Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague Representative Mike Honda to recognize the 150th Anniversary of San Jose High School. It is not often that we get to honor an institution established during the Civil War; one that has witnessed our country's greatest triumphs, and withstood our greatest challenges. Founded in 1863, San Jose High is the seconded oldest public high school in California. With humble origins in the second-story room above Orbon's flour store, it has been destroyed by earthquake, rebuilt and relocated many times, but San Jose High has persisted. When it arrived at its current location in 1952, the original building was selected by the New York City Museum of Modern Art as one of the forty-three outstanding buildings of the postwar period. Although it is responsible for the education of a number of successful Alum, San Jose High has the rare distinction of having educated four members of Congress: the Honorable John Anderson; former Secretary of Transportation, the Honorable Norman Mineta; our colleague Representative Mike Honda; and my predecessor, the Honorable Don Edwards. San Jose High has a history of establishing forward thinking and unique educational programs. In 1985 it began offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma, a qualification widely recognized by the world's leading universities. The program's challenging and rigorous course work attracts students from all over Santa Clara County. Not one to rest on its laurels, in 2007 San Jose High created a specialized engineering program to encourage students to enter STEM fields and prepare them for their continuing education. The curriculum includes courses on Engineering Design, Digital Electronics and Biotechnical Engineering. Coupled with the state-of-the-art Career Technology Engineering Building, opened in 2010, San Jose High is ensuring that its students are prepared for a 21st century economy. We wish to congratulate San Jose High School on its 150th anniversary, and commend its faculty and staff, both current and former, for their hard work and dedication in educating the children of San Jose.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we end this Republican government shutdown and stop holding the economy hostage.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as my friend and colleague Representative Swalwell has pointed out, the government shutdown is causing serious damage to our country. The shutdown is putting Americans out of work and hurting the economy--not only the jobs of Federal employees, but the thousands of small businesses who provide goods and services to the government and to government employees who are not spending money that they no longer are getting in paychecks. This harm is being felt across the country by millions of people. The closures impact thousands of important programs and services. We know parks are closed, stopping travel plans. We know that the Small Business Administration is not lending to the tune of a billion dollars a month. Federal business statistics are not being released, leaving us essentially flying blind when it comes to how the economy is doing. Army Corps of Engineers projects are halted. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is not reviewing products to keep us safe. The VA is not able to decide claims from veterans. We saw the horrifying news earlier this week that death benefits for members of our armed services and their families were impacted. Meals for seniors are not being served, and children are being thrown out of Head Start. These are real issues. The economy is being held hostage. But what we want to talk about this evening is not just those impacts that have been so well covered in the press, but how our economy's future is being held hostage by this government shutdown and by a lack of funding for science. We were very proud in the San Francisco Bay area that we had three Nobel laureates just this week--Stanford's Michael Levitt and Thomas Sudhof and UC Berkeley's Randy Schekman--for terrific success. They were funded not through the labs but through the National Institutes of Health. However, it is worth noting that this government shutdown is resulting in the furlough of 13,000 researchers. It is blocking hundreds of projects. The amazing thing to me was that their partner, James Rothman of Yale, who shared in the Nobel Prize, because of budget cuts and sequester, the research that actually got him the Nobel Prize was cut. Because of the sequester, the funding was cut for the research that got him the Nobel Prize. So there is an issue here not just on the shutdown holding the economy hostage, but also the underlying poor funding. But let's talk just a minute about the national labs. A lot of people don't really know what the labs are. Those of us who are close to them do. They were founded in 1943, and they were really meant to address the need to mobilize the Nation's scientific assets to support the war effort. Subsequent to that, they were utilized to bring the smartest people in the country together to focus on things that would keep us safe. As a matter of fact, they have helped keep us quite prosperous. Out of the lab have come things such as optical digital recording technology that is behind all music video and data storage, communications and observations satellites, advanced batteries now used in electric cars, supercomputers that as a society we would be lost without. So much from the national labs. But one of the things that I think is enormously important and, unfortunately, has not received the kind of publicity it should have is the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. At 