Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. This bill would permit associations representing private security firms to request FBI criminal history background checks on prospective security employees. This is a worthwhile bill because private security officers are entrusted with safety matters and it makes sense, good sense, to take advantage of the available resources to ensure that security firms do not unknowingly hire someone with a criminal background. I do, however, want to sound two notes of caution about the bill and potentially unintended outcomes. First, I want to be absolutely clear that I do not believe private security officers are a substitute for sworn law enforcement officers. Private officers are generally less well trained, they are not sworn to protect the public, and constitutional protections do not operate with respect to them to the same degree as with police officers. There has been a trend toward private companies and even residential communities hiring more private officers as local governments are forced by budget constraints to scale back on their police forces. If this legislation were to encourage that trend, I believe we would come to regret it and would need to review and take action in the future should that unintended and unexpected outcome be the result. Second, I do want to note that the FBI is concerned about the possible burden of dealing with hundreds of different private security firms requesting background checks. I share that concern and would urge the security firms if this bill is enacted to coordinate their background check requests through one or two trade associations that can provide a point of contact for the FBI. Again, if the firms fail to operate in a way that works best for the FBI, Congress would have to step back in and review this situation. And so I think it would be very wise for the private security firms to take every possible step to avoid adversely impacting the Federal Bureau of Investigation. With those two caveats about potential concerns, I would like to note that I do and Democrats on the committee did support this bill. The gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], as the gentleman from Georgia noted, has introduced this bill for several Congresses and it is good to see a bipartisan team coming together in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just further add that, in the last Congress, this issue was discussed on the floor of the House and there was a great deal of distress and opposition from various State officials that is not presented today. This change is worth emphasizing because this is a very narrow exception that is not a precedent for telecommuting or anything broader than the very narrow circumstances that face us here today. I think we have done a good job of moving this forward. I commend the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, many responsibilities have devolved to the States in the last several years. At the same time, there has been less assistance from the Federal Government. State governments must deal with each of these new challenges while balancing their budgets every year. Congress should only, with the greatest reluctance, interfere with the prerogative of States to tax economic activity within their borders. The three cases before us, however, present unique, narrowly defined instances in which the equities clearly argue for some relief for the very small number of workers affected. In fact, the very small number of individuals involved here probably have something to do with the fact they have been unable to find relief in the appropriate source, State governments. In each case, a small number of workers enter a Federal facility from their home States. Because these facilities are bisected by State boundaries, their work takes them over the State line and brings them under the taxing authority of the neighboring State. As a result, they must pay income taxes to that neighboring State, even though they never actually use the roads or other State services. Finally, unlike most States, the two neighboring States lack reciprocal tax agreements to give residents the ability not to be taxed by their home State on income taxed in the neighboring State. These are highly unusual cases. They are not simply cases of people working in neighboring States who do not want to pay taxes to that State. The combination of these many unusual circumstances: The failure of the States to work out an equitable reciprocity agreement, along with the fact that these workers can be said to have worked in the neighboring State only in the narrowest and most technical sense, makes this legislation merited. This legislation is in line with the very few previous instances in which Congress has taken similar actions. We are exercising a Federal power that must be used only with the greatest of care; and I believe this legislation does that, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and I rise in support of the motion to suspend the rules and adopt H.R. 1953. (Ms. Lofgren asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LOFGREN

Mr. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1596, the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1997. This legislation is both urgently necessary and long overdue. Although bankruptcies continue to rise, over 1 million filings in 1996, Congress has failed to provide the necessary resources to do the job. We have not provided for any new bankruptcy judgeships since 1992. When the cases pile up in bankruptcy court, businesses that are owed money are left holding the bag, families trying to straighten out their lives face delay, and many cases will receive less attention than they merit. I would note that this year the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has recommended an increase in the number of permanent bankruptcy judgeships in the Central District of California by four and the addition of a temporary bankruptcy judgeship in the Eastern District of California. This bill also reflects the improved method instituted by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for measuring the work required to adjudicate the huge chapter 11 cases. Until recently, the largest unit of measure used for the purpose of calculating judicial workload was a $1 million chapter 11. Under that system of measuring judicial workload, a case involving $1 million worth of debt was statistically indistinguishable from a $1 billion case. By failing to measure the actual workload in these cases, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts consistently failed to recommend adequate resources for courts that heard the massive chapter 11 cases. This bill reflects the newer and more accurate measure. We cannot afford to have debtors and creditors held up in court because there are not enough judges to hear the cases. H.R. 1596 is a measured response to the need for additional bankruptcy judges. I urge its adoption and join with the chairman in pointing out that this is indeed a measure that has received bipartisan support among its sponsors and on the committee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rothman].

