Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this rule should be rejected because the bill is unfair.

Under this bill, thousands of jobless Californians will get an additional 13 weeks of unemployment instead of the 26 weeks that other States will get because California is not considered a high- unemployment State.

Well, tell that to the people of Santa Clara County. An editorial in today's San Jose Mercury News lays out the facts. Since President Bush took office in January of 2001, 2.6 million jobs have vanished in America, 239,000 of them in Santa Clara County gone.

We have had a 42 percent decrease in venture capital. The unemployment rate in San Jose is now a whopping 8.5 percent, and San Jose has lost nearly 16 percent of its jobs. Yet this bill does not treat Santa Clara County as a high-unemployment area, even though my county has more population than many States, including North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Delaware and many others to name just a few.

This rule does not even let us debate whether a 26-week extension is appropriate, not just for the 6 States the Republicans consider to be high unemployment, but for cities like San Jose who are well above the national unemployment rate. I hear and get e-mails from people all the time, qualified, educated people who have been laid off, who send out thousands of resumes and cannot even get an interview, people who have run through their savings, who have refinanced their house, and who have run through that, whose unemployment is running off and the lay- offs are continuing.

My friends on the other side of the aisle do not get it. It is not a recession in Silicon Valley right now. It is a depression. A 26-week extension is justified, and I wish we had a chance to debate that. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule so that we will.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment, and I think it is important for Members to know that the administration supports the amendment. We received a letter from Secretary Don Evans indicating that the administration supports the amendment and also a letter from Condoleezza Rice indicating that ``the President has long-supported the repeal of this requirement.'' She and the President support this amendment.

Clearly, President Bush would not support an amendment that would be adverse to the national security interests of the United States, and the truth is we are not repealing computer export controls. What we are doing with this amendment is replacing the control system with something that is flexible and that works better.

I have here in my hand a Sony PlayStation 2. It is a children's toy. I bought one for my son for Christmas on ebay and a game, the Madden game. This children's toy was controlled under the MTOP export control standard at one time, and we could not change it fast enough so that the toys could not be exported. That is a preposterous result. Of course we have altered the MTOP since then, but the reason the President wants this change is so the President and the administration can move and protect this country in a flexible way, and the current law does not allow that.

I hope that Members listen to Condoleezza Rice and listen to the technology sector that knows about computers. Certainly this has great economic value in this time when the tech sector is in the dumps, but we would never support it if it was not also consistent with national security, which clearly it is.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), a leader in this effort.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thought it was quite wonderful that the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence supported this amendment. I would like to note for the record that the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), has also announced her support for the amendment. I think there is a reason for that. We have been trying to resolve this for many, many years; and because of a variety of snags, we were unable to do it, but we are paying an economic price. The Silicon Valley unemployment rate today is 8.5 percent. We have lost 239,000 jobs since January of 2001, and we need to revitalize the economy. This is one way to do it that is safe. It is supported by the Bush administration, it is supported by Condoleezza Rice, it is supported by the Department of Defense, it is supported by the GAO study; and I think it is time to act.

I am delighted to cosponsor this amendment with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). It has overwhelming support

on both sides of the aisle as well as within the administration. I think it is quite worthy of the support of Members on both sides. It does not jeopardize our national security in any way. I hope that Members will listen to the debate and vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, just 3 years ago when the President took office, San Jose, California's unemployment rate was only 1.7 percent. At that time, our Nation had a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. Today, instead, we have an 8.5 percent unemployment rate in Santa Clara County, and with this tax package a $2 trillion projected national deficit.

Since the President took office, San Jose has lost almost 16 percent of its jobs. When all is said and done, it is projected that we will, in fact, use the over $12 trillion in debt ceiling that Republicans slipped into the budget resolution a few weeks ago. What a turnaround.

What does the President propose? For the most part, more of the same failed tax schemes. Tax cuts for a select few have done nothing to improve the economy so far and more of the same will not help. Further, the Republican tax plan does nothing to help unemployed workers and will leave millions of families out in the cold when their unemployment benefits expire on May 31.

