Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that just for corrective purposes, the Lofgren substitute does provide for a separate offense, not a sentence enhancement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the substitute that I have offered creates a separate Federal criminal offense for assaulting a pregnant woman resulting in injury or termination of her pregnancy, without entangling the issue in our disagreement about abortion and the woman's right to choose. In addition to recognizing the horrendous underlying crime of assault on a pregnant woman, it recognizes the horrific crime of assault on a pregnant woman that results in the interruption or termination of a pregnancy. It creates an offense that protects pregnant women and punishes violence without conflicting with the core principles of Roe v. Wade. The substitute provides consistent penalties for the same horrific crime. It provides for a consistent maximum 20-year sentence for injury and a consistent maximum life sentence for causing the termination of a woman's pregnancy. It requires a conviction for the underlying criminal offense, ensuring the crime against the woman is also punished, and it focuses on the assault of violence committed against the pregnant woman, providing a deterrent effect for violence against women. I am sure that the Members of this body who oppose a woman's right to choose also oppose violence against women. There is no disagreement on that score. All I am saying with my substitute is that we have the ability to come together in this substitute against violence against women without engaging in our very serious disagreement about choice. I think it has been made clear by the proponents of this bill that it is about choice. That is why this bill, the underlying bill, was referred and considered by the Subcommittee on the Constitution, not the Subcommittee on Crime, in the Committee on the Judiciary, because it is about the Constitution. The point of the underlying bill is to undercut Roe v. Wade. I think Roe v. Wade provides important protections for the women of this country. I am 56 years old, and I remember as an undergraduate in college young women who had to seek abortions from illegal providers or go to another country. I know women who almost lost their lives. Thankfully, because the Supreme Court has now recognized that women have the right to make choices about their own reproduction, women now do not have to seek illegal or dangerous health care solutions when they have made a decision that they cannot have a child. I think that Roe v. Wade, by allowing women to make decisions about their own lives, is an important principle and an important defense for the freedom of American women, and I do not think American women should give up their freedom in order to get protection from violence. That is what I think the underlying intent of H.R. 1997 is. I think that is why the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which represents organizations and domestic violence shelters in all 50 States, opposes H.R. 1997. So I hope the Lofgren substitute will be approved, and I hope that we can come together to stand against violence and for freedom for American women. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the great contributions of Esther Medina, the executive director of the Mexican American Community Services Agency, Inc. (MACSA). Founded in 1964, MACSA has established itself as the leader in the Latino community in the area of advocacy, social justice, youth/family/senior services, implementation and operation of two charter schools and the development of affordable housing. Esther Medina was hired as the executive director of MACSA in 1982. At that time, MACSA was on the verge of losing funding from the United Way and was put on a 3-month corrective action plan to prove fiscal solvency, stable management and leadership. At that time, the finances were in such disarray, MACSA had no money in its budget to operate. Esther was able to convince the United Way to allocate $27,000 to keep its doors open for 3 more months. Through Esther's efforts, she transformed MACSA from an organization with 1 full-time and 1 part-time employee, on the verge of having it's doors closed forever, to an organization with 120 employees and an annual operating budget of over seven million dollars as well as developing and owning it's current headquarter building, 2 acclaimed affordable housing projects for seniors, a full service 25,000 square foot multi-service youth center, a youth/teen intervention center, and 2 public charter high schools. Esther Medina exemplifies the characteristics of a competent leader by being true to her values as a human being. The astounding success of MACSA is clearly attributable to her outstanding leadership.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, to honor Julie DeMaria and her family, and the people of San Jose on the establishment of Operation Care and Comfort. Operation Care and Comfort is a self-funded, all-volunteer organization whose sole purpose is to supply care packages to the men and women of our military serving oversees. Since last summer Julie rallied neighborhood volunteers and businesses to donate items, including T-shirts, pins, hats and food items to send in the care packages. Most importantly, hand written letters of support are included in each package to the troops, showing our gratitude, and support for their service to our country. Because of Julie's efforts, the San Jose community has now shipped over 27,500 pounds of care packages to our troops and she is still going! Her devotion to her community and love for her country does not go unrecognized. On behalf of the House of Representatives, I want to thank Julie DeMaria, her family, and all the volunteers in the San Jose Community involved in Operation Care and Comfort for their service to the United States.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the San Jose Vietnamese Bhikshu Buddhist Council's annual remembrance of Buddhist Master Minh Dang Quang. According to the Bhikshu Buddhist Council, Master Minh Dang Quang founded the indigenous Vietnamese Buddhist Order ``Tang Gia Khat Si'', normally referred to in English as the Mendicant Buddhist Order, in Southern Vietnam. This order represents a unique combination of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. On the Second day of the Second month in the Year of the Horse (1954) during a time of political turmoil, Master Minh Dang Quang went missing and the Monks and Nuns of this order observe his disappearance each year as a religious ceremony. According to the Bhikshu Buddhist Council, this year marks the 50th anniversary to celebrate the long-lasting work of Buddhist Master Minh Dang Quang and his founding of the Vietnamese Sakya Muni Dharma School of Buddhism. Although, Master Minh Dang Quang is not with us today, his followers continue their Master's teachings in Vietnam and all over the world. I am pleased to know that in my City of San Jose, California, the Vietnamese Bhikshu Buddhist Council can freely meet, worship, and practice their faith without fear of persecution. But that is not enough. We must demand that all Buddhists around the world, and others attempting to practice and worship their faith, are able do so freely without fear of persecution. We must continue passing legislation like the Vietnam Human Rights Act to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam and House Resolution 427 that praises the courageous leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the urgent need for religious freedom and related human rights in Vietnam. We cannot sit idly by as the Vietnamese government continues to oppress its people while hiding behind the veil of free trade. On this special day, I recognize the 50th Anniversary of the remembrance of Buddhist Master Minh Dang Quang and reassert my commitment to fighting for human rights in Vietnam.