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the original cosponsors for introducing this important legislation. Several months ago a number of Cambodian emigres, now my constituents, approached me with their concerns about Second Prime Minister Hun Sen and the fragility of democracy in Cambodia. When I asked the State Department about this, I was informed that in their view the allegations that had been brought to my attention against Mr. Sen were, quote, merely part of the partisan bickering between the parties. History, I am sad to say, has now proven my constituents correct, certainly more knowledgeable than those in the State Department who downplayed the concern. This resolution makes it clear that the United States will not tolerate the violence that has hit Cambodia or the anti-democratic actions of Hun Sen. Mr. Sen's killing spree, directed against those who would oppose him or who would seek to bring to light his relations with the narcotic trade, has resulted in the murder of hundreds of Cambodians. Last fall I had the privilege of meeting in San Jose, at home, a number of prominent Cambodian ministers, including the Minister of the Interior Hou Sok. The Minister of the Interior has now been murdered by Hun Sen forces because of the reporting that he did linking Sen to drug lords who are, it is reported, bankrolling the new regime and trying to turn Cambodia, to quote the Washington Post, into a narco state. Mr. Speaker, the rampages in the killing fields of Cambodia have gone on for far too long. We must stand firm to prevent history from repeating itself yet again. I support the suspension of the assistance to Mr. Sen's regime, I support the call for the U.N. Security Action to take some action. I strongly support the calls for justice and democracy in Cambodia. For the sake of the Minister of the Interior who has now been murdered and the others who have already died and for the victims of torture, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I hope this marks merely the first of many actions this Congress will take on this vital issue. We do know that the Cambodian people love peace and democracy. We must support their efforts, and we must not tolerate or entertain the notion that Hun Sen, who is the perpetrator of a coup, could play a part in democratic Cambodia any more than his predecessor Pol Pot could do so.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a brief comment because of the tenor of this discussion. As someone who has reached a conclusion that there are occasions when capital punishment is appropriate, I am aware that other people have reached a different conclusion. I can respect those people. And this is a first time as a Member of this body that I have heard this discussion without the implication that those who have reached a different conclusion are somehow less concerned about crime or less opposed to wrongdoing. I wanted to note that and thank the gentleman from Tennessee for understanding that we can have different beliefs and yet be united in opposition to crime. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I shall not object, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] to explain the purpose of the request.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a woman whose record of public service spans over 4 decades. Ms. Susanne E. Steinmetz, a constituent of mine from Gilroy, CA, has devoted over two thirds of her life to working for the city of Gilroy and will be retiring after 45 years of faithful service. Ms. Steinmetz began her career with the city at age 15, working part- time after school and later, while attending college, she was offered a full-time position with the city at $300 a month. In 1960, Ms. Steinmetz was appointed City Clerk, a position she held until her retirement. Born and raised in Gilroy, Susanne's dedication to public service was perhaps inevitable. Her family has a long history of service to this small, close-knit community. Her maternal great-great grandfather, Jacob Kiether, was a city trustee before the city was incorporated in 1870, later serving on the city council, and as mayor. Her father, Ben Thomas, served three terms on the city council. No matter how busy or stressful her workload was, Ms. Steinmetz was always willing to stop and answer questions from the public and co- workers. She is a unique individual who served her community extremely well, and still found the time to raise not one but two sets of twins, Jill and Jayne, age 28, and Tym and Thom, age 25. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Susanne Steinmetz on her many years of dedicated public service and invite my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in thanking her and wishing Ms. Steinmetz and her family many years of continued success and happiness.