Mr. Speaker, since the President took office, California has lost 239,000 jobs. Over 175,000 of those jobs were deleted from my home, Santa Clara County, and I hear from people at home, well-qualified, well-educated and talented people who have been laid off for over a year, people who have sent out 2,000 resumes who cannot get a job interview, people whose stock portfolios are shot, whose bank accounts are drained, whose unemployment insurance is running out and who cannot find work.

It is pathetic that the President's answer is this tax cut scheme. While there are a few temporary crumbs to small business and normal people, the vast majority of the financial impact is caused by the tax cuts for the few, which will not create economic growth. The President's words about creating jobs and stimulating growth are right. It is just that his plan is disconnected from his rhetoric.

He must think the unemployed are also dumb, that they will not see the truth of what is happening here, but I think he is wrong on that score and is it not ironic that those few provisions in this tax bill we passed today, like the child tax credit and marriage tax reform and expensing for small businesses, the things that benefit normal people, those sunset. The real expensive part of the program that is skewed to the select, those go on forever.

The Republican plan is irresponsible, deceptive, will not create jobs or grow the economy and will saddle the country with debt to hurt our potential for long-term economic growth. We are actually borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund to cut taxes for the top 5 percent of households.

Economists tell us that this plan is the smallest bang for the buck in terms of creating economic stimulus of any of the plans that have been publicly discussed. It is projected to create less jobs in the next year than we have lost in the last 2 months.

Republicans both in this House and in the White House talk a lot about faith-based programs. The man who calls the shots here in the House, the majority leader, does not even believe in evolution, and I have heard that is true for the President as well. They have a right to have faith, even when it seems at odds with the facts in their religious lives, but when their faith in tax cuts for the few threaten the economic stability for our Nation, then I think it is time to draw the line on their blind faith.

Today, the Republicans in this House used their narrow majority to shorten debate and prevent consideration of the fiscally responsible growth plan. There is an aura of corruption that clings to the Republican leaders who celebrate the onset of democracy in Iraq but cannot abide real democratic processes in the Congress of our Nation that is supposed to be freedom's leader.

This is a watershed day, one that I think in later years we will recall with dread and with regret.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware that many of my constituents hope that I vote ``no'' on this supplemental appropriations bill. Many of my constituents are passionate in their opposition to the Iraqi invasion. Last fall, I voted against the resolution that authorized the invasion because I believed the invasion was a mistake for our country. But that fact is this: The resolution passed the Congress. Whether or not one agreed with the actions that led up to today, America's troops are now in the field and the bills need to be paid. Accordingly, I will vote ``aye'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing crisis in America. With early school start times, some before 7:00 a.m., adolescents do not get enough sleep. The National Sleep Foundation reports that children and adolescents need at least 9 to 10 hours each night. But few sleep that much, and even fewer sleep on a regular schedule. Over time sleep deprivation leads to serious consequences for the health, safety, social behavior, and academic achievement of the nation's youth. This is simply unacceptable, especially since the solution is so easy. We must encourage schools to push back their start times to at least 8:30 a.m.--a schedule more in tune with adolescents' biological sleep and wake patterns and more like the normal adult workday.

A recently published study by Dr. Kyla Wahlstrom at the University of Minnesota demonstrates the impact of later school start times. After the Minneapolis Public School District changed the starting times of seven high schools from 7:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m., Dr. Wahlstrom investigated the impact of this change on school performance and the results are encouraging. Dr. Wahlstrom found improvement in attendance and enrollment rates, increased daytime alertness, and decreased student-reported depression. If we allow adolescents to perform in accordance with their biological clocks, we provide them with the opportunity to succeed in school. Further, adequate sleep benefits adolescents by decreasing their chances of sleep-related car accidents and child obesity.

As more research is done, picture is clear--with early school start times, we place undue pressure on adolescents' ability to perform and achieve in school. Some school districts have responded to the research and have pushed school start times back. In total, 34 school districts across 19 states have pushed back school start times. In addition, the evidence has led nearly 100 additional school districts to consider changes.

I continue to advocate for later school start times and today I am re-introducing the ZZZ's to A's resolution to encourage schools to push back their start times to at least 8:30 a.m. I urge my colleagues to join me in this initiative. By encouraging schools to push back their start times and allowing adolescents to get enough sleep, we provide students with the opportunity to function normally, achieve in school, and be their best!

