Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, our immigration law has long recognized that children born outside our country to an American father and a foreign national mother are U.S. citizens as long as their fathers take necessary steps to achieve their child's citizenship.

Unfortunately, there remains a group of forgotten sons and daughters who, despite being born to American fathers, cannot take advantage of this existing provision of the law to become U.S. citizens. These are the offspring of American servicemen and Asian women during the Vietnam and Korean Wars whose fathers did not take the steps of acknowledging paternity necessary to make their offspring citizens. However, the American government did that for them by acknowledging that their fathers were American citizens.

Many of these individuals have lived through devastation during war, have been mistreated by their governments because of their mixed race, and many now live in the United States, but only as legal permanent residents.

There is no doubt that Amerasians are the sons and daughters of American fathers. Our American government already made that determination when we admitted them to the United States as legal permanent residents.

To correct this unfair inequality in our law, I am introducing the Amerasian Naturalization Act, along with bipartisan cosponsors, to ensure that Amerasians are accorded U.S. citizenship just like the offspring of other American fathers are.

I hope this Congress will act swiftly and pass the Amerasian Naturalization Act. It is time for us to finally close a chapter in our history that has too long denied Amerasians the opportunity to become citizens and be recognized as the Americans that they are.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Steven Siyi Hao for his prize winning entry in the 56th Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.

Last week, over 1,400 pre-college students participated in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix. Students from several countries submitted entries in hopes that they would win a portion of the $3 million in scholarships, tuition grants, internships and scientific field trips given away. This annual competition awarded six of nine Bay Area students for their entries, three of whom reside in San Jose.

Steven is a 17 year old student from Silver Creek High School. His project titled, ``The Effects of Oxidative Damage on Protein Translation Efficiency'' studied the negative effects of oxygen-free- radicals on protein production and DNA. His entry won him a paid summer internship at an Agilent Technologies site.

The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair promotes education and creativity in a way that is vital to a youth's development. These types of activities encourage students to explore the fields of science and engineering. This kind of innovation will drive the United State's economy into the future. Being from Silicon Valley, I fully understand the importance and impact that these studies have on America's prosperity.

I am proud to stand here today and recognize Steven for his accomplishments. I urge him and youth alike to continue to take interest in these fields, and lead the United States in its development of science and engineering exploration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Terik Daly for his prize winning entry in the 56th Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.

Last week, over 1,400 pre-college students participated in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix. Students from several countries submitted entries in hopes that they would win a portion of the $3 million in scholarships, tuition grants, internships and scientific field trips given away. This annual competition awarded six of nine Bay Area students for their entries, three of whom reside in San Jose.

Terik is a 15-year-old student from Oak Grove High School. His project titled, ``The Derivation and Interpretation of Geochemical Ratios Generated by Meteoritic Impact'' derived meteor composition by examining chemical composition of granite before and after impact. His entry won him a fourth-place prize ($500) in earth science; $8,000 tuition scholarship from Office of Naval Research (on behalf of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps).

The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair promote education and creativity in a way that is vital to a youth's development. These types of activities encourage students to explore the fields of science and engineering. This kind of innovation will drive the United State's economy into the future. Being from Silicon Valley, I fully understand the importance and impact that these studies have on America's prosperity.

I am proud to stand here today and recognize Terik for his accomplishments. I urge him and youth alike to continue to take interest in these fields, and lead the United States in its development of science and engineering exploration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize David I. Marash- Whitman for his prize winning entry in the 56th Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.

Last week, over 1,400 pre-college students participated in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix. Students from several countries submitted entries in hopes that they would win a portion of the $3 million in scholarships, tuition grants, internships and scientific field trips given away. This annual competition awarded six of nine Bay Area students for their entries, three of whom reside in San Jose.

David is a 13-year-old student from Kehillah Jewish High School. His project, titled ``Design for Biodegradation: Harnessing Natural Decay by Managing Physical and Chemical Dynamics'' investigated optimal nitrogen-carbon ratios, moisture and aeration for increasing the rate and total degradation of compost. His entry won him a second-place prize ($1,500) in environmental sciences.

