Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). (Mr. COSTELLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we all know that we do our best work in government when we work in a bipartisan matter and we work in partnership with each other, and that is why it is so important when we look at funding for 100,000 teachers that we do it the smart way, that we do it in partnership, making sure that the funding gets into the classroom. I was in local government for 14 years and our school board for two years before that, and I saw a lot of money wasted under programs that were just block granted. Instead, what works best is when we set parameters, we hold hands and we work together for the well-being of our country, and nothing is more important than having enough teachers to make sure that our children get the best education available and are the best educated children in the world. Our economic future depends on it, and really the peace and hope for society depends on it. I would urge all of us to work with our President to make sure that the funding for teachers gets to the classroom and not into the administration, as is currently being recommended and requested by the majority party.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution on behalf of workers who are on strike to improve conditions at the Han Young truck factory in Tijuana, Mexico. Congress has a moral obligation to support these workers, who are fighting for their basic democratic rights. The Han Young factory is a contract factory that assembles truck trailer chassis for the Hyundia Corporation. The workers of the Han Young factory, consistent with their rights under Mexican law, formed a union to address issues like low wages and worker safety. However, the management of the Han young factory has refused to bargain with the union and local officials failed to recognize the union. Since May of 1998, eighty Han Young workers have been on strike to protect their basic right to organize. Under the procedures outlined in the North American Free Trade Agreement, the United States National Administrative Office (NAO) in the Department of Labor has conducted a review of the conditions at the Han Young factory. The NAO found consistent and credible reports of a workplace polluted with toxic airborne contaminants, operating with unsafe machinery, and numerous violations of health and safety standards. The workplace of the Han Young workers lacked even ``adequate sanitation facilities for workers to relieve themselves'' or even ``get a drink of water.'' Our trading partners must address the issue of worker's democratic rights. In the case of Mexico this means enforcing already existing labor laws. It is vital that we in Congress send a strong message in support of the Han Young workers. I hope that you will join me in support of the Han Young workers.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, through an error on rollcall vote 521, I voted present. It should have been an aye.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, in l953, as sort of the cutting edge of the baby boomers, I started kindergarten, and as the children of the World War II heroes entered school, what happened? All over the country they built enough schools and they made sure there were enough textbooks so that my generation could have a great education and have a future. Turn the clock forward to 1998, and we have the biggest group of kindergartners that we have had since the baby boomers, and let us contrast what the grown ups are doing this time. We have children going to school in trailers, we have children going to school in utility closets. I would hope, and we spent so much time in this Congress on scandal and investigation and the like that, please, let us make sure that before we go home we do something that will really matter for the future of this country, that we put our children first, and we put our money where our mouth is, that we understand that the most important thing for the future of our country is that our children get the best education in the world.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cast my vote in favor of the conference report on the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1998. This legislation is the culmination of a long, hard effort to enact reform of securities litigation. When Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995, we thought we had stopped the increasingly troubling practice of ``strike suits.'' In these suits, a small group of attorneys took advantage of the legal system to coerce huge settlements out of growing high-tech companies, often with little or no evidence of wrong doing. Unfortunately, loopholes in the new law were found. To avoid the new heightened pleading standards, cases were moved from Federal Courts into State courts. According to a recent study by Stanford Professors Joseph Grundfest and Michael Perino, 26% of securities litigation activity has shifted to state courts. Because the threat of ``strike suits'' still exists, many executives in Silicon Valley are reluctant take full advantage of key provisions of the 1995 law. For example, the 1995 Act created a ``safe harbor'' provision to encourage companies to disclose valuable information about their prospects to investors. However, this provision is not being implemented because executives still are concerned about their exposure to strike suits in State courts. This hurts investors who lose access to valuable information, and it undermines the efficiency of securities markets. It is time to close the loopholes. The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 will finally slam the door on strike suits by establishing Federal court as the exclusive venue for securities class actions. This legislation targets abuses in our court system, but it also protects the rights of consumers who actually suffer from fraud. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a true humanitarian and an outstanding member of my hometown community of San Jose, California. Father Mateo Sheedy has selflessly served our community, providing assistance to those most in need of a helping hand. Particularly, Father Sheedy has championed the cause of recent immigrants. He has worked tirelessly to ensure that farm workers--those who feed America-- are treated with dignity and respect. In concert with churches and the United Farm Workers he has succeeded in ensuring that farm laborers' working conditions are safe, and that their wages fair. His work with ESL classes and citizenship courses have helped countless immigrants attain United States citizenship. Father Sheedy has been embraced by the local Mexican-American community and has been instrumental in solving some of the problems plaguing our neighborhoods. His inclusive style has brought together rival gangs--allowing families to live in safe, nurturing neighborhoods. His innovative gun return program has been very successful. At Sacred Heart Church where he serves as pastor, Father Sheedy has committed himself to improving the quality of life for every member of our community. He has worked with our youth--encouraging them to stay out of gangs and in school. Along with local universities, Father Sheedy has created a tutorial center and has spearheaded efforts to gain college scholarships for kids. Father Sheedy has also been a beacon of hope and faith--attending to the very sick and providing solace to their families. Now Father Sheedy is himself very ill, and our thoughts and prayers are with him. On October 22, 1998, Father Mateo Sheedy will be honored with the Heart of Jesus Award, recognizing his vast sacrifices for our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Father Sheedy for receiving such a special award. He is to be commended for his noble efforts.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, many of us have labored very hard to craft a plan that would allow us to deal with the referral of the independent counsel in a way that is focused, in a way that is fair, in a way that is prompt and efficient, and, most of all, in a way that puts our Constitution first. I am very distressed to say that I do not see that that is going to happen today in this chamber. Mr. Speaker, I fear what Alexander Hamilton warned against in Federalist Paper Number 65, that ``there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' That prophecy, that fear, is about to be realized. I believe that the majority has used its raw voting power to create a proposal that could result in a wide-ranging and lengthy impeachment inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary may become the standing committee on impeachments. And I further fear that the rules in the Constitution may never be applied to the referral that has been sent to us. Even worse, we may end up--as happened Monday--with the majority counsel creating entirely new standards for high crimes and misdemeanors, which will have a very serious distorting effect on our constitutional system of government. When we are lost, the best thing for us to do is to look to our Constitution as a beacon of light and a guideline to get us through trying times. Historically, impeachment was to be used when the misconduct of the executive was so severe that it threatened the very constitutional system of government itself. Ben Franklin described it as the alternative to assassination. It is that standard that needs to be applied in this case. The question is not whether the President's misconduct was bad. We all know that the President's misconduct was bad. The question is, are we going to punish America instead of him for his misconduct? Are we going to trash our Constitution because of his misconduct? Are we going to make sure that this investigation goes on interminably while we ignore economic crises, or the needs of our students for education? I fear that we are letting down our country. Twenty-four years ago, as an idealistic student, I watched this body rise to the occasion. Twenty-four years ago, as an idealistic student, I worked on the staff of a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I saw the committee, and I saw this Congress do a very hard thing: come together, become nonpartisan, and do a tough job for America. I am very concerned that, instead of rising to this occasion today, we are falling down and lowering ourselves and America with it. I urge the adoption of the Boucher amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the chorus of voices paying tribute to my good friend and colleague, Vic Fazio. With the end of this session, Congress will lose one of its brightest lights. Perhaps, the best thing I can say is the simplest--thank you. When I came to Congress in 1995, it was immediately clear Vic Fazio was someone to turn to when gridlock seemed inevitable or a solution impossible. Vic stood out as a role model, as an example of how to act effectively, with integrity and with dignity. It's easy to understand why he has commanded so much respect from both sides of the aisle. I know I share the conviction of many when I say that Vic Fazio has defined what it means to be a public servant--always keeping the common interest in the forefront. Just to cite one example, in his key role on the Appropriations committee, I don't know how many times he labored quietly to ensure that Northern California was treated fairly. Vic, I will deeply miss your leadership, and your good counsel. You have left a great legacy for our institution.