. However, at the time most observatories were built in cities. It is easy to forget that when Mt. Hamilton was chosen as the build site, it was only speculation that the high altitude would reduce atmospheric interference, allowing for a clearer view of the night stars. Having proven the theory correct, Lick Observatory set the standard for building observatories on top of mountains, at high altitude, and away from potential interfering light sources and pollution. The Lick Refractor was a premier research telescope for nearly a century. Even now, this telescope is still used to wow visitors, to inspire scientific wonder, and as a teaching tool for local colleges and universities. While many scientific facilities of this age are no longer useful as tools of discovery, the Lick Observatory continues to upgrade its capabilities and produce ground breaking science. The Adaptive Optics project uses a unique, deformable mirror to cancel out atmospheric interference. It is capable of achieving resolutions comparable to the space-based Hubble Telescope, but at a fraction of the cost. The Lick Observatory also houses the Automated Planet Finder, with the goal of finding Earth-like planets located within 100 light years. In partnership with NASA, this fully automated telescope makes its own decisions on where to look in the night sky and is capable of determining whether an Earth-like planet has been discovered. Even the 125 year old Lick Refractor is still occasionally put to use. In the fall of 2000, coupled with an automatic camera, it started photographing the star clusters in our galaxy. These photographs have provided valuable information for mapping these clusters' star members. I wish to congratulate the Lick Observatory on its 125th anniversary, and commend not only it scientific achievements, but also its work in inspiring others to pursue the wonders of science.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Conyers and Chairman Goodlatte. I am glad we are here today addressing these issues of abusive lawsuits in the patent system. As has been mentioned by others, we do have a problem, it is widely agreed to, among patent assertion entities, sometimes called patent trolls. These lawsuits, these abusive lawsuits that are brought, can easily cost $2 million to $10 million apiece, and that is why, when a meritless lawsuit is threatened, it is easy to extort a smaller payment to make it go away, and that is what we are trying to deal with here. This is a big issue for small businesses. Professor Colleen Chien of Santa Clara University, now with the White House, did a study and found that more than half of these suits were against companies with less than $10 million in annual revenue. And that is why this bill, it is not a perfect bill, but why this bill has such broad support. It is genuinely a bipartisan bill. I am a cosponsor of this bill, along with the Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Mike Honda, Peter DeFazio, Jared Huffman, and many others. At a time when the country is saying, ``Can't you just work together?'' we have. Reasonable people can differ, which is why we have this debate here today. We have 40 members in the House Judiciary Committee. Only five members voted against reporting this bill out. That is remarkable. The White House has just issued a very strong statement of administrative policy. They support this bill. So at a time when too often we are seen as the battling Bickersons, we have support across the aisle with the White House to do this. What does the bill do? It deals with pleading requirements. Oftentimes, these patent assertion entities will allege infringing, but they don't, with any particularity, say what is being infringed. It does a change in attorneys' fees that matches the existing rule in copyright. I oppose fee shifting in civil litigation generally, but the Congress has, on many occasions, narrowly cast fee shifting to deal with specific problems. This would join that. I would note that the shifts would not occur unless the party's position is unreasonably justified. The court is not to allow this shift if the party has a reasonable case in fact or law or, as my colleague, Mr. Jeffries, had added, a severe economic harm. I would note that this is supported from start-ups to big companies. Startup Investors Nationwide Support Broad Patent Reform Dear Congress: Each year, we invest hundreds of millions of dollars in software and information technology businesses and emerging mobile technologies. Together with other investors, we commit more than $1 billion annually in angel and venture capital that ensures continuing growth of young, high-tech companies employing 1.4 million people. Collectively, we have invested in companies such as Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Dropbox, Palantir, Kickstarter, and countless other technologies that power American businesses everywhere. We are the fuel in America's startup economy engine. We write to urge comprehensive legislation to address the troubling growth and success of the patent troll business model. Young, innovative companies are increasingly threatened and targeted by patent troll lawsuits. In fact, the majority of companies targeted by patent trolls have less than $10 million in revenue. And while big companies paid the lion's share of the $29 billion of direct costs resulting from patent troll activities in 2011, the costs borne by small companies are a proportionately larger share of their revenues. As a result, Congress and the Administration are considering multiple reform proposals. None alone will fix the problem, but together they will make a substantial dent in what one famous troll recently called ``a new industry.'' Successful legislation should make it harder to be a patent troll, and easier for targeted businesses to protect and defend themselves. Legislation should: Make it easier to efficiently review patents at the Patent Office, as an alternative to litigation. Increase transparency by requiring patent trolls to