The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair promotes education and creativity in a way that is vital to a youth's development. These types of activities encourage students to explore the fields of science and engineering. This kind of innovation will drive the United States' economy into the future. Being from Silicon Valley, I fully understand the importance and impact that these studies have on America's prosperity.

I am proud to stand here today and recognize David for his accomplishments. I urge him and all youth alike to continue to take interest in these fields, and lead the United States in its development of science and engineering exploration.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Stem cell research holds the potential to improve the lives of millions of Americans suffering from diseases like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. I believe we should do all we can to support this research, and it is why I am so frustrated at the Bush administration's attempts to stop it.

NIH said that U.S. scientists are falling behind because of the Bush 2001 limitations on stem cell research. Elizabeth Nable of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute said, ``Because U.S. researchers who depend on Federal funds lack access to newer human embryonic stem cell lines, they are at a technological disadvantage relative to researchers funded by California, as well as investigators in Asia and Europe.

My home State of California has already moved ahead of the Federal Government by establishing the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which will devote $3 billion to embryonic stem cell research over the next 10 years.

This bill is a modest proposal compared to California's, but it is still an important step; and that is why it is supported by all the major educational research institutions in California.

I include their letter of support in the Record. Let us not drive this research overseas.

May 19, 2005.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Lofgren: We are writing to express our

support for changing federal policy on human embryonic stem

cell research to allow an expansion in available cell lines.

As you probably know, a vote on legislation that would alter

current policy is expected in the coming weeks, and we urge

your `'Yes'' vote.

Embryonic stem cells hold the potential for new cures and

therapies for an array of life-threatening diseases affecting

millions of Americans across the nation. This potential will

be enhanced by the bipartisan Stem Cell Research Enhancement

Act (H.R. 810), introduced by Representatives Michael Castle

(R-DE) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) and co-sponsored by more than

200 members of the House of Representatives.

The Castle-DeGette bill would expand current policy to

allow federal funding for research with stem cell lines

discovered after the mandated August 9, 2001, cut-off date as

well as lines derived in the future. With regard to future

stem cell lines, the bill applies only to lines derived from

days-old blastocysts that otherwise would be discarded from

in vitro fertilization clinics, but that instead are

voluntarily donated to research by consenting individuals,

without compensation. Further, this legislation would ensure

the development of ethical guidelines for research with

embryonic stem cell lines.

California has moved ahead by establishing the Institute

for Regenerative Medicine, which will devote $3 billion to

embryonic stem cell research over the next ten years. The

provisions within H.R. 810 are more restrictive than those of

the California Initiative; however, H.R. 810 is crucial

because it will make a significant difference to nationwide

federal research programs. This expansion in policy will

further facilitate and accelerate the research conducted in

our state.

When the current federal embryonic stem cell research

policy went into effect in 2001, the notion was that 78 cell

lines would be available for research. Currently, only 22 are

actually available to researchers; many others have been

found unsuitable. Furthermore, a number of the available

lines are entangled with commercial interests making the

cells too expensive or impossible for NIH-funded

investigators to obtain. For these reasons, the existing

embryonic stem cell lines do not provide a sufficient supply

to advance the research to its full potential.

Embryonic stem cells offer the potential to reverse

diseases and disabilities experienced by millions of

Americans. Stem cell research is still very new. Thus, we

have a collective responsibility--scientists, university

leaders, and government leaders--to support the exploration

of the promising possibilities of both embryonic and adult

stem cell research for curing and preventing disease.

Please support scientific advancement and the possibility

of new cures by voting ``Yes'' on H.R. 810 to expand federal

stem cell research policy.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Dynes,

President, University of California.

Steven B. Sample,

President, University of Southern California.

David Baltimore,

President, California Institute of Technology.

John L. Hennessy,

President, Stanford University.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of this legislation. H.R. 32 is aimed at criminals who traffic in counterfeit labels and packaging rather than the products themselves.

Many counterfeit products are labeled with brand names or trademarks that consumers know and trust. However, under current law, trafficking in counterfeit labels is not illegal if the labels are not affixed to the counterfeit products. Counterfeiters have exploited this by importing the counterfeit labels and products separately, and then affixing the labels in the United States.

