Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This bill, I believe, is trying to protect sports organizations, but, unfortunately, it does leave children unprotected from child molesters. We know that sexual predators volunteer to be involved with children's sports programs and pedophiles routinely use the bond between coach and athlete to prey on children. A Seattle Times investigation uncovered 159 coaches who had been reprimanded or fired for sexual misconduct between 1993 and 2003, and of those coaches, 98 continued to coach or teach children. An investigation in Texas uncovered 60 incidents of high school coaches being fired or reprimanded as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct with minors. And last month a Maryland high school basketball coach was charged with abusing three minors. This amendment, the amendment to the bill that has been mentioned, does not fix the problem of providing liability relief to these nonprofits. The bill exempts claims based on Federal, State, and local statutes concerning sexual assault, molestation, or harassment. But the bill grants complete immunity for claims of negligence in establishing rules related to adult supervision. I have here a letter from a scholar, Professor Andy Popper, a professor at the American University School of Law, and I would like to read just a small portion of his letter: ``Common-law tort claims for failure to exercise due care in hiring coaches, investigating backgrounds, or overseeing inappropriate activity would be actionable, but I think a plain reading of section 4(d) and section 5 suggests that those claims would be barred, and that is really quite horrendous from the perspective of children who might be victimized by adults treated in ways that are patently destructive from an emotional or psychological vantage point. What possible reason could there be to pass this bill?'' And he goes on to say: ``After reading the bill, I see no language that exempts State common-law tort claims. To the contrary, the specific areas exempted, labor law, antitrust law, statutory claims, et cetera, suggests that Congress intends to exempt very specific areas only. Given that list in 4(d), unless the bill were amended to include an exemption for all State common-law tort claims, the bill will be seen as a bar to cases involving negligent hiring, failing to assess background, negligent oversight of individuals who may well do great harm to children, to athletes, to those most in need of protection.'' I would like to note that the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence has asked us to vote against this bill, as amended. And the reason why, and I quote from President Hostler's letter, as the leading national sexual assault victim advocacy organization, we believe the passage of this bill would create serious problems for victims and would not allow them to hold perpetrators and organizations responsible. Now, the amended bill tells athletic organizations that they owe children no duty of care. The bill takes away any incentive to take reasonable steps to keep child molesters out and to keep children safe. Do I suggest that the authors of this bill intend to protect child molesters? I can't imagine that they do. But intent doesn't matter. We are writing law here. And the impact of adopting this bill would, in fact, be to protect child molesters. Now, I am someone who really believes in Little League. My dad was a Little League manager my entire young life. I have strong memories of sitting in the stands day after day, month after month, watching my brother catch the ball. I believe in Little League. But I also know that my dad, were he alive today, would say, I don't believe in protecting child molesters.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a woman who whose quiet contributions in her support for her family make her community of supporters proud. A native Californian and the daughter of immigrants, Julia Pon grew up on the orange groves of San Juan Capistrano, and after graduation from San Francisco College for Women, came to Santa Clara Valley to join her husband, Joe, in working and caring for the orchards for which our valley was world famous. As a great tribute to her patience and understanding, Julia Pon raised 9 children with her husband. As Julia celebrates her 80th birthday on December 10, 2006, we celebrate a strong and courageous woman who has raised family members who have become successful members of society and who has lived a demonstrable life.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Dennis Kennedy who has served the City of Morgan Hill in various capacities for the past 30 years. Since 1977, one year after Mr. Kennedy moved to Morgan Hill, he has been involved in various roles within the City of Morgan Hill's local government. He served three terms on the Planning Commission and two terms on the General Plan Update Committee. In 1990 he stood for election and won a seat on the City Council. He has served four terms as the mayor of the City of Morgan Hill. He was appointed to his first term in 1992. In 1996, he became the first directly elected mayor and was re-elected in 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004. He is past chairman of the South County Regional Wastewater Authority, has served two terms on the Board of Directors of the Valley Transportation Authority and is a past-president of the Santa Clara Cities Association. Mr. Kennedy has always been mindful of his commitment to the Santa Clara Valley and, although he was born in Nebraska, he has acted like a true local when community interests were at stake. Mr. Kennedy moved to San Jose, California during his high school years and attended Bellarmine College Preparatory School in San Jose. He earned a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering from Santa Clara University and served as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army. Professionally, it has been a pleasure to work with Mr. Kennedy because he sincerely cares about the residents of the City of Morgan Hill and their interests. I know I stand with many other thankful constituents in congratulating Mr. Kennedy on his years of service and wishing him the very best for his retirement.