Mr. Speaker, today we rise to recognize the achievements of Richard Wittenberg, County Executive for Santa Clara County. Mr. Wittenberg is retiring after 8 years of dedicated service to the people of Santa Clara County.

When Zoe Lofgren was on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, she searched the state of California to find Richard. In the years that followed, Richard won the hearts of many elected officials by responding quickly to their needs, having high ethical standards and working to build consensus.

Richard came to Santa Clara County from Ventura County, California where he was the Chief Executive Officer for 16 years. During his tenure there, he held various offices of the County Administrative Officers Association of California; was a member of the Commission on California Public-Private Partnership; and a member of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Advisory Committee.

A leader in the community as well as in his field, Richard has volunteered for the United Way, as a board member for the Brandeis- Bardin Institute, Boy Scouts of America, and as a board member of the Anti-Defamation League.

Richard leaves Santa Clara County in better shape than he arrived: the County Executive now oversees a staff of 16,000 and a $3.8 billion budget that covers the operations of parks, libraries and the sheriff's department, as well as the region's neediest residents.

Under Richard Wittenberg's dedicated leadership, Santa Clara County earned the highest bond ratings issued to any county in the state, garnering an AA+ from Standard and Poor's, and a AA2 from Moody's. Meanwhile, reserves grew from $12 million in the mid-1990's to $96 million in 2002.

We wish to thank Richard Wittenberg for his tireless and loyal service to the County and wish him the best in his future endeavors. Though we will miss his creativity, expertise and commitment, his dedication has left its mark on Santa Clara County.

Mr. Speaker, today we rise to recognize the achievements and life of Madge Jennings Overhouse. We have had the privilege of knowing Madge for many years, and can personally attest to her lasting legacy of achievement through selfless volunteerism. Hers is the epitome of a life dedicated to public service.

Madge Jennings Overhouse was born in July 29, 1924 in The Dalles, Oregon, and soon moved to San Jose. She attended San Jose State University, graduating cum laude with honors in history. Madge married Howard Overhouse in 1949, and they have one son, Richard, and three lovely grandchildren.

Marge's career as a librarian spanned almost 40 years and two institutions. She started out at San Jose State, then moved to San Jose Community College. Typical of Madge, she assumed a leadership role in her profession, serving on the Santa Clara County Library Commission from 1976 to 1982, as well as serving on the California Library Agency for Systems and Services from 1979 to 1984, representing Santa Clara County as an alternate for Supervisor Rod Diridon. Madge also served on the Steering Committee for the Master Plan of California Libraries.

Madge's contributions to the community throughout her lifetime are legion, and the list of civic organizations that Madge has helped is long. We would like to take a moment to talk about them here. Madge was one of the first women to serve on the Executive Board of the Santa Clara County chapter of the Boy Scouts of America. The Santa Clara County Fair Association benefited from Madge's input as a Board member from 1987 to 1995. Madge also served on the boards of the Iota Delta Chapter of the Chi Omega sorority and the Campbell Historical Preservation Board. Madge is also a long-time member of the San Jose Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. In addition, Madge lent her talents to the Multi-Modal Transportation Task Force, which led to the completion of Highway 85, which is now a major transportation artery in the Bay Area. During my time on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Madge's support on important measures such as this, which often meant doing the ``leg-work'' that no one else volunteered to do, was instrumental on so many occasions.

Madge has an absolutely amazing record of political involvement, For more than thirty years, Madge has been a stalwart in the Democratic Party at the local, state, and national level. Madge has fostered and encouraged the careers of numerous public officials in California.

Madge's lifelong commitment to volunteerism has been honored by almost every civic organization in Santa Clara County, and we are delighted to offer our heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to Madge for a lifetime of public service achievement.

Mr. Speaker, today we rise to recognize the achievements and life of former Congressman Don Edwards. We are proud to have known Representative Edwards for many years.

Born and raised in San Jose, California, Representative Edwards received his bachelor's degree from Stanford University where he later studied law. He became an F.B.I. agent during the Depression, and went on to serve in the U.S. Navy as an intelligence officer and gunnery officer at sea in World War II.