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, President Bush and his Administration have begun a new relationship with the communist regime in Vietnam. Recently, the Vietnamese Defense Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister traveled to Washington for historic visits with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Shortly thereafter, the U.S.S. Vandegrift entered the port of Ho Chi Minh City, the first U.S. warship to visit Vietnam since the end of the Vietnam War nearly three decades ago. This newly forged friendship between the Bush administration and the communist regime in Vietnam comes amidst continuous reports of human rights violations committed by the Vietnamese government. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reports that almost forty Buddhist monks and lay leaders are in prison, under house arrest, or in re-education camps, as well as twenty Hmong Protestants and at least ten Catholic priests in detention. Freedom of speech in Vietnam is just as bad. According to a report by the Campaign for Freedom of Expression and Information in Vietnam, Vietnam's 500-plus newspapers and magazines are state-owned and vigorously censored while 2,000 of Vietnam's 5,000 websites are currently blocked for disseminating messages the state has deemed ``subversive'' or ``reactionary.'' Worse yet is the case of a Vietnamese writer and journalist imprisoned just after he submitted written testimony to a Congressional Members' briefing that I sponsored. Yet, every time I write the State Department, I get the same response, but no action, just as the letter I am submitting for the Record today. The State Department tells me, in their words, ``we share your serious concern'' and are ``deeply troubled by the restrictions that the Government of Vietnam places on its citizens' freedom of expression, as well as other human rights.'' They tell me that ``[p]romoting human rights is a priority in our bilateral relations with Vietnam.'' If promoting human rights in Vietnam really is a priority for the Bush Administration, why are they having friendly meetings with high- level Vietnamese officials without initially demanding protection of human rights? Why is the Bush Administration not, instead, condemning the communist regime in Vietnam for issuing a statement that attacks a human rights resolution this body passed with an overwhelming vote of 409-13? That Vietnamese statement, which I submit for the Record today, alleges that our Congressional resolution contains ``false'' and ``inaccurate'' information. Yet, our resolution is backed by reports from various respected human rights organizations, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and the U.S. State Department. Instead of condemning the reckless statement from Vietnam, the Bush Administration is embracing a communist regime it admits is a human rights violator. 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 not get friendly with a communist regime without first demanding protection of human rights. U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, January 13, 2004. Hon. Zoe Lofgren, House of Representatives. Dear Ms. Lofgren: This is in response to your December 30, 2003 letter to Secretary Powell concerning detained dissident Mr. Nguyen Vu Binh in Vietnam. We share your serious concern over his recent sentence and ongoing detention. The Department strongly condemned the harsh sentence given to Binh on December 30, 2003. No individual should be imprisoned for the peaceful expression of his views. The sentencing of Binh clearly violates international standards for the protection of human rights, including freedom of expression. The U.S. Embassy sent an officer to the court, but he was unable to gain access to the trial, despite repeated oral and written requests to the Vietnamese Government. We are deeply troubled by the restrictions that the Government of Vietnam places on its citizens' freedom of expression, as well as other human rights. These restrictions violate international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that Vietnam has ratified. We consistently urge the Government of Vietnam to adhere to its international obligations to protect the human rights of its citizens. The Government of Vietnam should release Mr. Binh and all others detained or imprisoned for the peaceful expression of their views. Promoting human rights is a priority in our bilateral relations with Vietnam. We will continue to press the Government of Vietnam to take steps to improve its human rights record. Let me assure you that our efforts to promote human rights and freedom in Vietnam continue undiminished. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Michael C. Polt, Acting Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason why Republicans are seeking to attach H.R. 975, the 500- page bankruptcy bill, to S. 1920, a 2-page farm bankruptcy renewal. They want to force the Senate to agree to radical bankruptcy changes that do not include protections for women and abortion clinics. The bankruptcy bill has been held up for the past 3 years because Republicans refuse to agree to the Schumer amendment. The Schumer amendment, approved by the Senate by an 80-to-17 margin, prevents criminals convicted of crimes against women and abortion clinics from filing for bankruptcy protection to escape fines or civil judgments. Since the Republican leadership does not have the vote to defeat the Schumer amendment, they want to use procedural tactics to prevent it from being considered at all. Today, I delivered a letter to the Speaker, signed by every Democratic woman Member of the House, 41 in all, stating our unity in opposing these tactics. It is wrong to hold family farmers hostage so the majority can push through a controversial bankruptcy bill that helps big banks and credit card companies. It is wrong to use procedural tactics to prevent an honest and open debate on language that would provide greater protections for women. But it is not only Democratic women in the House who oppose these tactics; farmers do not want to be held hostage either. The National Farmers Union, the National Family Farm Coalition, and Farm Aid oppose the majority's tactics. The National Farmers Union said, ``Any delay in approving an extension of Chapter 12 places agricultural producers and their families who are faced with bankruptcy in a serious and untenable position. We understand there are some in Congress who wish to utilize the extension of the ag provisions as a means to leverage support for a broader bankruptcy reform measure that contains highly controversial and divisive provisions unrelated to the farm bankruptcy law. We reject this legislative strategy as an insensitive, cruel and malicious effort that will only serve to increase the level of distress of farm families who are already experiencing severe financial difficulties.'' And from the National Family Farm Coalition, I quote: ``We urge you to pass this 6-month extension and not hold family farmers hostage to the highly controversial overall bankruptcy reform bill. Every day of delay by Congress has a direct cost to our Nation's family farmers.'' And this from Farm Aid: ``The reasons for the creation of the separate Bankruptcy Code that enables farmers to stay on the land while reorganizing their farm operation is as urgent now as it was in 1986 when first created by Congress. This lapse in coverage directly results in farmers having to face foreclosure and liquidation instead of seeking a reasonable negotiation with their creditors that works for farm families, their creditors and businesses in their rural community.'' It is also opposed by unions and civil and women's rights organizations, like the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Teamsters, United Auto Workers, the National Organization for Women, NARAL, Consumers Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the NAACP. It is not only the tactics that are the problem. H.R. 975 is a deeply flawed bill. It assumes that middle-class Americans who file for bankruptcy are spendthrifts that abuse the system, and that is not true. Over 91 percent of individuals who have filed for bankruptcy have suffered a recent job loss, medical problem or divorce. The leading cause of personal bankruptcy is unemployment. Two out of three individuals that file for bankruptcy have lost jobs. Half have experienced a serious health problem. H.R. 975 will also hurt seniors. The average household debt for those over 65 and older has skyrocketed 164 percent, most of it related to medical costs. H.R. 975 also hurts women. In 1999, over 200,000 women filing for bankruptcy were owed child support or alimony. The proponents of this bill say they want to restore personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system. Fine. But do not punish people who are in trouble because they lost a job or are dogged by huge medical bills or cannot get a deadbeat dad to pay child support. These are the people that account for a majority of personal bankruptcies, not spendthrifts abusing the system. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose this attempt to hold family farmers hostage to help big banks and credit card companies.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, Charles F. McNamee was born on January 11, 1911 in the old O'Conner Hospital in San Jose, California. His family had to travel there for the birth because it was the closest hospital to their farm in Hollister 50 miles away. His Irish mother, Agnes Hudner, was born on her family's ranch in Hollister in 1871. His father, Charles, was born in 1874 in Ireland and was brought to the United States at the turn of the century to work as a haberdasher in Hollister. Charlie's uncle John was married to Molly Breen, daughter of Patrick Breen of the ill fated ``Donner Party''. James Hudner, his grandfather, came to the United States after the potato famine in Ireland. He settled in Hollister by purchasing his land from Col. Hollister in 1868. Charlie attended Hollister's Sacred Heart Elementary School in the fall of 1916 and later graduated high school there with a class size of eight! He attended Santa Clara University in 1928. There he was able to meet many founders of local industry and government. Dutch Hamann, eventually city manager and largely responsible for the evolution of San Jose from 1950-1969, and was a close friend at the University. It was Dutch who advised him many years later to move to Almaden Valley ``as fast as you can'' when Charlie's three children evolved to four and outsized his small home in Santa Clara. Vincent Thomas, elected to the California assembly in 1940, was his roommate for his last two years at Santa Clara. Charlie lived in an era that allowed tutoring by Fr. Cornelius J. McCoy, president of the University. Tuition was a ``steep'' $400 per semester (including room & board), but being the depression era, he got a half scholarship working in the board of athletic control as a typist. He graduated with a B.S. in Political Economics in May 1933. After graduation he returned shortly to Hollister to work at the Grangers grocery as a delivery boy until about July 1934. Sounds like a meager job after a college education, but these were hard times where jobs, graduate or not, were just not available. With hay fever and asthma, he soon decided that ranch life was not to his liking and moved to San Jose taking a mail clerk job at Sunsweet Growers (where the Fairmont hotel currently resides). He switched to Western Pacific in the fall of 1940 with a job as a stenographer clerk and a year later transferred to the Western Pacific Main Office in the Mills Building on Montgomery Street in San Francisco. He resigned Western Pacific in May 1942 to accept a commission as Lieutenant Junior Grade in the U.S. Naval Reserve at the bottom of Broadway in Oakland, California. In San Diego he was assigned to the Port Director's office. Commander Earnest transferred him to the Fleet Post office on Navy pier in San Diego. In 1943 he became Officer in charge of the Fleet Post Office at Terminal Island near San Pedro. In the fall of 1944 he was transferred to 7th Amphibious Force in the South Pacific on board the USS Henry T. Allen as Postal Officer. He was later promoted to Lieutenant Commander. After the war subsided, he returned to Pearl Harbor in December 1945 and was honorably discharged. In 1946 he returned home to Hollister. After reminiscing with some Navy buddies down south, he returned to Sunsweet eventually becoming their Traffic Manager. On October 26, 1946 he married Genevieve Washburn at the old St. Leo's church and began the first year of a fifty-three year marriage. He had three daughters and a son. His Catholic faith saw him assist with the building of three local churches: St. Justin's, Holy Spirit and St. Anthony's. He first settled in Campbell, moved to Santa Clara in 1952 with the arrival of a son and then to Almaden Country Club in 1961 after the arrival of his 3rd daughter and final child. He was diagnosed with cancer in 1972 and given a few months to live by his doctor at O'Conner hospital. The tumor was too large to remove so no operation was performed. He retired immediately from Sunsweet. With faith and an herbal remedy, the tumor diminished and he soon returned to good health. He then got interested in the ``Sons in Retirement'' (SIRS) and held several positions there including the CEO post called ``Big Sir''. In 1996 he received an honorary life membership for his work. Charlie began to enjoy golf at Almaden as a charter member when his children entered adolescence but had to wait until his 80th year to score his first hole-in-one. Ironically he had his second one a decade later at 90 years of age! Charlie still drives, plays golf three times a week, and leads a very active life at 93 years of age.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, over 500 Americans have lost their lives in the war in Iraq. Each loss is a wrenching tragedy to a family somewhere in America, and this tragic loss has now come to the Mihalakis family in San Jose, California. U.S. Army National Guard Specialist Michael G. Mihalakis of San Jose, California, was killed the day after Christmas when his Humvee overturned near the Baghdad International Airport. He was assigned to the 270th Military Police Company and was one of the youngest casualties of the Iraq conflict. Michael was proud to be a soldier, with a strong commitment to service, an unflinching bravery, a dedication to family, and a deep love of country. America remains strong and free because, for generations, Americans like Michael have been willing to put the well-being of their community and country ahead of their personal comfort and safety. From towns and cities all over America, ordinary citizens have become transformed into heroes through their service. There is aching loss and pain when such heroism means the hero is not coming home. This wrenching loss can never really be healed for the mothers and fathers who have given what is most precious to them for their country. We want to thank the Mihalakis family and let them know they are in our hearts and prayers and that his grateful country will always remember their son. On behalf of the House of Representatives, I want to thank Michael for his service to the United States and offer heartfelt condolences to his parents and entire family.