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure before us for a number of reasons. As a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and someone who has experience in immigration law, used to teach immigration law, I have worked through with the White House and leadership on the other side of the aisle on this issue, and I believe that the product before us has many things that merit our support. First, although much has been said about computer professionals, and I come from Silicon Valley, I represent Santa Clara County, the H-1B program extends beyond computer specialists. I would note that I just received a call from a superintendent of schools in San Jose who said, ``Please be careful. We're getting almost all our bilingual teachers through the H-1B program right now.'' So that is something to keep in mind. Secondarily there are specialists. This is not just a shortage issue, it is a specialist issue. Like the biotech firm in Silicon Valley that has hired specialists in Great Britain who are on the cutting edge of a particular type of science and has kept them on full salary since last spring in Great Britain waiting for an H-1B visa to become available. That is not a shortage issue. That is a specialist issue. That needs to be kept in mind. Finally, it is also a shortage issue. For my colleagues who say that we ought to do a better job of training our own people, I could not agree more. We need to get into schools that have been neglected. We need to make sure that poor children who are not achieving have a chance to achieve and become scientists and engineers. And although this bill will not accomplish all of that, this 75 to $100 million a year that will be provided for in the bill by the fees is going to help retrain American workers through the Job Training Partnership Act and also will be made available for math and science instruction. Now in listening to my colleagues here and in talking to Members on the Republican side of the aisle and also in the Senate I think that we may need in conference to take a look at the allocation of funds in the math and science arena and see if we should not do a little bit more in K-12 education in addition to the scholarships, and I think that there is a willingness to work together on that. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, and if we could accomplish that, we should also note that in this bill there is the toughest enforcement that has ever been devised that is oriented towards those who are the wrongdoers primarily in abusing American workers, and that is the so- called job shops. Very heavy attestation requirements, very severe penalties and very strong enforcement provisions. I would just also note that the Department of Labor has additional enforcement authority beyond the complaint system. So this is a tough bill, it is a balanced bill, and it is a bill that provides funding for American school kids so they can become the scientists and engineers we need. I hope that my colleagues will support this very sensible approach.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that on rollcall vote 453, I was absent because of the cancellation of the United flight from San Jose and the inability to rebook all the passengers. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, under our constitution, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. This is perhaps our single most serious responsibility short of a declaration of war. Given the gravity and magnitude of this undertaking, only a fair and bipartisan approach to this question will ensure that truth is discovered, honest judgments rendered, and the constitutional requirement observed. Our best yardstick on whether we are meeting those standards, whether we are yielding fair results, is to look at the historical experience, to look at the precedents. Twenty-four years ago this House went through a gripping, grueling experience where a Democratic House investigated a Republican President. And I think that if we hold the procedures adopted at that time as our yardstick for fairness, we will be able to measure whether or not we are meeting the bipartisan necessity of these procedures. I have heard wonderful rhetoric today and yesterday about the need for bipartisanship. Regretfully, the behavior embodied in the resolution before us falls short of the standard set 24 years ago. It is not as good, it is not as fair as what occurred 24 years ago. At that time my predecessor in office, and my then boss, Congressman Don Edwards, insisted that the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, have complete due process; that he have the ability to see all of the evidence; that his lawyers have the ability to cross-examine and to see everything way before it was revealed. In this case we have a rush to put allegations that have been compiled over 4 years onto the internet without giving the President 24 hours to review it. I fear for our country if we cannot do better than this.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, cities and counties cannot afford an undercount in the next Census. I know that from personal experience. Before coming to the Congress 3 years ago, I served on the Board of Supervisors for Santa Clara County for 14 years. We worked hard during times of declining county revenues to maintain vital services like health care for poor children. Every city and county needs an accurate Census that counts everybody in order to serve everybody, because each year Census data determines $180 billion in Federal spending. It helps determine money that goes into schools, transit systems, senior citizens' centers, and health care facilities. People do not disappear when they are not counted. When there is an undercount, as there was in 1990, local taxpayers end up paying for Federal programs. That is why lawsuits were filed in California after the 1990 Census by both Democratic and Republican local officials, because an inaccurate census is not fair to local taxpayers. In 1990, the undercount in the State of California was estimated to be over 834,000 people. After the last Census we put our thinking caps on. The scientists came together and they came up with a scientific recommendation for a scientific count. I have heard a lot of discussion here today, but I think the American people are going to be able to figure out what is going on. Some people here are concerned that the people found through scientific methods might vote for Democrats. I do not know whether they will or not, but out in the real world, real local government officials of both parties want an accurate count that the scientists can provide us, so we can be fair to local taxpayers. I urge support of the Mollohan amendment for that reason.

