Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. I will be brief. I just want to point out that the executive order itself indicates that only actions that would not be unduly burdensome should be engaged in. And the true scope of this amendment is really quite broad and adverse to the enforcement of the law. If you are ICE and you have people in custody, those people in custody may not be speaking English, and you may need to be able to communicate with them in a language other than English. The broad scope of this amendment could interfere with that. I would like to note, also, as to the FEMA issue that my colleague from California referred to, we think of DHS as immigration. My colleague from Iowa has mentioned that frequently in our committee. But the Department of Homeland Security is very broad. This could be the Coast Guard dealing with sailors in the Caribbean Sea, either people they believe are out to do mischief or people who are in distress who may not speak English. This could be storm warnings, as has been mentioned. There are parts of Florida where Spanish is spoken. Certainly in Puerto Rico, Spanish is spoken and hurricanes come. You want to alert the entire population in a way that they can understand that danger is on its way. I think this repeal of this executive order, which goes back almost 12 years and through many administrations, is ill-advised. It will make the country less safe, and certainly it is an amendment that we should not support. With that, I thank the gentleman.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that reassurance. And thank you, Mr. Visclosky.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give special thanks to Mr. Visclosky and his staff, as well as Congressman Dicks and his staff, for their tremendous support for fusion energy in this bill. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, since the need for a national ignition facility was first established in the 1990s, the project had a mandate of supporting nuclear weapons science expertise required for stewardship of our Nation's stockpile and the development of fusion power. Basic science research has always been a central mission of NIF. In the 1997 Facility Use Plan for NIF, the Statement of Mission projected that the uses of the facility fall into five major areas: one, ignition physics; two, weapons physics; three, weapons effects; four, inertial fusion energy; and, five, basic science and technology. I want to affirm with you that the mission of NIF has not changed and that inertial fusion energy and basic science research, as well as stockpile stewardship, will continue to be vigorously pursued at NIF.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Before today, every VAWA bill we've considered over the last 20 years had three things in common: they've all been bipartisan, they've all been written in consultation with the advocates and service providers on the front lines against domestic violence, and they've all increased protections for victims of domestic violence. This bill, even as amended, shares none of those attributes. It actually reduces protections that exist in current law for victims of domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault. It was developed without any support or consultation from the minority or from the domestic violence advocates. And it is not bipartisan. Now, the bill's opposed by every leading domestic violence organization. It's opposed by the National Association of Evangelicals and the Willow Creek Church, the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, all the leading women's groups. It's opposed by law enforcement officials with years of experience fighting domestic violence. It's opposed by tribal authorities, immigration advocates, LGBT groups. The list goes on and on. So the question really is this: If everyone from the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood to the National Association of Evangelicals and the Catholic Church have extreme concerns about this bill, who thinks this is a step in the right direction? And as far as I can tell, the only groups who openly support the bill and the amendments are groups like SAVE and A Voice for Men, who align themselves, not with battered women, but with the men who abuse them. I will insert into the Record an article from Leith Anderson, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and Lynne Hybels, the co-founder of the Willlow Creek Community Church. This is what they say: Nicole came to the U.S. from Indonesia on a temporary fiancee visa, expecting to enjoy life as a spouse. Instead was trafficked. They oppose the bill. [From CNN, May 16, 2012] Protect Immigrant Women From Violence (By Leith Anderson and Lynne Hybels) Nicole came to the United States from Indonesia on a temporary fiancee visa, fully expecting that she would enjoy life in a new country with the U.S. citizen she intended to marry. Instead, she found herself trapped as a victim of sex trafficking. Nicole (not her real name), like thousands of other women, was forced to engage in commercial sex acts against her will. We heard about her when she received support from the Salvation Army STOP-IT Program in Illinois, which serves victims who have been harmed by the sex trade. (The Salvation Army is a denominational member of the National Association of Evangelicals.) Eventually, Nicole escaped from her trafficker and assisted law enforcement in the prosecution of the crime committed against her. Though Nicole's fiancee visa had lapsed, leaving her susceptible to deportation, our nation's anti-trafficking law provided a legal option for her to be granted permanent legal status by helping law enforcement to prosecute her trafficker. With the help