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Vietnam. Just two months ago, the Vietnamese government arrested my constituent, a U.S. citizen, Cong Thanh Do. Mr. Do had posted comments on the Internet while at home in San Jose, California advocating that Vietnam undergo a peaceful transition to a multi-party democracy. For exercising his U.S. Constitutional right of free speech, the Vietnamese arrested him and held him in prison for 38 days in Vietnam without charges. Other U.S. citizens have been imprisoned in Vietnam for what appear to be political reasons, including the sister of another one of my constituents, Thuong Nguyen ``Cuc'' Foshee. Although both are free today and back in America, I am concerned about hundreds of Vietnamese nationals as well as other U.S. citizens imprisoned in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government has repeatedly violated human rights. Hundreds of Vietnamese have been imprisoned, put under house arrest, or placed under intense surveillance for simply practicing their religion or speaking out about democracy and human rights in Vietnam. Following his return to the U.S., Mr. Do provided me a disturbing list of over 130 Vietnamese nationals and U.S. citizens he believes are currently imprisoned in Vietnam as prisoners of conscience or harassed by the government for simply speaking about democracy and human rights. In addition, groups such as the Human Rights Watch have published reports of 355 Montagnard prisoners of conscience currently imprisoned in Vietnam. I am not alone in my concerns about Vietnam's human rights record. The Department of State, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Amnesty International, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and various Vietnamese-American groups have documented egregious violations of religious freedom, human rights, and free speech in Vietnam. I have been a supporter of international trade. But I also know that the Vietnamese Government would correct their behavior in order to perfect a trading relationship with the United States. Given the alarming human rights violations currently underway in Vietnam, it seems a mistake for our country to grant PNTR to Vietnam without requiring that the Vietnamese Government make significant improvements in respecting human rights, free speech, and freedom of religion. The United States of America has a long and honorable tradition of safeguarding freedom and human rights throughout the world, especially with our trading partners. We should not make an exception for Vietnam. At a time when we are spending 8 to 10 billion dollars a month and shedding the blood of our American servicemen and women proclaiming the cause to be democracy for Iraq, how is it that we can fail to use our mere economic leverage to try to achieve human rights in Vietnam?

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, years before Sue Ramanathan became Democratic Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director on the Committee on Homeland Security, I had the pleasure of having due on my personal staff for 5 years as Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor on immigration, trade, tax, and many other issues. On my staff, Sue was always ready and willing to use her keen understanding of immigration policy to work with me on several pieces of immigration related legislation, knowledge and experience she used so well in her tenure on the Homeland Security Committee. In fact, Sue became known as one of a select few staff members in the House of Representatives with a deep knowledge of immigration policy. In other words, Sue was the ``go-to'' staff member on immigration. While Sue demonstrated a strong expertise in immigration policy both on my staff and as Chief Counsel on Homeland Security, Sue also had a passion and interest in other policy areas. From technology and trade to tax and foreign policy, Sue always had a powerful grasp of the issues. After almost 10 years as a staff member in the House of Representatives, Sue has now moved onto the General Accountability Office. Congress has lost a valuable staff member, but the GAO has gained a tremendous asset. I am proud that Sue was once a member of my staff, and grateful that she served the Congress as a whole on the staff of the Homeland Security Committee. I wish her the best in her new position at the GAO.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Chuck Geschke and Mr. John Warnock, founders of Adobe Systems, Inc. Although each man is most definitely worthy of his own separate congressional accolade, it is their teamwork and their shared passion that created a company that invented new forms of communication that assists thousands if not millions of people on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Geschke and Mr. Warnock are industry pioneers in the true spirit of Silicon Valley. Prior to co-founding Adobe, Geschke and Warnock worked at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, PARC. Unable to convince Xerox management of the commercial value of Mr. Warnock's Interpress graphics language for controlling printing, the two boldly left Xerox to start Adobe. At their new company, they developed an equivalent technology, PostScript, from scratch and brought it to market. Today, their technology is ubiquitous. It assists hundreds, if not thousands of businesspeople, families, artists, entrepreneurs and dreamers in sharing their ideas across platforms and without boundaries. Their ignition of the desktop publishing revolution through PostScript technology created new opportunities for the use, digitization and compression of ideas, images, and text. Their vision has evolved into a multi-solution approach to various challenges that include household names such as Acrobat, Illustrator and Photoshop--no longer a circus performer, an artistic occupation and a place to get film developed--but cool new ways to communicate, efficiently and clearly. Geschke and Warnock's entrepreneurial success has been chronicled by some of the country's most influential business and computer industry publications, and they have received numerous awards for technical and managerial achievement, including their most recent, the Medal of Achievement Award from the American Electronics Association. Innovation is rarely the effort of one person or one idea, but is rather the symbiosis of knowledge, intellect, genius, creativity, entrepreneurship, risk-taking and, in Silicon Valley, a kind of fleeting wing-and-a-prayer faith that things will turn out for the best. Mr. Geschke and Mr. Warnock have certainly filled the giant footsteps of their predecessors by taking their bold idea, based upon well-studied science and invention, moving forward with it and daring to do the impossible. It is an honor to stand here in the shadow of their achievements and thank them for their contributions and the example they have set for the hopeful engineers, entrepreneurs and businesspeople of the coming generations.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, this is a day I have waited for for a long time, and I really want to commend the author, the ranking member, Ms. Waters, and all of the committee for bringing this bill before us. I come from a county where the median price of a single-family home is almost $800,000, where 800-foot condos sell for about $500,000. As you might imagine, the FHA program simply does not work and hasn't for a long time. Recently, there was an analysis done in California. Factoring in housing costs, California has one of the poorest populations of the 50 States, and this measure is going to help tremendously for normal working families to have an opportunity to get that piece of the American Dream. And I really am very pleased that it is here today. I think I have asked Mr. Frank on a weekly basis when this is going to be done, and I really commend you for moving this forward and I understand there is a significant chance the Senate will do so as well. It is very important. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it was clear from the beginning that the executive branch lacked the authority to create courts without the Congress passing laws to provide for them, so it is important and proper that Congress create courts so that terrorist suspects can be swiftly tried, found guilty, and be punished. Unfortunately, this bill will not accomplish that. Others have spoken well about the deficiencies in the definition of who may be incarcerated without charge forever, but I want to particularly object to the provisions suspending habeas corpus. America is a proud free Nation because we are a Nation of laws, not men. Key to the rule of law is the brilliant system of checks and balances created by the Founding Fathers. This bill dumps the checks and balances by asserting that the courts cannot review the actions of the executive branch. While poorly crafted rules are included in the bill, rules without remedies are not real rules. Not only is it unwise, it is mostly unconstitutional. And instead of allowing for swift prosecution and punishment, enactment of this bill into law will lead to years of further legal wrangling. We all took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, and here is what article I, section 9 says: ``the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' Congress may not suspend the great writ of habeas corpus and limit the checks and balances whenever it wants to. Congress may do so only in cases of rebellion and invasion, neither of which is present today. Nine distinguished retired justices have written to bring this to our attention. I include their letter for the Record. To Members of Congress: The undersigned retired federal judges write to express our deep concern about the lawfulness of Section 6 of the proposed Military Commissions Act of 2006 (``MCA''). The MCA threatens to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to test the lawfulness of Executive detention at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station and elsewhere outside the United States. Section 6 applies ``to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of [the MCA] which relate to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of an alien detained outside of the United States . . . since September 11, 2001.'' We applaud Congress for taking action establishing procedures to try individuals for war crimes and, in particular, Senator Warner, Senator Graham, and others for ensuring that those procedures prohibit the use of secret evidence and evidence gained by coercion. Revoking habeas corpus, however, creates the perverse incentive of allowing individuals to be detained indefinitely on that very basis by stripping the federal courts of their historic inquiry into the lawfulness of a prisoner's confinement. More than two years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), that detainees at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their detention in federal court by habeas corpus. Last December, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act, eliminating jurisdiction over future habeas petitions filed by prisoners at Guantanamo, but expressly preserving existing jurisdiction over pending cases. In June, the Supreme Court affirmed in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), that the federal courts have the power to hear those pending cases. These cases should be heard by the federal courts for the reasons that follow. The habeas petitions ask whether there is a sufficient factual and legal basis for a prisoner's detention. This inquiry is at once simple and momentous. Simple because it is an easy matter for judges to make this determination--federal judges have been doing this every day, in every courtroom in the country, since this Nation's founding. Momentous because it safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy--ensuring that no man is imprisoned unlawfully. Without habeas, federal courts will lose the power to conduct this inquiry. We are told this legislation is important to the ineffable demands of national security, and that permitting the courts to play their traditional role will somehow undermine the military's effort in fighting terrorism. But this concern is simply misplaced. For decades, federal courts have successfully managed both civil and criminal cases involving classified and top secret information. Invariably, those cases were resolved fairly and expeditiously, without compromising the interests of this country. The habeas statute and rules provide federal judges ample tools for controlling and safeguarding the flow of information in court, and we are confident that Guantanamo detainee cases can be handled under existing procedures. Furthermore, depriving the courts of habeas jurisdiction will jeopardize the Judiciary's ability to ensure that Executive detentions are not grounded on torture or other abuse. Senator John McCain and others have rightly insisted that the proposed military commissions established to try terror suspects of war crimes must not be permitted to rely on evidence secured by unlawful coercion. But stripping district courts of habeas jurisdiction would undermine this goal by permitting the Executive to detain without trial based on the same coerced evidence. Finally, eliminating habeas jurisdiction would raise serious concerns under the Suspension Clause of the Constitution. The writ has been suspended only four times in our Nation's history, and never under circumstances like the present. Congress cannot suspend the writ at wi1l, even during wartime, but only in ``Cases of Rebellion or Invasion [when] the public safety may require it.'' U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 2. Congress would thus be skating on thin constitutional ice in depriving the federal courts of their power to hear the cases of Guantanamo detainees. At a minimum, Section 6 would guarantee that these cass would be mired in protracted litigation for years to come. If one goal of the provision is to bring these cases to a speedy conclusion, we can assure you from our considerable experience that eliminating habeas would be counterproductive. For two hundred years, the federal judiciary has maintained Chief Justice Marshall's solemn admonition that ours is a government of laws, and not of men. The proposed legislation imperils this proud history by abandoning the Great Writ to the siren call of military necessity. We urge you to remove the provision stripping habeas jurisdiction from the proposed Military Commissions Act of 2006 and to reject any legislation that deprives the federal courts of habeas jurisdiction over pending Guantanamo detainee cases. Respectfully, Judge John J. Gibbons, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1969-1987), Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1987-1990). Judge Shirley M. Hufstedler, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1968-1979). Judge Nathaniel R. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1979-2002). Judge Timothy K. Lewis, U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (1991-1992), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1992-1999). Judge William A. Norris, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1980-1997). Judge George C. Pratt, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (1976-1982), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1982-1995). Judge H. Lee Sarokin, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (1979-1994), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1994-1996). William S. Sessions, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (1974-1980), Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (1980-1987). Judge Patricia M. Wald, U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit (1979-1999), Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appea]s for District of Columbia Circuit (1986- 1991). We should be pulling together as a country to track down these terrorists and bring them to justice instead of facing this unconstitutional and divisive measure that was brought before us as part of a political agenda with an eye on the midterm elections, instead of a bill that would unify us as part of an American agenda with an eye to the continued greatness and security of our country.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, really, we are talking a lot, but if we had acted in the last 12 years, we would be in a lot better situation. It has been mentioned that violent gang members should not be admitted to the United States and that somehow we need to change the law in order to accomplish that. I would note, however, that under section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, gang members are already inadmissible to the United States; and if we had adequate personnel, they would have been turned away at the border. And thinking about what we could have done, we could have voted the resources over the years to do that. I will just mention a few votes that every Republican on the floor voted against. In 2001, rollcall vote No. 454 in November of 2001, Democrats suggested that we add $223 million for border security to help meet the promises of the PATRIOT Act on border staffing and what the 9/11 Commission recommended. What happened? On a party-line vote, that additional resources to keep gang members out was defeated. In 2003, rollcall vote No. 301 in June of 2003, Republicans voted against consideration of an amendment that would have added $300 million for border security, including making a further down payment on the promise of the Congress in the 2001 PATRIOT Act to triple the number of border agents and inspectors along the northern border, and all the Republicans on the floor here today voted against that. Vote No. 305 in 2003 was additional appropriations that Democrats were recommending, $300 million, again to enhance border security and keep gang members and others out of the United States. And again Republicans all voted against it; the Democrats voted for it. Rollcall vote No. 243 in 2004, again Republicans voted against consideration of an amendment that would have added $750 million for border security. In 2005, rollcall vote No. 160, Democrats tried again, and Republicans voted against a motion to report back to conference with instructions to add $284 million for additional border security measures. That $284 million would have included funding for an additional 550 Border Patrol agents, 200 additional immigration agents, and additional border aerial vehicles. In 2005, rollcall vote 174, once again Republicans voted against consideration of amendments that would have added $400 million to border security. And later in 2005, rollcall vote No. 187, Republicans voted against a Democratic substitute that would have added 800 additional immigration agents and 8,000 additional detention beds, helping to meet the promise of the 9/11 Commission. In 2005, rollcall vote 188, again Republicans voted against a motion to recommit the Homeland Security Authorization bill with instructions so that we could add 800 additional immigration agents and 8,000 additional detention beds. And, of course, rollcall vote 56 in 2006, Republicans defeated an amendment to H.R. 4939, the supplemental approps that would have added $600 million for border security measures in the bill, including $400 million for installation, 1,500 radiation portal monitors and air patrols and the like. Again, rollcall vote 210 this year, Republicans voted against consideration of an amendment that would have added $2.1 billion for border security, helping us to meet our commitments by adding additional Border Patrol agents, immigration agents, and detention beds. Now, in the face of all of this negativism, we have here in the last 6 days of this Congress fluff. Fluff. I don't think the American people are going to buy it.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, as the ranking member has mentioned, I am a member of the Immigration Subcommittee and also the Homeland Security Committee. As a consequence, I had an opportunity to participate in some of these so-called immigration hearings in the last several months. I must say that the impression that one receives, the inevitable impression, is that there has been a lot of talk, but as they say in the South, not much walk. Unfortunately, I think today is more of the same. Since 1995, when the Senate and House gained their Republican majorities, 5.3 million undocumented immigrants have come into the United States. Since 2001, when President Bush assumed the Presidency, over 2 million undocumented immigrants came into the United States. We have seen 12 years, basically, 12 years of Republican rule in the House and Senate, their power, and basically nothing has happened. Nothing has happened. And now with 5 legislative days left before we adjourn and go out to meet our voters, there are these bills that are being brought to the floor that haven't had hearings, that don't scratch the issues of the real security issues that face us. Interesting enough, these bills don't even come close to what several of the witnesses at what Congressman Flake termed the ``faux'' hearings in August, what those witnesses told us. For example, Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles County, I think the largest sheriff's jurisdiction in the country, said he supported comprehensive reform, not piecemeal reform and sets of bills that failed to address the full border security issue. I think if we take a look at the substance of these bills, and I don't think that is even what is intended here, but if we do, we will see how little these proposals would actually accomplish. No one is going to stick up for criminal alien gangs, not me, not anybody. But the provisions in the act are not going to be effective. The State and local cooperation, the enforcement of the Immigration Law Act, does not require police to report immigration status of crime victims, and it really is not going to do what I think the authors suggest. Title II, is a provision, it is a sense of the Congress that the Attorney General should adopt guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses. That should have been done quite some time ago. It reminds me of the bill that we passed earlier this week, and I was unable to be on the floor, where we urge that the Attorney General and the Department of Homeland Security gain control of our borders in 18 months' time. What about now? What about the last 12 years? So again, we are going through pretty much a charade here. Meanwhile, the President zeroed out funding for the State criminal alien assistance program. Really every year since 2001 he has zeroed it out, and the Republican-controlled Congress barely funded it at half of what was authorized. In fiscal year 2006, Congress only appropriated $405 million even though $750 million was authorized. The list of failures goes on and on, but the truth or the proof is in the pudding. And I think as voters take a look at a situation that is not a good one, the border is not orderly, at millions of illegal aliens who have come in under the watch of the Republican Congress and see here today the scrambling around to look like we are doing something, I think they will understand that they are being played for fools.