Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today we rise to honor Dr. Dan Maydan, who has been president of Applied Materials since 1994 and a member of the Board of Directors since 1992. Dr. Maydan is the 2002 recipient of the Anti-Defamation League's Torch of Liberty Award. The Anti-Defamation League's Torch of Liberty Award was established to recognize individuals and corporations who have exhibited humanitarian concerns, and whose everyday actions exemplify the principles on which the Anti- Defamation League was founded: namely, to ``secure justice and fair treatment for all.'' Born in Tel Aviv, Dr. Dan Maydan is a member of the United States National Academy of Engineering. Over the years, he has received numerous awards and honors for his contributions to the global semiconductor industry and for his efforts to strengthen the links between Israel and global high-technology markets. He is the recipient of the International Partnership Award from the California Israel Chamber of Commerce in recognition of his long-term commitment to building bridges between Israel and California. Additionally, Dr. Maydan received the Israel Trade Award from the Israel Ministry of Industry and Trade. In 1998 he was also awarded the State of Israel Jubilee Award in recognition of his efforts to integrate Israel into the global economy and for realizing its world-class business potential. In 2001 Dr. Maydan was awarded Honorary Doctorate Degrees from Edinburgh University in Scotland and from the Technion in Israel. In our community, Dr. Maydan is a noted patron of a number of local organizations. Dr. Maydan and Applied Materials have been recognized by numerous organizations for their leadership in responding to community causes. As friends of Dr. Maydan's, we are incredibly proud at his being presented with this prestigious award. Both as colleagues and as fellow Californians, we are incredibly grateful to him for both his innovation and his compassion. We congratulate him and his family on receiving the Anti-Defamation League's Torch of Liberty Award, and thank him for his commitment and devotion to our community.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we are all here today to honor our colleague and friend Nancy Pelosi. As a fellow Californian and a friend, it is hard for me to hide my delight at Nancy's election as Democratic Whip. For nearly fifteen years, Nancy has done a wonderful job representing the city of San Francisco in Congress. From education, health care, housing, and the economy, she has worked to improve the quality of life for Californians--and all Americans. On October 10, 2001, the Democratic Caucus made history. We made history by electing Nancy to the highest position ever held by a woman in Congress. Electing a woman to a leadership position was long overdue. And while the Democratic Party continues to be the party of progress, our work is not yet complete. Nancy, with your election as House Democratic Whip, we made history, we've made progress, and now we will work together to improve American government and to better the lives of the American people. Thank you Nancy for your leadership and your friendship. Congratulations!

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today we rise to recognize the recipients of the 2001 Gilroy Chamber of Commerce Citizen and Business Awards. The six individuals and businesses being honored on February 8 have contributed their time and talent to the city and the people of Gilroy, California. We wish to express to them our gratitude for their hard work and our congratulations for this honor. The 2001 Gilroy Chamber of Commerce Citizen and Business Awardees are: Michael Bonfante, the 2001 Man of the Year. As owner of Nob Hill Stores, Mr. Bonfante was extremely supportive of Gilroy schools, clubs, sports groups and community organizations. It was said that he could never say ``no'' to any group asking for help. Students working in his stores knew that their managers would be sensitive to the pressures of school and activities; a corporate retreat on Hecker Pass made game fields, picnic areas, and a gym available to all employees. After the sale of the Nob Hill Foods chain, Michael Bonfante invested $79 million into his dream of creating a family park designed around trees, which ultimately became the basis for a non-profit organization benefiting the Gilroy community. Susan Starritt Jacobsen, the 2001 Woman of the Year. Ms. Jacobsen has been active in Gilroy for over 25 years and on so many levels it is difficult to list them all. She was the 2000-2001 Gilroy EDC President and served as the Secretary-Treasury for three years. As the 1999-2000 Gilroy Chamber of Commerce President, she was serving her second term as Board Member of the Chamber. In a professional capacity, she is a Past President of the South County Board of Realtors and the Past State Director for the California Association of Realtors. For 20 years visitors have seen her at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, helping out in one way or another, and Gilroy schools and organizations know they can always count on her to volunteer her time for a fundraiser or event. Aitken Associates, the 2001 Small Business of the Year. Aitken Associates is a local landscape design firm that has created beautiful and award-winning designs throughout Gilroy and other communities. Karen Aitken, the President, has been in private practice as a landscape architect for over 18 years. Among Aitken Associates' endeavors are: the public grounds at Goldsmith Seeds, Del Rey Park, and the Gilroy City Hall. One of Ms. Aitken's most notable projects is the Bonfante Gardens theme park, whose founder Michael Bonfante praises Ms. Aitken's devotion and creativity. Civic activity is one of Aitken Associates' founding principles; as such, the firm has donated its services to the Gilroy High School landscape improvement plan, the Willey House and the student gardens at the Morgan Hill Country School. Karen Aitken is active in the Rotary Club of Gilroy and the Beautification in Gilroy Committee. McDonald's of Gilroy, the 2001 Large Business of the Year. McDonald's of Gilroy, purchased by Steve and Jan Peat just over five and a half years ago, has become an integral part of the Gilroy community and an example of civic excellence. The Peats are the recipients of the 1999- 2000 McDonald's ``Partners in Paradise'' award for increased sales and the 1998 McDonald's Corporation ``Best of the West'' award for excellence at the Outlet location. The Peat's son, Steve, is one of only four people who teach McDonald's management classes in Spanish for the entire Northern California Region--a program he helped initiate. Among countless other activities, the Peats' assistance was vital in securing a $5,000 grant from the Ronald McDonald Children's House Charities Foundation for Jordan School's ``Music Alive'' program, and a $25,000 grant for the recreation center at Rebekah Children's Services. Frankie Munoz, the 2001 Firman B. Voorhies Volunteer of the Year. Because of her dedication to and support of the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce, Frankie Munoz was named the 2001 Volunteer of the Year. For many years, Ms. Munoz has served as a Chamber Ambassador, chairing the South Valley Business Showcase and Mixer, and co-chairing the Business After