Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of myself and Representatives Honda, Eshoo, and Speier to recognize the service of Ms. Mary Simon to San Jose and the Bay Area community.

Ms. Simon, the founder and executive director of Resource Area for Teaching (RAFT), will retire in the spring of 2014 after 20 years at its helm. She will greatly be missed.

After 12 years of teaching math and science to second and third graders, Ms. Simon founded RAFT in 1994 with a mission to help teachers transform children's learning experience through hands-on education. RAFT is a nonprofit organization that provides educators with prepared teaching kits and idea sheets for activities in mathematics, science, and art. Additionally, RAFT helps teachers access education specialists who can assist with planning lessons and projects as well as locate affordable teaching supplies.

Ms. Simon's remarkable vision had been to create a place that celebrates and supports great teaching. Through her hard work, Ms. Simon was able to bring together countless volunteers, donors, and companies to collaborate in this effort. Under her leadership, thousands of teachers joined RAFT to improve the quality of education in the Bay Area.

Under Ms. Simon's guidance, RAFT became an important resource for educators and continues to foster community involvement. With Ms. Simon's effort and unwavering commitment, RAFT grew into a 10,000- member organization and continues to enrich the education experience of hundreds of thousands of students. RAFT's products, services, and

teaching supplies improve the educational experience of over 825,000 kids per year.

We wish to congratulate Ms. Mary Simon on her impressive and impactful career and commend her years of service to the San Jose and the Bay Area community generally. Continued efforts and innovation in education of generations to come must be one of our top priorities as a nation, and Ms. Simon's efforts in this area are invaluable.

Ms. Simon worked to create a place where teachers could come together for the support and respect for the important, essential work that they do for our children. Because of Ms. Simon's vision, creativity, and dedication, RAFT will continue to make a positive impact on our educators and students. Ms. Simon's service has made our community a better place, and she will be dearly missed.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I was delayed at the airport. I just wanted to indicate my opposition to the bill since it has been changed, noting that Public Knowledge in the Los Angeles Times said today that we would be better off doing nothing than the bill as changed. I have talked to the chairman about this, but I wanted to make my position clear. If we do not pass this bill because of the Obama administration's deal with the telecoms, consumers will still be able to unlock their phones. This is a step backwards.

I very much appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for the record, because I was unavoidably detained with responsibilities in my district, I was unable to be present to vote on Monday, February 10, 2014. I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2431, to reauthorize the National Integrated Drought Information System. The record drought facing California right now makes clear that reliable drought assessment and prediction information is critical. This information helps communities, farms and businesses prepare and respond. I would echo my colleague, Ranking Member of the Science, Space and Technology Committee Eddie Bernice Johnson, that while it is crucial that we reauthorize NIDIS, we would have liked to see an even more robust authorization level for this important program.

I would also have voted in favor of H. Res. 447, Supporting the democratic and European aspiration of the people of Ukraine, and their right to choose their own future free of intimidation and fear. I am glad that so many of my colleagues also stood up for these principles of basic human rights.

Madam Speaker, there is no tax money being used for abortions. That has been true since Henry Hyde served here with us.

What this bill does is not address that issue. It really is intended to eliminate abortion coverage in private insurance plans.

Our witness, Professor Wood, testified in the Judiciary Committee that eliminating the tax benefit, essentially raising taxes if a small business offers a broad insurance plan that includes abortion, will result in dropping that portion of the coverage. So this is really an extreme measure.

I understand that not everyone believes that women should make this choice. If you are opposed to abortion, don't have an abortion. But don't put the Federal Government in charge of the decisions that are properly and legally made by women, along with their husbands and families.

This is an extreme agenda. It is wrong, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot said today about taxpayer money being used for abortion. I think it is important to note that that does not occur in America today. That decision was made a number of decades ago recognizing that taxpayer funds will not be used. So what are we doing here? What we are doing is making sure that abortion can't be offered in the private insurance market. That is what we are doing here.

It was said earlier that the CBO had indicated there would be a minimal impact from the tax increase on small businesses if a broad insurance plan was offered that included abortion. The reason for that is that it is anticipated that all of those small businesses will avoid the tax increase and drop the abortion coverage. So that is why there would not be a large impact, but there will be a large impact on women because, although there are exceptions for the life of the mother, there is no exception for the health of the mother, something that is required by the Constitution and our Supreme Court. In those cases, this can be a very expensive proposition.

I will just tell you an example of a person whom I know, Vicki, who, unfortunately, her much-wanted child, all of this child's brains formed outside of the cranium. There was no question this wanted child was not going to survive more than a minute or 2. Unfortunately for Vicki, without an abortion, the expectation was that her uterus would be destroyed and she would not be able to have other children--not that she would die, but that she would not be able to have other children that she and her husband wanted to have.

It is very expensive to get some of these procedures when your health is at risk. So, yes, we will not have increases on small businesses because they will drop these coverages, but the women of America are going to be told by this government, yes, we know better than you do. We are going to decide for you.

Vote ``no'' on this very wrongheaded bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the service of Ms. Karyn Sinunu-Towery to the County of Santa Clara.

For over 30 years, Ms. Sinunu-Towery has served the people of Santa Clara County in the District Attorney's Office. She has made enormous contributions to the office, and after her final day of service on December 20, 2013, she will undoubtedly be missed.

Ms. Sinunu-Towery began her career in 1983 as a law clerk for the Santa Clara District Attorney. Two years later, on December 12, 1985, she became a member of the California Bar and joined the office as a staff attorney.