5:51 a.m. on September 29, there was a leap forward in the fusion experiment underway at that national lab. That Saturday shot was the latest in a series of carefully designed and incremental ignition experiments that have increased the yield. But here is the interesting thing. For the portion of the target, the 192 lasers that went into that target, there was more energy coming out than was put into the target. That has never happened before. So this is not the end of the quest to finish that science, but it is a major, major step forward. It is something that is actually threatened by this government shutdown. I just received a copy of a notice that is going out to Lawrence Livermore tomorrow, and here is what it says, from the management at the lab to all the scientists: This is to remind you that beginning today, October 11, the lab will begin shutting down normal operations. Only essential functions necessary to assure safety and security will be ongoing. The lab is shutting down. The employees are furloughed, as we have just gotten the most important step forward on this most important experiment going on in the United States. How can that be possibly be good for the United States of America? Of course, Lawrence Livermore is not the only national lab that is adversely impacted. Just up the road from my home in Santa Clara County, we have the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory, with their fabulous Linac Coherent Light Source. It is the world's most powerful x ray laser. Its focused beam, which arrives in staccato bursts a few quadrillionths of a second long, is allowing researchers to probe complex ultrasmall structures and freeze atomic motions. They will be able to see what is going on at a molecular level in real-time. What is happening at the Stanford lab? The same cutbacks that are afflicting the Lawrence Livermore lab. Look at some of the things that are coming out of these fine science facilities, like the wonderful corkscrewing lasers that can be the key to unlimited bandwidth that was recently devised at the Stanford Linear Accelerator, and the national lab at Livermore that has developed a safe and versatile material known as DNA Tagged Reagents for Aerosol Experiments. It is going to be a critical tool for protecting the United States. All of these things are at risk. And for what? For a stupid, foolish partisan fight. We could change this this evening, tomorrow morning. All we need is to have a bill on the floor to vote to reopen this government and to allow these scientists to continue to move forward to change the world and to create a brilliant future for our economy and for our safety and security. So I thank my colleague, Representative Swalwell, who does such an excellent job of representing the two labs in his district, as well as all the other constituents who are so proud of him here in his service in the Congress and for standing up for them--not just for their jobs, but for America's future.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues Rep. Anna Eshoo, Rep. Sam Farr, Rep. John Garamendi, Rep. Michael Honda, Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep. Jerry McNerney, and Rep. George Miller, to express our most sincere appreciation to Habitat for Humanity and the Carter Work Project. For 30 years, former President Jimmy Carter and Mrs. Rosalynn Carter have spent a week a year on a building project with Habitat for Humanity. Their annual commitment to Habitat is called the Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project and brings attention to Habitat's work across the globe and in our local communities. This year the Carters are in Oakland and San Jose for the 30th annual event. President Carter first became involved with Habitat for Humanity in 1984 when he used his carpentry expertise to help renovate an apartment building in New York City. Ever since, President Carter and Mrs. Carter have been building homes every year with Habitat. The Carters have built homes in New York, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Miami, D.C., South Dakota, Southern California, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and now in California. The Carters have also helped build homes abroad in Mexico, Canada, Hungary, Philippines, Korea, South Africa, India, Thailand, China, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Haiti. The housing market in the San Francisco Bay Area continues to be among the least affordable in the United States. Less than half of families in the area can afford to buy a home and for low-income families it is nearly impossible. There is a strong need and demand for affordable housing in the Bay Area and the lack of affordable housing is damaging our communities. Our community needs strong solutions to this crisis. Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley has helped revitalize neighborhoods, build sustainable housing solutions, and assist families in becoming successful homeowners. Since 1986, Habitat has helped strengthen communities and empowered over 360 low-income families in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties. Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley deals with the challenge of affordable housing by using volunteer labor and donated funds and materials to build affordable homes for families in need. These families contribute ``sweat equity'' by contributing hundreds of hours of labor in building their own homes. Habitat for Humanity helps build communities by strengthening neighborhood ties. Habitat recruits volunteers to help build its homes, with nearly 60,000 volunteers having contributed over one million hours to help build homes in the East Bay and Silicon Valley. These community-built homes are also sustainable and environmentally friendly. Habitat uses green design by taking into account energy efficiency, smart use of building materials, and water usage to better protect the environment and Habitat homeowners. Over 60 green homes have been built in the Bay Area using these environmentally-conscious building principles. We thank President and Mrs. Carter and Habitat for Humanity for this important work. We hope their legacy of public service will serve as an inspiration to others to support and serve their communities.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor at Oak Hill Cemetery's Memorial Day event on May 27th to listen to Lt. Col. Sean Day's speech celebrating and honoring the memories of Americans who have died defending freedom. I would like to honor his words which are so meaningful. ``The Living Memorial'' Prepared Remarks: City of San Jose Memorial Day Observance, Oak Hill Cemetery, San Jose, CA, 1100 27 May 2013 Lt. Col Sean N. Day, USMCR Commanding Officer, 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment Mayor Reed, Supervisor Cortese, Congressman Honda, Congresswoman Lofgren, Vice Admiral Zukunft, Major General Regua, other distinguished guests, friends and fellow Americans. Thank you for the opportunity to be a small part of your celebration of the lives and sacrifices of our most honored citizens. It is with profound humility that I am speaking with you on this sacred day, on this hour and in this place. Now, if you would indulge me for a moment-- Do we have any veterans from the War in Vietnam in the audience? It's with deep appreciation that if you have never heard it, or even if you have been told a thousand times, to the veterans of the War in Vietnam, we are so very proud of you and welcome home. Now, I am keenly aware that as the final speaker of the day, I am all that stands between you and cookouts and the first game of the Bay Area brawl between the Giants and the A's. So, in the few minutes that we'll spend together this afternoon I won't talk about the great sales at Valley Fair Mall or the day off so many are enjoying. I won't speak of bands or bugles, or even the stone and marble monuments raised in memory of the sacrifices given by our most honored citizens. But instead, my brief comments will center on ``The Living Memorial.'' In every age, just as during the Vietnam War era, those who are willing to face down shot and shell are few. During the Revolution, only a few answered the call for help that rang out at the Rude Bridge in Concord. Many heard the call, had more pressing priorities and moved on with their lives. A few answered, and some who did gave the last full measure of devotion to enable the beginning of the Republic that we love so dearly. And right down through the years, it has been the same. Many hear, few answer and a portion of those who do, consecrate our nation's highest ideals with their lives. On battlefields long forgotten, or for the mass of our fellow citizens not known or even cared about, this story of self- sacrifice, complete devotion and fidelity to the best and highest of ourselves, plays out again, and again and again. The many war veterans in the audience, from World War II right up to the ones of today, can tell you what it is like to hear an unremitting drumbeat demanding sacrifice. They can remember in jungle monsoons or savage desert sandstorms, seeing the very best our country can produce step forward. And then watching those same brave brothers in arms, friends and comrades fall to the violence of the cruel enemy. All the while, hearing that same drumbeat, demand more and more sacrifice. How many friends have we held as their finals breaths slipped away? How many times have we seen flag-draped transfer cases placed on aircraft; How many times have we stood at memorials in hot, dirty, dusty places; And how many times have we been asked by parents and family members what the last days of their loves ones were like. Everyone here knows the answer--far too many times. So many of our friends are no longer here to teach their sons to throw a baseball, escort their daughters to quinceaneras, or to guide their parents into old age. We, who have born the battle, must give voice to our fallen comrades. They stood for all Americans when it counted most. So, we must stand tall today and everyday--because they cannot. As witnesses to the most profound human tragedies, our charge now is to ensure their memories are not forgotten. But even more importantly--that the ideals of the great republic they gave their very lives to protect--live on and are strengthened. It is our sacred obligation to represent those whose lives were so cruelly ended; to be their ``Living Memorial.'' One of our most distinguished countrymen, Oliver Wendell Holmes, not only served as a Supreme Court Judge for the great state of Maine, and on the Supreme Court of the United States, but he was also a wartime and combat veteran. Serving as an infantryman during the Civil War, Justice Holmes offered a poignant reminder to all of us. . . ``We have shared the incommunicable experience of war, we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top. In our youth our hearts were touched with fire.'' And we stand in constant memory of our fallen brothers. It is worth remembering that those brave Americans who fell threw the torch of freedom to those in the next generation, who would take it up and shield it. Each successive generation of patriots serves as a ``Living Memorial'' to those who gave all in the preceding age. And a few in this generation have caught that same