Hours with the Rotary Club of Gilroy. Frankie Munoz is the incoming president of Leadership Gilroy, and is also active in the Rotacare Administrative Council, the Gilroy Senior Center, the Morgan Hill Mushroom Mardi Gras, and various other charitable organizations. Ms. Munoz is a tireless volunteer for her children's schools, sports and 4-H clubs. Betsy Henry, the 2001 Gilroy Educator of the Year. Betsy Henry is a first grade teacher at El Roble School in Gilroy. Along with first grade, Ms. Henry has taught Special Education classes, third grade, and second/third combination classes. She has organized several programs within her classroom including the Star of the Week program, the 100% Spelling Club, Just Read, and Peacebuilders of the Month. Her use of cooperative learning activities and Peacebuilder social norms within her classroom creates an atmosphere that promotes each individual child's belief in themselves. Additionally, Ms. Henry is the on-site trainer for ``Success For All'' reading program at El Roble School. She has served on Key Planners, as the PTA teacher representative, and School Site Council. Again, we wish to extend our gratitude to these individuals and organizations for their tireless enthusiasm and dedication. Congratulations to them on this prestigious award.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today we rise to congratulate Milpitas Police Department Officer Joseph ``AJ'' Minton, the winner of the 2002 Gene Schwab Memorial Award. The Gene Schwab Memorial Award recognizes those city of Milpitas employees who put ``Service Above Self.'' Joseph ``AJ'' Minton was born in Anchorage, Alaska, and moved to California in 1983 to attend college, first at Montery peninsula College and then San Jose State, where he obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Administration of Justice. Mr. Minton began his career as a volunteer Police Explorer for the City of Marina, becoming a Reserve Police Officer and a volunteer Fire Fighter for that city in 1984. Upon moving to San Jose, he began working with the Milpitas Police Department as an intern and was hired full-time by the Department upon his graduation. He became a Police officer in 1989. AJ Minton has spent most of his career in Patrol, but has served the Milpitas Police Department in innumerable other ways. As a crime Analyst, Mr. Minton provided valuable statistics to the community and to those looking to purchase a home and raise their families in Milpitas. He has also served as a Reserve Field Training Officer, a driver instructor, and as the agency representative for the county Report Writing Committee. Currently, he is a member of the Milpitas community Oriented Policing Task Force. Throughout Mr. Minton's career, he has taken an interest in computer and information technology. In 1994, he assisted in implementing the department's first mobile computer system. Since 1999, he has been on a project team that works closely with the Information Services Department; additionally, he assisted with the development of the Computer Aided Dispatch, the Records Management System, and Mobile Computers. Joseph ``AJ'' Minton is also an avid ice hockey player and is the beloved coach of the Blue Devil Ice hockey team, whose enthusiastic members range in age from four to eight. We wish to thank AJ Minton for his dedication to both the Milpitas Police Department and to the community; he truly embodies the spirit of ``Service Above Self.'' We congratulate him on this honor and are grateful for his service.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Captain Virgil Augustus King, who will be retiring from the Santa Clara County Department of Correction on December 28th after twenty-six years of service to Santa Clara County. Captain King joined the Department of Correction in 1989 after serving as a Deputy Sheriff and Sergeant for the Sheriff's Department. Since that time, he has served as a Sergeant in the Main Jail, Work Out of Class Lieutenant in The Training Unit, Personnel Unit and the Elmwood Complex. Captain King was promoted to Captain in July of 1999, and currently serves as the Programs Division, Professional Compliance and Audit Unit and Special Projects Commander. Captain King was integral to the development of the Regimented Corrections Program (RCP), a modified boot-camp program with a strong emphasis on education. RCP has been a highly successful program which this December is celebrating its 5th Anniversary. Captain King was also instrumental in the development of the Artemis Program, a similar program designed for pregnant women and women with young children, which was selected as the 2001 recipient of the Thomas M. Wernert Award for Innovation in Community Behavioral Healthcare. The latest innovative program developed under Captain King's direction is Women in Community Services, a pre- and post-program for female inmates in Santa Clara County, which starts with classes inside the jail and extends into the community for supportive aftercare. Each of the participants is matched up with a professional mentor for up to six months to assist them in the successful achievement of their individual goals. I wish to thank Captain Virgil King for his compassionate dedication to the County and wish him the best in his future endeavors. His innovation and loyalty will be sorely missed, but the people of the County are the richer for his service.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my sincere condolences to the family of former Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu, who died on September 29, 2001. President Thieu played an important role in the history of his country and that of the United States. Thieu's passing closes a sad chapter in the history of two nations-- Vietnam and the United States. To many Vietnamese in San Jose, Nguyen Van Thieu's name is synonymous with the struggle of the Vietnamese people to live freely without fear of Communist repression. As a founding member of the Congressional Dialogue on Vietnam, I feel it is important that we in the House continue that fight on behalf of those in Vietnam and around the world who are unable to speak, assemble, or worship freely. Thieu was born April 5, 1923 as the youngest of five children in the poverty-stricken town of Phan Rang in central Ninh Thuan province. He attended the Merchant Marine Academy and the National Military Academy in Dalat, and was commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant in 1949. As an infantry platoon commander in the French campaign against the Viet Minh--the precursor to the Viet Cong--he became regarded as a good strategist and capable leader. President Thieu passed away with family present in the suburbs of Boston, where he spent the last years of his life. I wish to again extend my condolences to his family and those grieving his loss, and hope that one day the dream he shared of democracy, freedom, and human rights will come to Vietnam.