Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. It certainly is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just add that clearly there are few if any Members of this body as saintly as Mother Teresa. And we should not only honor her with honorary U.S. citizenship, but use her faith and the action that her faith has led her to us as a model for each of us. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say something briefly about the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead]. As a new Member of this Congress and of the Committee on the Judiciary, I do not know that they have received sufficient praise for the really excellent bipartisan work that they have done in this Congress on issues that really matter in patent law and other areas that just are so sensible. Clearly, there are things they do not agree on, and they are very open about that, but they work together in a bipartisan way. They have made the country a better place as a consequence, and I, for one, commend them and thank them, and I am going to miss them both in the next Congress, if the voters send me back.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as we look ahead to the next century, I think all of us or many of us realize that our prosperity in America is going to be based on knowledge and information. In my county we have added over 50,000 jobs in 1 year's time. We have unemployment of 3.7 percent, and that is fueled by technology, it is fueled by high-skilled jobs and information. If we do not take steps to protect knowledge and information, as this bill does, we will face adverse economic consequences in Silicon Valley and ultimately throughout the United States. So I commend the ranking member and the chairman for this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and I agree with the gentleman from Indiana. This bill does deserve passage, both from the point of view of tough law enforcement as well as from the point of view of reinventing government. As the gentleman mentioned, were we not to take this action, prisoners who have a constitutional right to have their parole status reviewed, would have the ability to file habeas petitions and seriously muck up the works in our Federal courts. That is not a desirable outcome for law enforcement in the United States, and this bill prevents that from happening. But, Mr. Speaker, it also does allow and really mandates that the Commission downsize and then terminate itself as the need to deal with the old law prisoners decreases and eventually disappears. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I would urge, also, that the Parole Commission explore some of the opportunities that may be available to it to reduce costs even further. As we mentioned in one of the hearings, in California, there are jurisdictions that are using interactive video conferencing to decrease the costs of moving prisoners or moving hearing officers. These are all ideas that can be pursued administratively to further cut costs. I hope that the commission will explore them fully. I am aware of no legislative action to accomplish any of them. I would urge passage of this bill. 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 also urge adoption of this bill. I would also like to concur in the comments made by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]. We should not have to enact this amendment to the act. I think it is absolutely clear that rape is serious bodily harm. I very much respect the independence of the judiciary and the three branches of Government, but that a court could actually rule that rape does not constitute serious bodily injury is ludicrous. I was not a member of the Congress when the original bill was passed. But in talking to the authors and those who worked on the bill, it is very clear, not only from what their intent was but also just by reading the statute itself, that the decision of the first circuit turns reality on its head and will lead to a wrong result. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one more thing. This decision is one more piece of evidence of why we need more women on the Federal bench. I love men. My father is one, my husband is one, and my son. But I think if we had as many women on the bench as there are women in society, we would not have had this absolutely outrageous result in the first circuit. I hope that we pass this bill. I also hope that, as we move forward in the coming years, we will see many more qualified women on the Federal bench and prevent this kind of ridiculous result.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased in joining my colleague from California [Mr. Baker], in introducing legislation that will encourage the development of new and innovative environmental monitoring technology. This legislation will help to improve the Environmental Protection Agency's current prescriptive analytical methods for the approval of new technology that will enable the Federal and State governments to better protect the public health and safety. I believe we need to focus more closely on good results than process. I realize that this bill is a beginning discussion draft and welcome wide input from all interested parties in perfecting this important legislation.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted first to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] for their extraordinary courtesy to me as a brand-new Member of the House and for helping to show me the way and being so courteous and helpful. I know many of us have had the experience of advocating for flood control projects and other things that we know about. However, today I wanted to mention and engage the chairman in a brief colloquy about something that is not in my district, but it is something we all care about. That is the fusion research program in this country. I know that the chairman, as well as the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], are supporters of fusion, that we have very tight fiscal constraints. However, last year we had a 33 percent reduction below the requested amount. This year, once again, funding is a little bit on the slim side for what will be needed for the restructured program envisioned last year. Mr. Chairman, I know that every effort has been made to support the program. I guess my question to the chairman is not an amendment or a suggestion to change the language or anything of that nature, but to ask whether he would be willing, if additional funds should become available within this bill in the conference committee, to do his best to see that especially university-based fusion research and basic research might be the beneficiary of any good news in conference.

