Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of the resolution to honor the accomplishments of Colonel Eileen Collins, NASA astronaut. As my colleagues know, she recently commanded the successful STS-93 shuttle mission. As such she was the first female shuttle commander in the history of the United States Space Program. She completed the mission with distinction, and she and the rest of the crew are to be congratulated. By all accounts she has handled all of her assignments at NASA and in the Air Force with distinction, and she represents the best in service to our Nation. In addition, Colonel Collins is a valuable role model for young women. She shows them that the sky is not the limit if they study hard, work hard, and are willing to dream. Colonel Collins shows that determination can lead one to get ahead. She began her academic career at Corning Community College where she got a degree in mathematics and science. She went to get her bachelor's degree in mathematics and economics from Syracuse in 1978, a master's of science degree in operations research from Stanford University in 1986, and a master's of arts degree in space systems management from Webster University in 1989. Colonel Collins had nothing given to her, but Colonel Collins worked hard and made a future for herself in the space program and as a role model for girls all over the country. She is just the person to help inspire more young Americans to seek benefits of a math and science education. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Congress is planning to honor her with this resolution. Unfortunately, however, I believe that it risks being a hollow honor. On the one hand we will vote today to honor Colonel Collins for her accomplishments at NASA. On the other hand later this week, the majority is preparing to bring to the floor an appropriations bill that will cut NASA's budget by a billion dollars compared to fiscal year 1999. It is a bill that cuts the President's request for human space flight by a quarter of a billion dollars. The request for space science research is also cut by a quarter of a billion dollars. The request for Earth science research is cut by more than a quarter of a billion dollars. And the request for NASA's infrastructure budget for facilities, personnel, and so forth, is cut by almost a quarter of a billion dollars. I think that the majority is making a grave mistake. NASA has done a great job in streamlining its programs and delivering good value for the taxpayers' investment. We should be supporting NASA's efforts, not slashing its budgets while voting an 800 billion tax cut. I hope that we can restore the funding for NASA when the VA-HUD bill reaches the floor.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply respond that I think the gentleman from Wisconsin's point is well taken, I concur, and I also agree we should move forward today but we ought to be more vigilant. I appreciate his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which passed both the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims and the full Committee on the Judiciary during the 105th Congress, and passed the full Senate this year, will pay $10 million and $9,500,000 respectively to Kerr-McGee Corporation and Global Exploration and Development Corporation based on the recommendation made by the Court of Claims as to the amounts equitably due those companies. This legislation is intended to resolve litigation between the Federal Government and these corporations. This litigation was based upon the corporations' allegations that the United States improperly failed to grant or approve leases or to allow phosphate mining by Global and Kerr-McGee Corporations in Osceola National Forest. After a 6-week trial before the Court of Federal Claims, but before the court could issue an opinion, the parties agreed to a joint stipulation of settlement and submitted this stipulation to the court. On November 18, 1996, the court published its recommendation to Congress that the disputes be settled for the amounts set forth in this bill. The Court's recommendation to Congress was not based upon the finding of any wrongdoing by the United States in its dealings with Global or the Kerr-McGee Corporations. Rather, the court's recommendation was based upon and limited to a finding that an equitable claim against the United States existed and it was in the best interest of all parties to settle this claim for the amounts set forth in the bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge that my colleagues vote in favor of passing S. 606. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the section referred to in the bill by my colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, relative to penalties for teaching individuals weapons of mass destruction may or may not prove violative of the first amendment. But clearly a very strong effort has been made to comport with the requirements of the first amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to support the measure. We will certainly find out soon enough whether our efforts to succeed in that regard are successful or not when the measure is challenged in court. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I want to extend my warmest thanks, and my fondest best wishes, to Mavis Toscano, my chief of staff, who will be leaving my office at the beginning of August. We have become accustomed in Congress to staff members who come and go in a period of months or a few years, replaced in a matter of days by their successors who themselves are destined for only limited stays. Mavis Toscano was the shining exception to this rule. Mavis has been on my staff for some 15 years, dating back to when I was a member of the County Board of Supervisors in San Jose, and in my own journey from California to Washington she has been an indispensable assistant, an invaluable help, an immeasurable asset. Over the years Mavis has handled nearly every imaginable task for a congressional staff member, sometimes all at once by herself. For the last several years she has run my district office in San Jose, creating there a smoothly functioning enterprise whose successes on behalf of the people of the 16th District of California are innumerable. Her service to our community, both during her time with me and while she worked for the California State Assembly, has been at all times both resourceful and thoughtful. At times it has seemed like Mavis knew everyone in the District by his or her first name, and was owed a debt of gratitude by nearly all of them for her service. Yet at the same time that I will greatly miss both the services of Mavis Toscano and her decades-long friendship, I cannot but be happy for the tremendous opportunities that remain open to her for the rest of her career. Just as my desire to serve brought me from San Jose to Washington, so have Mavis's talents offered her even greater opportunities to continue the sort of work at which she has excelled for the past 15 years. I wish Mavis Toscano great success and good fortune in her next endeavors, and I know well that, judging by her work for me over the last 15 years, she will not be short of either.