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Chief Douglas G. Sporleder on his retirement from the Santa Clara County Fire Department. Chief Sporleder is retiring after 21 years of service to the people of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara County Fire Department services an area of 137 square miles and a population of 259,000, and consists of 270 paid personnel and 40 volunteers operating a regional network of sixteen fire stations with a $32 million budget. Chief Sporleder is third-generation fire service. His father and grandfather were also chief officers in the fire services. Upon his retirement, Douglas Sporleder will have been fire chief for over 21 years, nearly half the time that the Santa Clara County Fire Department has been in existence. Starting as a volunteer firefighter in 1963, Chief Sporleder attained the rank of chief in 1980 after progressing through the ranks of firefighter, captain, training chief and assistant chief. He is also the Santa Clara County Fire Marshal and the Local Mutual Aid Fire and Rescue Coordinator, and a member of the Governor's Special Arson Task Force and the California Fire and Rescue Service/FIRESCOPE Board of Directors. Chief Sporleder's other professional accomplishments include: speaking at the National Fire Academy and the International Association of Fire Chiefs conference; certificates of appreciation from Santa Clara County, the American Heart Association; and the recipient of the American Legion Certificate of Commendation for Heroism. He has served as president of the Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs' Association, and is a member of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the IAFC Metro Chiefs Division, the Western Fire Chiefs' Association, the California Fire Chiefs' Association, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Special Fire Districts' Association of California. An active participant in community service and community affairs, Chief Sporleder will be sorely missed by the Fire Department and the County. I cannot thank Chief Sporleder enough for his years of service to the people of Santa Clara County, and wish him nothing but the best in the future. He is a leader as well as someone I am proud to call my friend.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Jane Harman and I support our Commander-in-Chief in the fight against terrorism. We agree that we may need to convene military tribunals and the bill that we are introducing today would specifically authorize that. Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution provides that Congress shall constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court and that Congress shall make rules concerning captures on land and water in time of war. On September 11th, international criminals terrorized and killed many innocent Americans. These murderers must face swift and unyielding justice if they are not killed in combat and, if we are going to try combatants on Afghan soil, it is likely that a military tribunal is the right forum. Congress needs to act so that there will be no question that this is legal. But, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 18 L. Ed. 281 (1866), when courts are operational here in America they need to be used for the trial of criminals. That's why this bill Iimits tribunals to those being prosecuted abroad. If Osama bin Laden is captured overseas, he will face a military tribunal. If your neighbor is arrested tomorrow in San Jose, he will go to court like any other accused person in America. It is important to note that American law already provides for the safekeeping of classified information and the security of trials. The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) has been part of American law for two decades. It rightly insures that criminal prosecution won't jeopardize national security. The President's recent military order also appeared to suspend the right of the accused to appeal to courts. In essence, this would suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Order stated that any individual subject to a military tribunal ``shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.'' We are a nation of laws. The most important, our original law, is our Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 provides that the writ of Habeas Corpus may only be suspended when the public safety may require it and then only in cases of rebellion or invasion. Suspension require Congress to act. It is not the President's prerogative. Even President Lincoln, who felt the need to suspend Habeas during the civil war, had to seek and obtain approval from Congress to do so. We have expressly preserved habeas corpus in our bill. We have also required the President to report to the Congress about the use of these tribunals and on a classified basis if necessary. There is a sunset provision for these extraordinary procedures. The use of military tribunals expires on December 31, 2005 with the use of force authorization that Congress granted the President. As with the Use of Force authorization itself, if it is necessary to take further military action, Congress will need to act to extend the war as well as the war tribunals. We need to make this bill the law so that there will be no question that military tribunals are valid. We also need to once again mobilize America behind our Commander in Chief in the prosecution of the war against terrorists. I believe this bill would receive overwhelming support in Congress and we hope it can be swiftly considered.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, From the debate thus far on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), it is clear to me that the legislative process works best when Democrats and Republicans move forward together. Unfortunately, the effort to pass TPS this Congress is a poor demonstration of Congress' ability to cooperate and compromise. At this particular moment in American history, I find that troubling. I would like nothing better than to vote for the passage of TPA. Over the past several years, I have supported almost every free trade measure to come before the House of Representatives because I believe that the health of the American economy is dependent on new and more open markets. I believe that the future wages of the American worker are dependent on our ability to do two things: secure new markets for American goods and services and enhance the education and skills of our current workforce. But markets do not open overnight. Negotiating new and more open markets is a complicated process made even more complicated by the procedural process in Congress. Without a straight up or down vote on a trade agreement, Congress could be bogged down forever in amendments and in congressional politics. If the congressional amendment process came into play, our President would no longer have the credibility to negotiate agreements. All 435 Members of the House cannot be the American trade negotiators. I understand this. I believe that the President, Democrat or Republican, should have the flexibility that TPA affords to negotiate and pass trade agreements. But the details of TPA do matter. The USTR has moved from negotiating tariffs to non-tariff barriers to trade. What this means is that instead of just negotiating reductions in tariffs, our trade negotiators will be negotiating substantive changes in American law. In the next round, the plan is to make changes in antitrust laws. The protections currently provided by the American patent system may also be amended through trade. Copyright protection is up for discussion. These laws, antitrust and intellectual property, are enormously important to the economic viability of the United States. Just