torch of freedom. When tyranny and terror have attacked the torch and caused its flame to flicker, a few have protected it from the violence of the enemy. They have given their blood and lives to shield it, and in so doing had their own lives extinguished so that the light of liberty would continue to shine. They have done so in the ancient Mesopotamian cities of Baghdad, Al Kut and Hillah in Iraq. From Afghanistan's desert plains of the Helmand province to its wispy heights of the Hindu Kush, where air to breathe is hard to come by, but enemy bombs, bullets and attacks are easy to find. The honor roll of names who have given the last full measure is not nearly as popular or as well-known as the latest winner of American Idol, the results of the NFL draft or the latest cover story in People magazine. And because of this, it is up to us to carry their lives, loves and memories forward to serve as their ``Living Memorial.'' For those esteemed fallen patriots are the precious few who were willing to step forward for all of America. The story of their lives and commitment answers the ancient question, ``Who will go for us and who will we send.'' They answered the question through their actions; stepping forward for all of us. The scriptures say, ``A man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his brother.'' What they showed may have been patriotism, may have been devotion, and it certainly was sacrifice--but what we know is that they gave their all, and in so doing, showed all of us today that those who will follow, love in its most basic form. A love for our country, our families--yours and mine, and our way of life; one that exceeded the love they had even for themselves. And as we look out across the years, and think of faraway places, our deep and humble appreciation is with those whose love exceeded all bounds. So what to make of this devotion, belief and sacrifice? One of our very distinguished Americans, Eleanor Roosevelt, witnessed some of the most significant events in our country's proud history. She carried in her wallet this poem to remind her daily of the sacrifices of our most esteemed citizens and it reads: ``Dear Lord, Lest I continue My complacent way, Help me to remember that somewhere, Somehow out there A man died for me today. As long as there be war, I then must Ask and answer Am I worth dying for?'' Eleanor Roosevelt understood deeply that she was a ``Living Memorial,'' for those who enabled her to do all the wonderful things she did for our great country. She understood the deep debt of gratitude owed to those who ``gave their today to ensure our tomorrow.'' She understood that her life personally, and our nation's way of life, was a ``Living Memorial'' to those who gave all. So, I leave you with this. Today is not a day for mourning. It is, of course, a remembrance for what has been lost--the finest our country has produced from across the ages. However, this day is more than that, it is a celebration. A celebration of our national heritage, a celebration of the very best our country represents. We ought not lament the loss of our true champions. Instead, cherish the thought that such very fine Americans lived, such fine Americans sacrificed for your family and mine--such American gave all. Our challenge is to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain. Your presence in this place, at this hour indicates that you probably don't need to hear this message. However, many of our countrymen do need to hear it. So as you leave here today, each of you has a mission. Carry forth the memory of those who gave all they had to give for the finest ideals of our country and of all humanity. Carry forth the memory of our honored dead. Remind others that our champions were not victims, but Americans who made our way as a people possible. They carved the path that brought freedom from the yoke of distant tyranny, they served as the guarantors of independence, they made the proclamation of emancipation real. And they ensured that liberty remained a reality rather than a mere idea, a word on a page, or a hope for dream. I ask each of you to resolve to live in such a way as to carry on the work of the fallen. To make our great country better each day, and in doing so to serve as ``Living Memorials,'' to our most honored citizens. Thank you for taking the time out today to be part of this celebration. God Bless America and Semper Fidelis.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1897, the Vietnam Human Rights Act. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation, and I thank my colleague Mr. Smith for introducing it. This bill would prohibit any increase in U.S. non-humanitarian assistance to Vietnam until substantial progress has been made with regard to political and religious freedom for the citizens of Vietnam. The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that Vietnam should be designated as a Country of Particular Concern for religious freedom, and that the government does not meet the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking. In addition, the bill urges the Secretary of State to strongly oppose Vietnam's candidacy for membership on the United Nations Human Rights Council. I strongly support this bill. Vietnam's record on human rights is appalling. The government in Vietnam continues to repress its citizens, including peaceful democracy activists, bloggers, and religious minorities. Reporters Without Borders ranks Vietnam as 172nd of 179 countries, only two places above China, and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has once again identified Vietnam as a ``Tier 1 Country of Particular Concern,'' grouping it with nations such as North Korea, Burma, and Iran. The Vietnamese government has clearly indicated by its actions that it lacks a meaningful commitment to reform. This Congress needs to send a message to the government that the status quo is unacceptable, and if the Vietnamese government wants to continue to engage with the United States, these violations must end. I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Why? Because it restates current law, and current law has been interpreted by the administration in a way that is, frankly, contrary to the intent of the crafters of the PATRIOT Act. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act says that you can obtain information that is relevant to a national security investigation. Now, what has happened since Congress enacted that provision? It is a low bar, but under the NSA's interpretation, it is no bar at all. Because, as has been widely reported, they are collecting the information about every phone call made by every American. Clearly, that is not relevant to a terrorist investigation. I think it is important to note that business records that are the subject of 215 include a lot of sensitive information. What are business records? phone records? Internet records? credit card records? medical records? Are these things that we would voluntarily give up to the government? No. They are incredibly sensitive, and that's why they are being sought. I do think it is important to note that the amendment that will follow after this one doesn't end the ability of the government to pursue terrorism. We are all for that. It merely requires that the government adhere to the law, which requires that there be relevance to a terrorist investigation. I certainly do not challenge the motivation of the gentleman who has offered this amendment, but I do think if you think that this provides a remedy, then you are wrong. This provides a fig leaf. We should vote against it, and I hope that we will move on to the Amash amendment and solve the problem today.

Ms. LOFGREN. I want to talk about the much ballyhooed oversight. Every year, there is a report to the Judiciary Committee, an annual report, on section 215. This year, the report was eight sentences--less than a full page. To think that the Congress has substantial oversight of this program is simply incorrect. I cannot match Mr. Sensenbrenner's brilliant remarks; but I do agree that when we wrote the PATRIOT Act relevance had a meaning. Madam Chair, I submit for the Record a letter to Mr. Sensenbrenner from the Department of Justice, which basically says, because 300 inquiries were made, the records of every single American became relevant. That's a joke. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, July 16, 2013. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General date June 6, 2013, regarding the ``business records'' provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861, enacted as section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. As you know, on June 5, 2013, the media reported the unauthorized disclosure of a classified judicial order issued under this provision that has been used to support a sensitive intelligence collection program. Under this program, which has been briefed to Congress and repeatedly authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) obtains authorization to collect telephony metadata, including the telephone numbers dialed and the date, time and duration of calls, from certain telecommunications service providers. The National Security Agency (NSA), in turn, archives and analyzes this information under carefully controlled circumstances and provides leads to the FBI or others in the Intelligence Community for counterterrorism purposes. Aspects of this program remain classified, and there are limits to what can be said about it in an unclassified letter. Department of Justice and Intelligence Community staff are available to provide you a briefing on the program at your request. In your letter, you asked whether this intelligence collection program is consistent with the requirements of section 215 and the limits of that authority. Under section 215, the Director of the FBI may apply to the FISC for an order directing the production of any tangible things, including business records, for investigations to protect against international terrorism. To issue such an order, the FISC must determine that (1) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation, other than a threat assessment; (2) the investigation is being conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333; and (3) if a U.S. person is the subject of the investigation, the investigation is not being conducted solely upon the basis of First Amendment protected activities. In addition, the FISC may only require the production of items that can be obtained with a grand jury subpoena or any other court order directing the production of records or tangible things. Finally, the program must, of course, comport with the Constitution. The telephony metadata program satisfies each of these requirements. The lawfulness of the telephony metadata collection program has repeatedly been affirmed by the FISC. In the years since its inception, multiple FISC judges have granted 90-day extensions of the program after concluding that it meets all applicable legal requirements. Of particular significance to your question is the relevance to an authorized international terrorism investigation of the telephony metadata collected through this program. First, it is critical to understand the program in the context of the restrictions imposed by the court. Those restrictions strictly limit