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of section 274 of the State Department authorization bill. I believe, as do many of my constituents, that this section of the bill is critical in ensuring that the State Department properly implements Vietnamese refugee programs. Section 274 successfully addresses the outstanding concerns of the Vietnamese American community and responds very well to my plea that humanitarian changes and programs for Vietnamese refugees be made. For example, the appointment of a refugee counselor to run the in- country refugee program is critical to ensuring that someone who understands the plight of refugees administers the program. Section 274 provides that a refugee counselor with a proven record of sensitivity supervise all U.S. refugee programs in Vietnam. Additionally, this individual would report directly to the ambassador or the general counsel in the U.S. consulate in Saigon. Additionally, I am very strongly supportive of section 274 because it reverses restrictive rules such as the continuous co-residency provision. The provision would allow for the reconsideration of children of re- education camp detainees who were left behind because of an INS directive on co-residence. These families have been torn apart. In some cases, one parent is in the U.S., the other in Vietnam with the children. Imagine, if my colleagues can, children who have not seen their parents in decades, or brothers and sisters who barely remember each other. I have received letters from constituents who have indicated that the continuous co-residence provision has barred many of their loved ones from joining them in the U.S. This simply is not right. I believe that section 274 is the right thing to do. It allows us to keep our commitment to Vietnamese Americans by ensuring that the administration has the tools to improve adjudication of all outstanding cases. Lastly, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work and leadership on this legislation and urge my colleagues to support passage of the legislation.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, what are we waiting for? Instead of moving forward and appointing conferees, we are playing more political games with the lives of children, using the cloak of what is unobjectionable through unnecessary procedure to create the illusion of forward progress, doing nothing while we create the illusion of progress, doing nothing while 13 children are killed as a result of gun violence in this Nation every day. In one month exactly the children who attend Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, will be returning to school. That means we have only 3 weeks to settle the gun safety issues before we adjourn for summer recess. It has been 3 months, 90 days, since the tragedy in Columbine occurred. Just several years ago the Republicans took 1 week to propose legislation to undo the assault weapons ban, but a simple proposal to close the gun show loopholes to keep guns out of the hands of children takes months and months. We all know it is a stall. The entire process on gun violence has been a shell game, but as parents and children shop for clothes and notebooks and backpacks, and my children and I will be shopping for backpacks in the next 3 weeks, they should be free from worries about their children's safety from gun violence in schools. We have differences to settle between the House and Senate passed gun safety and juvenile justice bills. We should be appointing conferees and getting down to the serious work of debating and voting on the gun safety provisions passed by the Senate instead of wasting more time. This conference should be a careful and deliberative process that American families and schoolchildren can be proud of. We should get started today. All we are proposing are modest and reasonable steps to make all of us, especially the children, safer from dangerous people and disturbed kids with guns, plugging the gun show loophole, requiring the gun safety locks, banning the high capacity ammo clips, the Hyde-Lofgren amendment banning juvenile possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. What criminals are stopped from getting guns from licensed dealers because of the Brady background check? Murders, rapists, child molesters, fugitives, stalkers, batterers, and who wants these people to buy guns and threaten us and our children? Why would anyone want criminals to get guns? We should plug the loophole and stand up to the gun lobby. Mr. Speaker, kids are going back to school. It is time for Congress to act before they end up there. Let us stop the stalling. Let us stop the games. Let us do our job.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, Brandi Chastain of my hometown of San Jose, California did the nation proud on Saturday when she scored the final goal to win the World Cup for her team, country, and women everywhere. When the game came down to the high-pressure penalty goal finale, Brandi stood before a crowd of 90,000, and without hesitation or even looking into the eyes of her only opponent, Chinese goalie Gao, pounded the soccer ball into the net and victory. Brandi did for young women what Michael Jordan, Willie Mays, and Steve Young did for young men: She gave them a role model. Brandi, a native of San Jose, has played for the U.S. National team since 1988. She announced her presence in 1991 with five goals in one game against Mexico. But this was no surprise to people at home who had seen her lead her high school, Archbishop Middy, to three straight state championships. She went on to be named All-American while playing for my alma mater Santa Clara University leading the Broncos to two final four appearances. Now she gives back to her sport as an assistant coach at Santa Clara University. Brandi is a heroine, not only to the soccer players and fans in San Jose, but also to women throughout the world. She, along with her teammates, tirelessly fought to attain their goal of winning the World Cup. They prove that women can achieve the same high level of athleticism as their male counterparts. Most importantly, they showed that teamwork and dedication can make an entire country proud. It is a great honor to stand up and commend Brandi Chastain and her teammates today for the hope and joy they have given young girls everywhere.

