Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just make a couple of observations. No one law or measure will solve every problem. We know that. I think that we have heard a lot of discussion not only here today in these chambers but from individuals outside of this body critical of really very modest gun safety measures that if we do not have a 100 percent solution then we should just throw up our hands and do nothing. That is not the way we operate in this country. Because there are some people who drive drunk and we do not effectuate an arrest and prosecution of every single person who has gotten behind the wheel drunk does not mean that we are going to say that it is okay to drive while drunk. Because the 408 children who died in accidental shootings last year in this country might not all have been saved because of a trigger lock is no excuse not to do what we can so that some of those children might have been saved. I am hopeful that we can finally have a meeting of the conference committee on which I serve. When we met on August 5, we gave speeches to each other. I was there. I asked that we stay in that room and that we continue to work on the measure. At that point, my two teenagers were getting ready to start high school. Now my oldest daughter is getting ready to graduate from high school, and we have still done absolutely nothing. We need to earn our paychecks. I travel 5,000 miles a week to come to this body to work, to hopefully serve the American people. I am coming here every week hoping that we can gain a law that will make some children safer, not just to rename post offices but to do something that actually will serve the American people. Please, please, let us approve this motion to instruct conferees. Let us get to work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side, and do I have the right to close?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am quite honored to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute across the aisle to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) spoke what he thought was accurate, but I do not believe it is, in fact, accurate. I understand from our staff on the Democratic side that there has been no discussions at all at a staff level since October. There has been discussion about all of these negotiations that are going on behind closed doors. No one has spoken to me, and I am a member of the committee. No one has spoken to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and she is a member of the conference committee. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has tried very mightily and in good faith, and I believe that the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is also operating in good faith, trying to find a way for us to reach conclusion, but that is over. We are not getting anywhere. It may be that we will not, in fact, be able to find common ground but I do know this: If we never talk to each other, if we never have a meeting, if we never share in public what we think, then we will never get to where the country needs us to be. We were in the middle of the night last year when we ended up with the juvenile justice bill before us, and I thought it was ironic that the final bill that we had was actually a retreat from current law. It would have actually weakened the current state of the law and that is why I believe the NRA urged a yes vote on that bill and handgun control, the other side of the coin, urged a no vote. That is why we had so many people who believe in sensible gun safety measures opposing that measure because it actually was a retreat from where we are today. Since that time, we have had many tragedies. We have had a 6-year-old kill another 6-year-old. We have had a preschool assaulted by a maniac with a gun and shooting little children. We have had firefighters shot at. We have had many tragedies and it may be that the 21 individuals and Members of this House who did not understand the need for modest gun safety measures last year may have received a wake-up call. It is possible that we can come together, but it is not going to be possible if we never try. Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of rhetoric and discussion about various interest groups. I have not mentioned the NRA, but I will include for the record their missive urging a ``no'' vote on the Lofgren motion to instruct, because they have inserted themselves into even such an innocuous motion to instruct such as this. We are not saying where the conference committee has to end up in this motion to instruct, although I have made no secret of the fact I hope we can adopt measures. Just that we can try. Mr. Speaker, I would urge adoption of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the missive from the NRA. Support the Second Amendment--the National Rifle Association Urges You to Vote ``No'' on the Lofgren Motion to Instruct Today! Rep. Lofgren's motion to instruct demands a date certain deadline for the Juvenile Justice Conference Committee to begin deliberations on H.R. 1501. Yet at the same time, Rep. Lofgren is also demanding that the House Conferees accept nothing less than the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1501. In a letter, of March 2nd, from Congressmen Gephardt and Bonior, and signed by Rep. Lofgren and other Members, to Senator Orrin Hatch, they demand the following ``Such a conference report MUST include gun safety measures that are AT LEAST as strong as those passed by the Senate.'' How can Rep. Lofgren expect the House conferees to agree to something that failed in the House twice already last June (McCarthy and Conyers amendments) and will fail again if brought up for a vote? Do they really want to help address the juvenile crime problem in this country or are they just politically posturing in an election year? There is no reason to force a deadline other than to allow political grandstanding on issues that Members are already trying to resolve in good faith, the National Rifle Association urges you to vote ``no'' today on the Lofgren motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: Ms. Lofgren moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1501, be instructed to insist that the committee of conference should have its first substantive meeting to offer amendments and motions within the next 2 weeks. Madam Speaker, while I understand the House rules do not allow Members to coauthor motions to instruct, I would like to say that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) supports this motion and intends to speak on its behalf tomorrow.