After serving eleven years as a Deputy District Attorney and the Supervisor of the Sexual Assault Unit, prosecuting over 50 jury trials, Ms. Sinunu-Towery was promoted to the executive position of Assistant District Attorney. In this role, she has lead-by-example, and provided valuable counsel to the District Attorney.

Throughout her career Ms. Sinunu-Towery has been known for her fairness, resilience, professionalism, and commitment to justice.

Ms. Sinunu-Towery has a reputation as a reformer who truly cared for the victims she was charged with protecting. She wrote Victim's Rights manuals that were distributed throughout California and developed a model procedure for the investigation of child-abuse investigations with the goal of reducing the trauma to the children involved.

Ms. Sinunu-Towery was just as vigilant when it came to ensuring that the accused received fair treatment. She worked with local police chiefs and the Sheriff to create fairer line-up procedures to accurately identify suspects, and guidelines for the interrogation of mentally ill suspects. She personally worked to free defendants wrongly convicted and is a model for prosecutors everywhere in this regard.

Ms. Sinunu-Towery was a trailblazer when it came to the use of technology to better administer justice. She was instrumental in the office's transition from paper to electronic data storage, and continued to push for greater technology use.

I wish to congratulate Ms. Karyn Sinunu-Towery on her impressive career and commend her for 30 years of service to the Santa Clara County community. She leaves the District Attorney's Office a better place and will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to note the remarkable career of Larry Horton who will retire from his post as Senior Associate Vice President and Director of Government and

Community Relations at Stanford University at the end of 2013. His academic and professional tenure at Stanford spans a combined 52 years.

Born in Louisiana to a railroad switch operator and a homemaker, Larry came to Stanford in 1958 by way of Arkansas and Southern California. After earning his undergraduate degree in political science, he was drafted to serve in the U.S. Army in Europe for two years. He returned to Stanford to complete a master's degree in history. By 1970, the year of my own graduation from the university, he had been appointed an associate dean of student affairs. In this capacity he oversaw the integration of the sexes in coed university housing. During this period he helped ensure that egalitarian American principles and the recognition of the value of diversity that blossomed in the 1960s and '70s was reflected in University policies. Next he served as a special assistant to the secretary of Health and Human Services in both the Ford and Carter administrations.

Returning to Stanford again in 1977 with new experiences in dealing with Washington, he was appointed Associate Director of Government Affairs. From this post he helped Congress to shape the landmark 1980 Bayh-Dole Act. These efforts fostered free-market innovation by encouraging inventors and institutions to pursue ownership of patents for products created with the aid of Federal Government resources.

For all his accomplishments at the Federal level, some of Larry's most challenging and rewarding projects have involved local government. The cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park and the Counties of Santa Clara and San Mateo as well as various state and local land and water authorities, have required skillful attention. He negotiated many cooperative land-use initiatives, sometimes in the face of disagreement from some of Stanford's neighbors. He made sure there was careful sensitivity to threatened wildlife like the California tiger salamander, for which the University built a tunnel under Junipero Serra Boulevard to encourage migration from Lake Lagunita to a new, more secure habitat in Stanford's foothills.

Beyond his admirable professional achievements, Larry is a thoughtful intellectual, host to authors debuting their books and is a friend and supporter for those who are writers, artists and, most particularly, friends of Stanford. This year, for his dedication to Stanford he was awarded the Cuthbertson Award during Stanford's graduation ceremony. Today I praise my good friend Larry Horton, whose intellect, humility, talent, tenacity, empathy, and dedication to our alma mater are unparalleled. Although his retirement will provide him with more time to spend on his personal loves--history, opera, Stanford Athletics, literature, theater, and his partner of 35 years, George Wilson--he will be deeply missed not only by his Stanford colleagues, but by those of us in Washington, Sacramento, and the Bay Area who have shared in the privilege of knowing him. He leaves a formidable legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 125th Anniversary of the Lick Observatory.

On January 3, 1888 the Lick Observatory's great refracting telescope saw ``first light.'' Its construction on top of Mt. Hamilton was made possible by a $700,000 donation from James Lick. By many accounts the wealthiest man in California, Mr. Lick gave almost his entire fortune to advance science and public welfare. When finished, the ``Lick Refractor'' was the largest, most powerful refracting telescope in the world.

Today, it is assumed that an observatory should be built on a mountain. However, at the time most observatories were built in cities. It is easy to forget that when Mt. Hamilton was chosen as the build site, it was only speculation that the high altitude would reduce atmospheric interference, allowing for a clearer view of the night stars.

Having proven the theory correct, Lick Observatory set the standard for building observatories on top of mountains, at high altitude, and away from potential interfering light sources and pollution.

The Lick Refractor was a premier research telescope for nearly a century. Even now, this telescope is still used to wow visitors, to inspire scientific wonder, and as a teaching tool for local colleges and universities. While many scientific facilities of this age are no longer useful as tools of discovery, the Lick Observatory continues to upgrade its capabilities and produce ground breaking science.

The Adaptive Optics project uses a unique, deformable mirror to cancel out atmospheric interference. It is capable of achieving resolutions comparable to the space-based Hubble Telescope, but at a fraction of the cost.

The Lick Observatory also houses the Automated Planet Finder, with the goal of finding Earth-like planets located within 100 light years. In partnership with NASA, this fully automated telescope makes its own decisions on where to look in the night sky and is capable of determining whether an Earth-like planet has been discovered.

Even the 125 year old Lick Refractor is still occasionally put to use. In the fall of 2000, coupled with an automatic camera, it started photographing the star clusters in our galaxy. These photographs have provided valuable information for mapping these clusters' star members.

