Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this legislation attempts to balance two very important public interests, giving the office of the United States Trustee the ability to oversee the administration of bankruptcy estates, and to ensure that private trustees perform their job honestly and efficiently. For the most part, the private trustees do an outstanding job, and they deserve our respect. This legislation would provide due process rights for private trustees in those instances in which they disagree with the decision by the U.S. Trustee to stop assigning cases, or in a dispute over expense reimbursement. It is a product of the hearings by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, as well as lengthy and careful negotiations between the Department of Justice, the sponsors, and interested parties, including the trustees and the bankruptcy judges. I would note that this is of interest, as well, to bankruptcy lawyers on all sides who value and strive for a system that is efficient and fair. It is my understanding that the Department of Justice still has some concerns about this legislation, but it is my hope that in the spirit of cooperation which has moved this legislation to this point, that the sponsors and the Department of Justice will be able to resolve any remaining issues, and get this legislation to the President before the end of this Congress. I am sure that whatever minor issues need resolving can indeed be resolved, and I would urge that my colleagues vote for this bill, that we move forward with this reform. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would note that, in agreement with the chairman, this is certainly one where we are not suggesting delay or defeat. Everyone has worked in good faith, and I think this deserves our support.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support this legislation limiting an individual's ability to bring into the U.S. from abroad a 90-day supply of prescription medicines that are allegedly for personal use. In reality this loophole in the law has allowed individuals to travel to other countries and return with amphetamines, tranquilizers and date rape drugs and sell them here in the United States. This bill would reduce the limit on ``personal use'' imports of drugs in pill form to 50 pills, generally a two-week supply of most pharmaceuticals. The bill would also permit anyone with a prescription from a U.S. physician to bring in as many pills as were prescribed, allowing, therefore, individuals with legitimate prescriptions to purchase drugs in countries such as Mexico where they are often less expensive. Because this bill limits the improper import of prescription drugs while still allowing import for legitimate reasons, I am pleased to support this measure. I urge my colleagues to support the measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wanted to note the lead and important role played by my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), in making sure that all countries abutting the United States are included in this bill, a measure that was readily accepted at the committee. I agree that this is an important issue.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when the Subcommittee on Immigration addressed this issue, reservations were expressed by some. But I think the bill that is before us today reflects hard work, certainly by the chairman of our committee, and by the author of the bill, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) to narrow this measure to a point where it could be here today to be considered on the Suspension Calendar. We know that there is actually not a shortage of nurses in America today. However, there have been spot shortages in hospitals such as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and the chairman described. I am mindful that these hospitals could make use of the H-1B program to fulfill this need. However, that is not available at this pressing moment. I am mindful as well that the measure has been tailored and limited in such a way that it will meet the need addressed by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the author, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), but will not impact the Nation to the point where the American Nurses Association has communicated to the committee that they do not oppose the bill and remain neutral on the bill, which I think speaks volumes about the great effort undertaken by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), as well as the committee. So I certainly intend to vote for the bill, with some reservations, I guess, because I would have hoped we could have already resolved the broader issue, but we have not. I do understand the pressing health care needs, and, therefore, I will support this measure and urge my colleagues to do so.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today's debate is not about whether we respect our wonderful former colleague and now ambassador, Mr. Peterson. We do, although we note there are others who were prisoners of War in Vietnam who feel that we should support this resolution. This debate is about whether we use this tool available to us to get Vietnam to do the right thing, to allow for free emigration. If they were doing the right thing, we would not need to have this waiver before us at all. We must stand firm for human rights by using this tool to increase performance. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that half of the time yielded to me be yielded further to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and that he be permitted to yield blocks of time and that I would be permitted to yield blocks of time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I support House Joint Resolution 120, which would disapprove the waiver of Jackson-Vanik. I cannot say strongly enough that 1998 is not the time to extend normal trade relations to Vietnam, to waive our requirement for free emigration from Vietnam. I believe that Vietnam and the United States will be able to trade with each other in the future, but not until Hanoi ends its human rights abuses, allows for truly free emigration, and establishes a fair and sound economic environment for American businesses. This is going to take time to achieve. This also will require the U.S. to refrain from extending normal trade relations status to Vietnam until Hanoi makes these corrections. I am very concerned about the human rights abuses in Vietnam that my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), have already spoken to. While paying lip service to religious freedom and individual liberty, the Communist government of Vietnam continues to persecute those who question the authority of the state, including those in the Buddhist church who stand not only for freedom, but also for freedom to worship. On July 15 Vietnam imposed prison sentences of 10 months to 2 year on 10 members of a religious group for engaging in heretical propaganda because they believe in their religious beliefs. The heart of Jackson-Vanik focuses on freedom of emigration. Vietnam continues to restrict the right of its citizens to emigrate. I cannot even begin to tell you how many cases my office deals with concerning families who are split because Vietnamese authorities will not allow the emigration of a family member. Despite these problems, I believe that, given time, Vietnam can make changes. These changes really began with the reform movement in 1986. Vietnam achieved high economic growth of 8 percent a year with low inflation. As a result, the U.S. lifted economic sanctions in 1994 and normalized relations in 1995. That was the wrong thing to do, because it has all been downhill since then. The economic growth did not produce democratic and market reforms, as we have seen in other countries like China, South Africa, Zimbabwe. In addition to quashing the religious, political, and social freedom of its citizens, and restricting their right to emigrate, Hanoi has taken giant steps backward from fostering sound policies and stability to bolster its economy and to attract foreign investors. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) pointed out, there has been a dramatic retraction of business from Vietnam because of these policies 40 percent contracted foreign investment decreased in the last year alone. U.S. exports to Vietnam plummeted from $616 million in 1996 to $286 million last year. As my hometown newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News, wrote, ``The ruling Communist party has stalled further reform.'' I am someone who believes in trade. I also believe that in specific cases, trade can be a useful tool to change behavior. I voted for normal trade relations between the United States and China. I believe that that has helped China to improve, and hopefully they will continue to improve. All of us in this Chamber believe in human rights. Sometimes we have reasonable differences of opinion about what are the best tools in a particular case to achieve human rights. In this case, nothing could be clearer to me than using the tool of trade to improve human rights in Vietnam. We used that tool effectively with South Africa. I am glad we did. It is very obvious to me that Vietnam is eager, for historical reasons as well as desperate economic reasons, to have a valuable trade relationship with the United States. Our history with Vietnam shows that they will collaborate with us in the effort for human rights if we just stand firm. Now is the time for patience. While Vietnam has taken some steps toward improvement, it has very far to go as we can see from the Hanoi government's treatment of its own people. Vietnam has failed, it has flunked, in its effort to earn normal trade relations. I think it would be a dramatic mistake for our country, for the Vietnamese people, and for world peace, if we allow the waiver of Jackson-Vanik to move forward. I strongly, strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of House Joint Resolution 120. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), a leader in the efforts for freedom.