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7c of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: Ms. Lofgren moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1501, be instructed to insist that the committee of conference should have its first substantive meeting to offer amendments and motions within the next 2 weeks. While I understand that House rules do not allow Members to co-author motions to instruct, I would like to say that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) supports this motion and intends to join me in speaking on its behalf tomorrow.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill before us today, and I think it is worth pointing out that I am joined in this opposition by the Violence Policy Center, the National Conference of State Legislatures, Handgun Control, as well as the attorney general of the State of California. This so-called small business liability reform bill offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) is not really about small businesses at all. In fact, the businesses may be quite big, making millions and millions of dollars and still be protected by this bill. It is only judged small by the number of employees. Interestingly enough, it turns out that the manufacturers of most of the guns that have caught our attention in the tragedies that have beset this Nation, for example, the horrible shootings in Columbine, were in fact manufactured by gun companies that fall below the 25- employee limit, who would be, if this bill were to pass, immune from liability. That liability is now being pursued by a number of local governments. For example, back home, the county of San Mateo and the city of Los Angeles are pursuing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers to try and assess the responsibility for wrong behavior. Unfortunately, this bill would put those lawsuits out of court. I do not think that is the right thing to do. I do not think that is the right thing for this Congress to do. Now, it may be true that the causes of action being pursued by these local governments to hold these gun manufacturers responsible for misbehavior, it may be that these causes of action will not be sustained. But I do not believe it is proper for Congress to intervene in that judicial process. I do not think we should be giving a court holiday to the manufacturer of the Tec DC-9 that tried to evade the rules and the laws that Congress adopted against assault weapons. We know the result of that evasion was that young people in Columbine High School lost their lives. I am a member of the Juvenile Justice Conference Committee. I am mindful that we have met only once. We met on August 3 of last year. There was a lot of talk at that time that we would come together and address the gun safety issues that the Senate had passed, that we would do that in time for the beginning of this school year. Time is a- wasting. My daughter is now preparing for her high school graduation, not the onset of high school, and yet we have done nothing, to do nothing except propose to take away the only tool that exists for local government to try and get control of this out-of-control gun violence issue. I think what we are doing is shameful. I would hope that we would listen to the Council of State Governments and butt out of this litigation issue, that we would not create a web of safety for gun manufacturers who have acted improperly. I would add that we offered an amendment at the Committee on Rules, myself and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and some others. That amendment was not put in order. I think that was a real shame, that we would not have an opportunity to exempt gun dealers and manufacturers from the protections that this bill would provide. Because of that and many other reasons, I would hope that people who want to do something about gun violence, people who feel that we owe something to the mothers and fathers of this country to make their children a little bit safer in school from gun violence, that we will vote against this measure. That is all that we can do in decency. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill before us today. I think it is worth pointing out that I am joined in this opposition by the Violence Policy Center, the National Conference of State Legislatures, Handgun Control, as well as the Attorney General of the State of California. This so-called small business liability reform bill, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), is not really about small businesses at all. In fact, the businesses may be quite big, making millions and millions of dollars and still be protected by this bill for small businesses. It is only judged small by the number of employees. Interestingly enough, it turns out that the manufacturers of most of the guns that have caught our attention in the tragedies that have beset this Nation, including the horrible shootings in Columbine, were gun manufacturers that fall below the 25-employee limit and who would be, if this bill were to pass, immune from liability for the damage they've done. Liability for wrong doing by these manufacturers is now being pursued by a number of local governments. For example, back home in California, the county of San Mateo and the city of Los Angeles are suing gun manufacturers and dealers for wrong behavior, to try and assess their irresponsibility. Unfortunately, this bill would put such lawsuits out of court and on the street. I do not think that is the right thing for this Congress to do. Now, of course, it may be true that the causes of action being pursued in court by these local governments, seeking to hold these gun manufacturers responsible for misbehavior, may not be upheld. But I do not believe it is proper for Congress to intervene in such judicial processes and determine the issue this way. I do not think we should be giving a court holiday to the manufacturer of the Tec DC-9. That gun manufacturer tried to evade the rules and the laws that Congress adopted against assault weapons by slight modifications to their weapons