Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 6 weeks ago the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act of 2003, which was written and offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). This bill provides for the expedited special election of new Members of Congress to fill seats left vacant in extraordinary circumstances. Under this bill, when such extraordinary circumstances occur, a special election must be called within 45 days. This bill was an important first step in addressing how the House continues to function in the event of a catastrophe, and that is why I voted in support of the bill. I would note that outside scholars have questioned whether or not the Federal Government has the jurisdiction to impose this scheme on the States. I do not argue that today, but I think to some extent there is an open question as to that. There is also a more fundamental issue which may be partially addressed today, and that is what happens in the 45 days between a disaster that could eliminate the House of Representatives and the holding of these special elections. In the 45 days following September 11, the House of Representatives cast 69 votes. Some of them were very important measures that helped us respond to the terrorism event. If there is no House of Representatives, there can be no Congress, and if there is no Congress to play its role in the constitutional scheme, the only thing that could happen in such a circumstance would be for the President to assume dictatorial powers and to end our system of constitutional government, an outcome that no one in this House or in this country wishes. Under H.R. 2844, the House of Representatives would have no way to function for a month and a half; and without the House, there is no Congress. Several Members have introduced constitutional amendments that would address this problem. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has offered an amendment which we are just about to vote on today. I have also introduced a constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 96, which takes a different approach from the Baird proposal; and our colleagues, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), have done similar things. This whole issue is very complex, and it may be that none of the amendments are quite ready for our approval, but they certainly do command our attention. All deserve to be debated by Members of Congress, yet I believe that the House would be best served if the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on the Judiciary, were to have hearings to sort through the complexities of this issue and then be able to present our findings to the full House for consideration. However, during the 108th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary has not had a hearing on this issue to compare the various proposals and to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each. In fact, I have requested a hearing. I did so during the markup of the Baird amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary, but none have been held. Today, some may point out that there was a hearing on the constitutional amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) in the 107th Congress. That is true, but the amendment on today's agenda is significantly different from the Baird amendment considered 2 years ago. This is a new amendment that was first introduced last December. A distinguished commission that included former Speakers Foley and Gingrich, as well as Lloyd Cutler and former Senator Alan Simpson, studied this matter at some length and reached the conclusion that we need a constitutional amendment. I am not suggesting that we should simply accept their recommendations, but at the very least we should consider and evaluate their findings before we cast a vote that will define the stability or instability of the country in the event of a national crisis. Unfortunately, the Committee on the Judiciary has not had a single hearing on any of these amendments, so we will not have the benefit today of hearing from the scholars, former speakers and other distinguished leaders on this complex issue. And now the leaders of the whole House are making the same error as the Committee on the Judiciary. They have scheduled a vote on an amendment that will decide the fate of our Congress during a catastrophe without first holding hearings to address the merits of the Baird approach and all of the others proposed by various leaders on the continuity of Congress. Let me repeat. Today we are being asked to vote on an amendment to the United States Constitution, but we have not had even one hearing on the amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary in this Congress. It is not often that the Committee on the Judiciary marks up a constitutional amendment to the full House before holding a hearing. Consider, for example, the constitutional amendment to protect the rights of crime victims. That particular amendment was introduced in the 108th, 107th, 106th, 105th and 104th Congress, and on each occasion prior to markup there were Judiciary Committee hearings. Also, consider the committee's treatment of a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning. A proposal on this issue was introduced in the 108th, 106th, 105th and 104th Congress, and each time the Committee on the Judiciary undertook hearings. Finally, in the 105th and 104th Congress, a constitutional amendment was introduced to limit the Federal Government's ability to raise taxes, and hearings were permitted on each occasion. The majority has already seen fit to schedule a series of five judiciary hearings over the course of several months to discuss the issue of same-sex marriage and a potential constitutional amendment. It only makes sense that this House should not vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution before the Committee on the Judiciary holds at least one hearing. This issue of the continuity of Congress should not be an exception. It is vitally important to our democracy and requires more deliberation. Today, like I did in the Committee on the Judiciary 1 month ago, I will not vote to support the Baird amendment; but I will vote on a motion to recommit so that the Committee on the Judiciary will have a chance to appropriately hold hearings and review various approaches to this vital issue to our democracy. Some will reach a reasoned, but different, conclusion relative to the Baird amendment itself; but I think all will agree this body would be better served with extensive hearings on this complicated and enormously important subject. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work done by the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Missouri on this legislation. There are some important pieces to this bill, equipment for our troops and the like. There are matters of concern, for example, the new nuclear program that I have opposition to. But there is an obscure provision of the bill that I want to make sure Members know about and that is section 1404 which would require U.S. companies to get a license before they export any goods listed on the military critical technologies list. According to a copy of the list I found on the Department of Defense Technical Information Center Web site, that includes computers that exceed 1,500 MTOPS. That would be considered military critical. So under this bill, computers, laptops, Sony PlayStations that exceed 1,500 MTOPS would require an export license. That would be to export it anywhere. If you want to sell a Sony PlayStation to Europe, to England, you would need a Defense Department export license. I think that that is a problem. The outdated metric of 190,000 MTOPS needs to be changed, but to go down to 1,500 MTOPS as a metric is literally the stone age of computing. I believe that if there are specific military critical technologies that are not sufficiently controlled under existing export regulations, say, night vision or surveillance devices, then let us draft something that controls those technologies. But to say that we cannot sell a laptop to somebody in London, that the Ipods cannot be exported to France, that the Sony PlayStations cannot be sold to Japan, I think is a mistake. I know that this is about war. I did not know it was about war on the American economy.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the effect of this bill, if it were to become law, would be to stall enforcement of workplace safety measures. It is a back-handed attempt to weaken OSHA's enforcement and standards-setting efforts. It would require the American taxpayer to pick up the entire tab if a company successfully challenged even one of the citations that OSHA gave, regardless of whether OSHA's actions were substantially justified. It is important to note that current law already allows companies to receive payment if the government's position had no substantial justification. Think of it this way: If you had 50 citations and one of the 50 was found wanting, the costs would be shifted over to OSHA, and so we would be punishing the government every time it loses even a small part of an overall enforcement effort. This will deter the agency from enforcing the law. What is next? Are we going to pay a criminal defendant's legal costs every time there is an acquittal? I know of no other agency that is punished for failing to guarantee the outcome of its good-faith attempts to enforce the law. OSHA's mission is to protect the safety and health of American workers. We should not tie its hands and drain its resources as H.R. 2731 does. I recall several years ago there was a ballot measure in California to severely impair the ability of California OSHA to enforce California OSHA regulations. After a very short while, do my colleagues know who the biggest opponent was of that measure to hurt Cal/OSHA? It was the Chamber of Commerce in California because they figured out we will pay more in insurance costs than we will save on compliance costs. It is a mistake for workers and it is a mistake for business to impair OSHA enforcement of safety acts. I urge colleagues to think carefully about this ill-advised scheme and vote ``no'' on H.R. 2731.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, over 100 Members of Congress work together in the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus to promote Asian Pacific American issues and concerns, led by my long-time friend and colleague, Congress Mike Honda. Today and throughout the month of May, we celebrate the many contributions Asian Pacific Americans have made to the fabric of our communities and to this Nation as a whole. In this Congress, there are five Asian Pacific Americans serving our Nation and their communities as members of the House of Representatives and two Asian Pacific Americans serving in the Senate. In the field of science and technology, Asian Pacific Americans have long contributed to our country, from Ellison Onizuka, the first Asian- American in space, to Flossi Wong-Staal and Dr. David D. Ho, for their work on HIV and AIDS. Moreover, several Asian Pacific Americans have received Nobel Prizes for their accomplishments in science and technology. Hundreds of thousands of Asian Pacific Americans have also loyally served our Nation in the military willing to give their life for the United States of America. Asian Pacific American veterans of the Armed Forces number 284,000. In sports, Asian Pacific Americans have helped bring home Olympic gold medals for the United States, including the first woman to win gold medals in the ten and three meter diving events--Filipina American Victoria Manalo Draves. Although it is important for us to celebrate Asian Pacific American heritage this month, we must not forget the plight that Asian Pacific Americans endure despite the community's many accomplishments. The pitfalls of immigration law and the backlog of immigration applications continue to prevent many Asian pacific American families from reuniting for several years. We must also not forget the APA community suffers from greater poverty than non-Hispanic Whites, especially in the Hmong, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese American communities. We must work to ensure that Asian Pacific Americans are appropriately counted when our government collects date that will be used to understand the needs of the APA community. We must make every effort to invite Asian Pacific Americans to participate in government to ensure that our government meets the needs of the APA community. In commemoration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, I honor the contributions of millions of Asian Pacific Americans who have contributed to our Nation and who I am sure will continue to contribute in the future. But while I celebrate this month, I also renew my pledge to address the issues affecting Asian Pacific Americans around the country.