I wish to congratulate the Lick Observatory on its 125th anniversary, and commend not only it scientific achievements, but also its work in inspiring others to pursue the wonders of science.

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Conyers and Chairman Goodlatte. I am glad we are here today addressing these issues of abusive lawsuits in the patent system.

As has been mentioned by others, we do have a problem, it is widely agreed to, among patent assertion entities, sometimes called patent trolls. These lawsuits, these abusive lawsuits that are brought, can easily cost $2 million to $10 million apiece, and that is why, when a meritless lawsuit is threatened, it is easy to extort a smaller payment to make it go away, and that is what we are trying to deal with here.

This is a big issue for small businesses. Professor Colleen Chien of Santa Clara University, now with the White House, did a study and found that more than half of these suits were against companies with less than $10 million in annual revenue.

And that is why this bill, it is not a perfect bill, but why this bill has such broad support. It is genuinely a bipartisan bill. I am a cosponsor of this bill, along with the Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Mike Honda, Peter DeFazio, Jared Huffman, and many others. At a time when the country is saying, ``Can't you just work together?'' we have. Reasonable people can differ, which is why we have this debate here today. We have 40 members in the House Judiciary Committee. Only five members voted against reporting this bill out. That is remarkable.

The White House has just issued a very strong statement of administrative policy. They support this bill. So at a time when too often we are seen as the battling Bickersons, we have support across the aisle with the White House to do this.

What does the bill do? It deals with pleading requirements. Oftentimes, these patent assertion entities will allege infringing, but they don't, with any particularity, say what is being infringed.

It does a change in attorneys' fees that matches the existing rule in copyright. I oppose fee shifting in civil litigation generally, but the Congress has, on many occasions, narrowly cast fee shifting to deal with specific problems. This would join that. I would note that the shifts would not occur unless the party's position is unreasonably justified. The court is not to allow this shift if the party has a reasonable case in fact or law or, as my colleague, Mr. Jeffries, had added, a severe economic harm.

I would note that this is supported from start-ups to big companies.

Startup Investors Nationwide Support Broad Patent Reform

Dear Congress: Each year, we invest hundreds of millions of

dollars in software and information technology businesses and

emerging mobile technologies. Together with other investors,

we commit more than $1 billion annually in angel and venture

capital that ensures continuing growth of young, high-tech

companies employing 1.4 million people. Collectively, we have

invested in companies such as Netflix, Twitter, Facebook,

Dropbox, Palantir, Kickstarter, and countless other

technologies that power

American businesses everywhere. We are the fuel in America's

startup economy engine.

We write to urge comprehensive legislation to address the

troubling growth and success of the patent troll business

model. Young, innovative companies are increasingly

threatened and targeted by patent troll lawsuits. In fact,

the majority of companies targeted by patent trolls have less

than $10 million in revenue. And while big companies paid the

lion's share of the $29 billion of direct costs resulting

from patent troll activities in 2011, the costs borne by

small companies are a proportionately larger share of their

revenues.

As a result, Congress and the Administration are

considering multiple reform proposals. None alone will fix

the problem, but together they will make a substantial dent

in what one famous troll recently called ``a new industry.''

Successful legislation should make it harder to be a patent

troll, and easier for targeted businesses to protect and

defend themselves. Legislation should:

Make it easier to efficiently review patents at the Patent

Office, as an alternative to litigation. Increase

transparency by requiring patent trolls to specify, in

complaints and demand letters, which patent and what claims

are infringed, and specifically how the offending product or

technology infringes.

Limit the scope of expensive litigation discovery.

Require patent trolls to pay legal fees and other costs

incurred by prevailing defendants.

Protect end users of technology [e.g., wi-fi, printers and

scanners, and APIs) from being liable for infringements by

technology providers.

Our Founders did not intend to incentivize patent trolling

in the Constitution--nor did Congress intend the Patent Act

to promote this industry. Comprehensive legislation to reduce

abusive patent litigation will make the patent troll business

model less attractive, and will protect software, mobile and

information technology entrepreneurs. In turn, our digital

economy will continue to grow and so will our national

economy.

The undersigned:

Gil Bickel, St. Louis Arch Angels, St. Louis, MO; David

Bradbury, Vermont Center for Emerging Technologies,

Burlington, VT; Glen Bressner, Originate Ventures, Bethlehem,

PA; Brad Burnham, Union Square Ventures, New York, NY; Jeff

Bussgang, Flybridge Capital, Boston, MA; Steve Case,

Revolution Capital Washington, DC; Jeff Clavier, SoftTechVC,

Palo Alto, CA; Ron Conway, SV Angel, San Francisco, CA; Mark

Cuban, Investor in over 70 startups, Dallas TX; Peter

Esperago, Cultivation Capital, St. Louis, MO.

Brad Feld, Foundry Group, Boulder, CO; Nicole Glaros,

Techstars, Boulder, CO and New York, NY; David Gold, Access

Venture Partners, Westminster, CO; Greg Gottesman, Madrona

Venture Group Seattle, WA; Paul Graham, Y Combinator,

Mountain View, CA; Bill Gurley, Benchmark Capital, Menlo

Park, CA; Reid Hoffman; Greylock Partners, Menlo Park, CA;

Kirk Holland, Access Venture Partners, Westminster, CO; Len

Jordan, Madrona Venture Group, Seattle, WA; Scott Levine,

iSelect Fund, Clayton, MO.