Ms. LOFGREN. I know the gentleman has, Mr. Chairman, and I know he will do his very best in conference should something occur that is happier than we now know. I would note also that the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] joins in this good wish, and thanks the chairman of the subcommittee also for his efforts.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of very excited comments today about misbehavior and horrible things that are happening with the representation of bad people across the country by legal aid societies. However, I think it is important to note that there are restrictions on the use of Federal funds that are made available. This amendment has no effect on them. Legal aid societies who take Federal funds cannot accept juvenile or criminal law cases. They cannot do legislative or political advocacy. They cannot do lobbying. They cannot do class actions. There is no evidence that I have seen as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and we held hearings, that indicates that any of that is happening. The gentleman from Indiana said earlier there are shell organizations that have been created, and that there is something illegal or wrong about this. I am sure he spoke sincerely, but I am from Santa Clara County. He did mention the Santa Clara County situation, and I am personally familiar with it. His comments were not accurate. He mentioned a comment from a man who said, ``That is why we are lawyers, not social workers.'' That person is not a he, it is a she. Her name is Liz Shivell, and she practices law in San Jose. I also have copies here, and I would be happy to share them with Members, of the articles of incorporation of the Legal Aid Society of Santa Clara County and the Community Legal Services Corp. They are two separate corporations. I have copies of the boards of directors of the Community Legal Services, which is the Legal Services Corp. grantee, and the Legal Aid Society, which is a private corporation that receives not one penny of Legal Services Corp. funding. Mr. Chairman, I also have a copy of the brochure from the LSC-funded organization that says they cannot accept the following cases, and it lists all the prohibitions that this Congress has placed on legal aid societies. There was some controversy in Santa Clara County when the restrictions came down because many lawyers felt that they could not ethically practice under the restrictions that Congress had imposed. So leaders in the local legal community formed a separate corporation that does the work allowed under the Federal rules, and the Legal Aid Society now does whatever it wants to do as lawyers, as separately funded lawyers. I helped raise money for the Legal Aid Society which receives no Legal Services money, along with our district attorney who is a tough prosecutor and, I would add, also a Republican. However, he believes, our prosecutor does, as do I, that we need to be able to do such things as provide restraining orders to victims of domestic violence without asking for their financial statements. That is one of the many reasons why I support the Mollohan amendment, and I am glad to be able to offer facts in support of it.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, I, until this Congress, was a member of the local government that had responsibility for administering the welfare program, and I felt, coming here, that there were a lot changes I want to make. There is no doubt that a lot of things need to be fixed in welfare programs in this country. We need to put people back to work, we need to have expectations for work, we need to pay attention to child care, we need to change the whole system. But what concerns me is that once again the bill that we will deal with goes too far. As you know, I think, and I want to talk about legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants because they are eligible for nothing and should be eligible for nothing, but I want to talk about what is fair to taxpayers, and I will give my colleagues a couple of examples. In my district there are large numbers of Vietnamese freedom fighters, people who fought communism who came to this country as originally refugees, ultimately became residents, and under the bill before us, if after paying taxes for years and years and years, 14 years, they get a stroke, they cannot get nursing home coverage. Let me talk about another example. An immigrant who comes in with her husband, and her husband works for 50 years and dies, and then as she is an old person, she is 65, she has a stroke, and she is not eligible to get the kind of nursing home care that the widow of every other taxpayer in America can look to get. Now, I do not think that is fair. There are some abuses among immigrant groups, and there are necessary steps that need to be taken, and in fact the Deal bill earlier this year did deal with those. But this is unfair. I think when we look at our taxpayers, if they are legal residents or citizens, we ought to make sure that people who have worked hard and paid their taxes are treated fairly, and this so-called reform bill fails in that regard.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievement of Brig. Gen. Paul D. Monroe, Jr. of the California National Guard. General Monroe is the assistant adjutant general of the California National Guard's Plans and Mobilization Office and has demonstrated excellence in both his military and community work. General Monroe began his military career in 1957 upon enlistment into the U.S. Army. He was released from active duty in August 1960 and enlisted in the California Army National Guard in 1961. While serving in the National Guard, General Monroe has held the posts of second lieutenant, signal company commander, signal platoon leader, signal battalion staff officer, and assistant operations officer. He has also held battalion staff assignments in the brigades support battalion. He was appointed to his current assignment as the assistant adjutant general for plans and mobilization in 1994 and was promoted to his current rank as Brigadier general in 1995. General Monroe's military service has earned him numerous distinctions. Among his decorations and awards are the Army Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal; California State Medal of Merit, and the California Service Medal. In addition to being a highly decorated military officer, General Monroe has also been an active and valued member of his community. He has chaired the bay area chapter of the March of Dimes and has also volunteered his time with the Easter Seal Foundation, Boy Scouts of America, National Guard Association of the United States, U.S. Army War College Alumni Association, American Business Association, and the Association of Public Administrators. General Monroe has done an outstanding job of serving our country and local community. His efforts are praiseworthy and he should be commended for all his community and military achievements.