of a nonprofit legal service provider and the Salvation Army, Nicole was able to petition on her own for legal status--and obtain it--through a special ``U'' visa for immigrant victims of crime, allowing her to get back on her feet and begin rebuilding her life. This week the House of Representatives is considering a proposal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, first enacted in 1994, but in a new version that would significantly undermine the same U visa program that provided Nicole with safety and permanency in the United States. The U.S. government estimates that as many as 17,500 foreign-born victims are illegally trafficked in from abroad each year, and academic estimates suggest that at least 100,000 victims of human trafficking live in the United States today. By force, fraud or coercion, traffickers keep victims enslaved in prostitution or forced labor. If the House proposal is enacted, thousands like Nicole could remain enslaved, too afraid to speak out because some of their most effective safeguards will have disappeared. The proposal introduced by Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Florida, would dramatically roll back important protections for battered immigrant women and their children. It could face a vote Wednesday afternoon. Several provisions would leave immigrant victims of human trafficking and domestic abuse no legal way to break the cycle of violence in which they are trapped. Specifically, this version would remove the incentive of permanent safe haven in the United States for women who help bring abusers to justice. By changing the U visa from permanent to temporary, the bill could validate an abuser's threat that a call to police could result in deportation. Many women would keep quiet rather than risk immigration consequences. The bill would also allow abusive partners in domestic violence cases to provide input as to whether their victim should qualify for immigration relief, stripping confidentiality provisions that currently protect victims. Abusive spouses, who are in a position to petition to adjust the status of their immigrant wives through marriage, can choose not to do so as a tool of abuse and fear. Abusers frequently deny guilt and falsely accuse victims of fraud or abuse. We don't want a bill that endangers some of the women and children it purports to help. Overall, this bill's proposed changes to current law would discourage immigrant victims from escaping abuse and reporting crimes, and make all of us less safe. Women--and, often, their children--come to our churches for sanctuary and hope. We believe Adams' proposal would put more lives in danger. It would perpetuate abusers' use of immigration status as part of the cycle of exploitation. As evangelical Christians, we are committed to Jesus' great commandment to love God and to love our neighbor, with a particular concern for those who are most vulnerable. Through local churches and ministries, we extend that love when we provide counseling and support for victims of human trafficking and domestic violence. In doing so, we point to the ultimate healing and restoration that we believe is found only in Jesus. We also love our neighbor by speaking up when laws are proposed that could cause harm, intentionally or not. Loving our neighbor not only means reaching out to those in need, but also means addressing systemic problems that harm those in need. That's why we're asking Speaker John Boehner and the House leadership to make sure that the Violence Against Women Act continues to protect vulnerable immigrant women who are victims of human trafficking or domestic violence. They need our protection.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I think sometimes it's helpful to get into the nitty-gritty of legislation. This bill changes the law that exists today and reduces protection for immigrant women in key ways. Let me just talk about one of the ways. If you are an immigrant temporarily here, or even without your documents, and you are a victim of domestic violence and the police want to keep you here because you're a witness or they need your help in a prosecution, the police can obtain what is called a U visa so you get to stay here. That's in the current law. It was bipartisan. It was done in the year 2000. This bill changes that in important ways. Under current law, if you are a U visa holder, you have the possibility of applying for a permanent visa. Why is that important? Because otherwise, if you come forward to cooperate with the police, you could be voluntarily deporting yourself and be separated from your children, and that is a deterrent to people coming forward to work with the police. That's why it was crafted the way it was. Even under the manager's amendment, there is a diminution of that possibility, and it would lead to absurd results. I'll give you an example. Under the manager's amendment, you can only apply for the residence if your abuser had been deported to the country where you are from. So a U visa is for 4 years. If your abuser is serving a 5-year sentence, you have to be deported, and then your abuser will come after you the next year. It's a stupid provision, unfortunately. I can't believe that that's the intended result. I know Mrs. Adams is sincere, but that's what is in the bill. And that's why people object to the bill--that, among many other provisions that will endanger women and take us back from where we were. I think that when you take a look at not just the groups that support the Senate bill instead of this, but the groups that support this bill, who embrace abusers, you know where you need to stand--and that's not with this bill, despite the sincerity of the author.