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to share with my colleagues this editorial written by my courageous friend Vicki Wilson. In it she describes her very personal story about her pregnancy and a procedure that was required to save her life. As Vicki rightly points out, the ban on so-called ``partial birth abortion'' prevents women--along with their families and doctors--from making private decisions about saving their own lives and protecting their right to future pregnancies. A short while ago, the House debated the so-called ``Partial Birth Abortion'' ban. Several members who supported the ban tried to deny Vick's story. Those Members didn't know what they were talking about. Here is the truth as printed in the San Jose Mercury News. [From the San Jose Mercury News] Heartbreak and a Choice: I Had an Abortion at Eight Months (By Vicki Wilson) The right to end a pregnancy is frighteningly precarious, something I didn't understand until I had an abortion at eight months. The new abortion ban covers what is not actually a recognized medical procedure; ``partial birth'' was coined by the anti-choice lobby to rile public sensibilities and distort the truth. At 36 weeks of pregnancy, an ultra-sound showed what all my previous parental testing failed to detect--an encephalocoele. Two-thirds of my daughter's brain had formed outside her skull. What felt to be strong, big, healthy baby movements were in fact seizures. My doctor sent me to several specialists in a desperate attempt to find a way to save her. Everyone agreed she would not survive outside my body. As the pregnancy progressed before I went into labor, she would probably die from the increased compression of her brain. Our doctors explained our options. Let ``nature take its course.'' But how could I let my daughter suffer the ongoing seizures? Second: Abortion. My God! I thought. Here I am at the end of a planned and very much wanted pregnancy: Her name is Abigail. How can one even utter the word ``abortion'' now? Despite being a nurse, I'd never heard of any abortion in the eighth month. I asked about a Caesarean section. Doctors perform C-sections only to save babies lives. Mine couldn't be saved so they didn't want to risk the possibility of hurting my future fertility. It was a risk I wasn't willing to take either. We agonized over our options, which doesn't convey the heartbreak and rage we felt. It was hard even to think of these ``choices.'' I wanted my daughter to be born with a brain--period. We decided to make our choice based on what was best for Abigail. As health-care professionals, my husband and I understood the medical risks of each alternative. We understood that it wasn't ``is she going to die''--a higher power had decided that--but ``how?'' To this day, I thank God that this decision, at least, was ours. I continue to battle the anti-choice hard-liner machine from banning the very procedure that saved my health and ended Abigail's suffering. When will politicians understand: The decision about terminating a pregnancy should be between women, their family and their doctors--not politicians. While I was struggling with the most wrenching choice I have ever made, it never occurred to me to confer with a lawyer or a judge or a politician. Those opposed to abortion for any reason declare that women are selfishly choosing to end their pregnancies late. They deny medical necessity; they'd rather see Abigail suffer and me lose my fertility than allow us to choose the most decent path for our family. They state that Americans are opposed to their politically motivated ``partial birth'' abortions. They don't acknowledge that Americans believe the choice should remain with my family. Almost nine years have passed since we lost Abigail, and not a day passes that I don't think of her. In my heart I know I did the right thing for me and my family.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to the bill because it increases costs for the poorest who are mainly women. Mr. Speaker, the current Medicare Prescription Drug bill we are debating this evening, if passed, will force many low-income seniors to pay more for their Medicare coverage. Despite its $400 billion price tag, this legislation will leave some 6.4 million of the poorest and sickest Medicare beneficiaries who currently receive prescription drug coverage through Medicaid, worse off, as they will no longer be able to depend on assistance with their co-payments and will no longer depend on getting help paying for prescription drugs that are prescribed by their doctors but are not on the list of drugs and therefore not covered by the private insurers who will administer the new Medicare bill. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is not ``paid for.'' I expect that it will worsen the nation's long-term fiscal problems substantially adding to the deficit. Is the proposal good enough to justify this? After weeks of secret hearings, in which not one Democratic Member of the House of Representatives was allowed to participate, we were presented with a Medicare prescription drug plan that is more geared towards benefiting industry, the HMOs, and insurance companies than in serving the healthcare needs of our elderly and disabled. In the forty years since Medicare was created, it has been hailed as an affordable, defined, guaranteed, and comprehensive healthcare plan for all senior citizens. I agree that Medicare should evolve. I also understand that prescription drug costs are rising at an alarming rate of 17 percent per year. But the current proposal facing Congress does too little to help control drug costs, requires seniors to spend too much out-of-pocket, and compromises many of the basic principles that have made Medicare so valued and effective. This proposal prohibits the federal government from using its vast buying power to negotiate significant discounts for the millions of seniors and disabled who have come to rely on Medicare. Mr. Speaker, my constituents and seniors across this nation believe that an affordable, guaranteed prescription drug benefit is urgently needed. Sadly, the prescription drug benefit in this bill would not go into effect until 2006. Mr. Speaker, my constituents and seniors across this nation asked this Congress for a strong prescription drug benefit through Medicare, it did not ask this Congress to begin the process of privatizing Medicare. They believe that reforming Medicare does not mean privatizing Medicare. Under this bill, millions of Medicare beneficiaries are forced to pay more just to stay with their own doctors. Premium support, a provision included in this bill will allow private insurance plans to lure healthy seniors out of Medicare, leaving older and disabled seniors behind to pay higher premiums for the same coverage they're receiving today. Mr. Speaker, my district lies within Santa Clara County in California. Santa Clara County is in one of 41 metropolitan areas that could be selected to participate in this demonstration that would lead to the privatization of Medicare. Under this plan, seniors must be prepared to deal with changing benefits, premiums and access to care from year to year. Mr. Speaker, these new benefits are not guaranteed. This Republican- drafted Medicare reform bill creates a major gap in coverage that will leave millions of seniors and disabled persons without any drug coverage during parts of the year. Once a senior's drug costs reaches a moderate level of $2,250, all coverage would be cut off. It isn't until the out-of-pocket prescription drugs costs rise to a much higher level--roughly $3600--that coverage kicks back in. It will also erode retiree coverage for up to 2.7 million seniors who, after years of hard work earned a prescription drug benefit through their retirement plans. Those lucky enough to have such coverage must now worry about whether or not they will lose that hard-earned benefit under this proposal. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not comprehensive. The bill eliminates Medicare's promise to retirees by arbitrarily limiting the ability of Congress to fund the program. As baby boomers retire and require more physician visits, hospital services, and pharmaceutical coverage, Republicans want to limit the amount of money that would be spent on Medicare. This means the services seniors expect and deserve will be cut, premiums will increase, or reimbursements to physicians and hospitals will be severely restricted. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues and those trying to follow all the possible implications of this bill that the coverage offered under this plan is not, repeat not, like that offered to members of Congress and other federal workers. No Federal employee or member of Congress has a drug benefit that has a deductible, or a $2,850 coverage gap or donut hole in the benefit. In fact, during the debate on the drug benefit, Republican members of Congress voted to ensure that Federal employees' benefits would not be lowered to the level in the new drug plan. There are many parts of this bill that I applaud. I am happy that the bill includes increased payments to doctors and to hospitals that will allow them to continue to offer services to Medicare patients. I am very happy that the bill includes critically needed funding for safety- net hospitals that serve our needy so well. Indeed in California, this provision alone will restore several hundred million dollars in reimbursements over the next ten years. Mr. Speaker, these provisions are the kind of reforms to Medicare that would pass this house nearly unanimously if they were presented separate from this bad bill. Mr. Speaker, these good provisions do not override the potential devastating effects of this bill. I cannot support a bill that I feel will destroy the fundamental promise of Medicare, a program that seniors and the disabled have known and trusted for nearly 40 years. With the future of Medicare at stake, I believe that Congress can--and must--do better. Rather than pass a bad bill, we should defeat this bad bill and stand firm as we fight for a prescription drug benefit that our seniors demand and deserve.