He was first elected to represent what was then California's 9th Congressional District in 1962. In Congress, Representative Edwards served on the House Judiciary Committee and for 23 years he served as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. He also sat on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Last year, Representative Edwards received the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award for his ``unswerving devotion to the Constitution and its values throughout his career.''

One of the foremost defenders of civil liberties in Congress, Representative Edwards in the 1970s--along with Senator Frank Church and his committee--exposed the pervasive abuses of civil liberties in J. Edgar Hoover's COINTEL PRO, which monitored, infiltrated and disrupted entirely lawful civil rights and anti-war organizations. He also fought to abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Representative Edwards was one of the first seven Members of the House of Representatives to oppose the Vietnam War in 1965 and became a leader in the anti-war movement.

In the 1960s he was floor leader of the Omnibus Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Rights Amendment. Outside of Congress, he took part in civil rights marches in the South; visited Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the Birmingham, Alabama jail and spoke against apartheid while visiting South Africa.

Every year, he introduced an ERA bill to the House, and in 1989, he argued ``women are entitled to their birthright to full rights of citizenship.''

In 1968, he introduced legislation creating the San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge. With the efforts of other Bay Area Representatives, he was instrumental in establishing the largest urban wildlife refuge in the country. The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge covers 25,902 acres and spans 12 cities and 3 counties.

Representative Don Edwards left a legacy in Congress of supporting civil rights, advocating for those less fortunate in our society and being a strong defender of our Constitution. He is a visionary public servant and a valued friend.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we all agree upon, we are grateful to our troops and their families. We respect the men and women in our Armed Forces, and we admire their patriotism and bravery. We all recognize that no matter what the policy disagreements about the steps that took us to this day of invasion, our troops are doing their duty and putting their bodies on the line for our country. They are in our prayers, and we all hope for a speedy conclusion and a safe return for each of them.

How fine it would have been if the right-wingers in charge of this House had put aside their partisanship for just this evening and agreed to write a clean resolution that supported our troops; but no. One can always count on them to try to wedge an issue, divide people and make partisan what should be purely American.

There are plenty of things in this resolution that are just not true, but I am going to vote for it because of clause 2 and 3. I do support and appreciate our Armed Forces and their families. I cannot say the same thing about the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the rest of the Republican leaders who once again have proven by their actions this evening that they are more interested in partisan advantage for their party than unity and success for our country. They dishonor our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are the real patriots we seek to honor by this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, today thousands of Americans are out of work as a result of the slumping economy and corporate scandals. In my home district in Santa Clara County, unemployment is now over 8\1/2\ percent. But rather than help these workers, we are asked to further punish them.

Do not be misled. H.R. 975 is not about preventing spendthrifts from abusing the system. The leading cause of personal bankruptcy is not out-of-control spending. It is unemployment. Two out of three people who file have lost jobs. Half have experienced a serious health problem. Nevertheless, under these so-called reforms, many will be forced into Chapter 13, where more debts will survive and only limited households goods will be protected from repossessions.

Under this bill, seniors, who represent the fastest-growing group of personal bankruptcies, will also suffer. Nearly half of seniors who file bankruptcy do so because of medical expenses. That is not hard to understand. Out-of-pocket health care expenses for seniors increased nearly 50 percent from 1999 to 2001. At the same time, many HMOs have cut prescription drug coverage, and this Congress has still failed to pass a sensible prescription drug plan.

Women who represent the largest group of personal bankruptcies will also suffer. In 1999, over 200,000 women who filed for bankruptcy were owed child support and alimony. While punishing seniors, single mothers, and middle-class Americans, the bill does absolutely nothing to hold big banks and credit card companies accountable for their behavior. It does nothing to protect consumers from predatory lenders. It requires no additional disclosures that make it easier for consumers to understand their debt.

The proponents of this bill say they want to restore personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system. What their bill really does is punish people who are in financial trouble because they lost a job, have huge medical bills, or cannot get a deadbeat dad to pay child support. These are the people who account for a majority of the personal bankruptcies, not spendthrifts who abuse the system.

No one wants to enter into the bankruptcy court; and most people who do so, do so with a great deal of shame. But I look at those who have a child suffering from cancer, who have been unemployed for a year, and I say to them, there but for the grace of God go you or I.