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I firmly believe that we need to make college more affordable. We should not double interest rates after we worked so hard to keep them down while the Democrats controlled Congress. However, by funding the interest rate extension with cuts to the Prevention and Public Health Fund, the Republicans are expanding a war on students into a war on women and a war on health. As my colleague from California, Lois Capps noted, this fund supports critical women's health screenings--600,000 screenings will be cut with the repeal of this fund. This is essential to women's health. Moreover, the fund targets widespread chronic diseases like diabetes, stroke, and heart disease. The fund ensures that our children have access to necessary vaccines, and supports programs to prevent birth defects and screen for autism. Students and their families do not need to be asked to choose between preventive health and affordable schooling. I call on the Republicans who set the agenda to get serious and work on solving this problem in a sensible, bipartisan way.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Congressman Mike Honda, to acknowledge and honor Dr. Terry Christensen upon his retirement from San Jose State University. Terry has been a Professor of Political Science at San Jose State University (SJSU) since 1970. He received his B.A. at Stanford University and his PhD in Political Science at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is a specialist on state and local politics and the media frequently call on him for analysis of politics in California and Silicon Valley. Having served on numerous civic committee and commissions, he created and currently directs the political science department's internship program. He is the SJSU Coordinator for the Sacramento Semester Intern Program, the Panetta Congressional Internship Program, and the SJSU Poli Sci Congressional Internship Program. Terry works hard to give back to his students and stimulate interest in government. In 1998, Terry was named San Jose State University's Outstanding Professor. The 2006 Political Science Class recognized him as Professor of the Year. He is a prolific writer and students regard him as a legend at SJSU. He served for 2.5 years as founding Executive Director of CommUniverCity San Jose, which is a partnership among the City of San Jose, SJSU, and the Five Wounds and Brookwood Terrace neighborhoods. CommUniverCity San Jose seeks to empower students and residents and to build community by organizing service-learning projects that address education, community health and improvements to the neighborhood environment. In order to preserve Terry's legacy, San Jose State University is creating a scholarship program in his name. We hereby honor Terry Christensen, on the special occasion of his retirement and wish him all the best in the years to come. We commend Terry for his valuable service to our community and wish him the best in his future endeavors. We are very fortunate to have benefited from his compassion, expertise, and commitment. He has left his mark in San Jose State University and the larger community.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3992. Introduced by my friend and colleague from California, Howard Berman, this bipartisan bill will allow Israeli nationals who want to make substantial investments and create jobs in the United States to obtain E 2 ``treaty investor'' visas, if the Government of Israel extends an equivalent status to U.S. citizens. An E 2 visa is a temporary, nonimmigrant visa that permits foreign investors to temporarily live and work in the U.S. if they make a substantial investment in an enterprise in the United States. Nationals of 79 countries are now eligible for E 2 visa status, including almost all of the United States' allies and trading partners. Yet Israel, one of our closest and dearest allies, is not on the list. Since April 3, 1954, Israel has been eligible for E 1 visas through the E 1 ``treaty trader'' program, which makes temporary visas available to employees of firms engaged in substantial trade between our two countries. These visas helped increase trade between our two nations, which saw trade exceeding $36 billion in 2009. In 2009, Israel was the company to invest cash and inventory into a medical equipment company based in Massachusetts. The E 2 visa program would create an incentive for these investments, and many others. Those investments in the United States will benefit both countries economically, helping to spur economic growth and job creation. And all of this with one of our country's closest and most steadfast allies. This bill is essentially a no-brainer. It is not easy these days to find common ground on immigration issues. Mr. Berman deserves a good deal of credit for finding an area where we can find such common ground and for working with our Republican colleagues to make this a bipartisan bill. I want to extend my thanks to him for identifying this deficiency in our current immigration law, crafting a smart solution and then marshaling broad support for its adoption. Our country will be more prosperous, as will Israel, as a result of his efforts. I also thank Chairman Smith and Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their support of this important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the extraneous material is a letter I'm sending to Wells Fargo Bank about Mrs. Darlene Bowland, a 68-year-old mother fighting cancer and Wells Fargo Bank. Darlene lived in a modest home in San Jose for 41 years until she was evicted a week before Thanksgiving. At the time, Darlene was too weak from chemotherapy to pack up her own boxes. We appealed to the bank. They knew about her cancer and her chemotherapy, but they didn't care. She owned her home free and clear at one time but was a victim of a pay loan, a way to confuse her and basically steal her home. Mr. Speaker, Wells Fargo earned record profits last quarter, and in 2010 the CEO, John Stumpf, earned more than $17 million in compensation. This Christmas, Mrs. Bowland will be couch surfing with chemotherapy, while Mr. Stumpf will be enjoying his $17 million salary and her home in San Jose stays vacant. Merry Christmas from Wells Fargo. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 13, 2011. Re Ms. Darlene Bowland Mr. John G. Stumpf, Chief Executive Officer, Wells Fargo, Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA. Dear Mr. Stumpf: Darlene Bowland is a 68-year-old woman fighting cancer and Wells Fargo Bank. She lived alone in a modest home in San Jose, California until she was evicted by Wells Fargo Bank a week before Thanksgiving, even though she had no place else to go. Wells Fargo Bank knew all about Darlene's tragic circumstances, but apparently did not care. Darlene lived in her home for 41 years and at one time owned it free and clear. She and her former husband raised their children there. Although Darlene lost her small cleaning business to the recession a few years ago and now struggles to make ends meet, she was proud of her house. She spent what little energy she had after her cancer treatments tending to her garden. That's where she found some measure of peace. Not anymore. Darlene is just one of many victims of a World Savings loan product called a ``pick-a-pay'' that she was tricked into and could not afford. Make no mistake. Darlene is a victim. Pick- a-pay loans were designed to trap unwary homeowners into owing more than they borrowed, assuring the banks that sold them a captive audience that would need to continually refinance or face foreclosure. These unscrupulous banks and loan brokers used the voluminous, complex and impossible to understand loan documents that make up a pick-a-pay loan to steal Darlene's house in broad daylight. Wells Fargo was able to file an unlawful detainer and get a summary judgment that allowed them to evict Darlene, even though Darlene had sued Wells Fargo claiming she was defrauded. She was too weak from chemotherapy to pack up her own boxes. Wells Fargo earned record profits last quarter. Your 2010 compensation was more than $17 million. Do you know this woman with cancer is now couch-surfing because you've evicted her through foreclosure on her home just before the holidays? Instead of waking up in her house Christmas morning, Darlene's house will instead sit vacant. Sincerely, Zoe Lofgren, Member of Congress.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Here is what Dr. Neal Benowitz, M.D., the chief of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of California, San Francisco, writes: ``While we support restrictions on the sale of these chemicals for purposes of illicit use . . . scheduling so as to impede access to precursor chemicals in small quantities has the potential to seriously hamper medical research. On balance, the faculty are against this measure.'' John Arnold, the faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry, writes: ``This effort is well-intentioned, but it will cause more problems than it solves.'' We are all against drugs that harm our people; but we had no hearings in the Judiciary Committee on this, and I think the placing of these molecules on Schedule I is evidence of that lack of scholarship. These drugs need to be controlled, but they need to be controlled in such a way that there is no harm done to the vital scientific and medical research that we count on. I join the gentleman from Virginia in urging a ``no'' vote on this bill in the hopes that we can come back with a measure that accomplishes the worthy goals without doing damage to scientific research, which will save so many lives.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. We are all opposed to the damage that these drugs can do to the American people, but I have to express my opposition to this bill. My concern about the bill is its effect on scientific research. When a drug is placed on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, it becomes difficult to obtain not only for illegal purposes but for researchers who wish to study its pharmaceutical and medical potential. While this may be justified for some drugs, it isn't a restriction that should be implemented rashly. That's because it becomes very difficult for scientists to get permission to obtain these molecules even for the scientific study that we need. For example, in the United States, only 325 researchers have been able to obtain Schedule I licenses at this moment. Congress established the procedure for scheduling drugs, and it requires a scientific and medical evaluation. This bill would bypass that process rather than relying on scientific and medical experts. I've heard from faculty from a range of universities, and they've shared their concerns about the impact. Here is what Warren Heideman, Ph.D., professor of pharmaceutical sciences and associate dean for Research, School of Pharmacy, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison writes: ``The bill is an irrational, simplistic response to a social problem of great complexity. As such, the world will get significantly less medical and technical help with a low probability of helping anyone with a substance abuse issue. The list is too broad and does seriously restrict what would otherwise be important and easy experiments. Paperwork problems are already a serious campus concern.''

