Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, if you just read the title of this bill, you might think the House is finally acting on the 9/11 Commission. But if you read the bill's content, you find, sadly, no.

Out of the 41 recommendations by the Commission, only 11 are in the bill, 15 are incomplete, 15 were totally ignored, and there are 50 extraneous poison pill provisions.

The Menendez substitute is the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This bill is not. And I hope that we will support the 9/11 families and the Commission by adopting the Menendez substitute instead of this flawed measure.

The independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission, issued its report on July 22nd. A full 78 days have passed since this important document was published. Today we are voting on a bill entitled, ``9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act.'' If you just read the title of the bill, you might think the House is finally acting on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Yet, upon closer examination of the bill, you realize the title has little to do with the bill's content.

There are several provisions in this bill that have absolutely nothing to do with the recommendations by the bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission. There are others that simply miss the point made by recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Worse yet, there are several Commission recommendations that are totally ignored.

Out of 41 recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission, only 11 are addressed in the bill, 15 are incomplete, and 15 were totally ignored. Over 50 extraneous ``poison pill'' provisions that were not recommended by the Commission are included.

In H.R. 10, the Republican leadership simply ignored some of the most important recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. H.R. 10:

Fails to give the National Intelligence Director sufficient authority over the budget and personnel of the intelligence agencies; fails to strengthen U.S. efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons; fails to secure U.S. borders by integrating disparate screening systems; fails to mandate and fund the use of explosive detection devices for airline safety; fails to provide radio spectrum for first responders to communicate during emergencies; fails to provide additional security assistance to Afghanistan or economic development assistance to Arab and Muslim countries.

H.R. 10 contains several provisions that undermine Commission recommendations by weakening Congressional oversight and giving the President too much power in reorganizing the intelligence agencies. The bill includes controversial immigration and tort provisions that had nothing to do with 9/11 Commission recommendations. They will delay or ultimately frustrate enactment of 9/11 Commission recommendations.

The bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission should not be exploited today to enact the majority party's agenda that has very little to do with the Commission's recommendations.

It is time for the Republican leadership in this House to take the 9/ 11 Commission seriously. We should pass a bill that truly implements the 9/11 Commission recommendations, such as the bill that was passed by the Senate yesterday, or the Menendez amendment in the House today. Unlike H.R. 10, the Senate bill was worked out in a bipartisan fashion with a vote of 96-2, and has been endorsed by the 9/11 Commission.

More importantly, the Menendez substitute has the strong support of the 9/11 families, who know too well the tremendous suffering that comes with a terrorist attack.

The republican leadership in this House is ignoring the families of the 9/11 victims, the 9/11 Commission, and a strong agreement reached in the Senate in a bipartisan fashion. It is time for the Republicans to stop playing politics with our Nation's security. Let's vote against H.R. 10 and instead for a bill that represents a consensus across the political spectrum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have partnered with my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) on this legislation to combat spyware. 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. 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 card and Social Security numbers.

Spyware also adversely affects the business community which must spend money to block and remove it from their systems. 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. Earthlink recently 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 support H.R. 4661, this bipartisan measure that identifies the truly unscrupulous acts associated with spyware and subjects them to criminal punishment. This bill is important because it focuses on behavior, not on technology. It targets the worst form of spyware without unduly burdening technological innovation.

H.R. 4661 also authorizes for the Attorney General the money he needs to find and prosecute spyware offenders. At the same time, it is important to note that this bill does not prevent existing or future State laws that prohibit spyware. Report language clearly explains that this bill only preempts civil actions that are based on violations of this new Federal criminal law. It does not prevent a State from passing a similar law, nor does it prevent any lawsuits that are premised on existing State laws.

I am honored that this bill has the strong support of some of the biggest names in technology, including Microsoft and Dell. It is also supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Center For Democracy and Technology, and even the Distributed Computing Industry Association, which represents peer-to-peer networks. Consumers and businesses cannot wait any longer for help.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4661.