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to recommit because its intent is to avoid a policy that I believe will have the effect of stifling voices of dissent, which will not serve this body or our country well. As the House is aware, every office will soon be getting a computer as part of our new CyberCongress initiative. I was interested on the details on it and did get the cost for the computer, which is $5,367.12. I took the specs for that computer and went to a normal vendor outside of the favorite inside vendor and asked them for an estimate. They came in with a cost that is $900 per computer, less for a better machine, 120 megahertz as compared to the 100 megahertz that the House has purchased. If that were expanded to all 435 offices, that would be nearly $400,000 that this House would save. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to do that whether or not the motion to recommit is approved, but clearly if this motion is approved, we can save at least $150,000 just by making a better purchase on the new computers for each House office.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, in listening to the prior speaker, it occurred to me that perhaps he has not searched the Web extensively because I heard the analogy to committee reports. Now I am new to the Congress, but I read some committee reports and they tend to go through legislation, and there are pros and cons on each side, and they are bound together in one volume. I think that is just dandy. That is the way it ought to be. But if you take a look at Web sites, that is not what you find. For example, in the Committee on Resources Web site there is a picture of the chairman, along with articles like, ``The Republican Investment in the Environment,'' which is bookmarked under ``Humor'' on the Web, and there is a small link to Democrats buried under committee information. The Joint Economic Committee opens with, ``Welcome to the home page of Vice Chairman Saxton and House Republican members of the JEC.'' It then links to each Republican JEC House member and the JEC Republicans in the Senate, and provides the text of partisan Republican publications on the ``Contract With America'' and the ``Debt Limit Charade.'' These are not like committee reports, and requiring the minority to be just a subset of the majority on Web sites is kind of like saying you can send out a press release, minority, but only if you staple it to the majority's press release, if they send one out. That is what I object to. I think it is what most Members who are speaking here object to. The fact is that under the House rules that we adopted, there is 10 megabytes of space for the majority and there is 10 megabytes of space for the minority. That space should be used, hopefully prudently, honestly and usefully for the American public, by each side to speak the truth about what they know of issues of importance to America. A few hours ago I talked to a gentleman in high-tech who had heard the debate. He is an immigrant. He built his company from nothing and he said this is fascism. This immigrant said he has heard what is going on. He said that he comes from a place where he saw fascism arrive. ``You leaders in America must stop fascism when it first surfaces, when you first see those signs,'' he said, ``and that is now. Please do not allow this to happen.'' Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for allowing me to speak.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I was quoting an individual who spoke to me, not a Member of this body. And perhaps as a new Member I am not as aware of the rules as I might have been. If it offended or it was inappropriate, I would certainly withdraw the remark.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about what is in this bill. Coming from Silicon Valley, I have very strong concerns about what is not happening with technology and how we are very foolishly trying to censor ourselves. Mr. Chairman, I got the information about the CyberCongress, and that we were all going to get a computer. Mine arrived at my office 6 months late, and what we did was we called just a regular vendor out of the phone book, not anybody politically connected. They will sell these machines to us for $900 less than we paid for them and they will deliver them in 4 days. So we are going to spend $400,000 more on these computers than we needed to spend. It makes me very suspicious, I will say that. It makes me very uncomfortable. I am also concerned that for those of us who use the Internet frequently, as I do, one of the things you cannot get from the CyberCongress is the voting records, how we voted every day. You can get extension of remarks, you can get tributes to Little League coaches, but you cannot find out how your Congress Member voted on the Internet. I have introduced a bill to require us to post that information. It has not had a hearing. It seems to me if we can print votes every day in the Congressional Record, they ought to be posted on the Internet too. I