Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today we rise to recognize the achievements of Richard Wittenberg, County Executive for Santa Clara County. Mr. Wittenberg is retiring after 8 years of dedicated service to the people of Santa Clara County. When Zoe Lofgren was on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, she searched the state of California to find Richard. In the years that followed, Richard won the hearts of many elected officials by responding quickly to their needs, having high ethical standards and working to build consensus. Richard came to Santa Clara County from Ventura County, California where he was the Chief Executive Officer for 16 years. During his tenure there, he held various offices of the County Administrative Officers Association of California; was a member of the Commission on California Public-Private Partnership; and a member of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Advisory Committee. A leader in the community as well as in his field, Richard has volunteered for the United Way, as a board member for the Brandeis- Bardin Institute, Boy Scouts of America, and as a board member of the Anti-Defamation League. Richard leaves Santa Clara County in better shape than he arrived: the County Executive now oversees a staff of 16,000 and a $3.8 billion budget that covers the operations of parks, libraries and the sheriff's department, as well as the region's neediest residents. Under Richard Wittenberg's dedicated leadership, Santa Clara County earned the highest bond ratings issued to any county in the state, garnering an AA+ from Standard and Poor's, and a AA2 from Moody's. Meanwhile, reserves grew from $12 million in the mid-1990's to $96 million in 2002. We wish to thank Richard Wittenberg for his tireless and loyal service to the County and wish him the best in his future endeavors. Though we will miss his creativity, expertise and commitment, his dedication has left its mark on Santa Clara County.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today we rise to recognize the achievements and life of former Congressman Don Edwards. We are proud to have known Representative Edwards for many years. Born and raised in San Jose, California, Representative Edwards received his bachelor's degree from Stanford University where he later studied law. He became an F.B.I. agent during the Depression, and went on to serve in the U.S. Navy as an intelligence officer and gunnery officer at sea in World War II. He was first elected to represent what was then California's 9th Congressional District in 1962. In Congress, Representative Edwards served on the House Judiciary Committee and for 23 years he served as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. He also sat on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Last year, Representative Edwards received the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award for his ``unswerving devotion to the Constitution and its values throughout his career.'' One of the foremost defenders of civil liberties in Congress, Representative Edwards in the 1970s--along with Senator Frank Church and his committee--exposed the pervasive abuses of civil liberties in J. Edgar Hoover's COINTEL PRO, which monitored, infiltrated and disrupted entirely lawful civil rights and anti-war organizations. He also fought to abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee. Representative Edwards was one of the first seven Members of the House of Representatives to oppose the Vietnam War in 1965 and became a leader in the anti-war movement. In the 1960s he was floor leader of the Omnibus Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Rights Amendment. Outside of Congress, he took part in civil rights marches in the South; visited Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the Birmingham, Alabama jail and spoke against apartheid while visiting South Africa. Every year, he introduced an ERA bill to the House, and in 1989, he argued ``women are entitled to their birthright to full rights of citizenship.'' In 1968, he introduced legislation creating the San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge. With the efforts of other Bay Area Representatives, he was instrumental in establishing the largest urban wildlife refuge in the country. The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge covers 25,902 acres and spans 12 cities and 3 counties. Representative Don Edwards left a legacy in Congress of supporting civil rights, advocating for those less fortunate in our society and being a strong defender of our Constitution. He is a visionary public servant and a valued friend.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today we rise to recognize the achievements and life of Madge Jennings Overhouse. We have had the privilege of knowing Madge for many years, and can personally attest to her lasting legacy of achievement through selfless volunteerism. Hers is the epitome of a life dedicated to public service. Madge Jennings Overhouse was born in July 29, 1924 in The Dalles, Oregon, and soon moved to San Jose. She attended San Jose State University, graduating cum laude with honors in history. Madge married Howard Overhouse in 1949, and they have one son, Richard, and three lovely grandchildren. Marge's career as a librarian spanned almost 40 years and two institutions. She started out at San Jose State, then moved to San Jose Community College. Typical of Madge, she assumed a leadership role in her profession, serving on the Santa Clara County Library Commission from 1976 to 1982, as well as serving on the California Library Agency for Systems and Services from 1979 to 1984, representing Santa Clara County as an alternate for Supervisor Rod Diridon. Madge also served on the Steering Committee for the Master Plan of California Libraries. Madge's contributions to the community throughout her lifetime are legion, and the list of civic organizations that Madge has helped is long. We would like to take a moment to talk about them here. Madge was one of the first women to serve on the Executive Board of the Santa Clara County chapter of the Boy Scouts of America. The Santa Clara County Fair Association benefited from Madge's input as a Board member from 1987 to 1995. Madge also served on the boards of the Iota Delta Chapter of the Chi Omega sorority and the Campbell Historical Preservation Board. Madge is also a long-time member of the San Jose Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. In addition, Madge lent her talents to the Multi-Modal Transportation Task Force, which led to the completion of Highway 85, which is now a major transportation artery in the Bay Area. During my time on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Madge's support on important measures such as this, which often meant doing the ``leg-work'' that no one else volunteered to do, was instrumental on so many occasions. Madge has an absolutely amazing record of political involvement, For more than thirty years, Madge has been a stalwart in the Democratic Party at the local, state, and national level. Madge has fostered and encouraged the careers of numerous public officials in California. Madge's lifelong commitment to volunteerism has been honored by almost every civic organization in Santa Clara County, and we are delighted to offer our heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to Madge for a lifetime of public service achievement.