The bankruptcy system is meant to assist people in that situation, and I think that those in this House who consider themselves to be compassionate conservatives ought to open their hearts to those who file for bankruptcy because of such personally devastating situations. I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am probably one of the few Members who have actually operated under MICRA in California. In the 14 years that I served on the board of supervisors, we bought malpractice insurance for the doctors at the county hospital; we settled lawsuits pursuant to MICRA related to the county medical professionals. People have argued the pros and cons of MICRA. The point that needs to be made is that H.R. 5 is not MICRA.

MICRA's cap on noneconomic damages applies to medical malpractice cases only. H.R. 5 extends liability relief to insurance companies, HMOs, nursing homes, medical device manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies. In some cases, injured persons, for example, an elderly person abused in a nursing home, will only be able to look to their noneconomic damages for relief because they do not have any earnings to recover.

MICRA in California does not limit punitive damages in personal injury cases, but H.R. 5 caps punitive damages at two times economic loss, or $250,000, whichever is greater.

H.R. 5 would actually preempt California law by precluding tort recovery against nursing homes, HMOs who wrongly make medical decisions, and insurance companies. It would undercut California's elder abuse statutes, as well as undercut new measures that we have fought hard for in California that allow HMOs to be held accountable for their decision-making when that decision-making disrupts the doctor-patient relationship.

So whatever one thinks about MICRA in California, examine carefully H.R. 5, because it is not MICRA; it is putting the doctors in front of the insurance companies. But the big beneficiaries are the HMOs, the pharmaceutical companies, and the insurance companies and nursing homes.

I think this is not what our country should be doing to preempt California's elder abuse statutes and our new effort to hold HMOs accountable for the practice of medicine through insurance.

Mr. Speaker, a massive digital revolution is unfolding before our very eyes. Like most breakthroughs in the past, this revolution has provoked deep concern and suspicion within the entertainment industry. In response Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

However, the law is flawed. It threatens fair use and First Amendment rights by imposing strict liability on the circumvention of technical restrictions. It has the potential to destroy the First Sale doctrine and to extend copyright terms in perpetuity. And in practice, it has chilled technological development and competition. That was especially evident last week when a Federal judge, citing the DMCA, issued an injunction chilling competition in the market for printer cartridges which have nothing to do with copyrights.

Today I am introducing the BALANCE Act of 2003 which seeks to restore the traditional balance of copyright law. I hope this bill will help move all parties toward the ultimate goal, a robust digital marketplace where DRM protects copyright holders, where the IT industry has freedom to create new and exciting devices and where consumers are given a broad array of lawful alternatives that are affordable, reliable, secure, and respectful of their legal rights and expectations.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that much of what has been said today in support of this bill has nothing to do with protecting the country from the ills outlined.

What is somatic cell nuclear transfer? A woman donates an egg, a patient donates a skin cell. Perhaps the nucleus is removed from the egg. The DNA from the skin cell is inserted into the egg. The egg is stimulated to divide into eight cells, and those are the stem cells.

What has been talked about in terms of embryo experimentation is certainly legal if this bill were to pass and instead of a skin cell there was a sperm that began that cell division, if we had in vitro fertilization, we could experiment all we wanted.

So I think where we are going with this proposal is apparently a plan to outlaw in vitro fertilization in the United States. I think we ought to be clear about that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I, like the authors of H.R. 534, believe that we should outlaw human cloning. If we wanted to pass a bill that only prohibits human cloning, it would sail through Congress on a voice vote. But this bill goes too far. It halts the progress of medical research by banning somatic cell nuclear transfer for research and medical treatments. This research has promise for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and others. This bill criminalizes a scientific research process that takes place in a petri dish, regardless of the intent of the researcher or the inability of this process to result in the birth of a cloned child. The penalty for violating these provisions includes sanctions of a criminal fine and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years and a civil penalty of at least $1 million. This would represent an unprecedented intrusion of the criminal law into the scientific process.

I think the science teachers of America may be pretty appalled at what they hear and see on this floor today. I think much that has been said and will be said reflects a profound ignorance about the science, about the current role of the FDA in their regulatory practices, but also Americans need to ask themselves why the proponents of this bill want to ban this research, and I think the answer is simple: They want to impose their religious beliefs on the entire country.