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, during the month of May, we celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage to commemorate the contributions Asian Pacific Americans have made to the fabric of our communities and to this nation as a whole. I could easily spend this month, and longer, describing the tremendous accomplishments of Asian Pacific Americans. However, today is the tenth anniversary of Vietnam Human Rights Day and we sadly must recognize that Vietnam has not come far enough in respecting the human rights of its citizens. Just one month ago, on Easter Week, Human Rights Watch reported that peaceful protests by indigenous minority Christian Montagnards turned violent when police used tear gas, electric truncheons, and water cannons on protestors. Reports indicate that police arrested several individuals, many whose whereabouts are currently unknown. Worse yet are reports of torture, police beatings, and deaths associated with this crackdown on the Montagnards. Today, my colleagues, Congressman Chris Smith, Tom Davis, Loretta Sanchez and I are introducing a Congressional resolution recognizing the countless number of innocent Vietnamese ``who have been tortured, imprisoned, or held under house arrest by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.'' Also today, Congressman Smith is leading an effort, with over 100 cosponsors, to pass House Concurrent Resolution 378 to call on Vietnam to immediately release Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly and condemn the ``violations of freedom of speech, religion, movement, association, and the lack of due process afforded to individuals in Vietnam.'' Ten years ago, the Congress and the Senate passed a resolution designating today, May 11th, as Vietnam Human Rights Day, recognizing that ``the United States, as the leader of the free world, has a special responsibility to safeguard freedom and promote the protection of human rights throughout the world.'' Unfortunately, President Bush and his Administration have not heeded that responsibility to safeguard human rights. Although this Administration tells me they are ``deeply troubled by the restrictions that the government of Vietnam places on its citizens' freedom of expression, as well as other human rights,'' this Administration has been initiating a new friendly relationship with the communist regime in Vietnam without demanding protection of human rights as a condition of our friendship. The Bush Administration's hypocrisy and apathetic attitude towards human rights is unacceptable. As long as the people of Vietnam are oppressed, abused, and imprisoned, our President should first demand protection of human rights before getting friendly with a communist regime that oppresses its people. On this 10th Anniversary of Vietnam Human Rights Day, I urge our President to condemn the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for violating human rights and I call on the Vietnamese government to protect the human rights of its citizens.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Anthony C. Bennetti is retiring from the Santa Clara Valley Water District as General Counsel to the Board of Directors. During his service, he played an important role in resolving legal issues with the California State Water Project and the Central Valley Project. During his tenure, he helped to secure needed financing for the capital expansion of water utility infrastructure for Santa Clara County. Prior to his service with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Mr. Bennetti served as Acting City Attorney and Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City of Palo Alto, California, and Senior Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Jose, California. In all, he has contributed over 24 years of public service to the State of California. The community thanks him for his years of service and congratulates him and the Water District upon his retirement.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life and service of Pat Tillman who was killed in action in Afghanistan last week. Originally from San Jose, Pat Tillman lived a life that exuded courage, loyalty and hard work. On the football field, Pat was a shining star. Though undersized at his position, Pat always excelled. After starring in football at Leland High School, Pat went on to play football at Arizona State University. As a 5-foot-10, 180-pound linebacker at Arizona State University, Pat was named Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year, a tremendous honor for an athlete who succeeded on brains and heart. Though proud of his award, he was even prouder of his educational accomplishments. Pat earned a degree in marketing in just 3\1/2\ years and maintained a 3.84 GPA. The Arizona Cardinals selected Pat in the final round of the 1998 NFL draft. Pat responded by engaging in a rigorous exercise program and adding 20 pounds of muscle to his already solid frame. Pat spurned his critics and became a starter during his first NFL season. In 2000, the St. Louis Rams tried to sign him to a $9 million offer sheet and out of loyalty, Pat turned it down to stay in Phoenix