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to strongly support S. 189, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. I represent, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) just said, an area, Silicon Valley, that often leads this Nation in fostering cutting-edge research in technology and in manufacturing. Indeed, a great deal of much important research involving nanotechnology is being done right now at NASA Ames Research Park in California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind us all of the importance of supporting scientific research and its interaction with our society and our economy. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, S. 189 is an important first step that will ensure that the United States will continue to play a pioneering role in the area of nanotechnology and its revolutionary potential to transform the manufacturing sector in our Nation, not to mention energy, health care, and areas that we can only dream of today. I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and my Bay Area colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), for their bipartisan efforts in drafting and perfecting and passing H.R. 766 in the House which in large part forms the basis of this bill that we are about to pass. The future benefits of research in nanotechnology, fusion energy, and other types of research depend on us acting with great foresight. S. 189 represents a great first step on that path; and as my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), said recently at a nanotechnology conference that he helped organize at NASA Ames Research Park, nanotechnology is the next big thing.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution, but I must note that it is not enough. We need to make every effort to assist the women of Afghanistan to become full and participating members of society as so many women there wish. Inside the Beltway it may seem that we are doing enough, but we have continually appropriated money to help Afghan women and children, 5 million in 2003, 25 million in 2004, 60 million in the recent supplemental appropriations bill. But unfortunately the money is not necessarily getting to the women themselves, and Members of Congress have written to our President about that, but we have not actually made the difference that we would want. Last week when I returned to my district, I met an Afghan women's advocate, Afifa Azim, who was full of hope but has been let down by this administration. She had come all the way to America to search for support from private organizations in California. Imagine, she had to travel here to find private help when we have appropriated millions of dollars for women's programs and the President has told us he is committed to administering the money in the best possible way. Other Afghan women advocates are telling me the same. The problem is not that the women of Afghanistan are not full of hope, nor is the problem with Congress who has appropriated funds. The problem is that the administration has not tracked the resources to make sure that they get to the Afghan women who need these funds; and I would like to read from the San Francisco Chronicle a story about Ms. Azim. She said, ``What's most unfortunate is that in the beginning, the international community was promising to first help the women, but that has not happened. For almost 2 years, they were promising to open women's centers in different provinces, but it hasn't happened, all because of a lack of resources, not desire.'' If the President is serious about winning the war on terror, he must not forget that a great key to our success lies in the women of Afghanistan. I support this resolution, but I would be happier if we were actually directing the President to send the resources necessary to the women of Afghanistan. And I include in the Record the article from the San Francisco Chronicle about Ms. Azim's visit. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 17, 2003] Afghan Woman Soldier on Bay Area Visit To Raise Support for Freedoms Not Yet Realized (By Anastasia Hendrix) Standing just 5 feet tall, even in heels, Afifa Azim may appear diminutive but her ambition to improve the lives of women in Afghanistan is enormous, and she is visiting the Bay Area to get some help. Though the world's attention has shifted to the conflict in Iraq and the repressive Taliban regime has been chased out of Afghanistan, women there have not been able to enjoy the freedoms they had decades ago, she said. ``Most of the women outside of Kabul, in the villages, are still oppressed, still wearing burkas and still are afraid,'' she said. ``I am saying please be patient and pay attention to Afghanistan. We still desperately need it.'' Azim is the director of the Afghan Women's Network, an umbrella organization comprised of 65 nonprofit, nongovernmental groups designed to support, train and employ women. Born in Kabul, the 49-year-old mother of two daughters and three sons oversees the agency's headquarters in Peshawar, Pakistan, as well as two offices in Afghanistan. The agency has yet to get a working fax machine, she said, but has received grants for several computers. She is meeting with native Afghans and women's rights advocates as part of a program developed by the San Francisco-based Women's Intercultural Network (WIN), which strives to create a network of women's organizations around the world for ``collective action on mutual concerns.'' ``A lot of people are going into Afghanistan now doing refugee work, doing work on housing, food and infrastructure, but nobody's really working directly with the women to build the capacity of their organizations,'' said Marilyn Fowler, president and chief executive officer of the network. ``It's not just about money, but also the training and technology that is so badly needed.'' Azim is one of nine women on a committee participating in the drafting of Afghanistan's new constitution, which will be important to legally protect women's rights, she said. It is a more daunting task than it may seem, said Rona Popal, executive director of the Fremont-based Afghan Women Association International, who recently returned form a trip to Kabul. ``For example, the Ministry of Women's Affairs is one of the poorest ministries (in the Afghan government). Many programs have been closed, and a lot of women have had to be laid off,'' she said. ``What's most unfortunate is that in the beginning, the international community was promising to first help the women, but that had not happened. For almost two years they were promising to open women's centers in different provinces, but it hasn't happened--all because of a lack of resources, not desire.'' If anyone is up to the challenge of fighting for the emerging women's rights movement in Afghanistan, it is Azim, said Irene Lu, a senior at Standford University who spent six months this year working for the Afghan Women's Network in Kabul. ``It's amazing how much she really loves her country. She works day and night thinking of specific projects,'' Lu said,` `She's often at the office until1 1 or 12 at night, and she even came to the office at 3 a.m. to talk to me about one of the projects we were working on.'' With Azim, Lu created a national directory of nonprofit women's groups in and around Afghanistan, surveyed women in refugee camps and created a paid internship program for female students at Kabul University. Azim said there are setbacks and times of sadness and frustration, but that she relies on the strength of other women's rights advocates for motivation and her family for inspiration. Her three sons, ages 18, 19, and 20, all volunteer for her organization. Her daughters, ages 8 and 22, are constant reminder of her goals, she said. ``I want them to have a bright future, to be able to have a good and happy life,'' she said. Her husband, Azim, is also supportive of her efforts, it not necessarily her frequent trips to Kabul, she said. The family fled Afghanistan in 1985 but plans to move back by new year, she said. Today, Azim is headed back to Pakistan. She said she will travel and work as much as necessary to broaden awareness about the struggles still facing Afghan women. ``We know that American women are strong and have the power to do something to help our women, even if the government can't or won't'' she said. ``Of this, I am confident.''