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate World Stroke Day, which was observed on October 29th. Although I was unable to commemorate this day when it occurred, it's never too late to raise awareness about this devastating disease. On average, a stroke occurs every 40 seconds in America, and it's the fourth leading cause of death in our country. A stroke is essentially a ``brain attack'' that occurs when blood flow is interrupted to the brain, either by a blood clot or the breaking of a blood vessel. I urge my colleagues and constituents to learn about the risks and warning signs associated with stroke, and to join me in honoring the seven million stroke survivors, their caregivers and families in recognition of this World Stroke Day.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to the bill. Instead of focusing on jobs and helping middle class families, the Republican leadership is hard at work today creating additional ways in which corporations and special interests can dominate our elections process. Ending the Presidential Election Campaign Fund opens the door for large political spenders to enjoy an even greater role in the funding of political campaigns. The voluntary public finance system for Presidential campaigns was created in the early seventies as a direct result of the corruption of Watergate, the largest political scandal of our generation. Stopping corruption and the appearance of corruption is as important today as it was during the Nixon years. The level of spending by corporations and special interests since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United should give every American reason for concern. Do my Republican colleagues really believe that more corporate and special interest money in politics is going to benefit in any way the 99 percent of Americans who don't have lobbyists? The current public finance system for Presidential elections has problems. Most notably, it has not kept pace with the cost of modern campaigns, so we should fix it instead of eliminating it. And I would note that the Republican National Committee recently received $18 million from the fund, so if the Republicans think it's such a bad idea, perhaps they should ask the RNC to return the money. As for the Election Assistance Commission, the EAC is the only Federal agency focused on improving Federal elections. This was an outgrowth of the disastrous process of the 2000 election. Remember, 100 million votes were cast, but it took a decision of the Supreme Court before a winner was declared. The experience left a black eye on our elections process. It's not something America should go through again. As State and local budgets are cut, the value of this commission is going to grow.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Have there been problems at the EAC? Yes, there have been problems. What should we do about it? We need oversight and reform. We shouldn't just abolish this commission because we are going backwards to the bad old days of inconsistency among voters. I urge my colleagues to focus on the economy, focus on jobs, and don't pass bills that give corporations and special interests even greater influence in our elections.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, this country has needed to eliminate the ``per country'' limits for employment-based immigrants, and increase those for family-based immigrants, for a very long time. Although these are relatively small fixes, and a great deal more needs to be done, these fixes represent a balanced approach to addressing some of the long-standing problems in our broken immigration system. And they are the right thing to do. We all know that our immigration system is severely broken, and it has been broken for decades. At the heart of this broken system are the outdated employment- and family-based immigration systems, which suffer under decades-long backlogs. In combination with the per country limits, these backlogs keep nuclear families apart for decades, while preventing U.S. employers from accessing and retaining the employees they need to stay competitive. H.R. 3012 begins to address these problems by eliminating the employment-based per-country limits and adjusting the family-based per- country limits to make the system fairer for people caught in the backlogs. This is a good step that will lead to more equitable outcomes. But I must note that until we do something about the backlogs themselves, we will continue to have a dysfunctional system. This bill will help certain Indian nationals, who now face a wait of 70 years to get green cards,; But because the bill does not address the scope of the backlogs, it will increase the wait time for many others. Under this bill, everyone seeking an employment-based third preference green card will have to wait 12 years. That may be more equitable, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem. In any event, the bill makes the system fairer, and that is why I support it. I just hope that we can come together, as we have done today, to fix other areas of our immigration law. Hopefully, this type of balanced legislation, in combination with true cooperation across the aisle, can serve as a model for addressing other areas of our broken immigration system. This country desperately needs that we try. I thank the author of the bill, Jason Chaffetz, as well as Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers, for working with me on this bill and addressing some of my concerns. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Major Mathew C. Wenthe and Technical Sergeant Joseph R. Kenney upon their award of the Air Medal with Valor. The Air Medal was established by Executive Order in 1942 to honor any person serving in the Armed Forces who distinguishes him or herself by ``meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight.'' On June 29, 2009, Major Mathew C. Wenthe and Technical Sergeant Joseph R. Kenney conducted multiple urgent medical evacuation missions into the Babaki area of the Helmand Province in Afghanistan. During their flights to the site where a British vehicle was overturned into a canal, their aircraft maneuvered through small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades. Without regard for their own personal safety, Major Wenthe and Technical Sergeant Kenney reengaged the enemy compound from where they had just been attacked. They exhibited bravery by putting themselves in danger to draw enemy fire to protect another aircraft on the ground. It was my honor and privilege to recognize Major Mathew C. Wenthe and Technical Sergeant Joseph R. Kenney at a ceremony while I was home in my district. The outstanding heroism displayed deserves great recognition by the entire United States, the nation they have so selflessly served. Major Mathew C. Wenthe and Technical Sergeant Joseph R. Kenney have the respect and gratitude of all Americans.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Lieutenant Colonel Rhys W. Hunt, 2nd Lieutenant Andrew S. Hedin, and Chief Master Sergeant Jason R. Red upon their award of the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor. The Distinguished Flying Cross is America's oldest military aviation award. In 1926, the 69th Congress established the Distinguished Flying Cross to honor any person serving in the Armed Forces who distinguishes him or herself ``by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.'' On August 9, 2009, Lieutenant Colonel Rhys W. Hunt, 2nd Lieutenant Andrew S. Hedin, and Chief Master Sergeant Jason R. Red participated in a heroic mission near Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan. Colonel Hunt flew the lead aircraft, PEDRO 15, in an effort to save five critically wounded American soldiers from an ongoing firefight. A Navy SEAL Team, call sign JAGUAR 09, was taking heavy fire by a larger force of Taliban fighters. The team, including their five wounded, was holed-up in a walled compound and needed immediate evacuation. Despite the potential of enemy fire, Lieutenant Hedin supervised the loading of four of the wounded before the aircraft cabin ran out of space. Colonel Hunt directed his wingman to begin an approach to load the final patient, but as PEDRO 15 began its climb out of the zone, it came under fire so intense that both Lieutenant Hedin and Colonel Hunt felt the concussion from the blast. Lieutenant Hedin engaged an enemy squad, temporarily suppressing the threat. Chief Red took tactical lead of the aircraft, calling a break in the opposite direction. Putting himself in grave danger, Chief Red then directed the gunnery pattern by positioning himself almost completely out of the aircraft in order to maintain visual contact with the enemy. This allowed Colonel Hunt and Lieutenant Hedin to protect their vulnerable wingman by attacking the enemy squad from multiple directions. The crew's immense bravery and superb airmanship saved the lives of 16 people and two aircraft. It was my honor and privilege to recognize Lieutenant Colonel Rhys W. Hunt, 2nd Lieutenant Andrew S. Hedin, and Chief Master Sergeant Jason R. Red at a ceremony while I was home in my district. The outstanding heroism displayed by these men deserves great recognition by the entire United States, the nation they have so selflessly served. They have the respect and gratitude of all Americans.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Major Thomas W. Keegan upon his award of the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor. The Distinguished Flying Cross is America's oldest military aviation award. In 1926, the 69th Congress established the Distinguished Flying Cross to honor any person serving in the Armed Forces who distinguishes him or herself ``by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.'' On June 29, 2009, Major Keegan led a two-ship formation near Bastion Forward Operating Base in Afghanistan on an urgent medical evacuation into the hostile Helmand Province. The ship formation, call sign Pedro35 flight, had four missions that day, the first and second of which were to a point of injury where a British vehicle had overturned into a canal. While on approach to the site, Major Keegan noted friendly armored personnel carriers firing outbound from his three o'clock position. In response, Major Keegan broke his aircraft through multiple gun patterns directly between the enemy compound and origin of fire and the defenseless aircraft on the ground conducting evacuation operations. Major Keegan's heroism and willingness to highlight himself, aircraft, and crew to draw enemy fire away from the patients and vulnerable aircraft allowed the flight to successful extract a wounded British soldier. Major Keegan's actions directly contributed to the widespread acclaim of the Pedro operation, giving much needed peace of mind to troops conducting ground combat operations. It was my honor and privilege to recognize Major Keegan at a ceremony while I was home in my district. The outstanding heroism displayed deserves great recognition by the entire United States, the nation he has so selflessly served. Major Keegan has the respect and gratitude of all Americans.