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, there is something we can all agree on in this Chamber and that is that only Americans get to vote, and they only get to vote once. But what we are talking about in this bill is disenfranchising many of those Americans. It is already a felony for a non-American to vote. Now, when this bill was introduced, the committee made it part of Immigration August. We had hearings around the country, and what we found out was that the issue of so-called illegal aliens voting basically does not occur. As the League of Women Voters has said, the voter fraud addressed by this bill is a rare problem, and the witness in New Mexico said she had never seen it in her entire professional career. And if you think about it, it makes sense. Illegal aliens are sneaking across the border for a job, not to vote. We also got testimony that the impact of this will disproportionately affect poor people and African Americans. In fact, in a Milwaukee study, they found that 78 percent of the African American men aged 18 to 24 had no driver's license. Why? Because they are too poor to have a car and they do not have a license. In New Mexico, we heard from Mr. Yahzee, a Navajo, who told us that the Navajos basically do not have this ID and they cannot get it either because they do not have birth certificates, they do not have electricity, they do not have phones. They do not have the document, but they are the original Americans. They were the code talkers. They are entitled to vote, but under this bill they would not be able to vote. I do not know about this poll, but I think if you ask 81 percent of Americans whether the Navajo should not be allowed to vote, they would say, well, of course not. Now, recently there was a measure put into place to have Medicaid recipients have a photo ID, and we had to repeal that rule. And you know why? Because we would have had to see old people evicted from nursing homes because they could not come up with that photo ID. Well, I tell you, if you cannot come up with a photo ID to save your life, you are not going to be able to come up with a photo ID to vote either. That must be why the AARP is against this measure. So why is this before us today? We have no evidence there is a problem. We have ample evidence in the testimony that this will disenfranchise many Americans. I must say that the Republican Party is doing this throughout the United States. This is the measure to disenfranchise African Americans, Native Americans. It is wrong and we will not stand for it.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Luther Burbank School District in San Jose, California on its 100th anniversary. Luther Burbank School District's noble mission is to educate students from kindergarten to eighth grade. Although diversity is welcomed, significant challenges confront this public school system. In the 2003- 2004 school year 85 percent of the students were Hispanic, 5 percent Black and 7 percent White. Of all the District's students, 78 percent participated in the National School Lunch Program and 64 percent of the students were English Language Learners. Despite the challenges to comprehensive multicultural and multilingual education, Luther Burbank School District has met the challenges of racial, ethnic and religious diversity within the public school system. Over the past 5 years, Luther Burbank School District has increased its California Academic Performance Index by over 200 points, thereby exceeding the state average. As the test scores and the school district's rankings have risen, so has the recognition that Luther Burbank School District has received. The school district is now a school of choice in San Jose, California. Luther Burbank School District is a center of activity and growth in the community. Local residents are continuously invited and involved in many aspects of the school district. Luther Burbank School District welcomes parent and community involvement in the education and activities of the school and English as a Second Language classes are provided to the community during the evening hours to more closely connect the residents of this culturally diverse neighborhood. The school district utilizes innovative teaching methods that include technology in the classroom and current instructional materials. The school district focuses on the academic growth of their students so that they may make positive contributions to their community and to society. I am hopeful that the innovative and exemplary model portrayed by the Luther Burbank School District remains in my congressional district and spreads to many other lucky neighborhoods in the coming years.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on August 14, the communist government in Vietnam arrested an American, my constituent, Cong Thanh Do, while he was visiting as a tourist in Vietnam with his family. It took a full week for the State Department to even be notified of his arrest, and more than 2 weeks before the Vietnamese Government even allowed the State Department to meet with Mr. Do. The State Department has repeatedly assured me that Mr. Do is nothing more than a peaceful democracy and human rights activist who has written articles posted on the Internet while he was living in the United States. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has had the gall to keep this American citizen imprisoned and incommunicado for nearly a month. At the same time, they are making gestures to the United States of America suggesting that they should have permanent normal trade relations with us. It is absolutely unbelievable that the communist government would think we would entertain that while they keep our American locked up.