for less money. It was Pat's deep loyalty that drove him to do the unthinkable. Following the horrific attacks of 9/11, Pat, returning from a honeymoon announced that he was leaving the NFL to join the Army Rangers. To enlist, Pat left behind his new bride Marie and a $3.6 million contract from the Arizona Cardinals. Mr. Speaker, Pat Tillman was never about the money or the bright light of fame. He was a man who cared more about others more than he cared about himself. Pat's physical strength and talents were only overshadowed by his love for country and personal integrity. I have no doubts that when Pat Tillman died, he did so trying to protect his fellow soldiers. Mr. Speaker, Pat Tillman was a giant. He was given a golden egg in the NFL and he sacrificed it for a uniform and a flag. It is most appropriate at this time that we honor him. Pat was and will forever remain a true hero. He upheld a standard of patriotism and courage that we should all strive to achieve. On behalf of the citizens of San Jose, I wish to express my deepest sympathies to Pat's wife Marie, his father Patrick Sr., his mother Mary and his two brothers Kevin and Richard and the entire Tillman family.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There has been a lot of serious discussion here on the floor today, and I think some wonderful things have been said, but a few things that have come to my mind in listening to them. Certainly Madison's wonderful discussion about the elected nature of this body is important to all of us, but also we must recall those words were said at a time when the United States Senate was totally appointed. Now, of course, the Senate is elected, but not a one of us would argue, I think, that Senator Murkowski is not a real Senator. She is. And just as would the temporary House Members be, if the worst-case disaster came and all the House Members were killed, if we had temporaries until an accelerated election system allowed for replacement by elected people. I worried on September 11 that if the terrorists really understood our system of government, they would know that the easiest way to turn the American democracy into a dictatorship would be to kill the Members of the House, because that is our weak link in terms of our American democracy. I think if we can provide for the continuity of the legislative branch of government, we will do a wonderful thing for our country, because we will preserve the American democracy, and we will do something else: We will make the legislative branch safer from attack. If terrorists cannot destroy the American democracy by killing the Members of the House, it is a lot more less attractive to kill the Members of the House. I would like to say something else. We have talked about the dictatorship that would be necessary if Congress could not function. There is another aspect, which is the element of the confidence of the people in the legislative branch. For example, and I mentioned this at the Committee on Rules hearing last night, how would the American people feel if the terrorists went out to the Republican Conference retreat and they killed all the Republican Members, and only the House Democrats were left? Would that feel comfortable for the country as a whole, for a country that is almost evenly divided in terms of party representation? I think not. What if all the Members on the east coast were killed, and only the west coast Members survived to run the country? Would that really lead to confidence on the part of the American people? We need to make sure that this branch of government survives on a temporary basis while these accelerated elections can be held. I personally think that the 45 days may be a bit too aggressive. I know my own State of California has suggested a slightly longer time frame to actually hold an election that will work. And I know that there will be an amendment offered to extend the amount of time by a small amount that hopefully might gain some favor from Members on both sides of the aisle. But I do think whatever we do with the accelerated election bill before us today, we will have let down our country if we do not address the constitutional issues required to really save the American democracy from the worst case that the terrorists might throw out. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think there is broad agreement in this House, more than one might know from listening to the debate, that we all value an elected House of Representatives, but we are talking about a worst-case scenario here. The chairman mentioned what if we had appointed Senators and appointed House Members and an appointed President. That would surely be a catastrophic event that would yield that situation where no one who was elected was left living to run the American Government. In that case I would argue it would be better to have appointed people rather than a single appointed person to run the government, because the issue really is between dictatorship and a tripartite form of government between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches. The chairman asks what is our alternative to his bill for expedited elections? And I would ask what is the alternative for the 45 days that leaves a vacancy, a void that the adoption of this bill would provide? I worry that we have not begun the work on this constitutional amendment. I introduced a constitutional amendment in December of 2001 contemplating a worst case. It may be that that amendment needs additional work. Frankly, I think it does. But that work needs to be in a bipartisan effort in the Committee on the Judiciary and later here on the floor. I would urge we begin that as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on the Judiciary favorably reported H.R. 2844, but we actually had a rather narrow jurisdiction on this bill. In fact, our review was limited to the review by the three-judge panel of the announcement by the Speaker that a sufficient number of vacancies existed to trigger the special election requirements of the