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

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

I would like to thank as well the gentleman from Virginia for such a productive collaboration on this bill. I think it is a good product and one that we can all be very satisfied with. I also want to take a moment to thank two members of my staff. The staff does not generally get thanked in public. Andrew Kugler, a lawyer on my staff and a brand new father, worked very hard with the gentleman from Virginia's staff to make sure that all these issues were dealt with successfully; and while he was on paternity leave, Ur Jaddou on my staff filled in for him. So thanks to both of those fine lawyers for the effort that they made. The staff works behind the scenes, but they help us accomplish a lot, and we need to thank them.

I also wanted to mention and agree with the gentleman from Virginia in terms of the phishing issue. I will admit that one of the brightest people I know, my daughter, was caught up actually in a phishing scheme. Very smart people can get taken by these phishing schemes. As soon as her thumb hit the send button, she thought, oh, my goodness, what have I done. We had to call and cancel all the credit cards and the like.

This is something that preys upon people. If you think about the impact of phishing and also spyware, it is not just an inconvenience to consumers; but if we do not successfully abate this, we are going to have a very serious impact on the vitality of the Internet itself, because if people cannot trust Internet commerce, they will not use Internet commerce and so that is going to have an impact on the productivity of the American economy.

What we are doing here today is important for consumers, it is important for businesses, but it is also important for the future of our high-tech economy because we have got to make sure that the Internet is safe for commerce and for individual users and also for businesses.

I urge and I do believe that this House will in large number support the bill. When you do, you are striking a blow for the continued vitality of the Internet as an instrument of commerce and economic growth for America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rises today not only as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary but as chair of the California Democratic Delegation to say we need more judges, but we do not need to split the Ninth Circuit. It is important to know that California's Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes the proposed split as does former Republican Governor Pete Wilson. Our two Democratic Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, also oppose the split, and the American Bar Association and the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers also oppose the split. Even the judges of the Ninth Circuit oppose the split by a 30-to-9 margin.

According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, the start-up cost for such a split would be $131 million, and there would be an additional $21.7 million in extra personnel costs every year.

Why would we waste these millions? The Ninth Circuit is not broken. Although the Ninth Circuit contains the largest number of judges of any Federal circuit, the ratio of published opinions to the number of judgeships is well within what is applicable to other circuits. It is also worth noting that the circuit judges in the Ninth Circuit take only 1.4 months to decide cases following argument, while the national average is 2.1 months.

Despite all the rhetoric, the Ninth Circuit's reversal rates compare favorably with every other circuit. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose and vote down the amendment to split the circuit. We do need these judges. But join the Republican governor and the judges and the taxpayers, who do not want to fund this waste, in turning down this ill-conceived amendment to split the Ninth Circuit so that we can move forward and get those judges that we need.

Madam Speaker, the Republican leadership has put us on notice that Congress will probably adjourn next week until after the November elections. We should have done so much more this year. Yet, this week, Republican leaders have decided to bring to the floor a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a bill to repeal gun laws in the District of Columbia. Are these really the most important issues facing the Nation?

Earlier this month, the Republican leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), said that he would not allow a vote to continue the assault weapons ban because it did not have the votes. When asked about scheduling a vote, he said the following, ``If the President asked me, it would still be no . . . because we don't have the votes to pass an assault weapons ban, and it will expire Monday and that's that.''

Despite the overwhelming support of Americans everywhere, he let the assault weapons ban expire.

Apparently, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) only brings things to a vote when he has the votes. But wait, this week the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has taken a different position on what he brings to the floor.

In Roll Call, he acknowledged he does not have the votes to pass the marriage amendment. This amendment will not pass the House, and it did not even a get a simple majority in the Senate earlier this year. This amendment is going nowhere.

Let us be clear. The only reason this bill is being considered today is to score political points a month before the election. I am not surprised in the least that the Republicans would put politics before solutions. What is shocking is that we would waste time on these political games when they have accomplished so very little this year.

Earlier this month, the CBO released its update and confirmed that the 2004 deficit will be the largest in history, $422 billion. This $818 billion deterioration from the $397 billion surplus that they inherited when President Bush took office is just a shame.