John Lilly, Greylock Partners, Menlo Park, CA; Trevor Loy,

Flywheel Ventures, Albuquerque and Sante Fe, NM; Chris Marks,

High Country Venture, Boulder, CO; Dan Marriott, Stripes

Group, New York, NY; Matt McCall, Pritzker Venture Capital

Group, Chicago, IL and Los Angeles, CA; Jim McKelvey,

Cultivation Capital, St. Louis; Andrew McLaughlin, BetaWorks,

New York, NY; Josh Mendelsohn, Hangar, San Francisco, CA;

Jason Mendelsohn, Foundry Group, Boulder, CO; Michael Neril,

Webb Investment Network, San Francisco, CA.

Charlie O'Donnell, Brooklyn Bridge Ventures, New York, NY;

Alexis Ohanian, Angel Investor, New York, NY; Bijan Sabet,

Spark Capital, Boston, MA; Devin Talbott, Enlightenment

Capital, Washington, DC; Brett Topche, MentorTech Ventures,

Philadelphia, PA; Jorge M. Torres, Silas Capital, New York,

NY; Hunter Walk, Homebrew, San Francisco, CA; David Weekly,

Startup Founder and Angel Investor, Palo Alto, CA; Fred

Wilson, Union Square Ventures, New York, NY.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I am afraid I must oppose my colleague's amendment. I believe that the amendment would basically gut core elements of the Innovation Act protections for small business and leave small businesses exposed.

We have discussed the fee-shifting issue, so I want to focus on two other issues: the discovery cost-shifting and the heightened pleading provisions that I think are very important in the bill.

First, on pleading requirements, patent assertion entities often sue and do not reveal what patent the defendant is allegedly infringing or how, and that is why the Innovation Act requires greater particularity in pleading. The bill's requirement includes information that the plaintiffs should already have on hand, but the bill specifically provides an exception for information that is not reasonably accessible to the plaintiff. The amendment would eliminate that provision.

Relative to discovery, one of the ways that patent entities bully defendants is by driving up the cost of litigation through broad discovery requests. Section 3 of the bill directs the court to limit discovery until claim construction occurs in the routine Markman hearing. That gives defendants a break from costly discovery requests until it is more clear what the claims against them are.

Now the bill also says the court shall--that is mandatory--shall require discovery beyond that related to claim construction if it is necessary to ensure a timely resolution of the action. The bill provides the court with discretion to permit discovery to prevent manifest injustice.

I believe that the bill before us is a very important element of protecting against abusive litigation, and the amendment would do damage to it.

And finally, I would just associate myself with the chairman's comments on fee-shifting.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Rohrabacher and I do not agree on the underlying bill, I do support his amendment.

The Innovation Act would repeal section 145, the right of a patent applicant to appeal an initial PTO determination in Federal court.

This is a long-standing provision of law, and while it is rarely used, and even less often successful, I do believe that it poses at least theoretically a hedge against misconduct in the Patent Office and, at a minimum, will help ensure that the PTO's initial determinations are as meticulous as inventors deserve.

I spoke in favor of this amendment and voted for it when it was offered in the Judiciary Committee, and I continue to support it. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time.

Earlier in the debate, I jumped ahead of myself and addressed the issue of pleadings and discovery costs during the Watt amendment about fee shifting. So I will focus on fee shifting now.

The provision in the bill is absolutely right on. I oppose the English rule generally, but we have created dozens of times instances where the losing party can pay--let me just read the language:

The courts will shift the costs and fees to a non-

prevailing party unless the party's position is reasonably

justified in fact or law or the fee award would cause

economic harm.

The discretion is still with the judicial officer to avoid harm.

In terms of what should be in the bill, I mentioned at the outset that I don't believe this bill is perfect. If it were up to me, the bill would also exempt PTO user-fees from sequestration; it would clarify the scope of prior art and the grace period; it would allow the PTO to continue using its BRI standard in post-grant and inter partes review. I hope that the Senate will address those issues. Certainly, the amendment by Mr. Watt and Mr. Conyers does not.

It pains me when I have to disagree with my ranking member, who I admire so very much, but I do disagree with this amendment. I think it will absolutely gut the bill. I intend to vote against it, and I hope that others join me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague Representative Mike Honda to recognize the 150th Anniversary of San Jose High School.

It is not often that we get to honor an institution established during the Civil War; one that has witnessed our country's greatest triumphs, and withstood our greatest challenges.

Founded in 1863, San Jose High is the seconded oldest public high school in California. With humble origins in the second-story room above Orbon's flour store, it has been destroyed by earthquake, rebuilt and relocated many times, but San Jose High has persisted.

When it arrived at its current location in 1952, the original building was selected by the New York City Museum of Modern Art as one of the forty-three outstanding buildings of the postwar period.

Although it is responsible for the education of a number of successful Alum, San Jose High has the rare distinction of having educated four members of Congress: the Honorable John Anderson; former Secretary of Transportation, the Honorable Norman Mineta; our colleague Representative Mike Honda; and my predecessor, the Honorable Don Edwards.

San Jose High has a history of establishing forward thinking and unique educational programs. In 1985 it began offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma, a qualification widely recognized by the world's leading universities. The program's challenging and rigorous course work attracts students from all over Santa Clara County.

Not one to rest on its laurels, in 2007 San Jose High created a specialized engineering program to encourage students to enter STEM fields and prepare them for their continuing education. The curriculum includes courses on Engineering Design, Digital Electronics and Biotechnical Engineering. Coupled with the state-of-the-art Career Technology Engineering Building, opened in 2010, San Jose High is ensuring that its students are prepared for a 21st century economy.