bill. I think that actually skirts the more fundamental question that faces us as an institution. As we know, the Constitution, through its 17th Amendment, permits State Governors to appoint Senators to vacant seats, but there is no comparable provision for the prompt replacement of the Members of the House of Representatives. In fact, Article I, Section 2, Clause 4 of the Constitution requires the executive authority of the State in which a vacancy occurs in the House to order a special election to fill the vacancy. And the bill before us accelerates the time in which an election would be held. The bill itself, I think, does raise some questions. We have concerns about whether the fine history of voter protection would be, in terms of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, could be fully adhered to in the time frame outlined in the bill. Further, we worry whether the preclearance requirements outlined in section 5 of the Voting Rights Act could be met in the time frame outlined in the bill before us. However, there is a more fundamental issue, which is what happens, should this bill become law, in the 45 days between a disaster that eliminates the House of Representatives and the holding of an election. Now, I have heard and I agree with Members who have quoted our Founding Fathers with some affection about the need to have this body be the people's House. It is this body where every one of us who serves walks through this door knowing that we have been elected, selected by the voters of our respective districts. That is unique and important in our system of government. But there is another fundamental and important aspect to our system of government, and that is the necessity of checks and balances. When we think back to 9/11 and that great tragedy that befell our country, we are well aware that action was required by the Congress in the 45 days that followed that attack on the United States. We needed to implement the War Powers Act. Only Congress can appropriate funds. And if we do not have a House of Representatives, we do not have a Congress; and if we do not have a Congress, whoever is the chief executive, when a disaster of the magnitude that eliminates the House occurs, must of necessity assume dictatorial powers in contradiction of the Constitution. And I think that specter of dictatorial powers contradicting the checks and balances needs to be weighed when we consider replacing the election on a temporary, short-term basis, perhaps even just a few weeks, 45 days, so that we would have a functioning Congress in the event of a disaster. To do that we need to have a constitutional amendment, and I am hopeful that we will be about soon, the consideration of the constitutional amendments that have been so far introduced. And, frankly, I have authored one of them. I think it is a starting point. There are others. This is a complex issue, and none of the amendments, I think, are quite ready for our approval, but they do command our attention. I would note that the Continuity of Government Commission, which was a joint project of the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institute, sort of the odd fellows of political institutes, came up with the conclusion that it was a constitutional amendment that was required to address mass vacancies in the Congress. When Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, Lloyd Cutler and Alan Simpson, Newt Gingrich and Tom Foley can agree on that, I am hopeful that in the end all of us will reach that same conclusion. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today on his birthday, we recognize the courageous leadership of Cesar Chavez, a man who inspired hope, pride, and strength and provided a voice for thousands of farm workers across California and the entire country. My district encompasses San Jose, home to Cesar Chavez for many years. It is in San Jose that Chavez began to fulfill his dream of empowering farm workers to demand basic human rights and protections from the abuses of farm owners. Chavez experienced employer abuses firsthand and saw it happen to thousands of farm workers from childhood through his adult years. And it was he who courageously organized his fellow workers to believe in their own dignity and power to gain equal rights, fair pay, and decent working conditions. So on this day, I honor the memory of Cesar Chavez. I congratulate his wonderful family who still lives in San Jose. We all know that he is the symbol of inspiration to many, especially the children. May the legacy of this great leader, Cesar Chavez, live on; and may we always remember his phrase to all of us, ``Si se puede.''

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, ``Catering to the Religious Right,'' that is the tagline the editors at the San Jose Mercury News used to introduce its March 15 editorial and cartoon regarding President Bush's science policy. The editorial outlined the Bush administration's distortion and censorship of scientific research. On global warming, stem cell research, drinking water and air, women's health, the Bush administration has overlooked proven scientific data to placate big business or the religious right. The Mercury News serves the largest media market in Northern California and is read by millions of people around the world, and I thought that the Members of the House should also see this editorial which was to become part of my ``Dear Colleague'' letter last week. Unbelievably, the Republican staff of the Committee on House Administration vetoed the letter as too political. They came to this conclusion without consulting the Democratic staff. Readers of a newspaper of general circulation can read the truth, but not the elected Members of the House of Representatives. Should we be surprised? Republicans in the White House are censoring scientists; apparently the Republican majority in this House is following that pattern. Republicans may be able to stop me from sending a letter, but they cannot stop me from speaking on the floor.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Congressional Record the attached editorial by the San Jose Mercury News dated March 15, 2004 as an extension of my remarks earlier today. [From the San Jose Mercury News, Mar. 15, 2004] Bush Manipulates Science Data to Pursue His Ideological Goals STEM CELLS, WOMEN'S HEALTH, WEAPONS, WATER, AGRICULTURE--THE LIST GOES