Ms. LOFGREN

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am happy that we are here today and about to approve this conference report with what I'm certain will be a very wide margin of votes in support. Just a week ago, I was not at all confident that we could achieve what we are about to achieve here today. People had dug in and compromise seemed unlikely. I was actually a member of the conference committee, as the Speaker well knows. It was the first conference committee I had ever been a member of, and I could easily observe at our first and only meeting that there was a great deal of anger in the room. People were fed up with the process that brought them there, to that meeting. Without going into who did what to whom, and how it could have been improved, we got past that anger. Many have been mentioned for their contributions to this process. I want to give special thanks to my colleague and my leader on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, whom I think, showed great serenity and leadership as he tried to sort through the many complex issues that comprise Y2K. I also want to mention someone who has not been praised by anyone else today, and that is Senator Hatch. His cool voice of reason and comity suggested that the White House should be invited to sort through these issues with the conference staff last Friday and through the weekend and all through Monday night. Senator Hatch was therefore enormously helpful in getting people together. I also want to thank the staff. As I just said, the White House lawyers and staff were up all Monday night working on this settlement, and I think the Committee on the Judiciary staff put in similar hours, and this is true on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the effort that they put into this. I also want to mention my own special counsel, John Flannery, who put in extraordinary efforts trying to keep people working together on this. This conference report, as I said earlier this morning when we were discussing the rule, could have been approached in a variety of ways. I am happy to support this one. I think this bill is narrowly crafted to deal with this Y2K event, only months away. As the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services just said, we do not know what is going to happen when the Year 2000 arrives, or strikes, as the case maybe. There are many people in Silicon Valley, many CEOs, who do not believe anything much is going to happen when the Year 2000 strikes. Then there are others who believe a lot may happen. None of us will know--until the event occurs. It is because of the latter possibility, what could go really wrong that makes it so very important we take this step to prepare for the possible litigation that may accompany this worst-case possible scenario. I want to underscore, however, the fact that the parties have come together on this issue at this time does not mean there will be agreement on a wide diversion of seemingly related issues. Pending in the Committee on the Judiciary are a variety of measures that would change tort law, change civil law in America dramatically. Some of the people who are going to vote for this conference report will not, in fact, support a wholesale change of American civil law. Let me explain why. When I was thinking about this conference report and the underlying bill, I was reminded of President Abraham Lincoln. In the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus because the threat to the Union was so severe that the President believed he had to resort to this extraordinary remedy. That does not mean that we held the habeas clause any less dear as a guarantor of our liberty, but we had a crisis that prompted this action. If bubonic plague were to break out, the health officers would not need to get a search warrant when, in pursuit of the plague, they had to gain entry. That would not mean we had any less affinity or affection for the fourth amendment, which helps keep our country free. In this sense, the Y2K event is similar. Although none of us will be around at the next millennium, after the Year 2000 this will hopefully not be an issue. If it is, we can say here and now, that at least once a millennium, we will make a special exception to deal with this kind of crisis. I appreciate the fact that the White House has sorted through these same policy issues and said as much. I think that what we have before us is a fair and reasoned response that will provide useful benefit to the high-tech community and to our economy, because the real underlying issue is, if we do experience the worst-case scenario, the hit on our economy would be so enormous, that it would require the remedy and relief provided for in this bill. I am proud to say that this conference report has the support not only of myself but of the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and many, many others, including our friends across the aisle and on this side of the aisle. I think it is something that we can be proud of and I sincerely hope and expect it shall in the near future serve as a model for additional legislative collaboration. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my colleague from Silicon Valley.