to evade our proscriptions. We know the result of that evasion was that their weapon was available and young people in Columbine High School lost their lives. I am a member of the Juvenile Justice Conference Committee. I am mindful that we have met only once and that was on August 3rd of last year. There was a lot of talk at that time by the majority about how we would come together and address the gun safety issues that the Senate had passed, that we would do that in time for the beginning of the school year, that is, the school year that began last September. Well, time is a-wasting. My daughter is now preparing not for the beginning of the year but for her high school graduation. Yet we have done nothing--nothing except propose to take away the only tool that exists for local government to try to get control of this out-of-control gun violence issue. I think what we are doing is shameful. I would hope that we would listen to the Council of State Governments who believe this is their business, not ours, and butt out of this litigation issue. I would hope that we would not create a safety shield that protects gun manufacturers who have acted improperly. It is not like we haven't tried to avoid this miscarriage. I argued against this in an amendment offered in the Judiciary Committee. We offered the same amendment before the Committee on Rules, myself, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). That amendment was ruled out of order even though it was germane and voted upon in the Judiciary Committee. It was ruled out of order for a vote by the full House. I think that was a real shame, that we would not have an opportunity for the members of this House to exempt gun dealers and manufacturers from the protections that this bill would provide. For this and many other reasons, I would hope that people who want to do something about gun violence, people who feel that they owe something to the mothers and fathers of this country to make their children a little bit safer in school from gun violence, that they will vote against this measure. That is all that they can do in decency and justice.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, because I believe that this legislation provides funding for internet and computing research that is essential to maintaining our status as a world leader in information technologies. Last week's hacker attacks on some of the foremost e-commerce web sites indicates the degree to which the development of the internet and our understanding of all of its possibilities and pitfalls, is still in its infancy. Just as buying stock in information technology companies has been a successful investment, dedicating funds to basic research into internet privacy, security, and stability, and helping to develop the technologies that will drive the next-generation internet, is as worthwhile an investment as we can make. The federal government played a founding role in the growth of the internet, helping to develop and build both the infrastructure that carries the internet and the computers that power it. This bill continues that tradition of our role in the growth of this technology, technology that has the power to benefit so many people. H.R. 2086 provides nearly half a billion dollars to the National Science Foundation, hundreds of millions of dollars to NASA and the Department of Energy, and millions more to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency. The money is dedicated to long-term basic research on networking and information technology, and involves universities and the private sector in this collective research effort through grants for development and study. This bill is truly legislation that everyone, particularly everyone involved in the growth of our new high-tech economy, can support. And most everyone already has. The Science Committee approved this bill unanimously, and a tremendous coalition of business, university, and government groups from across the country have voiced their support for this extremely important legislation. This bill will be a boon to the people of Silicon Valley, the area that I represent, and companies and trade associations that have been at the forefront of the development of the newest generation of information technology. But this is hardly a local phenomenon. The University of Washington, the Big Ten Universities, MIT, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Co-Chairs of the President's Information Technology Advisory Council all have endorsed this legislation. Little wonder that internet technology, which has connected people from across the country and across the world like nothing before it, could also connect people in support of this legislation assisting in its development. Mr. Chairman, basic research into new internet technologies drove the development of the world wide web and the incredible system of networks that now traverse the globe. Decades of basic research into computers and information technology were the catalyst for the internet economic boom that is now sweeping the country with a broad swath of prosperity in its wake. This bill provides hundreds of millions of dollars of extremely well-spent investment into further basic research to continue there geometric advances in information technologies, and I hope that the rest of my colleagues will join the 41 Members of the Science Committee in supporting it wholeheartedly.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve the right to object, I would like to note that the Sunset Act itself forces Congress to reexamine the usefulness of the reports. But, as the chairman has pointed out, there are some of these reports that are very important. And I am pleased to report that there has been a bipartisan effort to identify the very same reports the chairman has mentioned today. We believe, on a bipartisan basis, that the reports identified and preserved under this Act will continue to provide information important to legislative and to oversight processes and, in particular, that it will allow the Congress to make sure that privacy is protected. And for that reason, if no other, we do need to act today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add finally a note of thanks to the Committee on the Judiciary's staff that worked on this measure, my own special counsel John Flannery; Cassandra Butts in the office of the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt); and finally, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) himself, who really was very passionate in making sure that the privacy issues that will be protected by this bill were brought to the forefront so that we could be here today on this bipartisan basis to make sure that this is enacted.