And what have the Republicans done to bring the deficit under control? Absolutely nothing. As a result of their policies, and for the third time in 3 years, Republicans need to increase the debt limit once again. What have Republicans done about this, the national debt? Nothing. The list goes on and on.

The Republicans never passed a 2004 budget. The fiscal year ends tomorrow, yet we have only done one of our 13 appropriation bills. The 9/11 Commission report was released in July. It has been 71 days, and the House and Senate have still not voted on its recommendations.

We have not passed a transportation reauthorization bill since January 2001. We have lost 1.7 million private-sector jobs. And for the third year in a row, the number of Americans without health insurance has gone up. Medicare premiums are as high as they have ever been. We have more people in poverty this year than we did when Bush assumed the Presidency.

The Republicans control the White House, they control the House of Representatives, and they control the Senate. They control everything in Washington. Despite all these advantages, all of this power, they have no accomplishments. All they can do is play political games to hide their truly abysmal record and hope that the American people do not notice.

The House Republicans have controlled Congress for a decade. On January 4, 1995, the day I was first sworn in, moments before being sworn in, then Speaker Newt Gingrich told the Members of the House that we were hired to do a job, and we have to start today to prove we will do it. Well, the Republicans have had 10 years, and just look at the dismal record. They have proven they just cannot do this job. It is time for a change. House Democrats are ready to get to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Myrtle McKenna on the occasion of her 100th birthday.

Myrtle McKenna was born on November 3, 1904 and resides in San Jose, California.

She was married to Vincent ``Mac'' McKenna for 39 years until his death. Mac served as President of UAW Local 560 for many years. Myrtle has also been active in the UAW. She is currently the Financial Secretary of the UAW Women's Auxiliary, and she is also in charge of preparing food for the retiree's monthly meetings. Myrtle has never missed a meeting and drove herself to the meetings until she was 94.

Myrtle has been an active member of the Transfiguration Catholic Church for the past 45 years and she continues to volunteer there on a regular basis. She is an avid gardener, and is well known for growing beautiful tomatoes.

I want to thank Myrtle McKenna for her many years of service to our community and congratulate her on this milestone birthday. The city of San Jose is truly fortunate to have such a dynamic and caring resident.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Center for Training and Careers (CTC) of San Jose for establishing the Women Empowered to Move Ahead (WEMA) collaborative program.

WEMA was created by CTC when they were approached by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to help train women for the Utility Worker and Apprentice Lineman divisions. At that time PG&E did not have any women in those positions. With CTC's extensive experience designing non- traditional programs for under-employed and unemployed women, a program was developed that focused the curriculum on the employment process of

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is fine, but it does not fix the problem with the bill. Marbury versus Madison, 1803, was when the great decision was made that the judicial branch would interpret the law. Since that time, we have had, like we all learned in 8th grade, the three branches of government, and it served us pretty darn well for the last 200 years. We have a free country that lives under law.

This bill actually would try to remove the judicial branch from its job of interpreting the law, and, most importantly, making sure that the laws that the Congress passes and the actions that the executive takes meet up with the standards in the Constitution of the United States.

Now, I have been listening to the debate of the proponents of this bill with some concern. Some of the things that have been said, I wonder, can they be that dumb, or are they being venal, or is it both? Absolutely we know there is a difference between passing a statute and having that statute interpreted to see whether the statute meets constitutional muster.

Clearly, Congress has the ability to do all kinds of things with the courts. We can set statutes of limitation, we can provide for direct appeal to the Supreme Court. What we cannot do is say that the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court, cannot review what we do to see whether it meets the requirements of the Federal Constitution. That is what we are trying to do today.

Now, if we succeed, if we pass this, we will either change fundamentally the free country that we enjoy, or else we will promote a constitutional crisis. Maybe we could get a Marbury-II.

But I think there is another reason for this bill today. I think we are here today for political purposes. We are here so that certain Members of this House who try and protect the Constitution will be subject to 30-second political ads. I think that is a misuse of our processes here. Either radicals have taken over the Congress, or venality has hit a new low, and we would trash our system of government for political purposes. I think either is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, today (Mr. Honda, Ms. Eshoo and I) rise to recognize the achievements of Wiggsy Sivertsen, Director of Counseling for San Jose State University and co-founder of Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee (BAYMEC), a four county Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) political action group celebrating 20 years of civil rights advocacy. Wiggsy is retiring from BAYMEC this year.