.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mother Essie Baxter Jones, for her 100th birthday celebration. Mother Essie Baxter Jones was born the third of nine children on March 23, 1903 in Kilgore, Texas, Gregg County, Route 1. In 1903, Route 1 was simply a horse and buggy trail; today, it is a superhighway, Highway 1252. Growing up, she worked on a farm where she learned about growing cotton, corn, peanuts, white potatoes, sweet potatoes and watermelons, and also helped her father build churches throughout the community. Later on, she operated a successful family store and cafe for those who came to work in the oil fields in Kilgore and afterward built her own cafe in Odessa, Texas. She also worked in the defense industry sewing tents and cooking for the soldiers in Waco, Texas. Having moved here in 1963, Mother Essie Baxter Jones has been a resident of San Jose, California for 40 years and, throughout that time, she has been actively involved in the community, including her work in the Prayer Garden Church of God in Christ and Templo Juan 3:16 in San Jose, California. Her ``secrets'' for lifelong happiness are: ``Honor, obey and respect your mother and father; trust in the Lord and obey His Word; deal fairly with everyone; and save some of the money that you earn.'' I want to thank Mother Essie Baxter Jones for her many years of service to our community and congratulate her on this milestone birthday, her 100th. Much has changed for the better during her lifetime and she contributed to the positive changes. May God bless her with years of happiness and service.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. I look forward to the day, Mr. Speaker, when we no longer need to introduce resolutions condemning the Vietnamese government for human rights violations. Unfortunately, I see no sign of change in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government continues to systematically violate the human rights of its citizens through political, cultural, and religious oppression. In fact, it seems that things have gotten worse in recent years, despite our attempts to build Normal Trade Relations with Vietnam. Just last month, the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam held two peaceful assemblies to discuss church affairs and elect new leadership following promises of a new era of ``respect and understanding for religious freedom'' by the Vietnamese Prime Minister. In stark contrast to this promise of ``respect and understanding,'' the Vietnamese Security Police intercepted the church leadership. After a tense 10- hour standoff, 11 monks were arrested and placed under administrative detention. The Buddhist Church's Patriarch, Thich Huyen Quang, 86 years old, and his deputy, Noble Peace Prize nominee Thich Quang do, 75 years old, are currently being held in total isolation. According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, this is pretty much the norm in Vietnam. They say ``key religious dissidents have been imprisoned, and others remain in detention or under house arrest.'' They have reports of 18 Buddhists in prison or under house arrest, and 20 UBCV in detention or reeducation camps. My colleagues and I have repeatedly sent letters to the Vietnamese government asking them to release prisoners of conscience and to refrain from various forms of political, religious, and cultural oppression. The vast majority of these requests seem to fall on deaf ears, like our recent letter regarding the arrest of the 86-year-old Buddhist leader and his 75-year-old deputy. This is unacceptable. So today I rise with my colleagues in very strong support of this resolution. We cannot sit idly by as the Vietnamese government continues to oppress its people while hiding behind the veil of free trade. As long as the people of Vietnam are oppressed, our government cannot relax, even if there are strategic military interests and a strong relationship with Vietnam. Our interests must include human rights and now is the time to act. The whole world is watching and we will not cease until we see improvements in Vietnam.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to note that many in the California delegation are distressed that the much-needed $500 million for relief for the fire funding is tied up with the $87 billion for Iraq that many of us oppose. Tonight we have introduced a stand-alone bill to provide the same $500 million in relief for California, and we would urge that that be used as a vehicle instead of this supplemental. We think it is a problem to have the two mixed. It lends a political component to this that should never be present when we are dealing with victims of an awful tragedy such as this. So I wanted the whole House to know of the feeling of the 33 Democratic members of the California delegation that we ought to have a separate fire relief measure for California.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Representative Eshoo and Representative Honda and I rise to honor the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group on its 25th anniversary, an organization that has effectively advocated on behalf of the residents and businesses of California's Silicon Valley. The Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group was founded by David Packard, who during the summer of 1977, asked a number of his fellow Silicon Valley CEOs to join him in building an organization that would create a proactive voice for Silicon Valley businesses. The formation in 1978 of the Manufacturing Group was the result of those discussions. The 33 charter members believed that business should work with the community and government to find innovative solutions to the challenges that faced their employees, including energy, transportation, education, and housing. Today, the Manufacturing Group represents a variety of Silicon Valley businesses from software and manufacturing companies, to health care and education organizations. The 190 member-companies of the Manufacturing Group represent over 200,000 employees in the Silicon Valley. During the quarter century since it was first founded, the Manufacturing Group has had a tremendous impact on the quality of life in Silicon Valley. They've brought leaders together to discuss the critical issues of our time and create solutions to these challenges. They've been at the forefront of the creation of affordable housing, improving and increasing transportation options, and being key players in addressing California's energy concerns. Today, member-companies do their part by conserving through increased efficiency, and working with regulators and energy companies to find solutions to the State's energy problems. The Manufacturing Group was a key force in the creation of the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County and played a major role in the Trust being able to raise over $20 million in its first 2 years. This funding, raised during a time when corporate donations began to wane, is an extraordinary achievement, producing housing for first-time home buyers and stands as a model in our country. With the Manufacturing Group's leadership, the Housing Trust will return the investment ten- fold and assist