We wish to congratulate San Jose High School on its 150th anniversary, and commend its faculty and staff, both current and former, for their hard work and dedication in educating the children of San Jose.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we end this Republican government shutdown and stop holding the economy hostage.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as my friend and colleague Representative Swalwell has pointed out, the government shutdown is causing serious damage to our country. The shutdown is putting Americans out of work and hurting the economy--not only the jobs of Federal employees, but the thousands of small businesses who provide goods and services to the government and to government employees who are not spending money that they no longer are getting in paychecks.

This harm is being felt across the country by millions of people. The closures impact thousands of important programs and services. We know parks are closed, stopping travel plans. We know that the Small Business Administration is not lending to the tune of a billion dollars a month. Federal business statistics are not being released, leaving us essentially flying blind when it comes to how the economy is doing. Army Corps of Engineers projects are halted. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is not reviewing products to keep us safe. The VA is not able to decide claims from veterans. We saw the horrifying news earlier this week that death benefits for members of our armed services and their families were impacted. Meals for seniors are not being served, and children are being thrown out of Head Start. These are real issues. The economy is being held hostage.

But what we want to talk about this evening is not just those impacts that have been so well covered in the press, but how our economy's future is being held hostage by this government shutdown and by a lack of funding for science.

We were very proud in the San Francisco Bay area that we had three Nobel laureates just this week--Stanford's Michael Levitt and Thomas Sudhof and UC Berkeley's Randy Schekman--for terrific success. They were funded not through the labs but through the National Institutes of Health.

However, it is worth noting that this government shutdown is resulting in the furlough of 13,000 researchers. It is blocking hundreds of projects. The amazing thing to me was that their partner, James Rothman of Yale, who shared in the Nobel Prize, because of budget cuts and sequester, the research that actually got him the Nobel Prize was cut. Because of the sequester, the funding was cut for the research that got him the Nobel Prize. So there is an issue here not just on the shutdown holding the economy hostage, but also the underlying poor funding.

But let's talk just a minute about the national labs. A lot of people don't really know what the labs are. Those of us who are close to them do.

They were founded in 1943, and they were really meant to address the need to mobilize the Nation's scientific assets to support the war effort. Subsequent to that, they were utilized to bring the smartest people in the country together to focus on things that would keep us safe. As a matter of fact, they have helped keep us quite prosperous. Out of the lab have come things such as optical digital recording technology that is behind all music video and data storage, communications and observations satellites, advanced batteries now used in electric cars, supercomputers that as a society we would be lost without. So much from the national labs.

But one of the things that I think is enormously important and, unfortunately, has not received the kind of publicity it should have is the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

At 5:51 a.m. on September 29, there was a leap forward in the fusion experiment underway at that national lab. That Saturday shot was the latest in a series of carefully designed and incremental ignition experiments that have increased the yield. But here is the interesting thing. For the portion of the target, the 192 lasers that went into that target, there was more energy coming out than was put into the target. That has never happened before. So this is not the end of the quest to finish that science, but it is a major, major step forward. It is something that is actually threatened by this government shutdown.

I just received a copy of a notice that is going out to Lawrence Livermore tomorrow, and here is what it says, from the management at the lab to all the scientists:

This is to remind you that beginning today, October 11, the

lab will begin shutting down normal operations. Only

essential functions necessary to assure safety and security

will be ongoing.

The lab is shutting down. The employees are furloughed, as we have just gotten the most important step forward on this most important experiment going on in the United States. How can that be possibly be good for the United States of America?

Of course, Lawrence Livermore is not the only national lab that is adversely impacted. Just up the road from my home in Santa Clara County, we have the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory, with their fabulous Linac Coherent Light Source. It is the world's most powerful x ray laser. Its focused beam, which arrives in staccato bursts a few quadrillionths of a second long, is allowing researchers to probe complex ultrasmall structures and freeze atomic motions. They will be able to see what is going on at a molecular level in real-time.

What is happening at the Stanford lab? The same cutbacks that are afflicting the Lawrence Livermore lab.

Look at some of the things that are coming out of these fine science facilities, like the wonderful corkscrewing lasers that can be the key to unlimited bandwidth that was recently devised at the Stanford Linear Accelerator, and the national lab at Livermore that has developed a safe and versatile material known as DNA Tagged Reagents for Aerosol Experiments. It is going to be a critical tool for protecting the United States.

All of these things are at risk. And for what? For a stupid, foolish partisan fight.

We could change this this evening, tomorrow morning. All we need is to have a bill on the floor to vote to reopen this government and to allow these scientists to continue to move forward to change the world and to create a brilliant future for our economy and for our safety and security.

So I thank my colleague, Representative Swalwell, who does such an excellent job of representing the two labs in his district, as well as all the other constituents who are so proud of him here in his service in the Congress and for standing up for them--not just for their jobs, but for America's future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues Rep. Anna Eshoo, Rep. Sam Farr, Rep. John Garamendi, Rep. Michael Honda, Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep. Jerry McNerney, and Rep. George Miller, to express our most sincere appreciation to Habitat for Humanity and the Carter Work Project.

For 30 years, former President Jimmy Carter and Mrs. Rosalynn Carter have spent a week a year on a building project with Habitat for Humanity. Their annual commitment to Habitat is called the Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project and brings attention to Habitat's work across the globe and in our local communities. This year the Carters are in Oakland and San Jose for the 30th annual event.

President Carter first became involved with Habitat for Humanity in 1984 when he used his carpentry expertise to help renovate an apartment building in New York City. Ever since, President Carter and Mrs. Carter have been building homes every year with Habitat. The Carters have built homes in New York, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Miami, D.C., South Dakota, Southern California, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and now in California.