Wiggsy is currently the Director of Counseling Services and a visiting Professor in the Sociology Department at San Jose State University where she has been employed for the past 36 years. She is a graduate of Stephens College, San Jose State University and received her Master's degree from Tulane University in Social Work.

Wiggsy became involved in addressing the problems of discrimination against gays and lesbians when she was fired from a position when the organization found out about her lesbianism. She has dedicated her entire professional life educating the public about the LGBT communities and fighting for their rights and the rights of all ``at risk'' communities.

BAYMEC was founded to educate and inform, and has raised its concerns with countless elected officials; lobbied Sacramento and the state on AIDS and LGBT civil rights; and worked with police, fire department, governmental, organizational, and a variety of community groups to further equality for LGBTs. BAYMEC continues to lobby for hate crime legislation, transgender issues, domestic partnership rights and civil unions, and to bring LGBT sensitivity to the forefront in the domestic violence field.

Wiggsy has founded two other advocacy organizations: Advocates for Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Youth, which provides legal representation for gay, lesbian and bisexual youth who are discriminated against in the school system, and Open Mind Network, Inc. (OMNI), which is dedicated to educating organizations about lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

Wiggsy has received the American Civil Liberties Union ``Don Edwards Defender of Constitutional Liberty Award.'' She has also been named to the ``The Millennium 100, Pillars of their Communities'' by the San Jose Mercury News, and received the California State Special Recognition Award For Service to the Lesbian and Gay Community.

We wish to thank Wiggsy Sivertsen for her tireless and loyal service to the cause of civil rights, and particularly the LGBT community. Though we will all miss her leadership in BAYMEC, the work of BAYMEC will move forward. Until all people are treated with dignity and respect, none of us can truly be free.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and commend the Mexican Heritage Plaza/Centro Cultural de San Jose on its 5th anniversary.

The Mexican Heritage Corporation opened its Mexican Heritage Plaza (MHP) in September 1999 to nurture pride and promote appreciation, interest and awareness of California's Latino cultural heritage.

The Mexican Heritage Plaza/Centro Cultural de San Jose is in the heart of San Jose's oldest and largest Mexican-American community. The Plaza's goals are to capture the spirit of the Mexican-American community, to complement neighboring schools by providing educational opportunities, to establish a ``landmark'' gathering place and to provide a center for learning about history and culture. The Mexican Cultural Heritage Gardens and Plaza have become a destination for everyone who lives in or visits the Bay Area.

The complex includes a 500-seat state-of-the-art theater, classrooms, three distinct thematic gardens, a centralized plaza and and La Galeria, a 4,000-square foot exhibition space with two art galleries celebrating the Latino legacy. La Galeria is one of only ten affiliates of the Smithsonian Institution in California.

MHP has launched the annual San Jose International Mariachi Festival and Conference, a successful education and concern program. Every July, they teach hundreds of children and adults the music and dance that originated in western Mexico. The public is invited to Mariachi Concerts featuring world-renowned musicians, a splendid Mariachi Mass, a procession on Sunday and an outdoor Mariachi Festival at the Plaza.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that I am proud of the leadership, volunteers and network of supporters whose dedication has built the Mexican Heritage Plaza/Centro Cultural de San Jose into an integral part of the fabric of our local community.

Mr. Speaker, today I extend my ``deepest sympathies to the thousands of innocent victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, their families, friends, and loved ones.''

There is no doubt that I honor ``the heroic actions and the sacrifice of United States military and civilian personnel and their families who have sacrificed much, including their lives and health, in defense of their country in the Global War on Terrorism.''

``I [honor] the heroic actions of first responders, law enforcement personnel, State and local officials, volunteers, and others who aided the innocent victims and, in so doing, bravely risked their own lives and long-term health.''

I express ``thanks and gratitude to the foreign leaders and citizens of all Nations who have assisted and continue to stand in solidarity with the United States against terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.''