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, with energy costs at an all-time high in the United States, climate change threatening the future prosperity of our country and our planet, the Taliban regaining control in Afghanistan, Iraq in meltdown, the U.S. saddled with the largest debt in the history of the world, the real wages of average Americans in decline, 42 million Americans without health care insurance, and most of the 9/11 Commission recommendations to make America safe still not implemented by this Congress, it is unbelievable to me that we are spending this day on the horse meat bill. Now I commute 3,000 miles from California to Washington to serve the people, as we all do, to serve the people. And I am for the horsies, too. I will vote for it. We could have done it by consent. We could have done it on voice vote. I cannot believe that we are here today using the very limited time left to this Congress to deal with horse meat. Now, I hope that we can come to our senses, that the Republican leadership in this House will get a grip about what the American public needs us to do to serve their interests, to make sure that they are secure, both from an economic point of view, from international terrorism and to deal with the terrible disaster that has become Iraq and the disaster that is growing in Afghanistan. As I say, I am happy to vote for the horsie bill, but I am ashamed that that is all we are doing here today.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, climate change threatens the security and stability of our planet. The temperature of the earth is increasing at a rate unseen in modern times. Climate forecasters predict that if greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at the current rate, temperatures may rise dramatically, weather patterns sharply shift, ice sheets shrink, and seas rise. Rising gas prices and instability in oil producing regions have reinforced the need for the United States to secure our energy independence. We can make progress by developing and distributing alternatively fueled vehicles. Through innovation as well as existing technology, we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and promote energy efficiency and conservation to secure a safer future for our country and the environment. Alternatively fueled vehicles, such as those that use E85 ethanol fuel, could reduce our use of petroleum fuels by up to 40 percent, helping our country move towards sustainable energy independence. E85 ethanol fuel can be produced from agricultural products grown here in the United States, so that money spent on fuel supports farmers in the Midwest, not countries in the Middle East. Congress must do more to make alternative fueled vehicles practical and accessible to every American. There are currently only six million E85-capable vehicles on U.S. roads, compared to approximately 230 million gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, according to the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. Only 556 fuel stations in the entire country currently provide E85 fuel, with only four of these located in California. That is why I am introducing this bill to encourage manufacturers to provide a flex fuel opportunity to American consumers and to develop the infrastructure necessary for a cleaner energy future. We must do more to make alternatively fueled vehicles practical and accessible to everyone. The cost of producing flex fuel capable vehicles is minimal at the time of manufacture, but there are currently few incentives for the production of flex fuel vehicles and a lack of infrastructure to service them. My bill will encourage the production of more alternatively fueled vehicles by phasing in a tax penalty on the manufacture or import of new, non-flex fuel vehicles. However, since the cost to manufacture fleets that are flex fuel capable as compared to gasoline powered vehicles is nearly nil, it will be easy for manufacturers or importers to avoid these costs completely. Any revenues generated would be used to help independent gas station owners install alternative fuel equipment. This bill is a good first step towards securing our energy independence, and I hope that Congress will move quickly to pass this important legislation and help America move towards a more secure and sustainable future.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), I represent Silicon Valley and we certainly know the need for this legislation in Silicon Valley. As Ms. Eshoo has indicated, this bill has the support of the high-tech sector, and for a very good reason. According to a recent report, 41 percent of Fortune 500 IT executives identified power and cooling problems for their data centers. In my own district in San Jose, we had a server farm that wanted to go in. Everybody wanted it. We had to build a power plant to actually accommodate the server farm. We are looking for energy efficiencies in this sector. We know that climate change threatens the security and stability of our planet and economy, and everything we can do to reduce power consumption and sustain energy independence is a good thing for our planet and for our society. I would just note that we have come a long way since I was a youngster when computers took up a room and we had punch cards and the heat and power drag was incredible. If we can reduce power consumption, we can up efficiency and production as well. This bill is a good step. The Energy Star program does not include this sector today, so this is an important step forward. I hope that this measure will be supported by a wide margin in the House. There is no reason in the world that I can think of that any Member of this House should not vote for it. I commend Members on both sides of the aisle for their leadership in bringing this forward.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and commend the Children's Musical Theater of San Jose, CMT, for winning a National Endowment for the Arts, NEA, grant award. The Children's Musical Theater of San Jose was the only theater company in California--and the only children's theater nationwide--to receive the prestigious American Masterpieces Grant. The Children's Musical Theater of San Jose trains and educates today's youth so that they will become the artists, patrons, and leaders of tomorrow. CMT combines a commitment to casting all auditioners with the professionalism of a premier children's theater. A vital ingredient to their success has been the leadership and vision of Artistic Director Kevin R. Hauge. Mr. Hauge is as interested in the development of his actors as he is in the production of theater; he continually works to augment the interpersonal skills and self- confidence of the children while creating immensely popular performances. I am proud to recognize the Children's Musical Theater for its great success in theater and in the development of its talented young actors. CMT is a deserving recipient of a National Endowment for the Arts American Masterpieces Grant. Artistic and creative innovation is part of what makes America a vibrant society, and I commend the Children's Musical Theater for their contribution to San Jose and our Nation's cultural wealth.