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we all agree upon, we are grateful to our troops and their families. We respect the men and women in our Armed Forces, and we admire their patriotism and bravery. We all recognize that no matter what the policy disagreements about the steps that took us to this day of invasion, our troops are doing their duty and putting their bodies on the line for our country. They are in our prayers, and we all hope for a speedy conclusion and a safe return for each of them. How fine it would have been if the right-wingers in charge of this House had put aside their partisanship for just this evening and agreed to write a clean resolution that supported our troops; but no. One can always count on them to try to wedge an issue, divide people and make partisan what should be purely American. There are plenty of things in this resolution that are just not true, but I am going to vote for it because of clause 2 and 3. I do support and appreciate our Armed Forces and their families. I cannot say the same thing about the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the rest of the Republican leaders who once again have proven by their actions this evening that they are more interested in partisan advantage for their party than unity and success for our country. They dishonor our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are the real patriots we seek to honor by this resolution.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, today thousands of Americans are out of work as a result of the slumping economy and corporate scandals. In my home district in Santa Clara County, unemployment is now over 8\1/2\ percent. But rather than help these workers, we are asked to further punish them. Do not be misled. H.R. 975 is not about preventing spendthrifts from abusing the system. The leading cause of personal bankruptcy is not out-of-control spending. It is unemployment. Two out of three people who file have lost jobs. Half have experienced a serious health problem. Nevertheless, under these so-called reforms, many will be forced into Chapter 13, where more debts will survive and only limited households goods will be protected from repossessions. Under this bill, seniors, who represent the fastest-growing group of personal bankruptcies, will also suffer. Nearly half of seniors who file bankruptcy do so because of medical expenses. That is not hard to understand. Out-of-pocket health care expenses for seniors increased nearly 50 percent from 1999 to 2001. At the same time, many HMOs have cut prescription drug coverage, and this Congress has still failed to pass a sensible prescription drug plan. Women who represent the largest group of personal bankruptcies will also suffer. In 1999, over 200,000 women who filed for bankruptcy were owed child support and alimony. While punishing seniors, single mothers, and middle-class Americans, the bill does absolutely nothing to hold big banks and credit card companies accountable for their behavior. It does nothing to protect consumers from predatory lenders. It requires no additional disclosures that make it easier for consumers to understand their debt. The proponents of this bill say they want to restore personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system. What their bill really does is punish people who are in financial trouble because they lost a job, have huge medical bills, or cannot get a deadbeat dad to pay child support. These are the people who account for a majority of the personal bankruptcies, not spendthrifts who abuse the system. No one wants to enter into the bankruptcy court; and most people who do so, do so with a great deal of shame. But I look at those who have a child suffering from cancer, who have been unemployed for a year, and I say to them, there but for the grace of God go you or I. The bankruptcy system is meant to assist people in that situation, and I think that those in this House who consider themselves to be compassionate conservatives ought to open their hearts to those who file for bankruptcy because of such personally devastating situations. I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am probably one of the few Members who have actually operated under MICRA in California. In the 14 years that I served on the board of supervisors, we bought malpractice insurance for the doctors at the county hospital; we settled lawsuits pursuant to MICRA related to the county medical professionals. People have argued the pros and cons of MICRA. The point that needs to be made is that H.R. 5 is not MICRA. MICRA's cap on noneconomic damages applies to medical malpractice cases only. H.R. 5 extends liability relief to insurance companies, HMOs, nursing homes, medical device manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies. In some cases, injured persons, for example, an elderly person abused in a nursing home, will only be able to look to their noneconomic damages for relief because they do not have any earnings to recover. MICRA in California does not limit punitive damages in personal injury cases, but H.R. 5 caps punitive damages at two times economic loss, or $250,000, whichever is greater. H.R. 5 would actually preempt California law by precluding tort recovery against nursing homes, HMOs who wrongly make medical decisions, and insurance companies. It would undercut California's elder abuse statutes, as well as undercut new measures that we have fought hard for in California that allow HMOs to be held accountable for their decision-making when that decision-making disrupts the doctor-patient relationship. So whatever one thinks about MICRA in California, examine carefully H.R. 5, because it is not MICRA; it is putting the doctors in front of the insurance companies. But the big beneficiaries are the HMOs, the pharmaceutical companies, and the insurance companies and nursing homes. I think this is not what our country should be doing to preempt California's elder abuse statutes and our new effort to hold HMOs accountable for the practice of medicine through insurance.