This bill expands criminal penalties to include those who traffic in counterfeit labels and packaging. It also requires forfeiture of any property derived from the proceeds of the violation and requires restitution to the trademark owner.

At the same time, H.R. 32 now includes language that will ensure that criminal sanctions do not reach legitimate businesses that repackage goods or services with no intent to deceive or cause confusion.

The original bill left open the question of whether someone other than the manufacturer could affix marks to goods that could correctly identify the source. This confusion struck at the very heart of the parallel market in which third parties lawfully obtain goods and make them available in discount stores. Not only has this practice been upheld by the Supreme Court, but it also saves consumers billions of dollars each year.

I appreciate that the majority worked with us to address this concern. We now have a bill that protects manufacturers, targets illegitimate actors, protects consumers, and leaves the legitimate parallel market unscathed. Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), an original cosponsor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have partnered with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) on this legislation, H.R. 744, the Goodlatte- Lofgren I-SPY bill. Spyware is quickly becoming one of the biggest threats to consumers on the Internet. It is one of the reasons why we have an identity theft epidemic in this country. Thieves are using spyware to harvest personal information from unsuspecting Americans. Criminals are even using spyware to track every keystroke an individual makes, including credit and Social Security numbers.

Spyware also adversely affects the business community, who are forced to spend money to block and remove it from their systems. In fact, Microsoft has stated that spyware is at least partially responsible for approximately one-half of all application crashes reported to them. Experts estimate that as many as 80 to 90 percent of all personal computers contain some form of spyware.

Last year, Earthlink identified more than 29 million spyware programs. In short, spyware is a very real problem that is endangering consumers, damaging businesses and creating millions of dollars of additional costs. I am proud to be a party to H.R. 744, this bipartisan measure, because it identifies the truly unscrupulous acts associated with spyware and subjects them to criminal punishment.

This bill is unique, however, because it focuses on behavior rather than technology. It targets the worst forms of spyware without unduly burdening technological innovation. Why is this important? We know that innovation goes faster than legislation. It is important that we not try to fix the development of legislation in time. Instead, we need to focus on misbehavior, not technology, so that technology innovation can continue to move as rapidly as it does and yet the American consumer and businesses can be protected.

It is important, and this is an issue that there was some question about and I think we can answer quite easily, it is important to note that H.R. 744 does not prevent existing or future State laws which prohibit spyware. This bill only preempts civil actions that are based on violations of this new Federal criminal law in State courts. It does not prevent a State from passing a similar law, nor does it prevent any lawsuits that are premised on existing State laws.

H.R. 744 also gives the Attorney General the money he needs to find and prosecute spyware offenders. And, finally, it expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Justice should vigorously pursue online phishing scams in which criminals send fake e-mail messages to consumers on behalf of famous companies and request personal information that is later used to conduct criminal activities.

Phishing and spyware are not just an inconvenience to consumers. They represent a direct threat to the vitality of the Internet itself because if people cannot trust the Internet, they will not utilize Internet commerce.

I would like to note that I also serve on the Committee on Homeland Security, and we are well aware that phishing to the extent that it yields identity theft information is of great concern as we seek to protect the Nation from terrorism. So what we are doing here today is important for consumers, it is important for business, it is important for the future of our high-tech economy, and it is important for the security of the Nation. I would urge my colleagues to strike a blow for the continued vitality of the Internet and again pass this bill unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just note that the House will be considering at least two items having to do with spamming and phishing and the like today. Certainly we hope to move this issue forward. I strongly believe that the approach that this bill takes, which is targeting behavior instead of technology, puts us on the soundest footing; and I hope that in the end as we sort through the various approaches that that will be our guide to protect technology innovation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) for their work and leadership on this bill, but I would also especially like to compliment the

ranking member for his work on this substitute. There is much in the bill that is good; the substitute is even better, for the reasons outlined by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

However, there is one provision that is the same in both the bill and the substitute and equally good in both cases, and that is the provisions regarding cyber security.

As Members know, in the 108th Congress there was a Subcommittee on Cyber Security within the Select Committee on Homeland Security. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) was the chairman and I was the ranking member, and we worked very hard together to craft the provision that is incorporated in the bill and in the substitute. We held over 17 hearings and further briefings, and we heard from the private sector.