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the subcommittee, for a brief explanation of the bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the disability provisions of this act are really important and are going to make a difference in the lives of many. But I want to talk about two other provisions that will make our country more prosperous, and that is the R&D tax credit and Section 127 of the Tax Code. Our party's position, the Democratic position, as stated by our leader is that the R&D tax credit should be permanent. This 5-year extension is really in the right direction. I am happy to support it. But next year we are going to go for permanent. On 127, I was so pleased that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, has taken so much time to work on this. It is important that we support employer-supported tuition reimbursement plans. In this day and age, when the best educated workforce means they will be competitive, encouraging employers to help employees to continue their education is essential. Again, I am happy to support this extension, and I look forward to extending this to graduate education. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) whose understanding and support of high-tech issues in this bill comes through loud and clear. He really followed through on the commitments he made when he came and visited Silicon Valley and really understood the issue of competitiveness and technology and education. So kudos to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his wonderful work. I look forward to taking both of these provisions just a little bit farther in the next Congress.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, when do you have information? Ten years ago, I was in local government and we organized our court files electronically and allowed the sheriff to access those court files for jail management. I remember going over to talk to the then sheriff who had deputies handwriting the information down on pieces of paper off the screen. I asked, ``Why are you doing this?'' He said, ``So we'll really have the information.'' Do you have the information when it is on the screen, on your hard drive, in your head, or when it is on a piece of paper? The answer is, in all of those cases. We are not changing any consumer law at all with this bill and with this amendment. What we are doing is allowing for the free flow of information on the Internet, so that we can have electronic commerce, so that information in the Information Age can flow. I have heard many expressions really of anxiety by Members about the Information Age and the concept that you have information when it is electronic. Let me assure my colleagues that you do and consumers will be fully protected under the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out that there is no waiver of notice in writing. All we are talking about is transmission of that writing and whether the writing is received electronically or on a piece of paper, it is in writing in both cases.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear today in favor of 1714, especially after the Inslee amendment is adopted. I would like to say that some of the tinge of rhetoric that approaches partisanship, I think, is unfortunate. I am privileged to serve with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, who really has played such a leadership role in so many high-tech issues this year, including the patent reform bill and the Y2K reform bill. I mean we are here because we are dealing with difficult times, a transition from the analog world to the digital world, and I think that as we do that, we have to create a transition rule for the parts of the country that are not where Silicon Valley is yet. In doing so, I think it is important that we establish some principles. I heard the distinguished Member from Michigan mention contracts of adhesion, and clearly contracts of adhesion violate contract law. I think it needs to be emphasized that nothing in this bill amends contract law other than the means of transmission. The medium for transmission does not change the substance of the law. A contract is a contract is a contract. We recognize that because we are in a transition area there are certain things that are too high risk to have fully in electronic commerce in this transition period, including foreclosures of real property and the like, that are outlined in the bill of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), but it is important that we take a step forward to promote electronic commerce. How do I do it? We bought our last car on line. And when I get the notices, I just click and file those notices under my commercial receipts file in my e-mail account. When I go to amazon.com, and they send me the notices of where my books are on the way, I file those in a pending file. Some day, all of us will do that. For now, this bill, with the amendment, will allow all of America to move forward.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I only served with George for a few years from January 1995 until his passing just a short time ago. But while I served with George just these few years, I will never forget this man whose influence on our country and its future is so profound. In truth, I first became aware of George Brown while working for my predecessor in office, Congressman Don Edwards. At the time the nation faced the challenge of war in Southeast Asia. Early on, American opinion was not divided as it would later be. There were few who were willing to question. Don Edwards was one of them. So was George Brown. Whatever your view of America's role in that conflict, the courage to do one's job as a legislator--to ask the tough questions and to stand for what one believed in does command respect. George Brown was always a person who would stand up for what he believed in. When I was elected to the 104th Congress, I asked to be assigned to the Science