as American laws are harmonized in trade negotiations, the role of Congress's Congressional Committees must evolve from procedural consultations to ones that are substantively consultative. While I have raised this issue again and again over the past several months, the Thomas bill has left this issue unaddressed. Interestingly, a role is provided for review of agricultural policy as well as for financial services. But are potatoes and rice more important that patents and antitrust laws? I think not. The USTR must submit to the relevant Congressional Committees, including the Judiciary Committee, and not just to the Ways and Means Committee, information that informs Members which provisions of existing US law are being changed. Just a few years ago, I was surprised as a Member of the Judiciary Committee to find that I could not insert a salary floor amendment into a bill pertaining to H-1B nonimmigrants because we had made a trade commitment in the General Agreement on Trade in Services not to put in such a condition. An alternative system that was negotiated, but not approved by Congress, was inserted by GATT. This made it impossible for Members of Congress to make changes to domestic law without violating US trade obligations. When I asked my colleagues on the Committee if they had heard of such a change in the law, I got a lot of blank looks. They were as surprised as I was. And I'm not surprised that they didn't know because the implementing legislation of the Uruguay Round Agreements was hundreds of pages long. Such changes are not limited to immigration law. The same thing could happen in a area like antitrust if an agreement on competition policy is reached. Professor Daniel Tarullo, a Professor of Law at Georgetown University wrote in a letter to Senator Leahy that a ``competition agreement in the WTO could seriously compromise the integrity of US antitrust policy and for that matter the competition policies of other nations.'' We know that antitrust law is explicitly ``on the table'' for the next round. While I don't disagree that this is an appropriate topic for discussion, I cannot agree that US antitrust laws should be changed without the review and involvement of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee should have the same access to these issues as the Agriculture Committee has relative to agricultural issues in the Thomas bill. While I do not support a unduly burdensome process, I believe there must be a happy medium between the Rangel and Thomas approaches. That is why I believe we should wait to vote on TPA. Again, I would like nothing more than to vote for a Trade Promotion Authority measure that takes into consideration the proper role of Congress and its Committees. I appreciate the ways & Means Committee's work on this bill, but we are not there yet.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass a hate crimes bill. Some people confuse hate crimes with the idea that some victims are worthier than others. What that misses is the fact that when there is a hate crime there is more than one victim: the individual who has been assaulted and the group that that victim belongs to. We know that when there is a hate crime the intent is to intimidate, frighten, and alarm people who share the same trait as the victim, whether it is their religion or some other trait. So we need to make sure that we protect Americans against hate crimes. I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary with jurisdiction over this bill which I am a co-sponsor of. We are not even meeting today. We should use our time to enhance law enforcement to protect Americans to pass a strong hate crimes bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Aviation & Transportation Security Act. This legislation comes none to soon for the American public. With Thanksgiving arriving, travelers and their families on the ground need to have confidence in air security that we once took for granted. This bill makes our airlines and airports safer. New Federal agents will be hired to screen passengers and scan baggage. These workers will have the training and professionalism necessary to prevent terrorism and effectively serve as partners with law enforcement personnel. The legislation establishes the Transportation Security Agency whose mission will be to set standards and to oversee the implementation of security standards. For the first time, the United States will have a single agency whose mission is to ensure security for all modes of transportation including water transport, rail highway, commercial aviation as well as civil aviation. All checked baggage will be screened by explosive-detection equipment by the end of 2002. Cockpit doors will be strengthened and the Air Marshal Program will be expanded to cover more flights. Mr. Speaker, this bill should have been completed much sooner. I regret that this legislation because an ``ideological divide'' over the issue of federalization of airport security personnel. Breaches of security prior to and after the September 11 attacks have left little doubt that the current system of privatized screeners was broken and beyond repair. This legislation provides us with the opportunity to revamp the system, increase personnel training, and raise the standards of our workers. Yesterday, conference committee members from each party who negotiated the compromise of the House- and Senate-approved bills--each claimed victory. Both sides worked hard to craft a compromise. I also believe the American people and security were victors. When the President signs S. 1447 it is my sincere hope that it enactment will bring greater confidence to every airline passenger by using America's most valuable resources--its people and its technology--to lock up potential terrorists and to eliminate terrorism.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote and a yes on the Democratic plan that helps AMT, middle class victims. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans to vote against H.R. 3090 and to vote for the Democratic substitute. The bill before us is no Economic Stimulus Package because it fails to deliver immediate relief to our struggling economy. It neglects the needs of the people in our economy who are at the forefront of our fight against terrorism--middle class Americans. Both the absence of and the inclusion of many provisions in this bill are troubling to me, Mr. Speaker. But the absence of one provision will result in may Americans losing everthing--their homes, their retirement savings, their children's college funds. The Republican bill does not provide tax relief to Americans across this country who because of an antiquated tax code have incurred enormous AMT liabilities. They are responsible for paying taxes on income they never made! In true entrepreneurial spirit, these Americans accepted positions at companies that offered incentive stock options (ISOs). While ISOs are not a form of compensation, they are used as a form of ``sweat equity''. If the employee invests his time and energy in a company and the company succeeds and grows, then the employee will have valuable shares in the company. Their hard work pays off in the growth of the price of their company stock. Unfortunately because of the downturn in the economy and the impact of the alternative minimum tax, these individuals are