This country reflects the diverse religious beliefs found all over the world. Some, like the authors of this bill, believe that all cloning is wrong. Others believe that research cloning should be allowed. These are all legitimate views, but I think it is wrong to use the political power of one group to criminalize the beliefs of another.

To better understand the real issue involved in this debate, it is important to understand what research cloning is. Somatic cell nuclear transfer has six steps: a woman donates an egg; a patient donates a somatic cell, like a skin cell; the nucleus is removed from the egg; the nucleus from the patient's skin cell is inserted into the egg; the egg is then stimulated to induce it to divide; the egg begins to divide, creating stem cells that are identical to the patient's own cells.

So we are talking about the creation of cells in a petri dish, not bringing a child into this world. That is why research cloning is supported by some of the most ardent pro-life conservatives like Senator Orrin Hatch and former Senator Connie Mack, who said, ``Anyone who would ban research on embryonic stem cells will be responsible for harm done to real live postnatal sentient beings who might be helped by this research.''

Why is this process important? Scientists believe that these stem cells are less likely to be rejected after transplant since they have the same genetic properties as the recipient. They could also help scientists learn why diseases occur. They also have important advantages over adult stem cells which cannot develop into as many cell types and which cannot be generated in the same quantities in the lab. That is why this bill is opposed by almost every organization representing patients and researchers, including Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, the Biotechnology Industry Association, the Society for Women's Health Research, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, and the Alliance for Aging Research.

I have heard the words that we are going down a ``slippery slope'' used by the proponents of this bill, but in fact the slippery slope is that being suggested by those who call six cells in a petri dish the equivalent of me or my mother. If it is murder to use somatic cell transfer and to create six cells for research purposes, then it must also be mass murder to have in vitro fertilization and discard the cells that are not later utilized by the couple using IVF. So the slippery slope is to eliminate in vitro fertilization in this country.

This debate really boils down to one question: Should an embryonic stem cell with no central nervous system, no chance of developing into a fetus have the same rights as a child suffering

from juvenile diabetes? I do not think so. I urge you not to rob sick Americans of their hope for a cure.

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

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), a Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would note before yielding to my colleague from California a letter received from the Senior Pastor of the Riverside Baptist Church and the Legislative Director of the United Church of Christ, where it is said, ``While it is imperative that we as a Nation and as a people of faith proceed with caution, it is also important that we do what we can to alleviate the suffering of others. We believe that to ban this potentially life-saving research would be a mistake.''

I think it is important that we recognize the diversity of religious viewpoints on when life begins and not impose just one viewpoint on the country.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter referred to.

February 26, 2003.

Hon. James Greenwood,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Greenwood: As members of the religious

community, we would like to commend you for your leadership

on stem cell research. Your recognition of the great promise

of stem cell research and your support for legislation that

allows therapeutic cloning offer great hope for those

suffering from juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's disease,

Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and other

ailments.

This is a difficult issue for all of us, and we understand

the complex decision you face in considering any legislation

that involves human cloning. While it is imperative that we

as a nation and as people of faith proceed with great

caution, it is also important to do what we can to alleviate

the suffering of others. Therefore, we believe that to ban

this potentially life-saving research would be a mistake.

Like most, we are opposed to the practice of reproductive

human cloning. A ban on this practice would be both welcome

and appropriate. Therapeutic cloning, however, requires

careful review. We are pleased that you considered this issue

in its entirety and took into account the countless

individuals who could be saved and whose pain could be

alleviated by this medical research. We have a duty to do

what we can to help our fellow man, and you have demonstrated

your commitment to doing so through your leadership on this

issue.

Sincerely,

Rabbi Hershel Billet,

President, Rabbinical Council of America, New York, NY.

Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell,

Director of Religion, Chautauqua Institution, Chautauqua,

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I am very honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a distinguished scientist and Member of this House.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a leader of the New Democrats and someone who has distinguished himself on the issue of medical research.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has led efforts to promote science in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my final 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on this bill. We have taken a consensus and we all agree that human cloning should be outlawed and warped it into a vehicle to impose one religious viewpoint on the scientists of this country. Not only is this wrong, but it will force scientists to flee our shores, will bring down the veil of ignorance to our country, and will remove us as having the leading scientific edge in the world for this biotechnology research.