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Lieutenant Colonel George G. Dona, Major Mary O. Jennings Hegar, Senior Master Sergeant Steve R. Burt, and Technical Sergeant Tiejie A. Jones upon their award of the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor. The Distinguished Flying Cross is America's oldest military aviation award. In 1926, the 69th Congress established the Distinguished Flying Cross to honor any person serving in the Armed Forces who distinguishes him or herself ``by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.'' On July 29, 2009, Lieutenant Colonel George G. Dona, Major Mary O. Jennings Hegar, Senior Master Sergeant Steve R. Burt, and Technical Sergeant Tiejie A. Jones evacuated three United States soldiers injured when their convoy was attacked near Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan. Colonel Dona and Major Hegar were injured when a bullet pierced their aircraft's window, injuring Major Hegar's arm and Colonel Dona's leg. Despite the heavy fire, the pararescue team departed the aircraft to assist with the medical evacuation. However, the aircraft was forced out of the landing zone. After several minutes airborne, Major Hegar and Colonel Dona voluntarily risked their lives to return and rescue their patients and pararescuemen from the ambush. While still under attack, Sergeant Jones assisted with loading the casualties and Sergeant Burt aided the pilots during takeoff to keep the aircraft functional. Due to fuel loss from the number one engine, the crew had to land less than two miles away. Sergeant Burt administered first aid and assisted in the transfer of patients to another aircraft. Their bravery saved three patients and ensured the survival of the crew. It was my honor and privilege to recognize Lieutenant Colonel George G. Dona, Major Mary O. Jennings Hegar, Senior Master Sergeant Steve R. Burt, and Technical Sergeant Tiejie A. Jones at a ceremony while I was home in my district. The outstanding heroism displayed deserves great recognition by the entire United States, the nation they have so selflessly served. Lieutenant Colonel George G. Dona, Major Mary O. Jennings Hegar, Senior Master Sergeant Steve R. Burt, and Technical Sergeant Tiejie A. Jones have the respect and gratitude of all Americans.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Technical Sergeant Luigge Romanillo upon his award of the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor. The Distinguished Flying Cross is America's oldest military aviation award. In 1926, the 69th Congress established the Distinguished Flying Cross to honor any person serving in the Armed Forces who distinguishes him or herself ``by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.'' On May 4, 2010, Sergeant Romanillo flew a high-risk Medical Evacuation mission to extract wounded coalition forces engaged by over one-hundred insurgents near Baghram Airfield in Afghanistan. The confined landing area left the cargo door nearly five feet off the ground as hostile insurgents fired from less than 200 meters away. The aircraft received small arms damage to several control surfaces as Sergeant Romanillo and his teammate stepped off the aircraft toward the patients amid the firefight. Under a storm of enemy bullets, Sergeant Romanillo led his team in recovering the patients. Once in the aircraft, he administered life saving treatment to his patient who had suffered a gunshot wound. The actions of Sergeant Romanillo and his team led to the successful evacuation of two wounded coalition soldiers and repatriation of two killed in action. It was my honor and privilege to recognize Sergeant Romanillo at a ceremony while I was home in my district. The outstanding heroism displayed deserves great recognition by the entire United States, the nation he has so selflessly served. Sergeant Romanillo has the respect and gratitude of all Americans.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Captain Hung D. Nguyen upon his award of the Air Medal with Valor. The Air Medal was established by Executive Order in 1942 to honor any person serving in the Armed Forces who distinguishes him or herself by ``meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight.'' On August 9, 2009, Captain Hung D. Nguyen was copilot on one of the ships sent to recover five Afghan soldiers seriously wounded in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Through intense small arms and rocket propelled grenade fire, Captain Nguyen was able to load four of the five wounded soldiers on his aircraft. Captain Nguyen's calm demeanor and leadership while providing time critical navigation and communications, identifying the landing zone, and directing the pilot to perform evasive maneuvers saved sixteen lives and two aircraft. It was my honor and privilege to recognize Captain Hung D. Nguyen at a ceremony while I was home in my district. The outstanding heroism displayed deserves great recognition by the entire United States, the nation he has so selflessly served. Captain Hung D. Nguyen has the respect and gratitude of all Americans.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Senior Master Sergeant Larry I. Hiyakumoto and Staff Sergeant Joshua M. Webster upon their award of the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor. The Distinguished Flying Cross is America's oldest military aviation award. In 1926, the 69th Congress established the Distinguished Flying Cross to honor any person serving in the Armed Forces who distinguishes him or herself ``by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.'' On June 27, 2010, Senior Master Sergeant Larry I. Hiyakumoto and Staff Sergeant Joshua M. Webster participated in eight non-stop Casualty Evacuation missions near Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. They rescued and treated wounded personnel for nearly seven straight hours. On one mission, Sergeant Webster was hoisted down from the helicopter while Sergeant Hiyakumoto manned the aircraft's machine gun. While braving enemy fire, Sergeant Webster pulled a wounded soldier to safety. Sergeant Hiyakumoto then began to treat the soldier for multiple broken bones and traumatic head injuries. Sergeant Hiyakumoto and Sergeant Webster ultimately saved thirteen United States soldiers and coalition forces. It was my honor and privilege to recognize Senior Master Sergeant Larry I. Hiyakumoto and Staff Sergeant Joshua M. Webster at a ceremony while I was home in my district. The outstanding heroism displayed deserves great recognition by the entire United States, the nation they have so selflessly served. Senior Master Sergeant Larry I. Hiyakumoto and Staff Sergeant Joshua M. Webster have the respect and gratitude of all Americans.