I think that is why the following people support our provision: The Business Software Alliance, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Cyber Security Industrial Alliance, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Higher Education and Information Technology Alliance, the Information Technology Association of America, the Information Technology Industry Council, the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, the Software and Information Industry Association, Tech Net, and the Association of American Universities, the Association of Research Libraries, the National Association of College and University Business Officers, and the list goes on and on.

The bill does something, and the substitute does something that is very important, and that is, to elevate the attention paid to cybersecurity within the Department.

You know, several years ago when the strategy for cybersecurity was adopted, we had a cyberperson in the White House who drafted that plan and had the attention of the White House.

Since that time, this position has devolved to one that really does not have direct access to decision-makers. In fact, the last person to hold the job, Amit Yoran, from Silicon Valley, quit 1 year to the day after he took the job; and we do not have a permanent replacement for him to this day.

We have got contractors. In fact, the current contractor is not even on the payroll. It is a Carnegie Mellon employee. We need to have attention at the highest level for cybersecurity. Let me be clear. The job of securing cyberspace at DHS is just not getting done.

Recently, Berkley professor Shankar Sastry warned of the possibility of what he called a digital Pearl Harbor. He urged that the Nation act before it is too late. We in Congress must not stand by while our cyberinfrastructure remains vulnerable and so little is accomplished in the Department of Homeland Security.

Securing cyberspace must be a national priority. The substitute and the bill do it. And I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for including it.

Madam Speaker, I rise as a coauthor in strong support of H. Res. 228, a resolution that marks the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Republic of Vietnam and that honors the contributions of Vietnamese-Americans to American society over the past three decades.

April 30, 1975 marked a very somber day for millions of people when the Republic of Vietnam fell to Communist forces from North Vietnam. Instantly, the world was faced with millions of refugees, many who resettled in the United States, but also hundreds of thousands who perished at sea in their attempt to escape Communist forces. Those who remained in Vietnam were forced to re-education camps and detention as their punishment.

Unfortunately, to this day, the Vietnamese Communist government continues to violate basic human rights of its own citizens. As it has been documented by various States Department reports, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Amnesty International and various Vietnamese-American groups, the Vietnamese government has been an egregious violator of religious freedom, human rights, and free speech. The government in Vietnam has continuously imprisoned religious figures who simply want to practice their faith, journalists attempting to print basic information about the actions of their government, and democratic activists in Vietnam. Vietnamese-Americans are playing a vital role to ensure that the Vietnamese government improves its human rights record, but much work remains to be done.

Even though April 30th, 2005 marks the 30th anniversary of a very sad day for millions of Vietnamese and American families whose sons and daughters gave the ultimate sacrifice during the Vietnam War, it is also a day to enthusiastically commend countless contributions that millions of Vietnamese-Americans have made in the United States. In just 30 years, 1.5 million Vietnamese refugees rebuilt their lives to become leaders in education, business, and government in the United Sates and have greatly enriched the cultural diversity of our country.

So today I rise to remember the sacrifice of American and Vietnamese soldiers who fought for democracy in Vietnam and for their families who suffered their loss and injury. But I also rise to commend millions of courageous Vietnamese-Americans who have successfully rebuilt their lives in the United States while fighting to improve the human rights situation for their brothers and sisters left in Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend the integrity of the House this evening. The established practice of the House regarding committee reports is to accurately and objectively describe the proceedings when a bill is considered in committee. These reports are historical products that are used to understand and determine the intent of a bill, opposition to a bill, and to provide any additional information to understand the context of a bill reported by committees of the House.

In committee we argue and we disagree and we offer amendments and we vote. We may vote and disagree in committee, but when the report is issued it is supposed to be objective. This institution must uphold this established practice of describing a committee mark-up in an accurate and objective manner so that history is accurately documented and reported for generations to come. Unfortunately, that is not what happened last week when the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 748 to the House floor with the committee report, House Report 109-51.

Republicans that ruled the Committee on the Judiciary mischaracterized five Democratic amendments in an extremely disparaging and distorting manner. When alerted to the misleading and inaccurate description of the amendment in the committee report, they refused to correct the mischaracterization.