I urge all Members to vote no.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I first yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, this bill not only ties the hands of our medical researchers; it prevents Americans from utilizing cures developed in other countries. There is no doubt that if this bill becomes law, we will lose our most talented medical researchers. They will flock to other countries that continue to allow therapeutic cloning; and hopefully, one day, they will help to develop cures to some of the worst diseases known to humankind.

What happens when a British researcher develops a cure for Alzheimer's or is able to regenerate insulin-producing cells in children with juvenile diabetes or learns how to generate nervous system cells that can restore spinal cord function after paralysis? Sick Americans should have access to these cures. But H.R. 534 prevents the importation of any products derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer. It would make it a crime for a terminally-ill person to receive medical care in America if the cure was developed using this science abroad.

That is both unnecessary and unfair. The motion to recommit is simple. It will ensure that cures developed in other countries are available to Americans suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injury, MS, severe burns, and other diseases.

If cures to these debilitating diseases are found, Congress should not stand in the way or require its citizens to travel to other countries to benefit from them.

There have been lots of argument today about a slippery slope. There is no slippery slope in this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I have been deeply troubled by many of the arguments I have heard today. I am troubled that some Members think they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on all Americans. I am troubled that in return, some of the most vulnerable members of society, like children suffering from juvenile diabetes, would be forced potentially to give up their best hope for a cure.

This country is a democracy; it is not a theocracy. I understand that some Members of this House have religious beliefs that are guiding them. My advice to them would be, if you object to the cures that are developed using this technology of therapeutic cloning, fine, do not use the cure. But do not try and deny other Americans cures to deadly diseases because of your own religious beliefs. That is simply an improper role for Congress to take.

Therapeutic cloning has nothing to do with cloning a child. There is no fertilization with sperm, there is no implantation into the uterus, there is no pregnancy, there is no child.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a scientific method where researchers create new stem cells in a petri dish. To listen to some of the debate today, one would see that there would be a picture painted that very tiny babies in test tubes are being the subject of this research. That is completely false. These are eight cells on a petri dish that can give lifesaving cures to Americans and others throughout the world who are suffering horrendous diseases.

I think we ought to take the advice of Senator Hatch and former First Lady Nancy Reagan who wrote, ``The embryonic stem cell research, under appropriate guidelines, may provide our scientists with many answers that are now beyond our grasp. There are so many diseases that can be cured, or at least helped, that we can't turn our backs on this.''

Do not turn your backs on the millions of Americans who might be able to benefit from cures made abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for organizing this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 1942, then President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued executive order 9066 authorizing the Secretary of War to define military areas in which ``the right of any person to enter, remain in or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions are deemed necessary or desirable.''

By the spring of 1942, California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona were designated as military areas. In May of 1942, Santa Clara Valley Japanese Americans were ordered to ``close their affairs promptly and make their own arrangements for disposal of personal and real property.''

Official government fliers were posted around parts of California instructing families to report to the area's assembly center, the Santa Anita Racetrack, with just the bare necessities, leaving behind their homes, their lives and most personal belongings. Because permanent camps were yet to be built, the Santa Anita Racetrack was home to Santa Clara Valley's internees for at least 3 months. Santa Clara Valley Japanese Americans were forced to live in horse stables until a permanent camp was built for them.

In America, 110,000 Japanese Americans and others, not aliens, people of German and Italian descent who were Americans, were evacuated from their homes and incarcerated throughout the duration of the war. Three thousand of those interned were Japanese Americans from Santa Clara Valley.

By the fall of 1942, most Santa Anita internees were transported to a camp far away from home, the Heart Mountain Internment Camp in northern Wyoming. Most remained there until the end of the war, 3 long years later.

The horror for Santa Clara County Japanese Americans did not end there. Upon release, approximately 7,000 people moved back to Santa Clara County. Most had no shelter, food, money, much less a job. Some returned to find their homes looted and destroyed. The San Jose Buddhist Church offered what it could, shelter and hot meals for most families. In Santa Clara County, the family of Bob Peckham, later to become Federal District Court Judge Bob Peckham, took title to the property of some Japanese American neighbors and was able to preserve that property and return it at the end of the internment so some people in our area did not lose their homes and businesses.