families to realize their dream of homeownership. The Manufacturing Group's track record on public transportation projects in the Valley has been extraordinary. Their first major initiative was in 1984 when they launched the effort to win the approval of improvements of Highways 85, 237 and 101. The project funded by the Measure A half-cent sales tax proposal was completed ahead of schedule and under budget, and most importantly it was accountable to the people who passed it. The Manufacturing Group went on to spearhead other critical transportation measures in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2002, all of which were successful, even after the law required a two-thirds voter approval. With the outstanding leadership of Carl Guardino, the Manufacturing Group's President and CEO, annual forums are held to predict economic and infrastructure trends and the examination of what inhibits producing and keeping jobs in Silicon Valley. Mr. Speaker, we are exceedingly proud of the work and the achievements of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group. The organization has been a catalyst for important change and because of its leadership, the quality of life and the vitality of businesses have been enhanced. We ask our colleagues to join us in saluting the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group on its 25th anniversary and the great achievements they have brought about, making Silicon Valley known and admired around the world and a source of pride to our entire nation.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, imagine being a 9-year-old girl trying to escape abusive parents that eventually abandon you. Imagine having no choice but to escape to America with relatives who eventually get angry and turn you over to the immigration authorities at the age of 14. Then imagine being detained for over 6 months in a juvenile jail as you are represented by an unscrupulous attorney who doesn't even care to show up to your immigration hearing, leaving you to defend yourself with no knowledge of the law or any adult guidance. Then imagine finding out that the immigration judge orders you to leave the country and you have nowhere to go, nobody to help you, and through it all, you're all alone. This was the plight of Esther--a Honduran victim of abuse, abandoned by her parents and relatives, and left to face a complex immigration system at the tender age of 14. The sad reality is that Esther is not the only child that has suffered this terrible fate. This is the plight of many young girls and boys who travel hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles alone in seek of refuge in the United States. Some of these children are treated in a manner that our country usually reserves for criminals, not helpless victims, like fourteen-year-old Esther. It is true that Congress last year transferred care, custody, and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the Department of Justice to the Department of Health and Human Services to improve the treatment children receive when encountered at our borders. This is certainly a big step in the right direction and I commend the Department of Health and Human Services for taking important steps to improve the care and custody of these vulnerable children. Unfortunately, Health and Human Services inherited a system that relied upon a variety of detention facilities to house children and was given little legislative direction to implement their new responsibilities. As a result, some children from repressive regimes or abusive families continue to fend for themselves in a complex legal and sometimes punitive system, without knowledge of the English language, with no adult guidance, and with no legal counsel. Now is the time for new legislation to complete the positive steps we have already taken to ensure that unaccompanied alien minors are not locked up without any legal help or adult guidance. This is why I have introduced the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003. It will ensure minimum standards for the care and custody of unaccompanied children and require a smooth transfer of minors from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Health and Human Services. It will also ensure that children receive adult and legal guidance as they navigate through our immigration system. Mr. Speaker, no child should be left to fend for herself in a complex immigration system that even you and I would fear. We need to pass the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act. I urge this body to swiftly consider this important legislation.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, in the 106th Congress, we passed the Child Citizenship Act to automatically confer U.S. citizenship on foreign born children adopted by U.S. citizens. Our immigration law has also long recognized that children born outside our country to an American father and a foreign national mother are citizens as long as their fathers take the steps necessary to achieve their child's citizenship. Unfortunately, there remains a group of forgotten sons and daughters who, despite being born to American fathers, cannot take advantage of the Child Citizenship Act or other existing provisions of law. These are children born in Vietnam to American servicemen and Vietnamese women during the Vietnam War. They have lived through devastation during the Vietnam War, have been mistreated by the Vietnamese government because of their mixed race, and many now live in the United States, but only as legal permanent residents. There is no doubt that they are the sons and daughters of American fathers. We already made that determination when we admitted them to the United States as legal permanent residents. To correct this unfair inequality in our law, I have introduced the Amerasian Naturalization Act of 2003 to ensure that Amerasians are accorded U.S. citizenship just like the offspring of other American fathers are. I hope this Congress will act swiftly and pass the Amerasian Naturalization Act. It is time for us to finally close a chapter in our history that has too long denied Amerasians the opportunity to become citizens and be recognized as the Americans that they are.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of Victor Garza and would like to recognize his extraordinary and tireless service to the people of Santa Clara County. Victor, who has been called the ``Latino Voice of San Jose,'' retired last month after 26 years as a Veteran Services Officer for the County of Santa Clara. Victor has served on numerous boards of directors and community committees related to education, youth and health, including his current role as chairman of the La Raza Roundtable, boardmember for the Center for Training and Careers, and as a leader in the American G.I. Forum. Victor is a former Navy mechanic who served in the Korean war, and has been an outspoken advocate for veterans throughout Santa Clara County, fighting for access to services and recognition for our veterans. Originally from Eagle Pass, TX, Victor came to San Jose in 1971 when, after leaving the Navy and farm work, Garza enrolled at San Jose State University. At 34, the man who never graduated from high school worked full-time as a foreman at a bus manufacturing company in Hayward while taking a full load of classes at night. He graduated with a master's degree in public affairs. Throughout his career, he has also organized Latino job fairs, boycotted against job discrimination and founded an organization to send Latinos to college. Victor has devoted his life to enrich and advance his community, and his contributions deserve to be honored to serve as an inspiration for our youth, veterans and for the residents of Santa Clara County. I wish to thank Victor Garza for his tireless service to the County and wish him the best in his future endeavors. Furthermore, he has my personal thanks for our years of friendship. Though we will all miss his compassion, expertise and commitment, his dedication has left its mark on Santa Clara County.