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, last week the Senate Commerce Committee reported a bill, S. 909, sponsored by Senators McCain and Kerrey, which largely embodies the latest administration proposals to deal with encryption technology. This misguided legislation (S. 909) would be a great leap backward in the effort to reform current American export restrictions on encryption and remove serious impediments to the competitiveness of our Nation's high-tech industry. In addition, by proposing unprecedented domestic controls on the use of encryption, the McCain-Kerrey bill also poses serious threats to fundamental civil liberties and privacy rights. I believe that the Senate effort is propelled largely by a lack of understanding of both the worldwide prevalence of strong encryption and the technical challenges posed by the massive key recovery-escrow infrastructure envisioned in the bill. Earlier this week, Mr. Dan Gillmore, columnist for the San Jose Mercury News discussed the problems with S. 909 and strongly urged a rejection of the McCain-Kerrey approach. I submit his column into the Congressional Record. [From the San Jose Mercury News, June 23, 1997] Encryption Bill: Federal Exercise in Self-Deception (By Dan Gillmor) As a bill bearing his name zipped last week through the Senate Commerce Committee he heads, Arizona Republican John McCain said, ``This bill carefully seeks to balance the concerns of law enforcement with individual privacy concerns.'' The legislation, co-sponsored by Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey and two other Democrats, was the latest futile attempt in Congress to achieve the impossible: compromise on an issue that fundamentally has no middle ground. The issue is encryption, the scrambling of digital information. Try as they might, lawmakers must eventually understand the reality. When it comes to the privacy of personal information in the digital age, we have two simple choices. Either we allow people to encrypt their messages, using scrambling and unscrambling ``keys'' to which only they have access, or we do not. Governments are certain that bad people will use encryption to help achieve bad ends. They're right. But their cure would shred our basic liberties. So the Clinton administration and its allies--the McCain- Kerrey legislation is widely viewed as an administration- approved plan--are pushing a policy that would force us to put descrambling keys in the hands of third parties. Then, when law enforcement people wanted to see our communications, they'd simply get the keys from that third party. The McCain-Kerrey bill pretends to stop short of that. It would force government agencies to use only electronic hardware and software that included this key-recovery scheme. It would also require the same system for anyone using a network that is funded in any way by federal funds, including virtually all university networks. While one section calls the system ``voluntary'' for private individuals, the rest of the legislation would make it all but impossible to resist. Hardware and software companies, which so far have resisted the government's moves, will be much more likely to simply give in and build this key-recovery method into all of their products if they have to build it into ones bought by the government. Consumers need options, not monolithic products. Another section of the bill would, in effect, require even private citizens to use such software--and therefore give their keys to the third parties--if they want to buy anything online. People tend to use what they have in front of them. There's nothing wrong with the idea of letting a third party hold onto a descrambling key in certain cases. As former White House official Jock Gill noted recently on an Internet mailing list, all government communications should use such a system so the public can keep an eye on what the government is doing in our name and with our money. We'll need to create a system, of course, where such oversight doesn't end up forcing the public to use exactly the same technology for its own encryption needs--or at least keep private keys out of the hands of centralized third parties. Companies, meanwhile, will need to hold onto the business- related keys of employees, so that vital records won't be lost when someone leaves or dies. But I can't think of many companies that will be happy about giving the vault keys to third parties they can't control. Private citizens also should consider giving their keys to trusted third parties, just as they give their house keys to neighbors when on vacation trips. I intend to do just that-- but it's none of the government's business who gets my personal encryption key. I need strong encryption, as the digital age arrives, because more and more of my life will exist on these public networks. The practical difficulties of setting up a centralized key- recovery system are immense. Even if it could be done, I would never trust such a government-run system to be even remotely secure from corruption. I remember the Social Security employees who sold personal information to outsiders. I've also seen too much evidence that governments tend to abuse liberties when they have too much power--and the McCain-Kerrey bill would allow virtually anyone at any level of law enforcement to have access to private information on the flimsiest pretext, not even requiring a court order. Kerrey's participation