The Carters have also helped build homes abroad in Mexico, Canada, Hungary, Philippines, Korea, South Africa, India, Thailand, China, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Haiti.

The housing market in the San Francisco Bay Area continues to be among the least affordable in the United States. Less than half of families in the area can afford to buy a home and for low-income families it is nearly impossible. There is a strong need and demand for affordable housing in the Bay Area and the lack of affordable housing is damaging our communities. Our community needs strong solutions to this crisis.

Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley has helped revitalize neighborhoods, build sustainable housing solutions, and assist families in becoming successful homeowners.

Since 1986, Habitat has helped strengthen communities and empowered over 360 low-income families in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties.

Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley deals with the challenge of affordable housing by using volunteer labor and donated funds and materials to build affordable homes for families in need. These families contribute ``sweat equity'' by contributing hundreds of hours of labor in building their own homes.

Habitat for Humanity helps build communities by strengthening neighborhood ties. Habitat recruits volunteers to help build its homes, with nearly 60,000 volunteers having contributed over one million hours to help build homes in the East Bay and Silicon Valley.

These community-built homes are also sustainable and environmentally friendly. Habitat uses green design by taking into account energy efficiency, smart use of building materials, and water usage to better protect the environment and Habitat homeowners. Over 60 green homes have been built in the Bay Area using these environmentally-conscious building principles.

We thank President and Mrs. Carter and Habitat for Humanity for this important work. We hope their legacy of public service will serve as an inspiration to others to support and serve their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honor at Oak Hill Cemetery's Memorial Day event on May 27th to listen to Lt. Col. Sean Day's speech celebrating and honoring the memories of Americans who have died defending freedom. I would like to honor his words which are so meaningful.

``The Living Memorial'' Prepared Remarks: City of San Jose Memorial Day

Observance, Oak Hill Cemetery, San Jose, CA, 1100 27 May 2013

Lt. Col Sean N. Day, USMCR Commanding Officer, 2nd Battalion, 23rd

Marine Regiment

Mayor Reed, Supervisor Cortese, Congressman Honda,

Congresswoman Lofgren, Vice Admiral Zukunft, Major General

Regua, other distinguished guests, friends and fellow

Americans.

Thank you for the opportunity to be a small part of your

celebration of the lives and sacrifices of our most honored

citizens. It is with profound humility that I am speaking

with you on this sacred day, on this hour and in this place.

Now, if you would indulge me for a moment--

Do we have any veterans from the War in Vietnam in the

audience?

It's with deep appreciation that if you have never heard

it, or even if you have been told a thousand times, to the

veterans of the War in Vietnam, we are so very proud of you

and welcome home.

Now, I am keenly aware that as the final speaker of the

day, I am all that stands between you and cookouts and the

first game of the Bay Area brawl between the Giants and the

A's. So, in the few minutes that we'll spend together this

afternoon I won't talk about the great sales at Valley Fair

Mall or the day off so many are enjoying. I won't speak of

bands or bugles, or even the stone and marble monuments

raised in memory of the sacrifices given by our most honored

citizens.

But instead, my brief comments will center on ``The Living

Memorial.''

In every age, just as during the Vietnam War era, those who

are willing to face down shot and shell are few. During the

Revolution, only a few answered the call for help that rang

out at the Rude Bridge in Concord. Many heard the call, had

more pressing priorities and moved on with their lives. A few

answered, and some who did gave the last full measure of

devotion to enable the beginning of the Republic that we love

so dearly.

And right down through the years, it has been the same.

Many hear, few answer and a portion of those who do,

consecrate our nation's highest ideals with their lives. On

battlefields long forgotten, or for the mass of our fellow

citizens not known or even cared about, this story of self-

sacrifice, complete devotion and fidelity to the best and

highest of ourselves, plays out again, and again and again.

The many war veterans in the audience, from World War II

right up to the ones of today, can tell you what it is like

to hear an unremitting drumbeat demanding sacrifice.

They can remember in jungle monsoons or savage desert

sandstorms, seeing the very best our country can produce step

forward. And then watching those same brave brothers in arms,

friends and comrades fall to the violence of the cruel enemy.

All the while, hearing that same drumbeat, demand more and

more sacrifice.

How many friends have we held as their finals breaths

slipped away?

How many times have we seen flag-draped transfer cases

placed on aircraft;

How many times have we stood at memorials in hot, dirty,

dusty places;

And how many times have we been asked by parents and family

members what the last days of their loves ones were like.

Everyone here knows the answer--far too many times.

So many of our friends are no longer here to teach their

sons to throw a baseball, escort their daughters to

quinceaneras, or to guide their parents into old age. We, who

have born the battle, must give voice to our fallen comrades.

They stood for all Americans when it counted most. So, we

must stand tall today and everyday--because they cannot.

As witnesses to the most profound human tragedies, our

charge now is to ensure their memories are not forgotten. But

even more importantly--that the ideals of the great republic

they gave their very lives to protect--live on and are

strengthened. It is our sacred obligation to represent those

whose lives were so cruelly ended; to be their ``Living

Memorial.''

One of our most distinguished countrymen, Oliver Wendell

Holmes, not only served as a Supreme Court Judge for the

great state of Maine, and on the Supreme Court of the United

States, but he was also a wartime and combat veteran. Serving

as an infantryman during the Civil War, Justice Holmes

offered a poignant reminder to all of us. . .

``We have shared the incommunicable experience of war, we

have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top. In

our youth our hearts were touched with fire.''

And we stand in constant memory of our fallen brothers.