Here is something I can say that would be true about H.R. 748. The bill could permit a father who raped his daughter to profit in a lawsuit against his minister. That is a true thing about that bill. It is an argument against the bill. But no one expects that argument against the bill to substitute for the name of the bill in the committee report.

In prior Congresses, Democratic amendments like these were described in neutral terms. The vote last week was about H.R. 748. The vote this week is about arrogance and abuse of power and ignoring the rules.

The Republicans changed the ethics rules when they were afraid they might not work for them at the beginning of this Congress, and we are all watching the other body looking about changing the rules relative to filibuster because it suits their purpose and now this.

We, including the chairman of the committee, each have a duty to uphold the integrity of this institution. We must not play politics with the records of history. The majority should live by the rules and precedents of the House. The House cannot function if the majority uses its raw power to corrupt the record of the proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American mind, who forty years ago this month made a prediction about integrated circuits that has driven the pace of innovation, helped make the U.S. the world's technological leader and brought endless benefits to consumers, businesses and economies in my district and around the world.

In April of 1965, Gordon Moore, a young engineer with Fairchild Semiconductor, postulated that the number of transistors on a chip would double at a regular interval without any additional cost increase. Essentially, he predicted that computer chips would double in power every 18 months. Forty years later, Moore's Law, as it has come to be known, has helped drive innovation at leading American companies like Intel Corporation, which Gordon helped found.

Even the most enterprising minds of 1965 could not have imagined that computers the size of a refrigerator would one day fit in the palm of our hands. Or that a children's toy would pack four times as much processing power as an Apollo moon lander.

These mind-blowing developments have led to advances in virtually every industry and aspect of our lives. Consider that families and friends can now send messages and share photos instantly, even from thousands of miles away. Doctors can now diagnose patients in other countries and get instantaneous access to the latest treatment options.

The drive towards maintaining Moore's law has kept Intel and the rest of the U.S. technology industry at the forefront of this innovation. The premise of Moore's Law dictates that computer power essentially improves for free, bringing increases in productivity unprecedented since the Industrial Revolution.

As a result, consumers get more for less and our economy benefits. Since 1995, information technology industries have accounted for 25 percent of overall U.S. economic growth while making up only 3 percent of the gross domestic product. This means that technological advances are the key to growing our economy.

In my home of Silicon Valley, we are proud to be part of the drive to keep pace with Moore's Law. I rise today to commemorate Gordon's contributions to our economy and to our world.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the House Committee Funding Resolution for the 109th Congress as approved by the House Administration Committee on Thursday, April 21, 2005. This Resolution assures that the Minority will be treated fairly in regard to both committee budgets and staff. It abides by the 2/3-1/3 principle in which the Minority receives 1/3 of the staff, 1/3 of the budget, and control over that budget. It is my understanding that every Chair and Ranking Member in the House have come to an agreement on their individual budgets, and all treat the Minority in a fair and respectful way. I commend Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald for their hard work on this Resolution.

During Markup of the Committee Funding Resolution, Congresswoman Millender-McDonald offered an amendment regarding House Committee's use of the Frank. Under this amendment, Committees will be limited to a $5,000 franking budget per year, and Committees will need to abide by, and receive approval from, the House Franking Commission for any mass mailings. This is an important proposal that I strongly support. This amendment assures that House Committees will only use the Frank for official purposes, and stem the questionable franking practices that developed at the end of the 108th Congress.

Finally, I must comment on the controversy surrounding the budget of the Resources Committee during the 108th Congress.

My colleague Chairman Ney was elected to Congress in 1994, the same year as me. As you will recall, 1994 was the year that the Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Led by Newt Gingrich, the incoming members of the House promoted the Contract with America. The Contract promised that under Republican rule, the House would pass a number of resolutions and bills within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress.

One of the promises made by the Republicans was to pass a resolution on the first day of the 104th Congress that would provide for the selection of a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse. Republicans were concerned that tax dollars were being misspent by the House of Representatives. Chairman Ney signed the Contract with America, and I can only assume that he supported this provision.