think this bill should address that. Finally, I want to talk about web pages the previous speaker mentioned before. I just came back here from some time at home. Everywhere I went, my constituents and neighbors would say, ``Do they not get it back there? Do any of them use the Internet?'' I had to say, actually, probably they do not get it. I think the new policy on web pages is proof that the leadership of this body does not get it yet. To suggest that for security reasons, which is ludicrous, that the URL has to be only with the majority instead of the minority is foolish indeed. Mr. Chairman, what has really evolved here is not only censorship, which Americans object to. Technologically it is foolish. Ultimately, to try to prevent web users from actually accessing minority web pages is a very bad precedent, and technically, in the end, I think it will fail. We would not suggest that it is OK to prohibit Members of Congress from issuing a statement, from putting a differing point of view in writing and sending that to other Americans. That is what this policy on web pages does. I object to it strongly, and I hope we will be able to change the current policy on minority web pages administratively or through this bill. I think there should be an amendment allowed to deal with it, and I hope that when I go home next, I can say yes, they finally got it here.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to pay special tribute to Duncan H. Kester, the standing chapter 13 trustee for division 5 of the northern district of California--counties of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey--on his retirement, effective June 30, 1996, after 29 years of service in that capacity. Mr. Kester served with the U.S. Army Air Force in World War II as a flight officer-navigator, second lieutenant. After the war, he married Marvis Horgan on February 16, 1946. He is the father of four children, two daughters, and twin sons, and is also a grandfather. In July 1967, Duncan Kester was appointed to serve as the first chapter XIII trustee in the newly created area 2 commercial district of the northern district of California consisting of the counties of Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey by the bankruptcy referees at the direction of the judges of the northern district of California. After the bankruptcy code was adopted in 1978, Mr. Kester became the standing chapter 13 trustee for divisions 3 and 5 of the northern district of California, consisting of the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey. After the implementation of the United States Trustee Program, Mr. Kester continued his chapter 13 trusteeship with his appointment by the new United States trustee for region 17. Mr. Kester served as a leader holding a number of offices with the National Association of Chapter Thirteen Trustees [NACTT], including serving as president of that organization in 1975-76. He has appeared frequently as a lecturer at educational seminars before creditors, attorneys, business education students, and commercial associations. During his long and illustrious tenure as a trustee, Mr. Kester has administered approximately 100,000 cases through which roughly one-half billion dollars was paid by debtors to creditors. Through his office, thousands of debtors have been able to save their homes and property by restructuring their finances in chapter 13 plans. In addition, thousands of small business men and women have been able to continue operating their restructured companies and maintain the employment of their workers by filing chapter 13 plans. Mr. Kester, known as ``Duke'' and ``Mr. K,'' to his friends and colleagues, has earned the respect and affection of debtors, creditors, attorneys, and judges, and his employees. I am proud to have the honor to offer Duncan H. Kester my sincere thanks and gratitude for his many years of exemplary service to our community and ask that my colleagues join me in wishing him a happy retirement.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the noteworthy achievements of Ken Heredia of the San Jose Fire Department. Mr. Heredia has been the president of the San Jose Fire Fighters Union, Local 230, for the past 8 years. In addition, he has served 15 years on the fire department's union executive board. During the years Mr. Heredia has served the San Jose firefighters, he has demonstrated an unselfish and much valued commitment to organized labor and the fire service. On June 8, 1996, a special barbecue will be held by the San Jose Firefighters Local 230 in honor of Mr. Heredia and his years of dedicated service to our community. Mr. Heredia, a native of his community, was recently promoted to battalion chief of the San Jose Fire Department. Although he will be sorely missed as a leader of local 230, I would like to extend my congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Heredia as he takes on his new role in the department. I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing this dedicated public servant.