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, I rise in gratitude to recognize the efforts of the International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, INPEA, in their extraordinary attempts to raise awareness of elder abuse (which encompasses neglect or mal or mistreatment) throughout the world. The nature of abuse as a hidden problem is now universally accepted. INPEA, as coauthor of the report Missing Voice, 2002, with the World Health Organization, states that ``abuse, neglect and financial exploitation of elders are much more common than societies admit.'' Missing Voices demonstrates clear links between elder abuse, and disempowerment and discrimination. INPEA claims that ``ultimately the challenge for us all is not only to listen to what has been said, but to believe and act upon it.'' The key objective of World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, WEAAD, is to raise awareness of the ubiquity of elder abuse and its consequences throughout the world. World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, seeks to foster independence and empowerment for older adults to act for themselves and on their own behalf; and to enable older adults to exercise their rights and advocate for their own interests. WEAAD also attempts to educate people that older adults need to be aware of the problem and of their rights, as well as available services and resources in their community. Due to the collaborative efforts across the nation, World Elder Abuse Awareness Day places an emphasis on the need to encourage closer and more positive contact between generations and to strengthen the positive attitudes among youth toward their elders. Continued education and prevention efforts worldwide need to emphasize closer relations between generations and I join my colleagues in recognizing all of those community groups across our great Nation that have made this issue a priority in their value system. Such laudable family tenets will only serve to create a more caring, thus stable society. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues--Representatives Capps, Cardoza, Eshoo, Honda, Lantos, Lee, Linda Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Schiff and Tauscher--join me in recognizing INPEA for their dedication and tireless efforts in raising awareness of elderly abuse and its consequences. Our communities will be strengthened as a result of such international efforts being promoted today, June 15, 2006, at the United Nations Headquarters.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. Mr. Speaker, When we made the decision to invade Iraq I said this: The President is asking us to pass this resolution now, but he has not yet made the case for war. I cannot support the President's request that we authorize military force against Iraq. I make this very difficult decision for three important reasons: The United States is not acting in self-defense or from an imminent threat from Iraq, the United States should not be pursuing unilateral action without international support, and the President has not stated an exit strategy. I believe there are times when countries must resort to war, and indeed international law recognizes the rights of nations to defend themselves. I strongly support our campaign against terrorism. But are we voting this week on a case of self-defense? It would certainly be self-defense if Iraq supported the al Qaeda attack on September 11, but the evidence of such support is lacking. I have listened to the administration and met with top officials. I have yet to see any credible evidence that Iraq is connected with al Qaeda. The experts readily admit that there is no real connection. I can believe that Iraq is a threat to the region and to some American interests overseas, but I do not believe the threat is imminent or must be handled with a unilateral military strike. This resolution is an unwise step for America that will in the end weaken America. How unsatisfactory are the words ``I told you so''. We invaded Iraq even though it was not involved with al Queda and, when we diverted our gaze from the War on Terror, we let Osama Bin Laden get away and now his organization has metastasized so that his capture would no longer be the disruptive blow to al Queda that it could have been then. Our soldiers have served bravely but their courage has not been matched by adequate leadership by the brass starting with the Commander in Chief. The problems that face us now in Iraq are not primarily military ones but we are expecting our military to accomplish them anyway. This entire venture was a mistake, but the question is what do we do now? I think the answer is that it's time for the Iraqi's to take responsibility for their own country. Our American soldiers signed up to defend America. Let the Iraqi's do the same for their country. We have spent American lives and treasure in Iraq. It is now the obligation of the Commander in Chief to present a strategy for a successful completion of American activities there so that our troops can be removed from Iraq as soon as is practicable. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. It is time for leadership from the Commander in Chief that is more than ``stay the course'' and more of the same. The war in Iraq is not the war on terror and never has been. I voted to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan because it was necessary that we disrupt that terrorist hotbed that had helped breed the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th. Now even that necessary endeavor in Afghanistan is faltering because of the diversion into Iraq. If we are to win the war on terror, we must focus our efforts on the terrorists and not on Iraq. We are spending $8 billion or more a month in Iraq and need to utilize those funds instead effectively in the fight against terrorists and also to protect the United States from the potential of terrorist attacks. We have other threats around the world and have, tragically, damaged our military readiness to face them through our miscalculations in Iraq. To maintain the strong military might that America needs we need to bring the Iraq misadventure to an end as soon as is practical.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, not only as the co-chair of the Refugee Caucus, but as a member of the Immigration Border Security and Claims Subcommittee, which has oversight over U.S. refugee programs, I am a strong supporter and, indeed, cosponsor of this amendment. Members have said they would like to give a message to Colombia. Well, I would like to send a message to the refugees who are sitting in camps in Darfur who have been notified that their pathetic rations have been cut in half to the point where they do not have enough food to actually survive. I would like to focus in on where the funds are going. The ERMA account is authorized, has a permanent level of authorization of $100 million. So this amendment, which would put ERMA at $60 million, would only bring ERMA to 60 percent of the authorized level. It is worth noting that we are at $24 million today in the ERMA account. That is the lowest level at this point in the fiscal year over a decade, and because a drawdown is in the works, our refugee program is going to start the new fiscal year with close to zero funds. It has been noted by others that the funds to Colombia are not being slashed, they are being authorized at above what the President has requested. But we need to take a look at what not funding refugee programs does not only for the people who are suffering, but for stability in the world. We know if refugee situations completely get out of control, that we create little pockets of instability around the world that can then form areas where al Qaeda can move in and organize terrorist training camps. So to form an argument that somehow funding our moral obligation to the refugees of the world is also adverse to our security interests is a false analysis. I was struck about 2 years ago when the Darfur crisis really hit the public consciousness. We had an ad hoc meeting, and it was liberals and conservatives. And I thought this is a unique situation where Members of this body who ordinarily do not agree on anything have come together out of a sense of moral obligation to refugees around the world. I would hope that that morality that led us to stand together facing the Darfur situation will join us once again when this vote comes up, to take a stand for morality and to help those who are helpless around the world who are refugees that we, as moral people, owe a debt to.