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, a massive digital revolution is unfolding before our very eyes. Like most breakthroughs in the past, this revolution has provoked deep concern and suspicion within the entertainment industry. In response Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. However, the law is flawed. It threatens fair use and First Amendment rights by imposing strict liability on the circumvention of technical restrictions. It has the potential to destroy the First Sale doctrine and to extend copyright terms in perpetuity. And in practice, it has chilled technological development and competition. That was especially evident last week when a Federal judge, citing the DMCA, issued an injunction chilling competition in the market for printer cartridges which have nothing to do with copyrights. Today I am introducing the BALANCE Act of 2003 which seeks to restore the traditional balance of copyright law. I hope this bill will help move all parties toward the ultimate goal, a robust digital marketplace where DRM protects copyright holders, where the IT industry has freedom to create new and exciting devices and where consumers are given a broad array of lawful alternatives that are affordable, reliable, secure, and respectful of their legal rights and expectations.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am very honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a distinguished scientist and Member of this House.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would note before yielding to my colleague from California a letter received from the Senior Pastor of the Riverside Baptist Church and the Legislative Director of the United Church of Christ, where it is said, ``While it is imperative that we as a Nation and as a people of faith proceed with caution, it is also important that we do what we can to alleviate the suffering of others. We believe that to ban this potentially life-saving research would be a mistake.'' I think it is important that we recognize the diversity of religious viewpoints on when life begins and not impose just one viewpoint on the country. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter referred to. February 26, 2003. Hon. James Greenwood, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Greenwood: As members of the religious community, we would like to commend you for your leadership on stem cell research. Your recognition of the great promise of stem cell research and your support for legislation that allows therapeutic cloning offer great hope for those suffering from juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and other ailments. This is a difficult issue for all of us, and we understand the complex decision you face in considering any legislation that involves human cloning. While it is imperative that we as a nation and as people of faith proceed with great caution, it is also important to do what we can to alleviate the suffering of others. Therefore, we believe that to ban this potentially life-saving research would be a mistake. Like most, we are opposed to the practice of reproductive human cloning. A ban on this practice would be both welcome and appropriate. Therapeutic cloning, however, requires careful review. We are pleased that you considered this issue in its entirety and took into account the countless individuals who could be saved and whose pain could be alleviated by this medical research. We have a duty to do what we can to help our fellow man, and you have demonstrated your commitment to doing so through your leadership on this issue. Sincerely, Rabbi Hershel Billet, President, Rabbinical Council of America, New York, NY. Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, Director of Religion, Chautauqua Institution, Chautauqua,

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), a Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I, like the authors of H.R. 534, believe that we should outlaw human cloning. If we wanted to pass a bill that only prohibits human cloning, it would sail through Congress on a voice vote. But this bill goes too far. It halts the progress of medical research by banning somatic cell nuclear transfer for research and medical treatments. This research has promise for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and others. This bill criminalizes a scientific research process that takes place in a petri dish, regardless of the intent of the researcher or the inability of this process to result in the birth of a cloned child. The penalty for violating these provisions includes sanctions of a criminal fine and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years and a civil penalty of at least $1 million. This would represent an unprecedented intrusion of the criminal law into the scientific process. I think the science teachers of America may be pretty appalled at what they hear and see on this floor today. I think much that has been said and will be said reflects a profound ignorance about the science, about the current role of the FDA in their regulatory practices, but also Americans need to ask themselves why the proponents of this bill want to ban this research, and I think the answer is simple: They want to impose their religious beliefs on the entire country. This country reflects the diverse religious beliefs found all over the world. Some, like the authors of this bill, believe that all cloning is wrong. Others believe that research cloning should be allowed. These are all legitimate views, but I think it is wrong to use the political power of one group to criminalize the beliefs of another. To better understand the real issue involved in this debate, it is important to understand what research cloning is. Somatic cell nuclear transfer has six steps: a woman donates an egg; a patient donates a somatic cell, like a skin cell; the nucleus is removed from the egg; the nucleus from the patient's skin cell is inserted into the egg; the egg is then stimulated to induce it to divide; the egg begins to divide, creating stem cells that are identical to the patient's own cells. So we are talking about the creation of cells in a petri dish, not bringing a child into this world. That is why research cloning is supported by some of the most ardent pro-life conservatives like Senator Orrin Hatch and former Senator Connie Mack, who said, ``Anyone who would ban research on embryonic stem cells will be responsible for harm done to real live postnatal sentient beings who might be helped by this research.'' Why is this process important? Scientists believe that these stem cells are less likely to be rejected after transplant since they have the same genetic properties as the recipient. They could also help scientists learn why diseases occur. They also have important advantages