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to comment briefly on this because I have heard some of the same things that I have heard now for 18 months in the Committee on Science. I think there is a philosophical difference, and I think it is fair that we discuss it. It is not about money to corporations. I was here and voted against the agriculture bill. We shovel money at farmers, and they are corporations; that does not seem to bother anybody. It bothered me. So the problem is not about taking tax money and giving it to others apparently. It is about industrial policy. And I have heard the Chairman use that word over and over again. I think there is a difference. I know that we are in a vicious economic global competition. If we look at what others around the world are doing and compare them to what we will do it this bill passes with the Morella amendment to the Brown amendment, I think we will agree, at least I believe, we are in trouble. Mr. Chairman, Europe is accelerating its investment in commercial technologies through just the same kind of programs that the ATP program represents for America through the European Union joint R&D initiative. Japan is doubling their government science and technology budget in the next 4 years. China is tripling its investment in joint projects. Korea is also boosting its R&D efforts in key areas. They realize, as we should, that precompetitive, precommercial research is part of getting ahead in the really rather strident and tough competition that we face internationally. I would like to note that some people who I do not think the very political, like the American Chemical Society, has said, and I quote: ATP is a vital component of our Nation's technology and competitiveness portfolio. I would like to give just a couple of quick examples of how this actually works. One example from San Jose is Spectra Diode Laboratories, which joined with Xerox in 1991 in a project to develop integrated arrays of high-powered multi-wavelength laser diodes. Now the ATP funds that were provided, and I would add in partnership; industry puts at least 50 percent of the money up and oftentimes more; enabled this firm, SDL, to move ahead of where they otherwise would have been. It is true one of the three technologies they developed might have been developed anyhow, but would not have happened in the time frame in which it did. In Silicon Valley and high tech, time is very important. We are talking about products that have a life cycle of 12 months, 13 months, 14 months. If you miss a step, pretty soon you have got your competitors abroad just killing you in the business. Mr. Chairman, I would note that SDL's early applications have tripled their business in 2 years, and note that in some measure their success has added to the 46,000 jobs that were added in 1 year in Silicon Valley, CA. None of us want to squander tax money, but there are things such as squandering and then there are investments for the future. My voters tell me for the most part that, if we can do something to invest in science and technology that boosts our economy, that provides high- tech, good-paying jobs, that is a good investment. Mr. Chairman, I would add just one other example, and that has to do with something that I think is going to be a critical matter for our country and whether we prosper or fail in the next generation of computers. That is flat panel display. There are several competing technologies being pursued at this point. It is not yet clear which of them will emerge as the winner. We have one ATP program located in Silicon Valley pursuing very sophisticated approaches using photons as a base for the technology. We have very little going on other than the ATP program in the United States. Our major competitors are in Japan, in Singapore, in Korea. If we were to pull out of this technological research, we would be doing great damage. For those who have laptops, you cannot build a laptop unless you can get a flat panel. When all the flat panels are owned, when all the flat panel technology is owned by our economic competitors, our folks will not have a guaranteed supply of the key components for something that is going to be a growth industry. Mr. Chairman, let us not shoot ourselves in the foot. I strongly urge that we vote against the Morella amendment. It kills the ATP program, and it does damage to our country's future.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I realize that I may be the only voice against the amendment here today, but I do so because there is a school in my district that for over a long period of time reached the conclusion not to have a ROTC program. I personally think ROTC is a good idea. I wish that ROTC did exist and I know individuals who have had a great experience and a measurable improvement in their future and life because of their participation in the program. However, I would hate to see San Jose State University cut off from all of the fine research that they are doing because of a decision made in another program area, supportive as I am of the ROTC program. I think it is a mistake to tie in our research funds with our ROTC program support, because so much of what is done by way of scientific research is not done just to benefit the universities that might participate in those research programs but that research is to benefit the entire country, to benefit the future of the United States by forging advances on one or another of critical questions that face us and our future. So I think although we must take strong efforts to support our men and women in the military, in the long run it will do them no good to cripple those universities that might be doing research in the very areas that could benefit them in the future. So with a great deal of respect for those who have offered the amendment, I would urge that we not willy-nilly run down this path that may have consequences that are adverse and that we have not fully considered. As a member of the Committee on Science, I know that this was not considered by the committee. We did not have any hearings on it, at least in our committee, and I think it would be ill-advised to approve the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. I am seeking to understand the amendment. Would the prohibition of funds going to a university include Pell grants or student loans or students in universities where ROTC is not offered?