Committee where George Brown was serving as ranking Member. At the time all of the former Chairmen of Committees were adjusting to new roles in the minority. Some former Chairmen, quite frankly, had a hard time coping with this new role. George Brown rose to the occasion. Who wouldn't rather be in charge? But he understood the important role he could play by using his knowledge as a resource for the whole Congress--both Democrats and Republicans. I came to understand that if George Brown gave advice on Science Policy it was a good bet that it was exactly what our country should do. And while the 104th Congress definitely had its rocky moments, as the months wore on it became clear that George Brown was commanding respect on both sides of the aisle. I doubt that all of the scientists in America understand how much is owed to George for his vision and understanding about science. Can all the American citizens fully appreciate how much poorer would be our economy and our quality of life--how much more limited our future-- without the years of advocacy for sound science policies that George led? But George did his work not for the glory, but for the satisfaction that he was making a difference. He was never afraid to do what was right and he was smart enough to figure out, in the complex field of science, what was the correct course. George was widely rumored over the years to be contemplating retirement. When I first heard that rumor, I wrote him an impassioned multi-page letter asking him to stay and letting him know how much his leadership on science would not only be missed in this House, but in the world. He listened to those of us who begged him to stay and we were grateful. Shortly before George left us, he told the Democratic Members of the California Delegation that we could count on him: He would run for reelection and would do his best to win. While he didn't get that chance, I will always remember that he was willing to go full measure for America. Whether as a soldier in World War II or a soldier in the effort to support science, he served his country with valor, with intelligence and with distinction. I am grateful to him for his many kindnesses to me, his wit and his wisdom, for the example he made for younger Members of his House about integrity and commitment as well as for his love and dedication to his family. I miss George a great deal. Despite all of the talented people working on Science Issues in this House, none of us can claim the experience, expertise and wise leadership that George gave the country in this arena. We will try to fill in the gaps his parting left. I, for one, feel grateful to have known him to have served with him. I feel lucky that I had the change to tell him how much I admired him while he was still living. I miss him and join with my colleague tonight in honoring his life and his contributions.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to support this measure before us this evening, because it is going to help me answer a question that my constituents have been asking over and over again, which is why would Congress prevent local channels from being received by satellite dishes? I can see no reason for controlling competition in the way that we have done so. This measure will help bring competition to TV transmission. There is a further issue that I think is enormously important, and that is the inclusion of patent reform. This Congress has been on record several times urging and hoping that we could bring American patent law into the modern era. Although we are making sausage here tonight, maybe this by way of process is not pristine, the absolute end result of a good patent reform bill is well worth our support, and I am grateful that it has been included.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the rule makes in order the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), myself, and several other individuals, which strengthens and I believe solves the consumer protection issues that were of concern to some Members. Specifically, on the third page of the amendment, and I will quote, the amendment would provide that ``Nothing in this Act affects the content or timing of any disclosure required to be provided to any consumer under any statute, regulation, or other rule of law.'' I think that is about as broad as we can get in terms of making sure that consumer protection statutes are undisturbed by this electronic signature act. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on Commerce is disposed to favor this amendment, and I think that shows the bipartisan effort that has been underway to make sure that this electronic signature act does become law. The other important provision of the bill guarantees the consumers the right to opt into electronic records, and really an astoundingly broad provision that allows the consumer to withdraw his or her consent at any time. So I think this is a light touch in terms of regulation, but there is a need for consistency and a general scheme for electronic commerce, as we all know. I am hopeful that Members will read the language of the Inslee amendment, along with the underlying bill, so they can assure themselves, as I have been assured, that this is a fair measure that will promote e-commerce and will do no harm to other important issues. Please do read the amendment, instead of just listening to the arguments.