the extent to which the data is reviewed by the government. In particular, the FISC allows the data to be queried for intelligence purposes only when there is reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that a particular query term, such as a telephone number, is associated with a specific foreign terrorist organization that was previously identified to and approved by the court. NSA has reported that in 2012, fewer than 300 unique identifiers were used to query the data after meeting this standard. This means that only a very small fraction of the records is ever reviewed by any person, and only specially cleared counterterrorism personnel specifically trained in the court-approved procedures can access the records to conduct queries. The information generated in response to these limited queries is not only relevant to authorized investigations of international terrorism, but may be especially significant in helping the government identify and disrupt terrorist plots. The large volume of telephony metadata is relevant to FBI investigations into specific foreign terrorist organizations because the intelligence tools that NSA uses to identify the existence of potential terrorist communications within the data require collecting and storing large volumes of the metadata to enable later analysis. If not collected and held by NSA, the metadata may not continue to be available for the period that NSA has deemed necessary for national security purposes because it need not be retained by telecommunications service providers. Moreover, unless the data is aggregated by NSA, it may not be possible to identify telephony metadata records that cross different telecommunications networks. The bulk collection of telephony metadata--i.e. the collection of a large volume and high percentage of information about unrelated communications--is therefore necessary to identify the much smaller subset of terrorist- related telephony metadata records contained within the data. It also allows NSA to make connections related to terrorist activities over time and can assist counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, including persons and activities inside the United States. Because the telephony metadata must be available in bulk to allow NSA to identify the records of terrorist communications, there are ``reasonable grounds to believe'' that the data is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism, as section 215 requires, even though most of the records in the dataset are not associated with terrorist activity. The program is consistent with the Constitution as well as with the statute. As noted above, the only type of information acquired under the program is telephony metadata, not the content of any communications, not the identity, address or financial information of any party to the communication, and not geolocational information. Under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to this kind of information that individuals have already provided to third- party businesses, and such information therefore is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. See Smith v. Maryland, 442

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the outstanding work of Mr. Jamie Fleet as Democratic Staff Director for the Committee on House Administration as he departs the House of Representatives next week for service in the U.S. Senate. During his tenure at the Committee, Jamie has used his wide-ranging skills to steadfastly guide the operations of the House with an eye on history while embracing the evolving operations of the House required in the 21st century. Jamie helped oversee the expansion of House technology options for personal and committee offices and a needed upgrade to the House's information security infrastructure. Whether the matter involved contested federal elections or contested parking spots, Jamie has worked to solve the multi-faceted issues facing the House with an informed touch. And, he has done so in a way that brought bipartisan applause while never losing sight of his commitment to the values of the Democratic Party. For that, Jamie has earned the respect of Members and staff on both sides of the aisle, as well as the officers of this House, for his fair approach to managing this often partisan institution. Mr. Speaker, I can say that Jamie has proven to be one of the most competent staffers I have had the privilege of working with during my more than twenty years working and serving in the House of Representatives. On behalf of my colleagues on the Committee on House Administration and in the House of Representatives, I thank Jamie for his dedicated and loyal service to this institution and wish him well in all his future endeavors.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. I wonder if the gentlelady has additional speakers, because I would reserve. We have no additional speakers at this time, and if she has additional speakers, she can call them, then we will both wrap up.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a nurse and valued member of our delegation.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), a former prosecutor and valued Member of our Congress.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee from New York, an excellent lawyer and a new Member of the House, Representative Hakeem Jeffries.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a leader for women's health.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a much-valued member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlelady from California, Congresswoman Judy Chu.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Deutch of Florida.