All of this happened before I was born, but I remember very well learning about it even before it was added to the history books. My mother was a young woman in 1942. My dad was in the Army, and she was building airplanes at the Douglas aircraft factory for the war effort.

She told me when I was young about driving past the race track and how ashamed and guilty she felt. There were people locked up at the race track living in horse stables who she knew had done nothing wrong. People who had been her neighbors had been rounded up suddenly and taken away.

My mother told me how helpless she felt. She knew what her government was doing was wrong, but she did not know how to change it. She felt powerless, but she also felt guilty and ashamed because of what the United States Government had done. She was a life-long Democrat and cast her first Presidential vote for FDR, but she never agreed about what he did to her neighbors.

There was no apology, no financial support, no help from the Federal Government until many years later. On February 19, 1976, President Gerald Ford formally rescinded executive order 9066.

And in 1980 Congress funded the adopted legislation, establishing the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment. August 10, 1988, the Civil Liberties Act was signed into law, authorizing payments of $20,000 to each person that suffered from internment and established the Office of Redress to identify, locate, and pay these individuals. Most importantly, an apology was finally given.

By then, my neighbors and my parents' neighbors who had been unjustly incarcerated, our friend, Ed, Jimmy, dad's neighbors, Ted, Raiko, Sam, and many others, received at long last an apology. Some lived long enough to receive the compensation provided for in the law.

These efforts were celebrated in the community of Japanese Americans. But they were also celebrated in the broader community, because Americans who were not incarcerated, like my mother, felt the shame and the guilt. And while an apology could not undo the injustice and the compensation did not fully cover the loss, it helped that our country admitted the mistake and tried to make amends.

I am proud to say that on February 5 of this year, my colleague from Santa Clara County (Mr. Honda) introduced H. Res. 56, a resolution supporting the goals of the Japanese, German, and Italian American communities in recognizing a national day of remembrance and to increase public awareness of the events surrounding the restriction, exclusion, and internment of individuals and families during World War II. This resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on which I serve and currently has over 60 cosponsors.

Today, I support the resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) to recognize February 19 as a Day of Remembrance. It is the least we can do, spend one day per year reflecting on the horrors of internment, remember those who suffered, and work to find ways never to repeat that page in history. I would urge the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), to quickly schedule action for this important resolution so that the country can, once again, engage in healing, and I honor my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for his efforts in helping all Americans to heal.

Mr. Speaker, in the State of the Union address, President Bush proposed large tax cuts that primarily benefit the top 1 percent of taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's tax cut and other proposals will constitute a majority of the projected $2.1 trillion dollar debt. I object to this; Democrats object to this. But the President and the Republican Party have ignored these objections.

The President's plan to eliminate the corporate tax on dividends comprises the bulk of his proposed tax cut--$364 of the $674 billion dollar package--nearly 50 percent.

If the President wants us to cut $674 billion dollars in taxes, we should do this right. We should promote a prosperous future for America. We should encourage the intellectual development of our nation's youth. We should focus on families, and students, and make college possible for everyone.

Consider the facts--From 1991 to 2001, college tuition grew faster than inflation and family income. According to the College Board, average tuition and fees grew by 38 percent at public four-year institutions and 37 percent at private four-year institutions. Over the same period, median family income increased by only 8 percent.

In the last year alone, public universities faced the largest single- year increase in 10 years. In my district, San Jose State University fees increased by 10 percent this year and could increase an additional 20 to 25 percent next year due to state budget cuts.

In addition, the burden of student loans continues to increase. Average student loan debt is now close to $17,000, up from $8,000 in just seven years.

We cannot let families and students continue to shoulder the burden of rising costs in higher education. This is why I am introducing the Affordable College Education Act of 2003, ACE.

ACE puts money back in the pockets of middle-class families who need help with college costs. It will allow American taxpayers to fully deduct college expenses, including tuition, fees, books, supplies, transportation, housing and meal plans. This bill will also help Americans saddled with student loan debt by allowing them to deduct all student loan interest.

ACE breaks down financial barriers and ensures what every family wants for their children: the opportunity for higher education. I urge you to support this bill and deal an ACE for American families facing the daunting costs of college.