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, while physicians and patients now pay attention to the adverse health impacts of poor nutrition and inadequate exercise, too few people pay attention to the harm that can result from inadequate sleep. Sleep scientists have linked such ailments as high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and brain damage to inadequate sleep. We are all aware that drivers who fall asleep at the wheel can kill; not enough of us realize that inadequate sleep can cause severe physical ailments. The article ``Can't Sleep,'' published in the summer 1998 edition of Stanford Today, outlines the severity of that threat. It should be read by every physician and patient in America. [From Stanford Today, July/Aug. 1998] Can't Sleep--One of America's Leading Sleep Experts Reveals Shocking Facts About Your Sleepless Nights (By Chris Vaughan) It was 1972, and the pediatricians at Stanford Hospital were stumped. Raymond S., an 11-year-old boy with an array of odd symptoms, had been referred to Stanford because his doctors in the East Bay didn't know what to do. Raymond's blood pressure was so dangerously--and inexplicably--high that the 6th-grader was in danger of damage to his internal organs. Because the boy was also pathologically sleepy during the day, he was sent over to the Stanford Sleep Disorders Clinic, the first and only one of its kind in the world then. The clinic directors--Drs. William Dement and Christian Guilleminault--diagnosed the boy's disorder as a condition they had only recently named: sleep apnea. As Raymond slept, he would literally stop breathing for anywhere between 30 and 60 seconds at a time, they found. Worse still, this would happen hundreds of times each night. When the boy stopped breathing, his brain would panic, interpreting his body's action as suffocation. The result: His blood pressure shot up, his heart pounded, and he awoke just enough to begin breathing again, but still not enough to remember the incident in the morning. Hence his excruciating daytime drowsiness. Raymond was always sleepy because he was not getting any real sleep at night. None of the pediatricians consulted would buy the sleep clinic's diagnosis. Raymond's condition grew worse. When the boy started showing signs of heart and kidney failure, his skeptical doctors finally allowed sleep clinic physicians to cut a breathing hole in the boy's throat. The difference was fast: The boy's blood pressure dropped and his overall condition improved dramatically. Dement would have counted this as a victory, except that the boy's primary physicians still refused to acknowledge the problem. After a few months, they wanted to close up the hole. ``They still didn't understand that the hole was saving his life,'' Dement said. Raymond kept the breathing hole and Dement kept in touch with him for a few years. Eventually Dement lost track of him, but he expects that current practices must have allowed Raymond to have the hole closed and to use alternate therapies. Since then Americans have learned a lot more about the importance of sleep and dangers of sleep disorders to the nation's health. Since the discovery of Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep 45 years ago, Dement, 69, has played a part in nearly every major development in sleep research and has attracted star students and researchers, and the money to fund their work. Former Stanford students and fellows have spread the gospel and started their own clinics and research centers around the world. Before Congress and corporations, and on national radio and television talk shows, Dement has brought an unwavering message: ``Sleep disorders are killing people, and yet they are tremendously under-diagnosed.'' In a report for the House Subcommittee on Health and Environment last year, he declared that sleep disorders represent one of the nation's most serious health problems, and that the need for sleep research is virtually ignored. The numbers are stunning. More than half of Americans have suffered from a sleep disorder at some time, accordingly to a survey ordered last year by the National Sleep Foundation in Washington, D.C. Approximately 30 percent of adult Americans suffer from moderate to severe sleep disorders, and less than 5 percent are diagnosed and treated. More than 18 million people--7 percent of the population--stop breathing or struggle for breath in their sleep more than five times every hour. In the worst cases, sleepers stop breathing more than 30 times each hour, often for more than a minute. Under these conditions the heart can stop beating for 10 or 15 seconds at a time, and blood oxygen can drop to about one-fifth of normal, equivalent to that of a climber at the summit of Mt. Everest. Patients with such severe apnea can get cardiovascular disease and brain damage. One would think that such a prevalent and dangerous disorder would receive a lot of attention and be treated aggressively. Yet Dement says that when he used a computer to scan 10 million coded patient records, he found a total of only 72 patients who were diagnosed with apnea. ``I couldn't believe it,'' Dement says. ``So I hired people to read over 11,000 written patient records.'' They found not one diagnosed sleep problem. Apnea is only one of many sleep problems that are unrecognized or ignored. Sleep specialists estimate that physicians detect only about 2 percent of all sleep disorders, and most people have basic misconceptions about the mechanics of their own sleep. Put it in another context and the danger is clear. ``It's almost as if no one had every heard of diabetes,'' Dement says. ``What if we didn't know that the blindness, nerve damage and other health problems in one part of the population were due to one treatable disease?'' Hundreds of sleep-disorders sufferers have testified in Congress for the National Commission on Sleep Disorders Research about the shambles made of their lives from apnea, narcolepsy (sudden attacks of sleep and paralysis), insomnia and restless legs syndrome--an infuriatingly frustrating syndrome in which people can't fall asleep because they must constantly stretch their legs. Statistics from a study by the government's National Transportation Safety Board show that sleep deprivation contributes to approximately 72,000 accidents on the roadways each year. The total cost of drowsy driving amounts to $12.4 million a year. The study also established that sleep deprivation was a major cause of the grounding of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker in Alaska. Even without a diagnosis, many people are sleep deprived and never know it. Over millions of years, our bodies have evolved to awaken and to sleep with the rise and fall of the sun. But the invention of electric lights has given us an artificial sun and provided a basis for our busy 24-hour society. As a result, people now get about 20 percent less sleep than they did a century ago. No wonder we're sleepy. A study by the National Sleep Foundation reveals that 64 percent of people in the United States sleep fewer than the recommended 8 hours a night, while 32 percent sleep fewer than 6 hours a night. Not surprisingly, sleep deprivation is extremely high among the nation's college students. Society has been slow to recognize