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and commend Grant Mitchell Armstrong on his retirement that celebrates a career spanning 34 years of steadfastly guarding the ideals of criminal justice at the County of Santa Clara's Office of the Public Defender. With Mr. Armstrong's assistance, the Santa Clara County Office of the Public Defender was awarded the National Defender Leadership Institute's prestigious Gideon Award of Excellence for 2003. The Office was specifically recognized in areas of accountability, cost- efficiency, innovation and effective representation of clients, and was cited as a ``Best Practices'' model for public defender offices nationwide. Mr. Armstrong played a key role in the recruitment and training of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural cadre of attorneys within the Office. In May of 2000, the Office of the Public Defender was awarded the County Executive's Unity in Diversity Achievement Award for the significant staff diversity the Office achieved. While less than 15 percent of the lawyers in California are Black, Hispanic or Asian, 35 percent of the lawyers in the Office are minority group members and 45 percent are women. Mr. Armstrong also played a vital role in the Juvenile Drug Treatment Court through his leadership roles with the Mentoring Program that pairs young participants with adults committed to the development of healthy, drug-free lifestyles. I am proud and grateful to thank Grant Mitchell Armstrong for his significant contributions to our criminal justice system.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, cooperative research among private, public, and nonprofit entities has become a common feature of modern research and development. Many technology start-ups in my home in Silicon Valley rely on university-based researchers to support their basic R&D programs, and the result of these collaborations benefit both the economy and consumers. However, as has been mentioned by other Members, since the Federal Circuit decision in OddzON Products v. Just Toys, collaboration has become too risky. The OddzON decision created an environment where an otherwise patentable invention can be rendered nonpatentable on the basis of information routinely exchanged between research partners. Collaborative research is absolutely vital to our economy. A 1988 report by the National Science Foundation found that nonprofits and universities spent a record $23.8 billion on research and development, the majority of which came from collaborations. Congress needs to act to ensure that our patent laws provide the proper incentives for private, public, and nonprofit entities to work together to make all our futures brighter, and I am happy to say that the CREATE Act that is before us today does that. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member, for their hard work on this bill. I support it, and I urge all Members to support it as well. We often come on the House floor and engage in debates on things that divide us which, when all is said and done, will not necessarily be very important to the American economy or the American public. This is an item that may be a little bit of a sleeper. I do not see a cast of thousands here on the House floor, and yet passing this bill will be very important for the economy of our Nation and for the advance of science, and it is something we can do together proudly and serve our country quite well. I am happy to be involved in this effort.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the San Jose, CA Earthquakes for defeating the Chicago, IL Fire 4-2 on November 23, 2003 to win the 2003 Major League Soccer (MLS) Cup. It was eight years ago that San Jose became the proud home of the MLS Earthquakes. In those short years, we have watched with excitement as the Earthquakes have become repeat champions and helped increase the popularity of soccer in our community and throughout the world. The Earthquakes have many truly talented players. California native Landon Donovan for example is a two-time U.S. National Team Player of the Year and scored two goals in the championship game to earn him the MSL Cup Most Valuable Player Award. Even with individuals like Landon playing for the Earthquakes, their success has come, not as individuals but rather as a team. It was as a team that the Earthquakes overcame injuries, critics and goal deficits throughout their 14-7-9 regular season and it was as a team that they became Major League Soccer's very best. Since coming to San Jose, the Earthquake's have represented our city with dignity. Mr. Speaker, the San Jose Earthquakes are the standard to which all MLS teams should be compared. Their commitment to our community, the sport of soccer and to achieving excellence runs much further than any soccer field. Their success and good works are a staple in our city. For these reasons and many others, it is most appropriate that we congratulate the 2003 MLS Cup winning San Jose Earthquakes today.