There is no question that I ``[discourage], in the strongest possible terms, any effort to confuse the Global War on Terrorism with a war on any people or any faith.''

Today I reaffirm our ``commitment to the Global War on Terrorism and to providing the United States Armed Forces with the resources and support to wage it effectively and safely.''

As we all have done in this Congress over the last 3 years, I also ``vow that we will continue to take whatever actions necessary to identify, intercept, and disrupt terrorists and their activities.''

And, today I also ``reaffirm that the American people will never forget the sacrifices made on September 11, 2001, and will never bow to terrorists.''

Yes, I strongly agree with these provisions of the 9/11 resolution passed by this House today. However, I do not agree with other provisions that distort the facts and, in some cases, are simply false. Therefore, I cannot vote for this resolution.

The Bush Administration has not ``[strengthened] the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to coordinate national intelligence activities.'' In fact, Congress is currently embroiled in that debate prompted by the 9/11 Commission Report, not by the Bush Administration.

Yes, the Administration has finally ``initiated . . . the Container Security Initiative, to extend our borders overseas and to secure and screen cargo before it is placed on ships destined for United States ports of entry.'' However, initiation of a program is a far cry from fully administering the program and contributing to our homeland security. The Container Security Initiative is, so far, a failure.

The resolution gives us the false impression that the US-VISIT border security screening system is fully operational and ensuring our homeland security. Yet, the Administration has not even connected US- VISIT port of entry systems to a central database that can handle immediate screenings upon entry.

Yes, as the 9/11 resolution states, ``a multi-agency partnership, was established to integrate the dozens of separate terrorist databases'' after 9/11. However, 3 years later, we still have multiple watch lists. The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC)--designed to be the central repository for terrorist-related watch list information--is still not complete and linked electronically to all law enforcement agencies. The DHS's Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) competes with at least 2 other Federal networks that are designed to share homeland security information between Federal, State and local officials. State and local officials still lack basic Federal security clearances needed to do their jobs. What has the Administration been doing for 3 years?

9/11 is truly a day of solace, a day to remember the victims of 9/11, a day to give thanks to those who have sacrificed so much to keep this country safe, and a day to reaffirm our commitment to the war on terror. This is also a time to honor those we lost on that terrible day and those we have lost in the fight against terrorism since.

The real way to honor those we lost would have been to do a competent job of preventing terrorism from succeeding again. But saying we have taken action is not the same thing as actually taking action. The representations about our successes in this resolution are mostly false. We should not lie to the American people about this.

The last thing this day should represent is praise for what really are failures of the Bush Administration to secure our homeland.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and commend Yu-Ai- Kai, a Japanese American Community Senior Service, based in the San Jose enclave of Japantown on their 30th anniversary of providing services to the senior citizen community.

Yu-Ai-Kai's mission is to advance the health, education and well being of older adults in the community. Yu-Ai-Kai does this by developing cultural programs, providing educational resources about ailments affecting older adults, and making all of its services available in various languages. These services are open to all. No one is excluded.

The activities hosted by Yu-Ai-Kai are as varied and diverse as the community they serve. Activities such as their annual crab and spaghetti feed and springtime walk/run race help fund Yu-Ai-Kai's efforts to provide a healthy and supportive environment for senior citizens.

In addition, Yu-Ai-Kai's volunteers assist in outreach to homebound seniors and provide invaluable services such as transportation to doctor appointments, shopping, and regular visits just to make sure no one is too isolated.

My district office is located within a few blocks of Yu-Ai-Kai, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that I am proud of the

leadership, volunteers and network of supporters whose dedication has built Yu-Ai-Kai into an integral part of the fabric of our local community.

Mr. Speaker, we here in America are fortunate indeed for our history and our law. We have a written Constitution that protects our liberties, and we have a system of checks and balances that makes sure that we do not fall prey to totalitarianism. 201 years ago, a case was decided, Marbury v. Madison, and in that famous case, Justice Marshall pointed out that we were at a cusp. Either the Constitution is a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, he said, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and like other acts is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

He said then, and for the last 200 years we have agreed, that it is indefatigably the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Make no mistake about it, this proposal, whatever you think about gay marriage, whatever you think about DOMA, this proposal today is a radical one. It proposes to change the system of government that we have enjoyed here in America for over 200 years, a system of checks and balances, where the Constitution is the paramount authority, and the executive and the legislative branches must live within the Constitution.