specify, in complaints and demand letters, which patent and what claims are infringed, and specifically how the offending product or technology infringes. Limit the scope of expensive litigation discovery. Require patent trolls to pay legal fees and other costs incurred by prevailing defendants. Protect end users of technology [e.g., wi-fi, printers and scanners, and APIs) from being liable for infringements by technology providers. Our Founders did not intend to incentivize patent trolling in the Constitution--nor did Congress intend the Patent Act to promote this industry. Comprehensive legislation to reduce abusive patent litigation will make the patent troll business model less attractive, and will protect software, mobile and information technology entrepreneurs. In turn, our digital economy will continue to grow and so will our national economy. The undersigned: Gil Bickel, St. Louis Arch Angels, St. Louis, MO; David Bradbury, Vermont Center for Emerging Technologies, Burlington, VT; Glen Bressner, Originate Ventures, Bethlehem, PA; Brad Burnham, Union Square Ventures, New York, NY; Jeff Bussgang, Flybridge Capital, Boston, MA; Steve Case, Revolution Capital Washington, DC; Jeff Clavier, SoftTechVC, Palo Alto, CA; Ron Conway, SV Angel, San Francisco, CA; Mark Cuban, Investor in over 70 startups, Dallas TX; Peter Esperago, Cultivation Capital, St. Louis, MO. Brad Feld, Foundry Group, Boulder, CO; Nicole Glaros, Techstars, Boulder, CO and New York, NY; David Gold, Access Venture Partners, Westminster, CO; Greg Gottesman, Madrona Venture Group Seattle, WA; Paul Graham, Y Combinator, Mountain View, CA; Bill Gurley, Benchmark Capital, Menlo Park, CA; Reid Hoffman; Greylock Partners, Menlo Park, CA; Kirk Holland, Access Venture Partners, Westminster, CO; Len Jordan, Madrona Venture Group, Seattle, WA; Scott Levine, iSelect Fund, Clayton, MO. John Lilly, Greylock Partners, Menlo Park, CA; Trevor Loy, Flywheel Ventures, Albuquerque and Sante Fe, NM; Chris Marks, High Country Venture, Boulder, CO; Dan Marriott, Stripes Group, New York, NY; Matt McCall, Pritzker Venture Capital Group, Chicago, IL and Los Angeles, CA; Jim McKelvey, Cultivation Capital, St. Louis; Andrew McLaughlin, BetaWorks, New York, NY; Josh Mendelsohn, Hangar, San Francisco, CA; Jason Mendelsohn, Foundry Group, Boulder, CO; Michael Neril, Webb Investment Network, San Francisco, CA. Charlie O'Donnell, Brooklyn Bridge Ventures, New York, NY; Alexis Ohanian, Angel Investor, New York, NY; Bijan Sabet, Spark Capital, Boston, MA; Devin Talbott, Enlightenment Capital, Washington, DC; Brett Topche, MentorTech Ventures, Philadelphia, PA; Jorge M. Torres, Silas Capital, New York, NY; Hunter Walk, Homebrew, San Francisco, CA; David Weekly, Startup Founder and Angel Investor, Palo Alto, CA; Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures, New York, NY.

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I am afraid I must oppose my colleague's amendment. I believe that the amendment would basically gut core elements of the Innovation Act protections for small business and leave small businesses exposed. We have discussed the fee-shifting issue, so I want to focus on two other issues: the discovery cost-shifting and the heightened pleading provisions that I think are very important in the bill. First, on pleading requirements, patent assertion entities often sue and do not reveal what patent the defendant is allegedly infringing or how, and that is why the Innovation Act requires greater particularity in pleading. The bill's requirement includes information that the plaintiffs should already have on hand, but the bill specifically provides an exception for information that is not reasonably accessible to the plaintiff. The amendment would eliminate that provision. Relative to discovery, one of the ways that patent entities bully defendants is by driving up the cost of litigation through broad discovery requests. Section 3 of the bill directs the court to limit discovery until claim construction occurs in the routine Markman hearing. That gives defendants a break from costly discovery requests until it is more clear what the claims against them are. Now the bill also says the court shall--that is mandatory--shall require discovery beyond that related to claim construction if it is necessary to ensure a timely resolution of the action. The bill provides the court with discretion to permit discovery to prevent manifest injustice. I believe that the bill before us is a very important element of protecting against abusive litigation, and the amendment would do damage to it. And finally, I would just associate myself with the chairman's comments on fee-shifting.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. Earlier in the debate, I jumped ahead of myself and addressed the issue of pleadings and discovery costs during the Watt amendment about fee shifting. So I will focus on fee shifting now. The provision in the bill is absolutely right on. I oppose the English rule generally, but we have created dozens of times instances where the losing party can pay--let me just read the language: The courts will shift the costs and fees to a non- prevailing party unless the party's position is reasonably justified in fact or law or the fee award would cause economic harm. The discretion is still with the judicial officer to avoid harm. In terms of what should be in the bill, I mentioned at the outset that I don't believe this bill is perfect. If it were up to me, the bill would also exempt PTO user-fees from sequestration; it would clarify the scope of prior art and the grace period; it would allow the PTO to continue using its BRI standard in post-grant and inter partes review. I hope that the Senate will address those issues. Certainly, the amendment by Mr. Watt and Mr. Conyers does not. It pains me when I have to disagree with my ranking member, who I admire so very much, but I do disagree with this amendment. I think it will absolutely gut the bill. I intend to vote against it, and I hope that others join me.