It seems odd to me now that a little over 10 years later, my friend Bob Ney and his Republican colleagues do not seem to have the same zeal for investigating waste, fraud and abuse here in the House.

During the Committee Funding Resolution hearings in March, I posed several questions about the budget and policies of the Resources Committee during the 108th Congress to Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo.

On October 6, 2004, The Hill reported that Chairman Pombo planned to close the Resources Committee for a month leading up to the November 2004 elections. It went on to state that the staff would receive a month of vacation time and Chairman Pombo's spokesman stated on-the- record that some staff may choose to go and work on campaigns during their time off.

During the hearing, I posed several questions about the vacation policy of the Resources Committee to Chairman Pombo and gave him the opportunity to clear up the confusion about the events leading up to the 2004 elections.

Chairman Pombo welcomed the opportunity to address the issue. He answered some of my questions at the hearing, and said he would need to get back to the Committee regarding others.

In an effort to get to the bottom of this issue and clear up any confusion, I put my questions in writing for Chairman Pombo. The record, at the direction of Chairman Ney, was held open so Chairman Pombo could respond to the House Administration Committee within 30 days. Chairman Pombo did respond to some, but not all, of my questions in writing on April 13, 2005.

Both Chairman Ney and representatives of Chairman Pombo have categorized these ordinary and routine inquiries as something extraordinary. Mr. Pombo's spokesman has actually compared me to Senator Joseph McCarthy. While I find that comment to be a bit weird, I am prepared to state unequivocally that I do not believe Chairmen Pombo or Ney are communists!

So the record is totally clear, I have included in the Committee Report accompanying this resolution all of the correspondence between myself, Chairman Ney and Chairman Pombo on this issue as well as the transcript of our discussion at the committee hearing. This report should be posted on the House Administration Committee Web site. I will also note that at this time, Chairman Pombo has still not answered all of my written questions.

It is the job of the House Administration Committee to oversee all operations of the House of Representatives, including the approval of taxpayer-funded committee budgets. Under this Committee Funding Resolution, the Resources Committee will receive a 7.5 increase in their operating budget in the 109th Congress.

It is only appropriate that the House Administration Committee confirm that the money spent by the Resources Committee during the 108th Congress was done so in a proper way. Chairman Pombo still has the ability to quickly clear up this confusion. I remain hopeful that Chairman Pombo will take the time to answer all the written questions in detail about the policies and practices of the Resources Committee to reassure that tax dollars are being spent in a legal, fair, and ethical manner. Chairman Ney, signers the Contract with America, and anyone else that believes in good government, should demand nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, amidst the controversy surrounding recent disparaging remarks regarding women in science, I was encouraged to read an editorial from a shining star in Silicon Valley, Carol Bartz, the President and CEO of Autodesk and a member of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. Ms. Bartz is right, while the controversy of women in science rages on, ``unless we bring the other half of our population [women] into the engineering ranks, that [U.S.] leadership [in engineering] inevitably will evaporate.''

I would like to include Ms. Bartz' editorial, printed in the San Jose Mercury News on March 24, 2005, in the Record.

[From the San Jose Mercury News, Mar. 24, 2005]

Engineering a Solution: Bring Women Into the Fold

(By Carol Bartz)

Last week, Harvard University President Lawrence Summers

suffered the sting of a faculty no-confidence vote, stemming

from his remarks in January about women in science.

But every day, U.S. companies and the U.S. economy suffer

the far more significant sting of girls avoiding science and

engineering career paths in droves.

Despite interesting work and excellent pay--an average of

$81,000 a year, almost twice U.S. median household income--

employers are begging people to fill positions. Yet just one

in 10 engineers is a woman, a far worse track record than

science or math.

Why are girls who are fully capable of planning cities,

designing jet engines or creating the next iPod avoiding

engineering? Is it some biological difference in the female

brain, the premise that cost Summers so dearly? Or is it

simply a lack of encouragement during those crucial teen

years when career paths are forged?

Does it matter?

Even with top salaries, the free-market supply of

electrical and mechanical engineers is well below U.S.

demand. Something is clearly wrong. The answer is obvious: We

are relying on archaic, boys' club traditions to supply an

industry that instead should serve as a role model for pure

efficiency and reason. And we risk global competitiveness as

a result.