It is worth remembering that those brave Americans who fell

threw the torch of freedom to those in the next generation,

who would take it up and shield it. Each successive

generation of patriots serves as a ``Living Memorial'' to

those who gave all in the preceding age. And a few in this

generation have caught that same torch of freedom.

When tyranny and terror have attacked the torch and caused

its flame to flicker, a few have protected it from the

violence of the enemy. They have given their blood and lives

to shield it, and in so doing had their own lives

extinguished so that the light of liberty would continue to

shine.

They have done so in the ancient Mesopotamian cities of

Baghdad, Al Kut and Hillah in Iraq. From Afghanistan's desert

plains of the Helmand province to its wispy heights of the

Hindu Kush, where air to breathe is hard to come by, but

enemy bombs, bullets and attacks are easy to find.

The honor roll of names who have given the last full

measure is not nearly as popular or as well-known as the

latest winner of American Idol, the results of the NFL draft

or the latest cover story in People magazine. And because of

this, it is up to us to carry their lives, loves and memories

forward to serve as their ``Living Memorial.''

For those esteemed fallen patriots are the precious few who

were willing to step forward for all of America. The story of

their lives and commitment answers the ancient question,

``Who will go for us and who will we send.''

They answered the question through their actions; stepping

forward for all of us.

The scriptures say, ``A man has no greater love than to lay

down his life for his brother.'' What they showed may have

been patriotism, may have been devotion, and it certainly was

sacrifice--but what we know is that they gave their all, and

in so doing, showed all of us today that those who will

follow, love in its most basic form. A love for our country,

our families--yours and mine, and our way of life; one that

exceeded the love they had even for themselves. And as we

look out across the years, and think of faraway places, our

deep and humble appreciation is with those whose love

exceeded all bounds.

So what to make of this devotion, belief and sacrifice?

One of our very distinguished Americans, Eleanor Roosevelt,

witnessed some of the most significant events in our

country's proud history. She carried in her wallet this poem

to remind her daily of the sacrifices of our most esteemed

citizens and it reads:

``Dear Lord,

Lest I continue

My complacent way,

Help me to remember that somewhere,

Somehow out there

A man died for me today.

As long as there be war,

I then must

Ask and answer

Am I worth dying for?''

Eleanor Roosevelt understood deeply that she was a ``Living

Memorial,'' for those who enabled her to do all the wonderful

things she did for our great country. She understood the deep

debt of gratitude owed to those who ``gave their today to

ensure our tomorrow.'' She understood that her life

personally, and our nation's way of life, was a ``Living

Memorial'' to those who gave all.

So, I leave you with this. Today is not a day for mourning.

It is, of course, a remembrance for what has been lost--the

finest our country has produced from across the ages.

However, this day is more than that, it is a celebration. A

celebration of our national heritage, a celebration of the

very best our country represents. We ought not lament the

loss of our true champions. Instead, cherish the thought that

such very fine Americans lived, such fine Americans

sacrificed for your family and mine--such American gave all.

Our challenge is to ensure that their sacrifices were not in

vain.

Your presence in this place, at this hour indicates that

you probably don't need to hear this message. However, many

of our countrymen do need to hear it. So as you leave here

today, each of you has a mission.

Carry forth the memory of those who gave all they had to

give for the finest ideals of our country and of all

humanity.

Carry forth the memory of our honored dead.

Remind others that our champions were not victims, but

Americans who made our way as a people possible. They carved

the path that brought freedom from the yoke of distant

tyranny, they served as the guarantors of independence, they

made the proclamation of emancipation real. And they ensured

that liberty remained a reality rather than a mere idea, a

word on a page, or a hope for dream.

I ask each of you to resolve to live in such a way as to

carry on the work of the fallen. To make our great country

better each day, and in doing so to serve as ``Living

Memorials,'' to our most honored citizens.

Thank you for taking the time out today to be part of this

celebration.

God Bless America and Semper Fidelis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1897, the Vietnam Human Rights Act. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation, and I thank my colleague Mr. Smith for introducing it.

This bill would prohibit any increase in U.S. non-humanitarian assistance to Vietnam until substantial progress has been made with regard to political and religious freedom for the citizens of Vietnam. The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that Vietnam should be designated as a Country of Particular Concern for religious freedom, and that the government does not meet the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking. In addition, the bill urges the Secretary of State to strongly oppose Vietnam's candidacy for membership on the United Nations Human Rights Council.

I strongly support this bill. Vietnam's record on human rights is appalling. The government in Vietnam continues to repress its citizens, including peaceful democracy activists, bloggers, and religious minorities. Reporters Without Borders ranks Vietnam as 172nd of 179 countries, only two places above China, and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has once again identified Vietnam as a ``Tier 1 Country of Particular Concern,'' grouping it with nations such as North Korea, Burma, and Iran. The Vietnamese government has clearly indicated by its actions that it lacks a meaningful commitment to reform. This Congress needs to send a message to the government that the status quo is unacceptable, and if the Vietnamese government wants to continue to engage with the United States, these violations must end. I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Why? Because it restates current law, and current law has been interpreted by the administration in a way that is, frankly, contrary to the intent of the crafters of the PATRIOT Act.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act says that you can obtain information that is relevant to a national security investigation.

Now, what has happened since Congress enacted that provision? It is a low bar, but under the NSA's interpretation, it is no bar at all. Because, as has been widely reported, they are collecting the information about every phone call made by every American. Clearly, that is not relevant to a terrorist investigation.