sleep disorders because of major misconceptions about what sleep exactly is. People traditionally considered sleep a time when the body and brain simply turned off. Physicians thought that nothing happened in sleep; that sleep could not be a source of health problems. Overturning such scientific and popular misconceptions about sleep has been a major activity for Dement, his colleagues and students since the start of the era of modern sleep research in 1953. In that year, University of Chicago physiologist Nathaniel Kleitman and graduate student Eugene Aserinsky discovered that the body and brain do not shut down during sleep. Instead, they experience periods of rapid eye movement. Dement joined Kleitman's lab shortly after and helped demonstrate that intense brain activity and dreaming accompanied these REM periods of the sleeper. After completing his medical degree, Dement carried on his own research at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York where he took the next step, demonstrating that everyone has REM sleep. By the time Dement moved to Stanford in 1962, he was working on a seemingly rare sort of epilepsy--called narcolepsy--that caused people to feel weak in the knees, collapse or fall instantly asleep when they laughed or got otherwise excited. These narcoleptic patients could even find themselves dreaming while awake, unable to tell which images were real and which were dreams. Dement had come across only five such patients in New York. But when he placed an advertisement in the San Francisco Chronicle describing narcolepsy's symptoms and asking for people to call if they fit that description, he found 50 new patients. In 1965, sleep apnea had been described in a few obese patients by French researchers, but the discovery had been practically ignored because no one realized that the disorder could be so severe, or that slender people could suffer from it. The disorder was called Pickwickian syndrome after ``Joe, the fat boy,'' a lad in Dickens' The Pickwick Papers who could fall asleep standing up. Apnea occurs when the muscles relax during sleep, narrowing the throat where the back of the tongue is anchored. As air is pulled into the lungs, the suction collapses the throat and halts breathing. 'When straws were made of paper, I used to say it was like trying to suck a milkshake through a wet straw,'' Dement says, laughing about his antiquated illustration. ``Students now have grown up with plastic straws, and they don't know what I'm talking about.'' If the air passage is almost closed off, breathing results in loud snoring as the throat tissue vibrates. Loud snoring (i.e., easily heard through a wall or closed door) is a danger sign that someone has apnea or soon might get it. Apnea is especially debilitating because it deprives the sleeper of the most important phases of sleep--REM sleep and deep non-REM sleep--when the muscles are most relaxed. Although tracheostomy (a hole in the throat) used to be the only treatment for apnea, there are now a number of treatments, including surgery to trim throat tissue, and machines that provide positive pressure in the airway to keep it open during sleep. A new technique has just received approval from the Food and Drug Administration: zapping the throat with a carefully calibrated dose of microwaves to painlessly shrink the tissue and open the airway. Research at the Stanford Sleep Center eventually led to the isolation of a gene for narcolepsy in dogs that experts expect will help in the search for a human gene. In 1972, sleep experts realized that when people complained about being sleep during the day, it was their sleep that should be examined. The Stanford Sleep Clinic was opened to diagnose and treat sleep problems. Dement's terminology is probably his most famous contribution to public awareness of sleep disorders. ``Gentlemen,'' he declared before a House committee in 1985, ``the national sleep debt is more important that the national monetary debt.'' He estimates that sleep disorders cost the economy $100 billion a year in lost productivity. In the late 1970s, Dement and Stanford researcher Mary Carskadon (now a professor at Brown University) discovered a way to quantify sleepiness. They developed the multiple sleep latency test, still the standard in the field, which proved that sleepiness increased as sleep was curtailed. If they were surprised to find that the body kept track of each hour of sleep missed, they were astonished to realize that the only way to pay back this ``sleep debt'' and alleviate daytime sleepiness was to get exactly that many hours of extra sleep on subsequent nights. In addition, we are tremendously bad judges of our own sleep debt's size. A study by Thomas Roth, director of the Henry Ford Sleep Disorders Center at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, revealed that even among average people who are pathologically drowsy, as sleepy as those with narcolepsy, most do not think they have a problem with daytime sleepiness. Despite advances in the field Dement worries over the inability of general practitioners to recognize and diagnose sleep problems--even among those close to home. Dement tells of a time when he became so frustrated by the lack of referrals from Stanford doctors that he walked into a waiting room at the hospital and offered people sitting there the chance to get a free sleep test worth $1,000. Of the five who accepted, three turned out to have apnea. Although surveys show that the public is more aware of sleep disorders, they are still tremendously under-diagnosed. Dement is currently studying how primary care doctors recognize and treat sleep disorders in small towns. He still gets shocked by the results: Practically zero cases of apnea were diagnosed by the physicians, although further investigation has shown that one in five patients had apnea. ``I had one doctor who had 200 patients with apnea, and he didn't even know it,'' says Dement with exasperation. ``There are 200,000 more doctors like him out there.'' The most recent data are even more shocking: 80 percent of those diagnosed with apnea in the survey town of Moscow, Idaho, have a very severe form that usually leads to death from heart attack or stroke within 10 years. ``I almost couldn't believe the data myself, but it is solid,'' Dement says. ``I don't like medical malpractice suits,'' Dement says with anger, ``but some day, some smart lawyer is going to realize all these people are dying because of an obvious, but missed, diagnosis, and is going to make a fortune in wrongful death cases. The signs are so obvious, a 6-year-old could make a diagnosis.''