No responsible CEO would try to build a business by

ignoring the value of half her available capital. That would

abrogate her responsibility to shareholders, employees and

customers. Yet the engineering world is engaged in precisely

this irresponsible corporate behavior by failing to take

advantage of one-half of the available human ``capital.''

And in America we do so at our peril, because a perfect

storm is brewing.

On one side of our nation looms international competition

in engineering-dependent industries we once dominated. The

only answer to maintaining our competitive edge is to use our

engineering expertise to create innovation.

Looming on the other side is an immense gap between the

demand for innovative young engineers and the number of

students awarded degrees in mechanical and electrical

engineering. Every day the gap grows, as an aging national

workforce of some 2 million engineers gradually retires

without nearly enough graduates to take their place.

With our national competitiveness for the 21st century at

stake, we have no choice. We must work to change the status

quo and ensure that the female half of our population makes

its proportional contribution to the ranks of engineering.

As a software engineer by training, and the CEO of a

company whose products are used by millions of engineers

globally, I have seen the current system firsthand.

Even at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's School

of Engineering, the No. 1-ranked school in the country, U.S.

News & World Report found women made up only 25 percent of

graduate enrollment last year.

The private sector must shoulder much of the burden of

attracting women to the field. Offering competitive salaries

is not enough. It is incumbent on companies to make an

engineering career compelling in all of its aspects to young

women--to re-energize the field and reintroduce the ``cool''

factor that engineering once possessed.

There is some hope. Already, the National Science

Foundation, the Business-Higher Education Forum and other

organizations are working hard to encourage women to join the

ranks of American engineers. As for the ``cool,'' this

weekend, San Jose State University will host the regional

round of the FIRST Robotics competition, offering high school

students (girls included!) the opportunity to solve

engineering design problems using robotics.

For more than a century, America's global economic

leadership has rested on innovation by our engineers, the

best in the world. Through them, we have been able to meet

tremendous challenges, building the world's most complex

infrastructure, some of the world's largest and most

important cities, and products that have changed the lives of

people everywhere. Unless we bring the other half of our

population into the engineering ranks, that leadership

inevitably will evaporate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of Dr. Patricia Senn Breivik as she retires from her position as Dean of the University Library at San Jose State University. Dr. Breivik's was a leader of the collaboration between the San Jose Public Library and the San Jose State University--a merged library that opened in August 2003. As a result, the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library encompasses the spirit of Silicon Valley as an innovative model serving as the area's 21st century information hub.

It took 6 years to propose, plan, and execute an idea that evolved during a breakfast meeting between former San Jose Mayor Susan Hammer and former San Jose State University president Robert Caret. After Dr. Breivik inherited the idea, she went to work with the director of the San Jose Public Library to establish a center of exploration and learning that would serve the University's 27,000 students, 1,153 faculty and a busy city of 924,950 people.

During the time of the planning of this jewel, both libraries faced a steady erosion of support as a result of the passage of Proposition 13. In addition to shrinking coffers, the libraries also faced the challenge of having to remain open substantially more hours than either libraries had previously offered because of its increased patronage. Now, not only is the King Library co-owned and co-managed, it has one online system and one website. Library materials are accessible to all users and the staffs work together in technical services, reference, circulation and Information Technology support.

Within a year of its opening, the King Library garnered a number of prestigious awards. Among them is the 2004 Gale/Library Journal ``Library of the Year'' Award that was presented for innovative collaboration and acknowledged the cooperative planning between university and city officials in risk-taking and vision.

The King Library is one of the precious jewels of San Jose's cultural ``necklace'' of treasured museums, theaters, and historical landmarks. It serves as a place for friends to meet for a cup of coffee and discuss the latest news; a study hall for nerve-wracked students; and a place of learning, sharing and, of course, collaboration between people of differing education and income levels, ethnicity, language, culture and beliefs. Special thanks go to Dr. Breivik for her outstanding work.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 106, I had turned off my pager during a committee meeting and neglected to turn it back on. When the vote was called, therefore, I did not learn of it. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``nay.''