now responsible for taxes on stock at the time of purchase. I have heard from countless Americans in my district but also from so many across America from Des Moines to North Carolina to Boston to Seattle. These Americans have banded together to form a grassroots coalition and a mutual support group called ReformAMT. No doubt over the past several months, you have heard from them. And over the past several months, I have shared their stories with you in Dear Colleagues. For Don and Ginny and Michele and Manine and Steve and so many others, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic alternative. Help these middle class Americans stimulate the economy by allowing them to hang on to their homes, their college savings, their retirement funds, their children's education funds. Mr. Speaker, why isn't AMT relief for these Americans in your package? Doesn't the Republican leadership care about these middle class American taxpayers? Doesn't the Republican leadership care that these people will be losing everything they've worked so hard for? I would like to thank my Democratic colleagues, in particular Minority Leader Gephardt, Congressman Rangel, and Congressman Neal for their acknowledgement of the seriousness of this tax problem and for their commitment and cooperation in ensuring that this provision was in the Democratic alternative, and Senator Lieberman for taking up the mantle on the Senate side. I would also like to thank Congressman tom Davis for reaching out across the aisle and working with me. I sincerely believed when I began working on this issue that it was one on which to build consensus, one that Republicans could have joined Democrats in supporting on the floor of the House. Unfortunately for our constituents, that is not to be. Mr. Speaker, I vote ``no'' on the Republican Tax Package and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Meet Janine--A Real-life AMT Story Janine Valdivieso, 44, grew up in Southern California, and now works as an office administrator in San Jose. She is married, has three daughters, and lives in a middle-class neighborhood in San Jose. After they were married, Janine and her husband, Joe, began saving for college tuition for their two youngest daughters, and setting aside money to buy stock for their retirement fund. Most of her life, Janine was a Correctional Officer for various government agencies. It wasn't until August 1999, when she was offered a job at Symyx, that she made the decision to enter the private domain. As a part of her overall offer, Janine was granted incentive stock options (ISOs), and like many others, hoped it would offer her family a little better financial future. She accepted a lower salary then she had wanted, because her company offered her ISOs. Janine and her husband Joe (who works for Sandisk) were told by their employers that they would not be impacted by alternative minimum tax (AMT), as long as they held on to the stock, and did not sell during the same year, information that would prove to be both incorrect and financially devastating. Janine and Joe followed the advice, and purchased their shares as they vested throughout the year. One transaction in particular was especially damaging. The option, or strike price, was around $3, but the company stock trading on the market closed that day at $94. The alternative minimum tax is assessed based on the difference between the price they paid for the options and the fair market value, or closing price, on that same day. By the end of the year, even though it was a paper profit only because they did not actually sell any of those shares, the Valdivieso's owed tax in the amount of $100,000 in addition to the almost $25,000 they paid throughout the year, an amount greater then their combined annual income. To pay it, they had to sell most of their stock, at a much lower price than what they were taxed on. They also had to sell all of the stock in their retirement funds, and cash in the girls' college tuition savings.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, having had a chance to review the bill before us, I find that I must support the measure. I will say this is not a perfect bill. It is not as thoughtful as the Committee on the Judiciary product, although there is much that we did work on in the bill; but it is better than what the House passed last week. I have been an admirer of the committee chairman's insistence on regular order in the House, and I think that had he been successful in his quest for regular order on this bill, we would have an even better product than we do. I would also like to note, however, that there has been a lot of loose language among people who oppose this bill. And people are perfectly free to disagree with it, but it is important that we not be incorrect about what is actually in the bill. I actually heard someone say that the bill would provide for indefinite incarceration on a mere suspicion by the Attorney General. That is simply not the case. The Attorney General may detain persons, but he has to certify, and he has to have reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is involved in terrorism, and that decision is reviewable by a court. So that is real. To say it is mere suspicion and indefinite is certainly not the case; and of course, there is a 7-day limit where a court would take a look at the case. There are a couple of other issues I wanted to raise. Section 403 and 405 do wonderful things in terms of upgrading technology and integrating law enforcement information with the INS and with the consular officers. However, I think it is important for us to understand that the problem in this arena is not primarily a legislative one. It is a managerial one, and the immigration service has not been successful in implementing the computer efforts that the Congress has already directed them to do. So I am hopeful that the committee can really assert ourselves in our oversight jurisdiction to make sure that the agency actually performs these necessary tasks. Section 814 reiterates a flawed approach to computer hacking; but it is no worse, I think, than current law. And I would point out that the burden of proof on deportation has been shifted in a way that conflicts with the most recent Supreme Court case on that point. Thank goodness we have a severability clause because that provision is likely unconstitutional. These matters could have been corrected had we engaged in regular order. Nevertheless, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is fond of saying let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good; and I think that is good advice.