over adult stem cells which cannot develop into as many cell types and which cannot be generated in the same quantities in the lab. That is why this bill is opposed by almost every organization representing patients and researchers, including Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, the Biotechnology Industry Association, the Society for Women's Health Research, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, and the Alliance for Aging Research. I have heard the words that we are going down a ``slippery slope'' used by the proponents of this bill, but in fact the slippery slope is that being suggested by those who call six cells in a petri dish the equivalent of me or my mother. If it is murder to use somatic cell transfer and to create six cells for research purposes, then it must also be mass murder to have in vitro fertilization and discard the cells that are not later utilized by the couple using IVF. So the slippery slope is to eliminate in vitro fertilization in this country. This debate really boils down to one question: Should an embryonic stem cell with no central nervous system, no chance of developing into a fetus have the same rights as a child suffering from juvenile diabetes? I do not think so. I urge you not to rob sick Americans of their hope for a cure. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chairman

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that much of what has been said today in support of this bill has nothing to do with protecting the country from the ills outlined. What is somatic cell nuclear transfer? A woman donates an egg, a patient donates a skin cell. Perhaps the nucleus is removed from the egg. The DNA from the skin cell is inserted into the egg. The egg is stimulated to divide into eight cells, and those are the stem cells. What has been talked about in terms of embryo experimentation is certainly legal if this bill were to pass and instead of a skin cell there was a sperm that began that cell division, if we had in vitro fertilization, we could experiment all we wanted. So I think where we are going with this proposal is apparently a plan to outlaw in vitro fertilization in the United States. I think we ought to be clear about that.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my final 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on this bill. We have taken a consensus and we all agree that human cloning should be outlawed and warped it into a vehicle to impose one religious viewpoint on the scientists of this country. Not only is this wrong, but it will force scientists to flee our shores, will bring down the veil of ignorance to our country, and will remove us as having the leading scientific edge in the world for this biotechnology research. I urge all Members to vote no.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Ms. LOFGREN. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I first yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this bill not only ties the hands of our medical researchers; it prevents Americans from utilizing cures developed in other countries. There is no doubt that if this bill becomes law, we will lose our most talented medical researchers. They will flock to other countries that continue to allow therapeutic cloning; and hopefully, one day, they will help to develop cures to some of the worst diseases known to humankind. What happens when a British researcher develops a cure for Alzheimer's or is able to regenerate insulin-producing cells in children with juvenile diabetes or learns how to generate nervous system cells that can restore spinal cord function after paralysis? Sick Americans should have access to these cures. But H.R. 534 prevents the importation of any products derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer. It would make it a crime for a terminally-ill person to receive medical care in America if the cure was developed using this science abroad. That is both unnecessary and unfair. The motion to recommit is simple. It will ensure that cures developed in other countries are available to Americans suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injury, MS, severe burns, and other diseases. If cures to these debilitating diseases are found, Congress should not stand in the way or require its citizens to travel to other countries to benefit from them. There have been lots of argument today about a slippery slope. There is no slippery slope in this motion. Mr. Speaker, I have been deeply troubled by many of the arguments I have heard today. I am troubled that some Members think they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on all Americans. I am troubled that in return, some of the most vulnerable members of society, like children suffering from juvenile diabetes, would be forced potentially to give up their best hope for a cure. This country is a democracy; it is not a theocracy. I understand that some Members of this House have religious beliefs that are guiding them. My advice to them would be, if you object to the cures that are developed using this technology of therapeutic cloning, fine, do not use the cure. But do not try and deny other Americans cures to deadly diseases because of your own religious beliefs. That is simply an improper role for Congress to take. Therapeutic cloning has nothing to do with cloning a child. There is no fertilization with sperm, there is no implantation into the uterus, there is no pregnancy, there is no child. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a scientific method where researchers create new stem cells in a petri dish. To listen to some of the debate today, one would see that there would be a picture painted that very tiny babies in test tubes are being the subject of this research. That is completely false. These are eight cells on a petri dish that can give lifesaving cures to Americans and others throughout the world who are suffering horrendous diseases. I think we ought to take the advice of Senator Hatch and former First Lady Nancy Reagan who wrote, ``The embryonic stem cell research, under appropriate guidelines, may provide our scientists with many answers that are now beyond our grasp. There are so many diseases that can be cured, or at least helped, that we can't turn our backs on this.'' Do not turn your backs on the millions of Americans who might be able to benefit from cures made abroad.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on Commerce.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has led efforts to promote science in this regard.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a leader of the New Democrats and someone who has distinguished himself on the issue of medical research.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).