This road leads to totalitarianism; and so whatever you think on the hot issue, the political issue of gay marriage, I urge you to reject this first step down the road to a system of government that is markedly different from what Americans have enjoyed for the last 200 years.

I have never seen a debate of this sort in the Committee on the Judiciary, and again today on the floor, such a serious misunderstanding of the system of government that we have here today. Do not let it happen here.

Mr. Speaker, as the prior speaker, the dean of the House, has indicated, however one feels on the issue of gay marriage, the question before the House today really is quite a different one, and it is about the fundamental nature of our democracy. Really, the plan before us is a radical, extreme plan to overturn the system of government that we as free Americans have enjoyed for over 200 years.

I have been a Member of this House for 10 years; and I must confess, I have never been as disappointed as I am today in the level of legal analysis that I have heard here. It is disappointing in the extreme. I must also say that you know you are in trouble when you have to go back and reread a case from 1803, Marbury v. Madison, because that is what we are talking about overturning today, that seminal case that we all read in law school, and I read it again this week and it was inspiring me again to understand how fortunate we are that we have a written Constitution and that we have a system of checks and balances that makes sure that the rights in that Constitution cannot be taken away in a flimsy or easy way.

Court Justice Marshall 201 years ago said in his decision, ``It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. If then the courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution and not such ordinary act must govern the case to which they both apply.''

It is that principle of constitutional law that is threatened today, and we should not fool ourselves into thinking that overturning our democracy, our system of checks and balances, can be limited to just the hot button issue of today. If this is constitutional, and many scholars believe it is not, but if this measure passes and is constitutional, we will end up not having the ability to rely on the rights guaranteed to us and the generations before us in our Constitution. We will in fact see any item that a majority of this House and this Congress can muster enshrined as equal to the Constitution itself. I think that that is a result that is disastrous for the United States of America. It is not something I thought I would see as a Member of the House of Representatives, as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary. It is a radical and extremist position to take that, and I urge all Members of the House, whatever their view is on gay marriage, to not destroy our checks and balance system of America that we have been handed that we should treasure and preserve and cherish instead of recklessly endanger in this way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of Antonio Chavez and would like to recognize his extraordinary and tireless service to our community.

His first job with the County was in the Public Guardian's Office in 1974. Later, he was hired by Tom Guerin to work in Personnel's Affirmative Action Unit, and then worked in the Recruitment and Examining Unit as an Analyst. Antonio moved on in 1978 when he heard his true calling--job placement at Social Services. During his 15 years with JTPA, he focused on job development. In 1993 a new adventure began with the Gain Program, which later became CalWORKs. Later, at 1888 Senter Road Employment Connection, he earned the title, ``Mr. Job Placement.''

Throughout much of the time when he worked with GAIN/CalWORKs, he also held another position in the community for which he selflessly devoted long hours for many years: President of the Personnel Management Association of Aztlan (PMMA, now known as CHISPPA). This non-profit organization was truly a benefit to the Latino community, providing many professional development workshops for job seekers and scholarships for college students.

That organization also developed a mentorship/internship program that helped many college students and graduates gain valuable experience and employment. Under Antonio's leadership, PMMA also played a major role in the planning and implementation of many of Jobs America's Diversity Job Fairs.

Antonio Chavez has devoted his life to enrich and advance his community, and his contribution deserves to be honored to serve as an inspiration a new generation of San Jose residents.

I want to thank Antonio Chavez for his many years of service to our community and wish him nothing but the best in this next phase of his life.

Mr. Speaker, this trade agreement that we are considering today contains provisions that essentially mimic the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law that is currently being litigated and whose scope is as yet unclear. The DMCA, while intended to protect the interests of copyright holders, may also endanger the rights and expectations of consumers.