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think this is really a sad day for the House of Representatives and the legislative branch of government. Others will go through the details, but I would like to explain to the Members of the House, who were not a part of the Committee on the Judiciary process, what we went through. I personally participated in lengthy meetings where Republican and Democratic staff of the committee sat down with the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence community; and we went through the proposal line by line. We did not do anything that the Justice Department objected to. In fact, there were huge sections of the bill that would have been thrown out because they were unconstitutional; and we fixed them in the process that we had. Ultimately, we had a unanimous vote on a very tough measure, and I think some people are confused that we did something at odds with the professional staff. We did not. This is a tough measure. Now, is it the perfect answer? Perhaps not. We could work further with the administration. We have worked on a bipartisan basis to make this a good, tough law. The problem is, we are going to have a conference anyhow. The Senate is going to insist that we have a conference, and rather than going through the regular order and taking up the bill that was unanimously passed that would probably get 400 votes here in this Chamber, and then having our conference in the regular order, making additional changes in collaboration with the White House, we are taking a bill that most of the Members will not even know what is in the bill when they vote for it. This is not respectful of the United States Government. This is not respectful of the United States House of Representatives. I think it is a mistake. I voted for the Committee on the Judiciary bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill. It creates wide-ranging authority that I think is appropriate, given the threat that faces this Nation. It allows FISA wiretaps without a warrant. U.S. citizens will be subject to wiretap without judicial review. That is a big deal. That is a very big deal, and I am prepared to do that with some constraints that the Justice Department and the FISA experts agreed with. I believe that on both sides of the aisle, if Members rush to judgment on this, and it is not necessary; we can have this done next week and it would follow the regular order; if Members rush to vote and to do it in this flawed process, we will end up regretting this on both sides of the aisle. The constituency for freedom in America is not limited to Democrats or Republicans. We know that patriotic Americans are aware we are at risk in two ways. One, from the terrorists, and also from destroying the foundations of liberty in this United States.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I do have concerns about the measure before us; but before touching on those concerns, I would like to state here publicly the esteem I have for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the committee, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member. They have really conducted themselves in the very finest manner possible, and I am proud to be serving in this House with the two of them. We worked together on the Committee on the Judiciary understanding that we need to do everything we can to make sure that law enforcement has all the tools necessary to keep our country safe, and we came out with a good measure. It may not be a perfect measure. But there are risks inherent in some of the changes we made, and most particularly the changes made in the area of FISA that my colleague the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) basically mentioned. We are changing the way we deal with the fourth amendment, and we were prepared to do that in the Committee on the Judiciary, provided that we had a review. We had a 2-year sunset clause on that FISA section. Because we are on new ground here, we may be on thin ice; and we wanted to make sure that we force ourselves to review that provision so that the freedoms of Americans are not destroyed as we fight to destroy the terrorists. I am very concerned that the sunset provision relative to FISA and the fourth amendment has not been adhered to in this bill, and I feel obliged to mention that. Also, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) mentioned, we could have had a much tougher bill. We could have given much greater authority in some areas, and we would have had a unanimous vote actually among the Committee on the Judiciary on this floor perhaps for some of those. So I have concerns, but I do very much honor the chairman and ranking member for their efforts.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jackie Thomas, of San Jose, California, on her 50th birthday, which was Saturday, September 29, 2001. Mrs. Thomas was born in 1951 in Little Rock, Arkansas. When she was three, her family moved to California, where they settled in the Bay Area. A member of a single-parent family, Mrs. Thomas helped to take care of her working father and raise her two younger brothers. After marrying and having two children of her own, Mrs. Thomas continued to devote herself to her family. Her selfless dedication to family has been a hallmark of her life. The achievements of Mrs. Thomas' life include more than her success as a mother and wife. She was the first in her family to achieve a college degree. She also maintained her own career as a customer service and inside sales representative in the electronics industry, while supporting her husband's career goals and caring for two small children. I extend to Mrs. Thomas the happiest birthday wishes on her 50th birthday and wish her many more in the years to come.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the dedicated volunteers of the Pro Bono Project of Santa Clara County. The Pro Bono Project uses volunteer attorneys, judges and other legal professionals to represent low income and indigent clients in Santa Clara County in family law cases, including divorce, custody, child/spousal support, and domestic violence issues. Often, the Pro Bono Project is the last chance its clients have at securing representation. The success of the Pro Bono Project is a direct result of 150 volunteers, through whose efforts the Project offered over 200 clients per year over $958,000 in volunteer services. Thanks to these volunteers, the Pro Bono Project was able to staff several clinics, including a Bankruptcy clinic and a Paternity clinic. Pro Bono Project attorneys staff the Domestic Violence Collaboration in conjunction with Bay Area Legal Aid, Battered Women's Support Network, Next Door and South County Alternatives. The Domestic Violence Collaboration provides divorce, support and custody services to victims of domestic violence. The Project's Family Law Mentor Program provides a volunteer mentor attorney in the office every Wednesday to provide family law advice and help to attorneys. With very little funding, the Pro Bono Project does an amazing amount of work. I commend the Project's founders and volunteers. On behalf of Santa Clara County, I thank these remarkable volunteers for all of their hard work.