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, one year ago, Congress considered whether to authorize the President to use the armed forces of the United States to attack Iraq. The President asked us to pass a resolution that gave him unprecedented war powers at a time when he had yet to make the case for war. I voted against the resolution. Today the President asks us to pass an enormous spending bill to fund the ongoing war in Iraq and the continuing reconstruction of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, everyday, American lives are lost while the President fails to garner broad international support and create a coherent exit strategy for a war that is less about self-defense and more about the President's obsession with Iraq. All along, our economy continues to remain on the ropes. Therefore, like my previous vote on authorizing the use of our armed forces in Iraq, I cannot support this supplemental bill to give the President a huge blank check to continue the occupation of Iraq and risk the lives of our troops. As Members of Congress, this is our opportunity to tell the President what our constituents are telling us--we won't spend another penny in Iraq until our President gives the American people a plan on how he intends to win the war, minimize costs, and most importantly, bring home our troops as safely and as quickly as possible. As we were debating whether or not to grant authority to the President to go to war in Iraq, I asked some serious questions that this Administration continues to have difficulty answering. Was the United States acting in self-defense against an imminent threat in Iraq? Did the United States have to pursue near unilateral action in Iraq without strong international support? And most importantly, what is our exit strategy? The President and his Administration repeatedly told us Iraq posed an imminent threat of safety to America. But where are those nuclear weapons? Before the war, the Administration also told us there was strong, credible evidence to link Saddam Hussein to September 11th. Yet, the President himself now admits there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th. We were told Iraq had thousands of weapons of mass destruction that could easily be used against friends, our allies and the United States. But where are they? Worse yet, we were never told about an exit strategy and still don't have one today. Instead the President spent his time playing ``Top Gun'' by landing on an aircraft carrier to declare the major conflict in Iraq over. Yet, more courageous men and women have died in these last few months than before that dubious, made-for-political-campaign-commercial event. And now the President comes to us asking for enormous amounts of money to continue what is supposedly no longer a major conflict. Even if we agree to send money to Iraq, we shouldn't send it to contractors that are ripping off the American taxpayer. Why should the American taxpayer pay $15 million to Halliburton to repair a power plant when the Iraqi people can do it, and did, for $80,000? More importantly, we've already appropriated over $70 billion for the war in Iraq and related efforts, virtually every penny the President asked for to win this war and protect our troops. So why does the Army lack Kevlar protective plates for 40,000 of our troops in Iraq? Why do we continue to hear stories about parents sending their children better protective gear, basic supplies, and food and water at their own cost? Why does the Defense Department refuse to pay travel costs for soldiers returning from battle for a brief, two-week visit with loved ones? The President has given us no assurances that his new funding request will not be mismanaged and, instead be used in strong support of our troops. There is no question that we need to allocate whatever funds are necessary to support our troops in the field. But there is only one real opportunity for the Congress to have a say in the course of war or foreign affairs and that is when the President comes to us and asks us to appropriate the taxpayer's money for war. That time is now and this Congress must insist that the President deliver his exit plan and detail how he plains to get equipment, food and water to our troops. If this appropriation is defeated today, the President will be with us tomorrow delivering the exit plan that he should have provided to the American people one year ago. As I said during the debate over the war with Iraq, we are at our best when we are first among allies standing tall for the free world. Let us be at our best when we deal with Iraq, but always dedicate ourselves first and foremost to the freedom and prosperity of our great United States. Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, resolving the current instability in the region is in the long-term best interests of all Americans--failure in Iraq would lead to irreparable consequences. This emergency spending bill raises a host of critical concerns that must be addressed. More than 138,000 American troops are currently in Iraq and I believe that they absolutely must be adequately provided for and able to return home to their families as soon as possible. Today, I am offering an amendment to this bill so that Congress receives a detailed description of purpose for all projects over $1 million. My amendment also calls for a comprehensive survey of security and infrastructure needs, including progress reports on previous projects. Finally, my amendment asks for necessary estimates on additional funding required and troop levels projections. We cannot maintain our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan without a clear understanding of our longer term needs. We must know how many troops will be needed and how much this entire operation will cost, including contingency plans, and decide how our nation will pay for the entire cost of the operation.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that America understand what is going on here today. This is more about 30-second ads in the next political campaign than it is about what is right and wrong. I was a member of the conference committee, and we offered to reach across the aisle and do something that I think we can all agree on, which is to say that late-term abortions should not be an elective procedure; and I actually strongly believe that. You should not have a late-term abortion unless there is some overwhelming need, either you are going to die or there is going to be a very serious health consequence if it is not done. Only then, if that is not the case, does the government have a right to step in. I look at this bill and I see the findings are just not correct. To say that this is never medically necessary is simply not true. Mr. Speaker, the Congressmen in the conference committee and here in the House talk about these circumstances as if they actually knew what was going on. As it turns out, I actually know Vicki Wilson personally. Her mother-in-law, Susie Wilson, and I served together on the board of supervisors, and I remember when Susie found out that her daughter-in- law's pregnancy had gone terribly wrong. It was in the eighth month. They found out that the child they hoped to have, they had picked a name already, Abigail, that the brains had formed completely outside the cranium. There was no way that they were going to have a healthy child. And so the question soon became how was Vicki going to survive this, number one; and, number two, survive it so she and her husband, Bill, who is also a doctor, might have a child. They wanted to have a daughter. Susie Wilson called me and my colleague on the board, Dianne McKenna, throughout the 2 days that this procedure, which, by the way, is not called partial-birth in the medical terminology, was going on; and Susie stayed with her daughter-in-law throughout the procedure. To say that a bunch of Congressmen know what is best for this family is really an insult to the American people, and especially to women. So American women, watch out, these Congressmen are wanting to decide whether you survive and have a chance to have another child, and really to make the most personal decision for you instead of you making it with your husband and doctor. I think it is wrong, and I hope that we turn this bill down.