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, which gives the Attorney General the authority to test prison inmates for the human immunodeficiency virus in the event that there is reason to believe that an individual has come into contact with the bodily fluids of an inmate, thus preventing potential exposure to the virus. This bill was introduced out of concern for the health and safety of Federal corrections officers who may be exposed to HIV. There is treatment available designed to prevent transmission of HIV after exposure, but as the chairman has pointed out, this treatment must be administered within 2 to 24 hours of exposure. This legislation is designed to provide for testing of inmates who may have transmitted the disease to persons working in or visiting Federal correctional facilities. H.R. 2070 provides that if an inmate in a Federal correctional facility may have transmitted HIV to a correctional officer or visitor, the Attorney General should test that inmate for HIV on the request of the person who may have been exposed to the virus. The Attorney General is required to communicate the results of the test to the person who requested it and to the inmate, if he or she would like to know the results. Moreover, if the person or inmate tests positive for HIV, the Attorney General must provide referrals for counseling, health care, and support services for both the inmate and the exposed person. H.R. 2070 also includes provisions for protecting the privacy of affected individuals. This bill requires the Attorney General to make rules within 1 year of enactment of this legislation requiring that the test results are communicated only to the person requesting the test and to the inmate. The bill also prohibits the use of information obtained through these testing procedures to be used against an inmate in any civil or criminal proceeding. Finally, the bill tells the Attorney General to notify the States of the regulations promulgated under H.R. 2070, and to make those guidelines available to the States. Because this bill strikes a balance between the need of those potentially exposed to the HIV virus to know the extent of their exposure and then to be able to seek timely treatment and, hopefully, prevention of full-blown disease, as well as balancing the privacy needs of those to be tested, I support this legislation. It was approved by voice vote of the Committee on the Judiciary. All of the amendments suggested by the minority were incorporated and included in the draft. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that all of the concerns expressed by the minority in terms of respecting privacy rights, use of information, and the like have been incorporated. I think it is because of that that the broad bipartisan support of this bill has come to fruition in this day on the Suspension Calendar.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, over 1 million tourists visit the Supreme Court building each year, and, because of budgetary pressures, the Court has asked Congress to enact legislation permitting volunteers in the Supreme Court Historical Society to conduct public tours of the Court. As we know, here at the Capitol, the Capitol Guide Service is assisted by 35 volunteers who help with Capitol visitors, and the volunteers have expanded the service to increase the number of tours to the Capitol by approximately 25 percent. As the chairman has indicated, this bill authorizes the Supreme Court to accept volunteers to assist the public with the visitor program. The volunteers could not be hired unless they waive all claims against the Federal Government arising out of their service, and the bill specifies that the volunteers would not be considered Federal employees. Importantly, the bill prevents paid Supreme Court employees from being fired or having their salary reduced as a result of increased volunteer services. Having said that, I must point out that concern has been raised about this bill. If adopted, the Supreme Court could accept the services. However, we have not had a hearing on the House side, and I note that apparently no hearing was held on the Senate side either. Because of that and concerns expressed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the subcommittee, it is suggested that we do have a hearing. There is concern among employees that this might have adverse ramifications, despite the language suggesting otherwise. So that would be my comment. Should this bill pass anyhow, I would strongly urge the administrators at the Court to deliberate collaboratively with the employee groups there. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just note the very courteous remarks of the chairman, and should this bill pass, that that consideration and administrative deliberation would indeed take place as the chairman has expressed. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support S. 1759, which is the companion bill to H.R. 3843. This measure will permit the American G.I. Forum of the United States to receive a Federal charter. The American G.I. Forum is a national organization of Hispanic veterans founded in 1948 in Corpus Christi, Texas. The organization has 30 State chapters, over 100,000 members, and is dedicated to addressing issues affecting Hispanic veterans and their families, including resolving problems of discrimination or inequity endured by Hispanic veterans. The American G.I. Forum sought to obtain a charter, as the chairman has indicated, 40 years ago when other large veterans' organizations received them, but because of the discrimination, they were denied. This year, the organization celebrates its 50th anniversary. Clearly the American G.I. Forum should receive the same national charter that other veterans' organizations did. I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for sponsoring this measure, and am grateful for the bipartisan support for the measure. Unknown to many, perhaps, in this body, the G.I. Forum was founded in response to the worst kind of racial and ethnic discrimination. In fact, those who had fought for our freedom in World War II and gave their lives for American freedom were denied burial in the cemeteries in Texas because of discrimination against Hispanic Americans. The G.I. Forum sprang up in response to that egregious discrimination. Since that time, the G.I. Forum has played a crucial role in many parts of this country. I would like to note that in my own community in San Jose, California, the G.I. Forum engages in a variety of absolutely wonderful and admirable activities, including one of the broadest scholarhship programs and the most vigorous--one of the most vigorous veterans' groups. They are eager and active participants in the United Veterans' Council in my community, and really play leadership roles in veterans activities. I am proud that although there has been a moratorium, we are able to make an exception in this case, because the discrimination that Hispanic soldiers and their families found subsequent to World War II unfortunately continued in the fifties and perhaps sixties, as the chairman has indicated. I think it is a proud day that this Congress can go back, acknowledge the errors of our past, and rectify them, and especially on this 50th anniversary of the G.I. Forum. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

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