Ms. LOFGREN

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

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this bill is a very fair accommodation that will provide the relief necessary to keep materials in the marketplace, yet provides an opportunity should judicial relief be required to be made available. So it strikes the exact right balance, I am proud to be associated with it, and as we have all noted at the Committee on the Judiciary, we believe that this measure should not be expanded in any way. We have got it where it needs to be, we all agree, and I am glad that we stand firm in that across the aisle.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I will not object, but I do want to say how pleased I am and so many of us on this side of the aisle are to have this wonderful success this evening. We worked hard, we gained consensus on a bipartisan basis, opponents have come together for the good of the country, and I think it is really the way the legislative process should work. I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts. It has been really a privilege to work on this, and I know that this will help many in our country who need the medicine and need the implantables, and they will now be able to get them. So, as I say, I reserve the right to object, but I do not object.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to vigorously support the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1998. This bill is the culmination of a long, hard effort to enact securities reform. During the last Congress, we struggled with and finally crafted a law that ensures that those who have genuinely been defrauded have access to courts and to justice, while preventing the misuse of our justice system. This landmark legislation, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, ultimately passed with widespread bipartisan support. I strongly supported this legislation. We passed this bill in response to the increasingly troubling practice of ``strike suits,'' in which a small group of attorneys frequently took advantage of the legal system to backmail high tech companies for huge settlements, with little or no evidence of wrong doing. These frivolous strike suits particularly damaged the companies in Silicon Valley. According to one study, 53% of Silicon Valley's top 100 technology companies have been subject to securities fraud claims. Despite our best efforts last Congress, opponents have sought to sidestep the new federal securities laws. To avoid the new heightened federal standards, a number of securities fraud suits have moved from the Federal to the State courts. According to a study by Stanford Professors Joseph Grundfest and Michael Perino, 26% of securities litigation activity has shifted to state courts. Because of this development, executives now advise me they are reluctant to rely on the 1995 Act's safe harbor provisions when making public statements about their companies' prospects. This hurts investors who lose access to valuable information, and it undermines the efficiency of the market. It is time to close the loopholes. The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 will finally slam the door on strike suits by establishing Federal court as the exclusive venue for securities class actions. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I would also like to commend my colleagues Anna Eshoo and Rick White for their hard work in pushing this issue forward. I pledge to work with my colleagues to move this bill speedily through Conference and into law.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a special occasion for the people of Santa Clara County. On July 8th, Elena Shayne, the Washington Legislative Advocate of Santa Clara County, is retiring after 19 years of public service. To many of us in this chamber, Elena is a familiar face, tirelessly promoting good and fair government. She has been a champion of Santa Clara County's abused children and an advocate for the ``safety net'' for those who are needy. Elena began it all at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, where she completed her education as she would her career, with honors and distinction. She demonstrated her dedication to the principles of democracy early. Almost 24 years ago, as the Executive Director for a not-for-profit organization, Elena rallied groups nationwide to bring basic civic rights to the overlooked residents of the District of Columbia. In 1978, Congress passed the fruits of her labor, a constitutional amendment which would have given District residents full voting representation in Congress. From there, Elena brought her warm demeanor and sensible style to bear for Santa Clara County. I first met her in January of 1981, when I began my service as a member of the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors. We had a lot of work ahead of us. Santa Clara was beginning its march to become the information technology capital of the world it is today. With a rare insight into the workings of Washington, Elena pressed relentlessly to help Santa Clara County's people and economy flourish. As its population boomed, she helped secure a number of critical public transit projects, including the twenty-mile light rail system on the Guadalupe Corridor. For all her talents, it was her compassion that will leave the deepest imprint. I remember working closely with Elena to alleviate the plight of Southeast Asian refugees who came to California seeking political asylum. Through her efforts, a coalition of private and public agencies established job training and resettlement programs for thousands of immigrants and refugees. When Elena Shayne leaves her office on July 8th, she will be closing the door on an era of warm, effective advocacy for the people of Santa Clara County, but I am sure that she will continue to advocate for those in need as an active citizen. Thank you, Elena. We will miss you and wish you the best for the future.