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a very special ceremony taking place December 8, 1999: the dedication of the Albert Einstein Monument and Science Garden in Jerusalem. The monument and this occasion pay tribute to the greatest mind of the 20th Century and perhaps of all time--Albert Einstein. I also want to recognize the contributions of Dr. Dan Maydan, president of Applied Materials, Inc., whose generosity made this ceremony possible. Einstein's scientific revelations transformed mankind's understanding of the origins and nature of the universe, and placed within humanity's grasp the power of the elemental forces of nature. But Einstein's genius was not limited to the scientific realm alone, as he was also a great humanitarian, strong advocate for world peace and a proud Jew. A powerful advocate of a Jewish state all his life, Einstein delivered the first-ever scientific address at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1923. Although he was never able to return to Israel, Einstein worked for the rest of his life for the rebirth of the Jewish State, whose presidency he was offered in 1955, shortly before his death. After his escape from the Nazis, Einstein made his home in the United States, becoming one of his adopted country's most revered citizens. In his memory, a deeply moving statue by the noted American artist Robert Berks was erected on the grounds of the National Academy of Sciences here in Washington. Washington's Einstein Memorial inspires all who visit it with its gentle power and its evocation of Einstein's world- altering ideas. For young and old, scientists and non-scientists alike, the statue has become a place of pilgrimage, drawing people back again and again for contemplation and inspiration. Now, thanks to the generosity of Dr. Dan Maydan, President of Applied Materials, Inc., of San Jose, California, a new casting of that statue is being dedicated in Jerusalem. Standing on the grounds of the Israel Academy of Sciences, the monument will serve not only as a tribute to Albert Einstein's contributions to the Jewish people and the State of Israel, but also to the bonds of scientific cooperation between the United States and Israel. This monument, and the display and visitor center that will accompany it, is certain to become a new historical and cultural landmark in Jerusalem. Like its counterpart in the United States, it will become a magnet for visitors and provide inspiration for future generations of scientists and statesmen. Albert Einstein was a man of truly universal vision. ``All religions, arts, and sciences,'' he said, ``are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.'' The Einstein Monument and Science Garden will serve as an eloquent testament to Einstein's scientific genius. Equally important in this dawning era of peace between Israel and its neighbors, it will commemorate Einstein's hatred of war and the vision of world peace that he so passionately espoused. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to please join me in celebrating this historic event as well as recognizing the efforts of Dr. Dan Maydan to bring this to fruition.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I support this concurrent resolution. As my colleagues all may know, not one of the 130 members of the World Trade Organization presently imposes a tariff on the Internet. That is a good thing and may account for the Internet's success. I would like this ``no tariff'' policy to become the official policy of the WTO. I know there are some nations thinking of applying various taxes. I encourage the Members of this Congress to go on record against such taxes. Electronic commerce is made possible by the bits and bytes of information that travel in packets within this country and around the world, across State and national boundaries. There are some who want to tax each bit of information that is transmitted. Earlier this year, the UN suggested taxing the bits that make up the E-mails we have grown accustomed to sending each other. This may suggest to my colleagues the mischief that could be caused by doing such a thing. Let us nip this bit tax idea in the bud and support this concurrent resolution that urges a worldwide ban on any bit tax. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the concurrent resolution.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate Mr. Batista Vieira and Mrs. Dolores Vieira on the 25th anniversary of their involvement with the Broadcast Radio Industry, a quarter-century tenure that has been marked by tremendous dedication and service to the Portuguese community in California. Because of their work, the Portuguese language, culture, traditions, and values have remained alive for the people of California in ways that would have been otherwise impossible. For the last twenty-five years, Mr. and Mrs. Batista's ``Portuguese Radio'' has helped the ``Portuguese of the Diaspora'' living in my district and surrounding areas in Northern California to remain in close contact with the customs and lives of their friends and families in Portugal. ``The Portuguese Radio'' has impressed itself upon the daily lives of so many Portuguese immigrants because of the connection it brings to the nation many of these individuals still consider their cultural homeland; the sounds of Portugal broadcast over Portuguese Radio fill the homes and businesses of these people for countless hours of the day with sounds of the land they once knew, tying their old traditions and ways of life to the land that has newly become their adopted home. Northern California, and particularly Santa Clara County, is a land of tremendous ethnic and cultural diversity, serving as it does as a home to immigrants from all areas of the globe. The cultural richness of this area is truly a result of the efforts of individuals such as Mr. and Mrs. Vieira who have worked through the Broadcast Radio Industry to preserve the beautiful traditions of Portugal in living form. The people of Northern California owe them a profound debt of gratitude.