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the Democratic leader, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, from California.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, before yielding to the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, I would just like to note that we do not need to change the law. Dr. Gosnell was convicted and he's doing two life sentences in prison for murder under current law. I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think this is, in many ways, a very sad day for this House. As we know, last week there was an uproar in the country relative to a statement that few women become pregnant from rape. That, of course, is not correct. There's no science to support that. And of course, this week, we have a bill that's been altered to add a very limited exception for rape and incest that would be available only if the victim has reported the crime to the authorities. And of course, as our last speaker has indicated, this actually makes the situation for the victim of violence, a victim of rape more onerous than for the perpetrators of the violence, something that I think is really quite wrong. The bill attacks the rights of women, guaranteed by our Constitution, to seek a safe, legal procedure when they need it. I have two children. I was thrilled when I became pregnant. Most women are thrilled and look forward to a safe childbirth. But for some, pregnancy can be dangerous, and the restrictions that are imposed in this bill that do not have adequate health exceptions can endanger these women. At the subcommittee, we heard from a witness, a professor at George Washington University, Ms. Christy Zink, about her story. She courageously told her story of seeking abortion care after her much- wanted pregnancy was diagnosed with severe fetal anomalies at the 21st week; in fact, an anomaly that would mean that the much-wanted child would not survive and that, in fact, her health could be compromised had she proceeded. Under this bill, she would not have the opportunity to preserve her own health. She would be required to carry a nonviable fetus to term, and I just think that's wrong. I don't think that's something that the country is asking the Congress to do. The idea that the exception for incest only applies to those under 18 is another mystery. If a girl is molested and raped by her father at age 18, is she less worthy of the protection of her health and the right to get abortion care than her sister at age 17? I think not. It simply makes no sense at all for that provision. I'd like to comment also briefly on the repeated discussion of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. He is a monster. There's no one that I have heard in this Congress or in this country who defends what Dr. Gosnell did. In fact, he's in prison, serving a double life sentence for murder. What he did was illegal, in addition to being abhorrent in every way. We don't need to change the law to put someone like Dr. Gosnell behind bars. In fact, he's behind bars right now. I think that the use of this case as a rationale for denying American women health care that they may need is terribly wrong. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. I rise in opposition to this bill. This will be the 10th vote we've had to restrict women's access to health care since Republicans took control of the House in 2011, and there are plenty of other things we should be doing. The bill imposes a nationwide 20-week abortion ban. It's unconstitutional, but it's also dangerous to the health and safety of American women. The narrow health exception in the bill only allows for abortions that are necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. It's shortsighted at best and cruel at worst. Many things can go wrong in pregnancy, and this bill would force a doctor to wait until a woman's condition was life-threatening before performing an abortion. Nonlife-threatening conditions couldn't be treated if this bill were law, which could result in permanent health problems for some women, including infertility. Severe or fatal conditions may also arise with a fetus later in pregnancy and, if enacted into law, this bill would require some women to carry a fetus to term, even in the situation where that fetus has been diagnosed with a lethal medical condition, a heartbreaking scenario. The rape and incest exceptions are insulting and excessively narrow. The rape and incest exceptions that were added to the bill after the committee's markup are just incredibly disappointing. They require reporting the crime to law enforcement prior to seeking care. It shows a distrust of women and a lack of understanding of the reality of sexual assault. Only 35 percent of women report sexual assaults, and there are many reasons for that that are complex, including fear of reprisal--78 percent of rape victims know their offender--shame, wanting to put the incident behind them. Also, this bill is unconstitutional. It's a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, where the Court held that, prior to viability, abortions may be banned only if there are meaningful exceptions to protect the woman's life and health. For over four decades these principles have been upheld, and this bill blatantly disregards them. Finally, I want to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It's an attack on women's health, on our constitutional freedoms, and it seeks to take important medical decisions out of the hands of women, their doctors and their families and instead entrust those decisions to Congress. It's a misguided effort. I oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.