in this latest travesty is sad. He needs no lessons in courage. He lost part of a leg in Vietnam. Later, as he stood up to the know-nothings who would ban flag-burning, he noted that our strength comes partly from our ability to express ourselves even in ways that offend many others. Now, however, Kerrey is aligning himself with a much more dangerous crowd of know-nothings: those who'd ban our right to keep private information private. He may believe this is about finding common ground; if so, someone has fed him falsehoods. His proposal, if enacted, would create the worst invasion of our fundamental liberty in many decades. If you care even slightly about your privacy in the future, pick up a pen today and write your Senators and member of the House of Representatives. Tell them to reject the Clinton- McCain-Kerrey approach. Tell them you value your privacy and won't give it up without a fight. And remind them that you vote.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a no vote on the amendment before us. Much has been said about the change in export regulations. I would point out that the change to the current policy followed an uncontroverted study that determined it was not helpful to anyone to control the export of technology that you could go buy off the shelf someplace abroad. The change in policy was approved by the Department of Defense, by the State Department, by the Department of Commerce. I would like to quote two other individuals who urged that the policy be changed. In a letter to President Clinton signed by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], they said that ``it is difficult to understand the utility of controlling equipment and technology when it is so easily available to those from whom we are trying to keep it. Yet, by imposing controls, we are limiting the ability of American business to export some of their most marketable items.'' That was true when the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Missouri wrote to the President, and it is true today. Much has been said about the Chinese who have purchased an American computer that was really not all that super. I would like to note that today in the wire service it has been reported that the Chinese themselves are prepared and have developed a 13,000 MTOP computer for their own use and potentially for later sale. So if a 2,700 MTOP computer was indeed sold to the Chinese, perhaps it was a bargain, but they certainly do not need us to acquire a 13,000 MTOP computer. Mr. Chairman, I am very opposed to the proliferation of nuclear arms. I love our country and I want us to be safe. But I do not see the point in jeopardizing an entire sector of our economy to gain nothing by way of safety; to preclude the export of equipment that anyone can buy that is produced by rival companies in Italy, in France, in the United Kingdom, in Japan. This amendment does great damage to the economy for no value whatsoever to our security. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 908, as the chairman has just outlined, creates a commission to study the structural alternatives for the Federal appellate court system. With the expanding caseload in our Federal courts, there is concern throughout the Nation and in the circuits, and nowhere has that concern been greater than in the ninth circuit, composed of my home State of California, as well as the States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii. As the chairman has mentioned, increases in the number of filings in the Federal courts have greatly outpaced the growth in the Federal judiciary and has greatly enlarged the caseload of each judge, often to more than manageable levels. As we approach the next century, I think it is entirely appropriate to examine the structure of the Federal judiciary, and I strongly support this legislation. While it is true that the initial impetus for this bill were proposals to split the ninth circuit, the proposed commission actually has a broader mandate, as the chairman has just outlined, than studying the ninth circuit. In fact, as we enter the 21st century, we need to take a look at the entire range of possibilities. Certainly the commission could make a recommendation to split one of the circuits, to reconfigure the circuits and the Congress could follow the Commission's recommendation or be free to choose another alternative. But whatever we intend to do, I know that we will be better off with the expert advice that this commission will provide to us. It is always better to have good, thoughtful, expert advice than to simply move forward, especially in dealing with the judiciary. So I am happy to join the chairman of the committee and my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary in urging support for the passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that although there may be at this point different hunches on how we are going to go, there is unanimity that this bill before us today should be supported and will yield good and thoughtful answers to the Congress as we struggle to make our appellate court system work very well