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee and the chairman. Yes, it is true that we have been objecting to the diversion of fees from the Patent and Trademark Office for some time. In fact, since 1962 some $6 million has been diverted from the PTO and put to other uses; and according to the Patent Public Advisory Committee, this has created a crisis at the PTO. There is inadequate funding, and there is also a significant increase in patent and trademark applications. The diversion of fees is not the cause of the problems in the Patent Office. It is the cause of the inability to deal with the problem in the Patent Office. We know that we have to spend more to implement the plan that Jim Rogan, our prior colleague, headed up when he was at the Patent Office. We need to upgrade the computer system so we have a priority search that really is worthy of our country. We know that the amount of time that each patent examiner has to examine a patent is insufficient. It is impossible to do the kind of job that we want them to do and they want to do in the time available. Because of the problems in the act and the diversion of fees, I think we have had some problems with some of the patents that have been generated in recent times. There have been substantial questions generated about some of them. We hear a lot about the business methods patents, but it is not just about those patents; and it is important that we do not grant a patent that cannot withstand a court challenge. It is costly and wastes valuable resources; but more importantly, it grants unwarranted rights of exclusivity that deter otherwise lawful activity and impedes competition and innovation. Furthermore, the pendency for patents is now averaging 24.7 months, which is an unbelievable delay. When we think about the pace of technological change that a patent should on average take, 24.7 months is really not a good thing for the innovation high-tech economy. To quote a former First Lady, those of us on the Committee on the Judiciary believe we should just say no to patent fee diversion. Patentors and inventors do not object to being taxed on their income just the way other Americans are taxed on their income but to divert patent fees to general purposes is basically a tax on innovation, a special tax on innovation. That is something that we should object to. I believe that the bill before us with the compromises that have been made is one that I can support. I think in the end it will well serve our country. It will well serve our economy. Because as someone from Silicon Valley, I know as well as anyone that it is innovation that really grows the American economy and by making the Patent Office better, by precluding the diversion of fees, we will help that innovation economy. I would note further that in all of my dealings with innovators in Silicon Valley and really around the country, not one has objected to the increase in fees. Not a single one. What they object to is the diversion of fees. I recommend this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned, on February of 1942, then-President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order which authorized the Secretary of War to define military areas in which ``the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions'' are deemed ``necessary'' or ``desirable.'' By the spring of 1942, California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona were designated as military areas. And in May, Japanese Americans were ordered to ``close their affairs promptly and make their own arrangements for disposal of personal and real property.'' Official government fliers were posted around California instructing families to report to 12 assembly centers including the Tanforan Racetrack for San Francisco Japanese Americans to the Santa Anita Racetrack for Japanese Americans in the Santa Clara Valley. They could only bring the bare necessities, leaving behind homes, their lives, and most personal belongings. Santa Clara and San Francisco Japanese Americans were forced to live in horse stables for as long as 6 months until a permanent camp was built for them; 110,000 Japanese Americans were evacuated from their homes and incarcerated throughout the duration of the war. By the fall of 1942, most of the Santa Clara Valley Japanese American internees were transported to a camp far away from home, the Heart Mountain Internment Camp Wyoming; and the San Francisco internees were sent to various camps, some as far away as Utah. The horror did not end there. At the end of the war when Japanese Americans were finally released and went home, they found that they had no shelter, no food, money, much less a job. Some returned to find homes looted and destroyed. In my district, the San Jose Buddhist Church offered what it could, shelter and hot meals for most families. And a good piece of news, in Santa Clara County, the family of Bob Peckham, later to become Federal District Court Judge Bob Peckham, had taken title to the property of their Japanese American neighbors, and they were able to preserve much of the property and return it at the end of the internment. All of this happened before I was born, but I remember hearing about it well before it hit the history books because my mother was a young woman in 1942, and she was building airplanes for Douglas Aircraft. My dad was in the Army. And I remember her telling me going past the Tanforan Racetrack and how guilty and ashamed she was and how helpless she felt. She knew that her neighbors had been wrongly locked up in these horse stables. She knew what her government had done was wrong; but as a young girl, she really did not know what to do and how to change that. She was a lifelong Democrat. She cast her first Presidential vote for FDR, but she never agreed with what he did to her neighbors. What has happened since then? We have adopted legislation to rescind. We have the Civil Liberties Act. We have apologies. And that is important to my neighbors and my parents' neighbors who were incarcerated people like Ed Kawazoe and Jimi Yamaichi and Ted and Raiko and certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and Norm Mineta and others; but this resolution is also important because it allows all of the Americans, not just those whose rights were violated but those who were on the outside, to reflect and to understand that an apology can be given, a country can improve, and we will never allow such a thing to happen again.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, on its face, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act appears to be a tool to prevent assault against pregnant women and nonconsensual termination of pregnancy. Upon closer examination, it is obvious that the purpose of the bill is to conflict with the core principles of Roe v. Wade. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act focuses on, legally recognizes a fetus, an embryo, a blastocyst, a fertilized egg as a person with rights and interests separate from and equal to those of the woman. Today I offer a substitute that my colleagues and I hope can unify Members on both sides of the debate over choice to achieve a very important goal, the deterrence and punishment of violent acts against pregnant women. According to the purported goals of H.R. 1997, that is our common ground, but it is clear that the purpose of H.R. 1997 is not actually to achieve the purported common goal of protecting pregnant women from assault. If that were the case, we would all vote today for the Lofgren substitute and begin to ensure that women across the country are safe from violence. The Lofgren substitute does not threaten Roe v. Wade, but instead creates a new separate offense for any violent or assaultive conduct against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy. The substitute provides that any termination in the pregnancy is punishable by a fine and imprisonment of up to 20 years, and if the pregnancy is terminated, even if unintentionally, the assailant can be sentenced to life in prison. These penalties are even tougher than those provided for in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Those of us who have experienced a miscarriage understand a very essential truth: The loss is something you never forget. Whether the woman is 6 weeks pregnant or 6 months pregnant, the loss is acutely felt by that woman, and it deserves the full penalty that the law can provide. Penalties under H.R. 1997, however, vary depending upon the underlying crime resulting in inconsistent penalties for the same horrific crime. In fact, under H.R. 1997, if a postal worker was assaulted and there is a resulting injury to her pregnancy, there is only a maximum penalty of 3 years; but if the same assault happened to another Federal employee, her assailant could get up to 8 years in prison under H.R. 1997. Why should the penalty for injury to one pregnant woman over another depend upon where she works? It defies logic and reason. Unlike the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Lofgren substitute has tough, consistent penalties for the same horrific crime, regardless of irrelevant circumstances like the place of employment. A loss or injury to a pregnancy is the same loss to a woman no matter where she works. Mr. Speaker, advocates for H.R. 1997 say their bill is about protecting women from violence. In fact, the bill ignores women. H.R. 1997 does not address the woman nor the assault committed against her. Under H.R. 1997, there is a possibility that the crime against the woman could go unpunished because there is no conviction requirement for the underlying crime. How can the other side say they are preventing crime against pregnant women when you ignore her and the crime against her? Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the Lofgren substitute does not needlessly interject the abortion debate and exploit what is concededly a matter of a pregnant woman's right to a safe, healthy and free from horrific acts of violence pregnancy. Although many have said that the underlying bill has nothing to do with abortion, I think it is important to look at what some of the proponents of the antichoice movement have said about the bill, and I would like to quote Samuel Casey, the executive director of the Christian Legal Society, who said last year, ``In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person. That sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of development deserve protection, even protection that would trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy.'' Joe Cook, vice president of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, said last year, ``We have to approach this in a way that is doable, a step at a time. This bill is aimed at establishing that a fetus in utero is a human being and has human rights.'' Finally, Senator Orrin Hatch said last year, ``They say it undermines abortion rights; it does, but that is irrelevant.'' Irrelevant perhaps in the other body, but not to me. Mr. Speaker, I support legislation that has the goal of protecting a pregnant woman from violence. I cannot do so through legislation that would also undermine other extremely important rights of women, like the right to choose. That is antithetical to the protection and safety of women. I hope we can come together on this substitute. Last Congress there were a number of antichoice Members of the House that voted for the substitute, understanding that the penalties are more severe and would provide more complete protection for women. I urge those individuals to do so again to show this country that Congress is serious about protecting pregnant women from violence. We have in this country and in this House strong disagreement about who gets to decide whether a pregnancy will be brought to term or not, the Congress or the woman. That debate is going to go on for a long time, but it does not have to be part of this discussion. We can come together to protect women against violence without having the argument about abortion involved in that effort. I hope that we can come together to embrace common ground on what I think could be a moment of triumph for this Congress and for the American people in standing against violence against women. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains?

Ms. LOFGREN. Do I have the right to close, Mr. Speaker?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would note that on line 6 on page 1 of the amendment, it notes that whoever engages in any violent or assaultive conduct against a pregnant woman resulting in the conviction of the person so engaging does not include an abortion that is legal because of Roe v. Wade. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).