I think it is important to note that business records that are the subject of 215 include a lot of sensitive information. What are business records? phone records? Internet records? credit card records? medical records? Are these things that we would voluntarily give up to the government? No. They are incredibly sensitive, and that's why they are being sought.

I do think it is important to note that the amendment that will follow after this one doesn't end the ability of the government to pursue terrorism. We are all for that. It merely requires that the government adhere to the law, which requires that there be relevance to a terrorist investigation.

I certainly do not challenge the motivation of the gentleman who has offered this amendment, but I do think if you think that this provides a remedy, then you are wrong. This provides a fig leaf.

We should vote against it, and I hope that we will move on to the Amash amendment and solve the problem today.

I want to talk about the much ballyhooed oversight.

Every year, there is a report to the Judiciary Committee, an annual report, on section 215. This year, the report was eight sentences--less than a full page. To think that the Congress has substantial oversight of this program is simply incorrect. I cannot match Mr. Sensenbrenner's brilliant remarks; but I do agree that when we wrote the PATRIOT Act relevance had a meaning.

Madam Chair, I submit for the Record a letter to Mr. Sensenbrenner from the Department of Justice, which basically says, because 300 inquiries were made, the records of every single American became relevant. That's a joke.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: This responds to your

letter to the Attorney General date June 6, 2013, regarding

the ``business records'' provision of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861,

enacted as section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.

As you know, on June 5, 2013, the media reported the

unauthorized disclosure of a classified judicial order issued

under this provision that has been used to support a

sensitive intelligence collection program. Under this

program, which has been briefed to Congress and repeatedly

authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

(FISC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) obtains

authorization to collect telephony metadata, including the

telephone numbers dialed and the date, time and duration of

calls, from certain telecommunications service providers. The

National Security Agency (NSA), in turn, archives and

analyzes this information under carefully controlled

circumstances and provides leads to the FBI or others in the

Intelligence Community for counterterrorism purposes. Aspects

of this program remain classified, and there are limits to

what can be said about it in an unclassified letter.

Department of Justice and Intelligence Community staff are

available to provide you a briefing on the program at your

request.

In your letter, you asked whether this intelligence

collection program is consistent with the requirements of

section 215 and the limits of that authority. Under section

215, the Director of the FBI may apply to the FISC for an

order directing the production of any tangible things,

including business records, for investigations to protect

against international terrorism. To issue such an order, the

FISC must determine that (1) there are reasonable grounds to

believe that the things sought are relevant to an authorized

investigation, other than a threat assessment; (2) the

investigation is being conducted under guidelines approved by

the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333; and (3) if

a U.S. person is the subject of the investigation, the

investigation is not being conducted solely upon the basis of

First Amendment protected activities. In addition, the FISC

may only require the production of items that can be obtained

with a grand jury subpoena or any other court order directing

the production of records or tangible things. Finally, the

program must, of course, comport with the Constitution.

The telephony metadata program satisfies each of these

requirements. The lawfulness of the telephony metadata

collection program has repeatedly been affirmed by the FISC.

In the years since its inception, multiple FISC judges have

granted 90-day extensions of the program after concluding

that it meets all applicable legal requirements.

Of particular significance to your question is the

relevance to an authorized international terrorism

investigation of the telephony metadata collected through

this program. First, it is critical to understand the program

in the context of the restrictions imposed by the court.

Those restrictions strictly limit the extent to which the

data is reviewed by the government. In particular, the FISC

allows the data to be queried for intelligence purposes only

when there is reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts,

that a particular query term, such as a telephone number, is

associated with a specific foreign terrorist organization

that was previously identified to and approved by the court.

NSA has reported that in 2012, fewer than 300 unique

identifiers were used to query the data after meeting this

standard. This means that only a very small fraction of the

records is ever reviewed by any person, and only specially

cleared counterterrorism personnel specifically trained in

the court-approved procedures can access the records to

conduct queries. The information generated in response to

these limited queries is not only relevant to authorized

investigations of international terrorism, but may be

especially significant in helping the government identify and

disrupt terrorist plots.

The large volume of telephony metadata is relevant to FBI

investigations into specific foreign terrorist organizations

because the intelligence tools that NSA uses to identify the

existence of potential terrorist communications within the

data require collecting and storing large volumes of the

metadata to enable later analysis. If not collected and held

by NSA, the metadata may not continue to be available for the

period that NSA has deemed necessary for national security

purposes because it need not be retained by

telecommunications service providers. Moreover, unless the

data is aggregated by NSA, it may not be possible to identify

telephony

metadata records that cross different telecommunications

networks. The bulk collection of telephony metadata--i.e. the

collection of a large volume and high percentage of

information about unrelated communications--is therefore

necessary to identify the much smaller subset of terrorist-

related telephony metadata records contained within the data.

It also allows NSA to make connections related to terrorist

activities over time and can assist counterterrorism

personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists

have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in

terrorist activities, including persons and activities inside

the United States. Because the telephony metadata must be

available in bulk to allow NSA to identify the records of

terrorist communications, there are ``reasonable grounds to

believe'' that the data is relevant to an authorized

investigation to protect against international terrorism, as

section 215 requires, even though most of the records in the

dataset are not associated with terrorist activity.

The program is consistent with the Constitution as well as

with the statute. As noted above, the only type of

information acquired under the program is telephony metadata,

not the content of any communications, not the identity,

address or financial information of any party to the

communication, and not geolocational information. Under

longstanding Supreme Court precedent, there is no reasonable

expectation of privacy with respect to this kind of

information that individuals have already provided to third-

party businesses, and such information therefore is not

protected by the Fourth Amendment. See Smith v. Maryland, 442