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Isn't it necessary to claim the time in opposition to actually be opposed, and the chairman of the committee is not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that the Smith amendment does absolutely nothing. The amendment is to the Communications Act, not to the Clayton or Sherman antitrust acts; and whether or not we past this amendment, the current antitrust laws will continue to operate as before. The savings clause neither creates new net neutrality protections nor takes them away. It is superfluous, it is nothing, and it is meant to encourage Members who actually are for net neutrality into thinking they can somehow get away with being for net neutrality but doing nothing. The Trinko case contained a similar antitrust savings clause. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Trinko case basically held there were no antitrust remedies for anticompetitive conduct in areas regulated by the Telecommunications Act. The whole issue is how the antitrust laws apply. I would point out that our committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, reported out by a vote of 20-13 a bill introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner and the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, that actually did provide antitrust remedies for these Internet provisions. Inexplicably, the real bill, the real amendment that the chairman of the committee and the ranking member crafted and that won a majority of support, bipartisan I would add, on the committee to be reported out, was not made in order for us to discuss today. Instead, this phony amendment was made in order. I would like to say something else about this rhetoric about regulation. Antitrust law is not regulation. It sets the standard for what monopolies cannot do. It is not a regulatory approach. It is a set of laws that keep monopolies from squeezing the little guys, which is what is going to happen if we do not get real net neutrality in this bill. The Markey amendment was put in order. We can vote for that, and I hope it passes. If it does not, we will end up with the dualopolies or the monopolies turning the Internet into a kind of cable television outfit. When the public finds out what we are doing to their Internet, the dome is going to collapse with the uproar they create. For Members who have been here a long time and remember the vote that they took that allowed cable TV rates to go through the roof, that uproar is going to be nothing compared to what you hear if this measure goes forward.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, until August of last year, broadband Internet providers were considered common carriers under the law, with a legal requirement to carry all traffic equally. A series of FCC decisions and the Supreme Court's decision to them changed all that, turning broadband services into unregulated ``information services.'' Why is this important? In my district in Silicon Valley, everybody uses the Internet and knows that you have to have net neutrality. They cannot believe that we would even consider changing that rule. So what does ``common carrier'' mean? For those of you who don't use the Internet a lot, common carrier is a concept that is quite old. What it really means in exchange for rights to use public ways: you agree to carry all passengers on the same terms. If you get on the bus, a common carrier, you are charged a fee; but the bus company cannot charge more to women than it can to men, and that is really the equivalent of what we are talking about here. The phone company consolidations have meant that most Americans have one or at most two choices for their broadband service provider. What that means is that we are going to have a duopoly or a monopoly unless we have net neutrality rules that will stifle the Internet. It will turn the Internet into the equivalent of cable TV. That is not going to be good for innovation. Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation that was founded in a dorm room by two Stanford students. They had an opportunity to be successful because they were not screened out at the very beginning by incumbents who paid for access. That is about to change unless this House adopts net neutrality rules. Some of the phone companies have suggested that there is a free ride. What they have failed to point out is that the phone companies are paid an enormous amount of money, just like the bus company is, for use of their services. What the net neutrality rules say is you cannot differentiate. I would just like to say we want to go on seeing the girl in the funny hat making lemonade. Don't make us watch Robin Williams's cousin making bacon juice instead.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Samantha Fang for her selection as a Presidential Scholar in the Arts for 2006, our Nation's highest honor for graduating high school artists. Samantha was selected as one of the 20 Presidential Scholars in the Arts this year for her success and accomplishments as a classical pianist. She was selected for this honor by virtue of being a national Finalist in the NFAA Arts Recognition and Talent Search (ARTS) program, a program in which 6,524 high school students applied to in 2006. Samantha and her fellow Presidential Scholars in the performing arts will be featured in a showcase performance during the Salute to the Presidential Scholars at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Samantha, who will graduate as valedictorian of The Harker School in Sunnyvale this June, began her piano studies at the age of 5. Currently, she is enrolled in the Preparatory Division at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, where she was named an ``Honorary Distinction'' student, the highest award presented by the Preparatory Division. Additionally, Samantha was named the California state winner of the 2005 MTNA (Music Teachers National Association) Senior Piano Competition, has performed in the Weill Hall at Carnegie Hall as winner of the Russian-American International Festival and will be broadcast as a soloist on WQXR radio's Young Artist's Showcase this June. I am proud to stand here today to recognize Samantha for her accomplishments as an exceptional artist and student. I urge Samantha to continue to take an interest in the performing arts, as artistic and creative innovation is a crucial component of America's cultural fabric, and I wish her the best of luck as she continues her education at Harvard this fall.