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, I had urged that this Department of Defense spending bill be brought up without including the controversial missile defense program. It was my belief that we, as a Congress, would be best served by taking up a bill that most of us could vote for, which could then be followed with the controversial missile defense bill about which so many of us disagree. Last week, on the floor, I had occasion to discuss the missile defense plan with a Congressman from across the aisle. There has been a lot of that lately, discussions among Republicans and Democrats that are respectful. He said he would vote for ``missile defense'' if it would save one American city from nuclear annihilation. Well, so would I. But this missile defense program won't do that. It won't make us safer. The technology doesn't work. Further, in order to proceed, we also have to abrogate treaties just at the time when we need international allies in the war against terrorism. As the September 11 attacks on our country showed us so terribly, we need more and better defenses. Some of those defenses need to be in the Department of Defense and in the Department of Justice, and I favor increased funding to enhance those capabilities. Enhancement of our intelligence capabilities is also called for along with better coordination and communication between intelligence and law enforcement. Improved airport and airline safety is also a necessity. But spending billions on missile defense, in my view, will not make our country safer. It wouldn't stop the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th and it won't work to stop ``nuclear terrorism'' either. Unfortunately, the technology isn't even advanced enough to stop the so called rogue nations that are identified to be its target. I favor additional funding for avionics, parts, upgraded technology and military pay. I wish I were able to vote for such good things separately from this flawed missile defense plan.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this resolution. Nearly every Member of Congress this week has said this: on Tuesday, September 11, our country was brutally attacked. It was an act of war. It demands response. Under our Constitution, the President of the United States is commander in chief. When America is attacked, he assumes the obligations of the commander in chief. It does not matter whether the President is someone you voted for. Our country has only one President and only one commander in chief. This resolution authorizes the use of force by America. As a matter of law, the War Powers Act may not even require this resolution. The President likely already has the legal authority needed. But this afternoon most of us prayed together at the National Cathedral. At the end of the service, we stood together and we sang ``The Battle Hymn of the Republic.'' As we sang, I could not help but recall that when ``The Battle Hymn of the Republic'' was written, our country was divided, and it was the last time on American soil when massive numbers of Americans died in war, until this Tuesday. At the end of the song, we sang, ``As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.'' While this resolution may not be legally required, it is important to show that we are united; that when America is attacked, Americans stand together. Those who died on Tuesday will have died to make us free.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I heartily support the matter before us today and join with my colleagues in urging its swift passage. Here on Thursday in the Capitol, we are busy at work doing the things that need to be done for our Nation. We are meeting with the appropriate officials in the executive branch, both intelligence, military, and law enforcement. The executive branch is doing its job so that the proper response can be taken, both in terms of the military might of our Nation and also in terms of law enforcement to find the perpetrators, those who are America's enemies and those who have supported America's enemies. Law enforcement and rescue personnel are at work. But the American people want to do something in addition to what their government is doing. And I think actually that this important show of American solidarity will be an inspiration not just to all of us here in the United States but to people around the world, who are already in awe of the solidarity and the unity of the American people. We are the most diverse Nation on the face of the Earth. We come, or our parents do, from every part of the world. Yet we have something in common. We become Americans through our idealism, through our love of this country, through our dedication to liberty and the Constitution, and to our loyalty to each other. Flying the American flag is a symbol, but symbols do count. I have actually been flying my flag at home in San Jose since Tuesday. My children went out with our flag to fly it Tuesday night, we talked on the phone, and my neighbors have done the same. So this is happening spontaneously. I think it is a wonderful thing that the Congress is recognizing the desire of the American people to step forward with a specific symbol, our wonderful flag, to show our unity today. I would ask a further thing. Not every American has a flag handy, so let us call upon the flag makers of the country and the retailers of the country to make extra special efforts to have flags available so that Americans can take this step and make sure that every loyal, patriotic American has the opportunity to make the statement by flying their flag. I thank the author of the bill, and I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for their leadership on this matter.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Judy Evans, who for the past thirty-three years served as the Executive Director of Friends Outside National Organization. Judy Evans retired as of July 1, 2001. Friends Outside National Organization provides parenting education programs and case management services in all 33 California state prisons. Under Judy Evans' leadership Friends Outside National Organization has grown to a $3.9 million dollar agency with 139 employees. Over 9,000 children and 21,000 adults receive services at their prison visitor centers each month. Judy was instrumental in developing an innovative family reunification partnership with the San Francisco Department of Human Services. Through this program, Friends Outside National staff members are able to facilitate successful reunifications between incarcerated parents and their children in conjunction with county social workers. These children are all in foster care or kinship placement. The goal is to assist the birth parent, whenever appropriate, to regain physical custody after release, with the ongoing support of social services. This program directs resources to where they can be used most effectively: to the family. Judy Evans has mentored a generation of social service professionals who continue the difficult work of counseling families caught up in the criminal justice system. Her example will serve as an inspiration, not only to them, but to all of us. Previous to her Executive Director position at Friends Outside National, Judy served as the Santa Clara County chapter's Executive Director for ten years, as well as its Director of Family Services for twelve years. Additionally, Judy has served the community through the YMCA, Correctional Institutions Chaplaincy, Justice System Advisory Board, The Women's Fund and the Association of United Way Executives. Judy has received awards of recognition by the Pathway Society, California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, California Department of Corrections and the Community Alliance Program for Ex- Offenders. I, along with many others, thank her for her years of service to the State of California and to our District.