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the rule on this conference report and look forward to voting for the conference report itself. I think that this is a good example of what we can accomplish when we extend our hands across the aisle and work in a bi- partisan way to come up with solutions that are practical and effective. As I mentioned about a week ago today, there are probably a dozen different ways we could draft a bill that would address the Y2K issues. The conference report is one of them. There is no one way it is perfect, but certainly it is workable and one approach that I think will gain broad support in this House on both sides of the aisle. I wanted to say something else today about bi-partisanship. I want to note that yesterday, once again, as has happend for years now, the research and development tax credit expired. This is a terrible situation that we have allowed to occur once again. High-tech companies in Silicon Valley become frustrated when the research and development tax credit expires each year. And, as we know, if the research and development tax credit is not lengthy or permanent, it is very difficult to get the maximum value out of that research and development tax credit. That's why I and 157 other Members of this House, support H.R. 835, a bill to make the research and development tax credit permanent. We have not yet acted on this bill. I would therefore ask, in the spirit of bi- partisanship evidenced by this Y2K bill, that we bring the R&D permanent tax credit to this floor for a vote no later than the week of July 12. I know that once we get the R&D tax credit to the floor, we will have an overwhelming vote in support of that permanent extension. I look forward to doing that. I do not want, as has happened several times each year in the past, to have a gap where the R&D tax credit was not renewed and, did not exist, as it does not exist today. We know from the 1998 study by Coopers & Lybrand that the permanent R&D tax credit would likely have prompted an additional $41 billion in research and development investment from 1998 through 2010, a 31- percent return on investments. So let us celebrate what we have achieved here on the Y2K remediation bill, and let it serve as a challenge to us to do the same thing with regard to the R&D tax credit by making it permanent.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very fine piece of legislation, this good, solid, bipartisan bill. There is much good in the bill. I join with my colleague in noting the great difficulty of young people, at age 18, all of a sudden at immediately assuming all adult responsibility. Those of us who have teenagers know that when the child becomes 18, they still need the guidance, the support, the direction of parents. I think this will help considerably in putting structure into young lives and we will have a wonderful result from this. I also, however, wanted to rise in particular praise of a provision in the gentlewoman from Connecticut's amendment to be heard soon, and that is the provision that will finally provide some assistance to the Filipino war veterans. This group fought side by side with my father's generation in World War II. The sad story of the disappointments and false promises made over decades is not worth going through here today, but I do look forward with great appreciation to the adoption of the provision that will allow some assistance to these men who fought so bravely and are now old and broken and deserve the thanks of our Nation and also the honoring of the commitments made at the time of when my father was a young man. So I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). I look forward to supporting her amendment and thank her greatly for her attention to this matter.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make this point. I think sometimes we rush and abbreviate and then we end up paying for it down the road. Looking back, I know it certainly was not the fault of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) because he and I had a private discussion on this, but the draft of this legislation was not available for very long before the Committee on the Judiciary went into markup. There was one business day between Judiciary markup and being in the Committee on Rules. So we rushed it through. We could have gotten I think better input had we taken more time. That is history now. We cannot undo it. But I think that if we take the time at this point, we will be able to resolve these issues. As I said, we put together an alternative. It got 190 votes. But I am not wedded to that. I have got very favorable feedback from CEOs in Silicon Valley on that effort. But it is not perfect. And there are ways to make that better or to make the Senate bills better. But we need to think outside the box. We cannot just be controlled by the Senators' names on which bills. It is think outside the box. It is think in terms of the functionality of relief that is required, and we will get there.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite possible to do that. But if instead of doing a conference and coming up with a piece of legislation that can get support from both sides of the aisle and can get a signature from the White House, which I know we could do, if instead of that effort in a productive conference we instead just jam the Senate bill through both bodies up to the White House for the veto that he has already said awaits it, then we will have done something before July 4, but it will not have been anything very productive for the companies that require a resolution and remediation of this problem. I hope, and I believe my colleague the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who I have worked very closely with on many technology issues, I believe him when he says he wants to accept the motion to instruct. I am just concerned that some of the rhetoric can lead me to a contrary conclusion; that we are not really, all of us, going to work together in the way we need to and that we could do.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I just would note that the gentleman from Virginia mentioned the study done by the American Bar Association on the potential exposure of the American economy to litigation, and I think that is a serious issue. That is why we are all here. But I would note that, I think all of us received a copy of the letter sent by the American Bar Association to the President yesterday pointing out that the ABA opposes both the Senate bill and the House bill and this letter details the reasons why. One of the issues that is in contention has to do with federalizing all the class actions relative to Y2K litigation. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court opposes that, and I think he knows how Federal courts work and how our court system works. So these are serious issues. They need to be addressed, they need to be remediated, and they can be. I have been in communication, as I have mentioned, with many, many of my constituents in Silicon Valley who are interested in this issue. Some of the issues in the Senate bill are meaningless to them, it is not important to them in terms of resolving things. Some of the issues are important. For example, joint and several liability is a very important issue and does need to be addressed. I will say this, that the White House has moved from no change in joint and several liability to the possibility of change in joint and several liability, but I would also note that there are five or six different ways to deal with that issue, all of which would resolve the problem for high tech. And so it is that kind of approach we are going to need, thinking outside the box, and applying solutions to problems rather than embracing bills that have been drafted and are in play.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the comments of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and glad to learn that the motion will be accepted. But, at the very least, I want to explore a little bit further where I think we are in this whole process. I received yesterday a letter from the Year 2000 Coalition to the Speaker, to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), and to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). The letter outlines the hopes and expectations of many high-tech community leaders. Let me just read a couple of important points they made in this letter. The Coalition points out that: ``A legislative process that terminates in a veto would be viewed as a complete failure, and would possess substantial risk to the American economy and could result in a serious economic set-back.'' The letter continues: ``We are confident that, in the course of discussions that may occur, resolution of differences can be achieved.'' They then go on to offer their assistance in whatever way they could to help us as we seek a resolution. This letter is signed by dozens of associations; among them, there are: the American Electronics Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Computing Technology Industry Association, the Information Technology Association of America, the National Venture Capital Association, and the Semiconductor Industry Association. I might add that there are many others. I think the concern expressed in this letter is based on various press reports as well as rumors that I think we should discuss openly. In the Washington Post today, and I have no idea whether this quote is accurate so I shall just read it from the paper. Mr. Hastert, the Speaker's spokesperson, was quoted as saying, ``You know that the President has to make a choice. Basically it is a take it or leave it proposition on the bill.'' The President's people are quoted in turn, saying that the bill that passed the Senate will be vetoed by the President. So I do not think there is a doubt about the veto. We have the President's statement on that. So what I see unfolding here is a train wreck that we can avoid, and that, I believe, it is our obligation to avoid. I note further that, in today's National Journal, in Congress Daily, that there is a suggestion, and I do not know if this is what is really going to happen, that the conferees will meet only for a short period of time, the sole purpose of which meeting would be to remove a section of the Senate bill inserted by Senator Hollings, and that no further work would be done. If this is the case, if this is what does happen, I think it will be a tremendous mistake. I think we ought to listen to the 2000 Coalition people and understand that we need to work through this and to compromise and to come up with legislation that will become law. Now, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and I have said privately from the beginning, it is my belief--and I think maybe his-- that, if he and I were to go sit in the Speaker's lobby together, we could write up a bill that would be acceptable, and would be signed by the President. There are six or seven different ways to approach the very contentious issues that are before us. There is no one magic solution. Part of legislation in an issue such as this is to stretch out, to reach your hand across the aisle and I would say down Pennsylvania Avenue as well, to come up with rational solutions that are flexible, that are narrowly tailored, that work. I know we can do this. I know that we could do it together. I hope that we do it together. If we do not, if instead, we insist, having fallen in love with our own work product, that we cannot produce an alternative, we shall have failed. We must let go of the love we have for the work product we have created, and instead try and understand the other person's point of view, craft together narrowly tailored, rational responses. I know that we can solve this problem, and we can do so promptly. But we are not going to be able to achieve this if, instead, we do what the press reports suggest, which is to go through a sham of a conference that really does not get into the substantive work. So I do hope that we can approach this in this way. I am willing to do my very best to be flexible and respectful and to come together with my colleagues across the aisle and in the Senate and in the White House. With that, in the spirit of optimism and hope, I appreciate the willingness to accept the motion, but I hope that it is more than just a motion. I hope it results in some good, solid hard work that extends more than an hour and is certainly not what the rumor control has said. Mr. Speaker, I include the letter from the Year 2000 Coalition as follows: Year 2000 Coalition, June 22, 1999. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Hon. Richard K. Armey, Hon. Tom DeLay, Hon. J.C. Watts, Hon. Thomas M. Davis III, U.S. House of Representatives. Dear House Leadership: The Y2K Coalition, which has been working with all interested parties to successfully enact legislation which will promote Y2K remediation, is concerned by recent statements by the President's senior advisors that they will recommend the President veto the bill passed by the Senate if that were presented to him for his signature. We are convinced that if such a bill were vetoed, the momentum to legislate on this important matter would be lost. A legislative process that terminates in a veto would be viewed as a complete failure, and would pose substantial risk to the American economy and could result in a serious economic set- back. We therefore urge congressional leaders and the Administration to make every effort possible to avert an impasse and avoid such a catastrophe. We are confident that, in the course of discussions that may occur, resolution of differences can be achieved. The Coalition will be prepared to offer suggestions for the resolution of such differences. We further urge you to initiate and conclude such efforts before the 4th of July recess. Sincerely, Aerospace Industries Association, Airconditioning & Refrigeration Institute, Alaska High-Tech Business Council, Alliance of American Insurers, American Bankers Association, American Bearing Manufacturers Association, American Boiler Manufacturers Association, American Council of Life Insurance, American Electronics Association, American Entrepreneurs for Economic Growth, American Gas Association, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, American Insurance Association, American Iron & Steel Institute, American Paper Machinery Association, American Society of Employers, American Textile Machinery Association, American Tort Reform Associates, America's Community Bankers, Arizona Association of Industries, Arizona Software Association, Associated Employers, and Associated Industries of Missouri. Associated Oregon Industries, Inc., Association of Manufacturing Technology, Association of Management Consulting Firms, BIFMA International, Business and Industry Trade Association, Business Council of Alabama, Business Software Alliance, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, Colorado Software Association, Compressed Gas Association, Computing Technology Industry Association, Connecticut Business & Industry Association, Inc., Connecticut Technology Association, Construction Industry Manufacturers Association, Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association, Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Copper Development Association, Inc., Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, Edison Electric Institute, Employers Group, and Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association. Flexible Packaging Association, Food Distributors International, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Gypsum Association, Health Industry Manufacturers Association, Independent Community Bankers Association, Indiana Information Technology Association, Indiana Manufacturers Association, Inc., Industrial Management Council, Information Technology Association of America, Information Technology Industry Council, International Mass Retail Association, International Sleep Products Association, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, Investment Company Institute, Iowa Association of Business & Industry, Manufacturers Association of Mid-Eastern PA, Manufacturer's Association of Northwest Pennsylvania, Manufacturing Alliance of Connecticut, Inc., Metal Treating Institute, Mississippi Manufacturers Association, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, National Association of Computer Consultant Business, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers, National Association of Independent Insurers, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, National Federation of Independent Business, National Food Processors Association, National Housewares Manufacturers Association, and National Marine Manufacturers Association. National Retail Federation, National Venture Capital Association, North Carolina Electronic and Information Technology Association, Technology New Jersey, NPES, The Association of Suppliers of Printing, Publishing, and Converting Technologies, Optical Industry Association, Printing Industry of Illinois-Indiana Association, Power Transmission Distributors Association, Process Equipment Manufacturers Association, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, Reinsurance Association of America, Securities Industry Association, Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, Semiconductor Industry Association, Small Motors and Motion Association, Software Association of Oregon, Software & Information Industry Association, South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, Steel Manufacturers Association, Telecommunications Industry Association, The Chlorine Institute, Inc., The Financial Services Roundtable, The ServiceMaster Company, Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc., United States Chamber of Commerce, Upstate New York Roundtable on Manufacturing, Utah Information Technology Association, Valve Manufacturers Association, Washington Software Association, West Virginia Manufacturers Association, and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, as I hear the tenor of this discussion, that we might, in fact, not have the kind of substantive conference that I think is going to be required. I do not agree with the White House on everything, far from it, but I have contacted senior members in the White House repeatedly to find out what their views are, why they hold those views. I have also contacted key players in the technology community. As my colleagues might expect, because my district is Silicon Valley, I have talked often to general counsels and CEOs on this issue, and I know that there is plenty of room to craft a bill that resolves issues for high technology and that will get a signature from the President. But it is going to take some time and work to do that, and to say that we need to pass the Senate bill before the July 4 recess, and if there is a veto, well, so be it, that does not solve the problem. What we need is a law to be enacted. And we can do that, but it has taken 6 months for this conference to begin. The maximum allowable time for a conference is 20 days. I do not think we would need 20 days, but we are going to need more than an hour to find common ground.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, total; 2 on each side.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 4 additional minutes be provided for debate on this amendment due to requests of Members on both sides of the issue for debate.