There is substantial reason to believe that the DMCA is having an adverse impact on technological innovation. There are a lot of cases on appeal, and I think ultimately this body is going to have to sort through the DMCA so that we do not kill and stifle technological innovation.

The FCC is now based on the DMCA, asserting the right to preapprove every product that moves data in the United States. It sounds a little bit like the old Stalinist regime. I think we are going to have to revisit that, and I am concerned about the provisions in this act.

However, I have been reassured by the Trade Representative as well as the Secretary of Commerce that the insertion of this provision in these types of trade agreements will not prevent the Congress from doing what ultimately we are going to have to do, which is to stop the technological stranglehold that we have placed on that sector of the economy, such as TiVo that we read about today, which the FCC is now asserting that they get to decide what TiVo gets to innovate.

So based on those representations, I am going to certainly vote for this agreement today. Certainly, my district in the heart of the Silicon Valley needs to export, especially at a time when 35 percent of the households say someone in their home has been out of work for more than 3 months since January of 2001, when Mr. Bush became President.

At the same time, I call on Congress to show some leadership to the rest of the world by amending the DMCA to make sure that we protect the rights of copyright holders, but that we also do not stifle innovation.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record the letters from the Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and an article I have written on this subject.

Executive Office of the President, The United States

Trade Representative,

Washington, DC, June 17, 2003.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Lofgren: Thank you for your recent

letter regarding the Singapore and Chile Free Trade

Agreements, specifically the provisions that reflect the U.S.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). I am pleased that my

staff had the opportunity to brief you on our FTA

negotiations, including on the provisions that address

copyright protection in the digital age. I would like to

address your remaining concerns.

In the Trade Act of 2002, Congress mandated that we seek

provisions that reflect a standard of protection similar to

that found in U.S. law and that provide strong protection for

new and emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting

and distributing products embodying intellectual property. To

that end, we have included provisions in our FTAs that

reflect the historic and precedent setting standards for

intellectual property protection set forth in the DMCA. We

firmly believe that this legislation is evidence of

Congressional leadership internationally and should be a

model for how governments strike the correct balance between

copyright holders and the interests of society in the digital

age.

Our FTA provisions that reflect the DMCA were developed in

close consultation with the same major domestic stakeholders

that worked with Congress to forge the balance in the DMCA.

As you may be aware, these groups have recently reiterated

their support for our FTAs to Members of Congress and to me.

While reflecting the balance in the DMCA, our FTA provisions

merely distill the key principles of U.S. legislation; they

do not replicate every detail. This is the approach we take

throughout the text of the Agreement when reflecting U.S.

standards. We take this approach, in part, because we

recognize and support, as with all provisions of U.S. law,

the Congressional prerogative to adopt further amendments as

may be deemed appropriate in the future.

I fully understand that the DMCA has stimulated a vigorous

debate in America as well as in Congress and that there are

legislative proposals to amend the DMCA to address what may

be unintended consequences arising from its implementation.

Although at this time there does not appear to be widespread

support in Congress, or the national community at large, for

substantially revising the existing, fundamental balance

struck by the DMCA, we are quite confident that our FTA

provisions are sufficiently broad to encompass amendments

that Congress may adopt in the future that remain within the

overall balance struck in the DMCA. Moreover, the DMCA

itself provides for a periodic administrative rule-making

procedure to review the effect of the DMCA on users'

ability to make certain non-infringing uses and to create

additional exemptions to allow for such uses--a carve-out

echoed in the FTA provisions.

As I believe my staff clarified during their briefing, we

have not had the opportunity to examine H.R. 1066 and H.R.

107 in detail and have not opined on the extent to which

these proposals are consistent with our FTAs. What my staff

did indicate, which I want to reiterate here, is that the

Administration has sought to reflect faithfully a standard of

protection for intellectual property similar to that

contained in U.S. law as instructed by Congress, but in no

way to require a change in U.S. law. Legislative proposals

that do not fundamentally alter the existing overall balance

struck in U.S. law, and that comply with all existing

international obligations regarding intellectual property,

will also comply with our FTAs.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Zoellick.