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and thank the gentleman from Arizona for his kind comments. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Wireless Tax Fairness Act for three successive Congresses, and I am gratified that it is being considered by the full House here today. Nearly everyone agrees that expanding broadband Internet access and adoption is critical to the economic future of our country. As the FCC put it in the National Broadband Plan, the U.S. must lead the world in broadband innovation and investment and take all appropriate steps to ensure that Americans have access to modern high-performance broadband and the benefits it enables. I introduced the Wireless Tax Fairness Act because discriminatory taxes on wireless services are not consistent with this top national priority. Cell phone bills are on average taxed at a far higher rate than other goods and services. In many jurisdictions, the taxation of wireless approaches or even exceeds the rates of so-called sin taxes on goods like alcohol and tobacco. These disproportionate taxes discourage investment and adoption of wireless services, including advanced wireless broadband. Before he was the President's chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, published a peer-reviewed study finding deadweight losses to society of up to $5 for every $1 in taxes on broadband service, including wireless. Now, these taxes fall particularly hard on working-class and lower- income Americans who are most likely to rely on their cell phone for all of their communications, including access to the Internet. And in fact, the Pew study and the CDC have indicated that usage of cell phones for Internet access among Latinos and African Americans in the United States was far higher than that among other Americans. And so, this regressive tax burden troubles me, especially in these economic times. Now, for 14 years before I was a Member of Congress, I served on the board of supervisors of Santa Clara County. So I really do understand the need of local governments to balance their budgets every year and to get revenue. But this bill would not affect any existing revenues. In fact, it wouldn't prevent raising taxes on all goods. If you're going to have a half-cent sales tax on everything, include wireless. What this would do is prevent you from singling out wireless services for disproportionate taxation. Ultimately, the moratorium for 5 years should yield to modernization of State and local telecommunication taxes. Separate higher taxes on wireless services are an outdated legacy of the days when telephone service was a regulated monopoly. A timeout from discriminatory tax increases will encourage States and localities to focus on enacting reforms that work for all stakeholders. In general, I do believe that State and local governments should have the autonomy to set tax rates as they see fit. And, in fact, during the committee markup we added an amendment that allows voter-approved discriminatory taxes if that's what the voters of a jurisdiction wish to do. But beyond that there are exceptions when Congress recognizes the need to protect in advance a national imperative. And that's one of these instances. As the national broadband plan said, wireless broadband is poised to become a key platform for innovation in the United States over the next decade. We should not let discriminatory taxes on wireless service disrupt this potential. Several years ago, we adopted a prohibition on discriminatory taxes on Internet access. At the time, I don't think we fully realized that wireless was going to be the onramp for so many of our citizens to the Internet. And so we did not include it at that time. This is to correct that omission. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for working with me and all of the 236 cosponsors who are part of this effort.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Filipino American History Month. We have, as a nation, commemorated October as Filipino American History month since 1988. The legislature in my home state of California also recognizes this month. California has long historical ties with Filipino Americans, and our state is home to over half of the Filipino population of the United States. This month is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the rich culture and history of Filipino Americans, who have contributed so much both to California and to the United States. I'm pleased that recently there has been some legislative acknowledgment of their military contributions. Just this month in California, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 199 into law, which would encourage the inclusion of the role of Filipinos in World War II in social studies curricula. Over 250,000 Filipinos fought with the U.S. in World War II. Their valiant service was largely uncompensated and unrecognized until recently. I'm hopeful that my colleagues will take a moment to recognize the Filipino American community. This country is a nation of immigrants, and we are so much richer for the contributions that Americans of every background have made, and will continue to make as we move forward.