for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call your attention to an uplifting story in the San Jose Mercury News, describing how a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Mr. Jessie Singh, has built his high-tech enterprise with the help of senior workers including many immigrants. It is a sad fact that older workers face significant obstacles in obtaining employment. But, as Mr. Singh's model shows, seniors can excel at the workplace. As our country continues to address the issue of welfare reform, we need to recognize that many older workers do want to work hard, and will work hard, if given the opportunity. Our economic future depends on employing the talents of all our residents. [From the San Jose Mercury News, Apr. 8, 1997] Threescore Years--And Hired Milpitas High-Tech Firm Finds Its Older Workers To Be Loyal Dependable (By Carolyn Jung) It's a familiar sight at many Silicon Valley high-tech companies--throngs of 20- and 30-somethings hunched over computer terminals, assembling circuit boards, chomping pizza or playing foosball. But visit BJS Electronics Inc. in Milpitas and you'll find several workers of a decidedly different age, with a few more gray hairs, embarking on a new career in their golden years. The company, one of the largest independent distributors of memory chips, is doing something few other high-tech firms seem willing to do--hiring older workers in their 50s and 60s. In BJS' case, many of them are also immigrants who face the loss of Supplemental Security Income funds in August because they are not naturalized citizens. Of the company's 68 employers, 10 range in age from 52 to 69. They have been hired as security guards, warehouse workers and circuit-board testers. With these jobs, they say, they've gained self-esteem and greater respect among friends and family members. And at a time when many employees routinely jump from job to job, company officials say they's garnered a group of dependable employees who work hard and remain loyal to the company. Company Chief Executive Jessie Singh, who came here from India with only $8 in his pocket and now owns a company that boasts $240 million in sales annually, said he made a special effort to hire older workers because he understands how they feel. ``Seniors are mostly unwanted in society or used by their children who bring them to this country just to babysit the grandchildren,' said Singh, 38. ``This is chance for them to get out of the house. They can prove they're not less than anyone else.'' Bill Payson, president of Senior Staff, a job databank for seniors in Silicon Valley, applauds BJS Electronics' hiring practice, which he calls a rarity in this industry. While many of the 3,500 seniors listed with the databank want to work in high-tech, the job listings Payson gets from such companies are few. Indeed, industry representatives for Joint Venture: Silicon Valley and the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group said they are unsure if any high-tech companies make an effort to hire older workers. Over 35 is over the hill ``High-tech companies are notoriously prejudiced against older folks. They think anyone over 35 is over the hill,'' Payson said. ``For this company (BJS) to have that large a proportion of older workers, I'd give them high marks for that. This is the coming trend. And this company is ahead of the wave.'' About 21 percent of the population in Santa Clara County is age 50 or over, according to U.S. Census data. About 9 percent is age 65 or older. (Payson and some advocacy groups designate people over 50 as seniors. The federal government has no single definition. Laws governing housing, social services and medical care set different age limits.) Of the age 50-and-over group, 50 percent work because they need the money or because they want to stay useful, Payson said. For those with good computer and office skills, jobs are not as hard to find, advocates for the elderly said. But for those who speak limited English, who have transportation problems or who have little work experience in this country, it can be far more difficult. ``Most of the older people I work with feel there's discrimination out there, that they're under-rated as far as their health and skills,'' said Sue LaForge, director of the National Council on Aging's job-training program. ``But the situation is getting better. Employers are starting to see seniors as a desirable addition to their workforce.'' Cost of living a factor LaForge hopes more Silicon Valley high-tech companies follow suit, particularly because more seniors--the fastest- growing segment of the population--find it necessary to continue working because of the high cost of living here. At BJS Electronics, seniors such as Sampuran Singh work alongside other workers half their age. For the past four months, the retired bank inspector from India has helped fill sales for the $1,300 memory chips that are assembled onto circuit boards and sold to companies such as Hewlett-Packard. ``I want to contribute to the economy of America,'' said the 61-year-old immigrant who came to the United States a year and a half ago. ``We