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Los Altos Police Chief Lucy Carlton, who will be retiring on September 28, 2001 after 32 years of service. Chief Carlton began her law enforcement career in 1969 with the Milpitas Police Department. Chief Carlton served in a variety of assignments, which included Patrol, Criminal Investigation and Community Relations. Lucy Carlton was the first female in the organization to be assigned to patrol duty and during her tenure, promoted through the ranks to Police Captain in 1988. In 1991, Ms. Carlton was appointed Chief of Police for the City of Los Altos, becoming the second woman in the State of California to serve as a Chief of Police for a municipality. Chief Carlton has been a trailblazer throughout her career, breaking the ``glass ceiling'' for every one of her promotions. Lucy Carlton's efforts have paved the road, so that others might follow. Police Chief Carlton holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Administration of Criminal Justice from San Jose State University and has completed graduate work in Public Administration at California State University, Hayward. also holds a lifetime Teaching Credential from the State of California and has taught classes at San Jose State University, and Evergreen, Gavilan, San Jose City and Chabot Colleges. Ms. Carlton has lectured throughout the United States in the field of adult and child sexual abuse investigation. During her assignment in the investigation bureau, she was certified as an expert witness in the area of child sexual abuse. Lucy Carlton is the past chair of the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council, the Santa Clara County Police Chiefs Association and the Administration of Justice Foundation at San Jose State University. Ms. Carlton has served on the board of the California Peace Officers' Association and currently serves on the board of the California Police Chiefs' Association. During her career, Chief Carlton has worked on a number of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) projects, which resulted in the development of training guidelines for officers in the area of sexual assault and child abuse investigations. She also served on the Department of Justice task force, which developed State guidelines for the implementation of Megan's Law. Lucy Carlton has mentored dozens of men and women preparing for entry into law enforcement, as well as those preparing for promotional exams. In 1998 she assisted in the development of a series of classes for both men and women on the subject of Women's Issues in Law Enforcement. Chief Carlton has taught in the program since its inception. Lucy Carlton has volunteered hundreds of hours to the Milpitas- Berryessa YMCA and served on their board for eight years. In 1995 she was named their volunteer of the year. She also serves on the advisory boards of WATCH (a transitional housing program for battered women and their children) and the Support Network for Battered Women. In 1990, she was named ``Woman of Police Chief Lucy Carlton has been a valuable asset to the State of California and to our district. Though her commitment and dedication will be sorely missed, I am grateful to her for her years of service and wish her the best in the next phase of her life.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday America experienced tragedy. With the collapse of the World Trade Center and the penetration of the Pentagon by hijacked aircraft, thousands of Americans lost their lives. We all mourn, and we are all resolved to take new steps to secure again the safety of our country. We Americans stand together now. As Americans, we will insist that these American deaths be accounted for and that American lives lost will not come without an extraordinarily high cost to those who are our enemies and those who help and support our enemy. As we move ahead through each day, there is something that we must remember and take comfort in: a great nation is defined by great peoples. We saw this greatness yesterday in the heroism of firefighters and police and volunteers who tried to save others. We saw it in the victims on planes who, while facing certain death, called ground forces with information that today are helping us put together the evidentiary pieces to identify our enemies. We Americans, our heritage may be Irish, Chinese, German, Italian, and many more; we are Catholic, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant, and more. It is important to remember that it is not how we look or how we dress or the religion we follow that distinguishes us as Americans. No, instead, it is our commitment to liberty, our dedication to the American beacon of liberty and the passion with which we love America. Let us punish America's enemies, but take care never to dishonor our country by blaming other loyal Americans merely because of their religion or ethnicity. Mr. Speaker, our country will emerge stronger after enduring these attacks. Today, our hearts and prayers go out to those who are lost and to their families; and, as a diverse and united people, we pray together that God bless the United States of America.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose House Joint Resolution 51, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. I am fortunate to represent Santa Clara county, an area in California with a vibrant Vietnamese-American population. Quite a few of my constituents came to San Jose as refugees escaping an oppressive political regime. Over the last 25 years, as the Santa Clara County supervisor, as an administration lawyer, and as a Member of Congress, I have worked closely with these Americans; and many of them have become my friends. I value their knowledge, experience, and support, and believe they have a unique perspective on the United States' relationship with Vietnam. While we are told that the government in Vietnam is making progress in the area of human rights, I continue to hear about religious persecution, political persecution, and unwarranted detentions from my friends in the Vietnamese community. During the past 12 months, the Vietnamese Government has intensified its campaign of brutal oppression, especially against religious leaders and ethnic minorities. When I, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) hosted a hearing on human rights in Vietnam this spring, we learned of this firsthand. One after another, religious leaders testified to the lack of religious freedom in Vietnam. Several invited witnesses were unable to leave Vietnam to deliver their testimony in the face of government threats. They smuggled out written or audio testimony so their stories could be heard. In light of the government crackdown on religions, dissidents, and minorities, unconditional ratification of the bilateral trade agreement will send the wrong message to the Vietnamese leadership. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended that the U.S. Congress ratify the BTA only on the condition that Vietnam undertake substantial improvements in its policy towards and treatment of religion. I am a firm believer in trade. I have voted repeatedly for trade agreements, but the situation in Vietnam is different. We have a clear opportunity to change the course of the nation's behavior by denying it what it desires greatly, a trading relationship with America. President Bush, please stand up to the communists in Vietnam and insist on human rights in exchange for trade. We have the tools at hand to improve the human rights situation in Vietnam. I ask my colleagues how they justify not using this tool when so many have asked for our help.