don't want to be dependent on the government. We shouldn't be a burden on others.'' Jessie Singh, BJS' chief executive, said he got the idea to hire the seniors when he heard Mayor Susan Hammer speak last summer about the jarring effects welfare reform could have on legal immigrants. He approached San Jose's Northside Community Center, which provides nutritional and social services for Indo-American and Filipino-American seniors, to find a senior to employ. The center sent over four. Jessie Singh hired all of them. Of the 10 older workers at BJS Electronics, eight are Indo- Americans, one is of Chinese descent from the Philippines and another is white. Their previous occupations include physical education teacher, cab driver, farmer and army officer. None had ever worked at a high-tech company. Now, they work full time, 40 hours a week, making about $7 an hour with full medical benefits. Advocates for the elderly said they consider that a fair wage. Payson noted that many of his seniors get paid up to $14 an hour, but those are usually part-time jobs that don't include benefits. Jessie Singh said he wanted to help those struggling to regain a foothold in life because it's an experience he knows all too well, having left Punjab, India, 11 years ago with almost nothing and moving to Santa Clara with his wife, Surinder, after a traditional marriage arranged by their parents. Even though he had an engineering degree and once supervised 1,500 employees in India, he found it nearly impossible to get a skilled job here. Resumes at the gas pump So for the first four months, he delivered pizzas and pumped gas. He would hand out his resume at the full-service pump, figuring anyone buying premium could hire him. ``I did get a lot of response from that,'' he said. ``But they all still wanted work experience in the United States, and I didn't have any. I was so frustrated.'' He started asking friends in India for help. One friend, a distributor of computer chips, asked Singh to help him purchase from Silicon Valley vendors some memory chips that would be sold to buyers in India. ``I didn't even know what a memory chip was,'' Singh said about the component that stores data temporarily while the microprocessor carries out its work. Even so, he went to work, buying the chips for his friend and making a 10 percent commission on each deal. He soon realized that instead of being just a middleman, it would be more worthwhile to strike out on his own. He borrowed money from friends and relatives and ran a one- man operation out of his Santa Clara apartment. These days, the millionaire businessman operates out of a 45,000-square-foot, high-security building where more than 10,000 memory chips go out each day. Now, Jessie Singh hopes other companies will copy his efforts in hiring seniors. Surjit Sohi, 57, who has worked as an operations manager at BJS Electronics for more than a year, hopes so, too. ``In India, age counts for you,'' said Sohi, a retired army general who immigrated here three years ago. ``But in America, age goes against you. We should get over the barriers of age. We want to show everyone that we can still do well at our age.''

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, as the author of the bill, in order for States to qualify for the funding in the final section of the gentleman's bill, four conditions must be met by State law. The Justice Department has suggested, and I concur, that as to the 50 percent of the funds that would be dedicated under this amendment to prevention, intervention, rehabilitation, and the like, as outlined in the amendment, those preconditions would not apply for these prevention, intervention, rehab funds to flow to States.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think we will use our own time to go through, I think there are some inaccuracies in the gentleman's representation about the amendment, but I do want to address this issue which is the quote the gentleman read about the study of what works. I think it is important to read the whole sentence, which reads, ``Simply spending time in these activities is unlikely to reduce delinquency,'' which the gentleman read. The rest of the sentence says, ``Unless they provide direct supervision when it would otherwise be lacking.'' That goes to the 22 percent of violent juvenile crime that occurs between the hours of 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. I just wanted to correct that.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to offer this amendment to the body, although it is not as strong as the substitute that was just narrowly defeated. It certainly does commit some of our taxpayers' funds to not just prevention, but intensive supervision, early intervention and rehabilitation for young people who are at risk of becoming involved in crime or who are already starting down the path in this behavior. I am pleased that I have just received a letter from the Department of Justice indicating that they support this amendment and urge its adoption, and I would urge my colleagues to do so. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.