Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Internet Tax Freedom Act and urge my colleagues to support the measure. As my colleagues know, a friend of mine in Silicon Valley that I have the privilege of representing here along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my colleague, analogized the Internet to the ``big bang'' and said that after the ``big bang'' the planets formed and we are about at that time now. The planets are just forming up after the explosion of the Internet. We do know that the Internet will change everything. It will change the way we do business, it will change the way we learn, it will change the way grandparents communicate with grandchildren. It will change everything in our ordinary life, and it is absolutely essential that we do nothing to impair or hinder the growth of this wonderful technology. I am actually very proud that we have been able to work together on a bipartisan basis in the Committee on the Judiciary as well as in the Committee on Commerce to achieve this moratorium on taxes. Like my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), I do not think this measure is absolutely perfect, but it is not bad. It is certainly worthy of our support. I would hope that we can pass it promptly, and that the Senate will join with us and send it on to the President, who I know will support it as well. I would say also just this: Having been in local government for 14 years before my service here in Congress, I do understand the bind that local governments find themselves in. So often they are scrambling for revenue to meet the tremendous service needs that they face. I am sympathetic with those needs, but I understand that really it is in no one's interest that we do anything to impair the growth of the Internet, not in the interests of cities, counties, states, the United States or any of us. So I commend this bill. I thank my colleagues for bringing it forward.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that we were able to work in a bipartisan manner to include my amendment to this legislation to extend some of the deadlines for telecommunications carriers to comply with requirements under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). I offered this amendment at full Judiciary Committee markup, where it garnered support from Members on both sides of the aisle, but withdrew it with assurances from Crime Subcommittee Chairman McCollum that he would introduce and push for enactment of legislation to address these and other issues related to CALEA. We have yet to see action on CALEA-related legislation, so it is necessary to address the matter in this bill. Mr. Speaker, the CALEA implementation process has not gone as Congress had expected when CALEA was enacted in 1994. While all parties--the Administration, the telecommunications industry, and privacy and civil liberties organizations--have negotiated in good faith, clearly a resolution is not close at hand. In fact, the parties have now petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to break the impasse. Certainly, all involved can share some of the blame, but I do not think that the telecommunications industry and our civil liberties should be made to suffer for the lack of an agreement. My amendment merely creates a ``safety valve'' to remove the pressure from the impending October 1 deadline, and recognizes the reality of the delays in the negotiating process. The Justice Department has already admitted that CALEA-compliant solutions will not be ``available'' from manufacturers until 1999-2001, regardless of what transpires. It is not fair to punish industry for failing to provide this technology faster than even the Justice Department has deemed possible. Therefore, like Congressman Barr's bill (H.R. 3321), my amendment postpones deadline for compliance with CALEA from this October until October 1, 2000. This should provide the parties and the FCC time to come to an agreement, and to test and deploy agreed-upon solutions. It is also unfair to force industry to pay for recent upgrades made to their ``embedded base'' that do not conform to nonexistent CALEA standards. The original Act provided that all upgrades made after January 1, 1995 would be the responsibility of telecommunications carriers, and they would bear the cost of modifying their equipment to conform with CALEA after that date. It has obviously been necessary for industry to upgrade their equipment in the last three and a half years, and no one in Congress believed that so much time would be necessary to complete this process. Therefore, it is not appropriate to place the cost burden of anticipated equipment modifications on telecommunications companies and their customers. My amendment, also like the Barr bill, would grandfather in all equipment deployed and installed before October 1, 2000. Industry would be responsible for retrofitting noncompliant equipment installed after that date. This is a narrow fix to an immediate and critical problem. If an agreement is not reached by October 1, industry would be liable for fines and for the costs of upgrading much of their equipment. The FBI has been using this as a bargaining tool in their discussions with industry and civil liberties groups, but this is not the atmosphere in which these discussions were supposed to take place. This amendment will merely give a reprieve to the negotiators, and allow for a full and deliberate resolution of this critical issue. Congress will have greater leeway to monitor the FCC's attempts to break the impasse and to ratify or alter any proposed compromise. Even with enactment of this provision, many other contentious issues will remain, but this legislation is not the proper vehicle for resolving those issues. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we were able to include my amendment in this important legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on continued efforts to implement CALEA.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday United Airlines Flight 200, the 8 a.m. flight from San Francisco, took off 2 hours late. All the passengers were delayed 2 hours. I missed 2 rollcall votes as a consequence and would ask the Record to show had I been present I would have voted yes on Rollcall 232 and 233.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and Democrats support this amendment, which allows youth-serving volunteer organizations to request access to FBI criminal fingerprint background checks. I believe it is enormously important for such organizations to be able to assure themselves that volunteers who show up to provide good work for the Nation's youth do not prey upon those very same children. There is nothing more important than maintaining the safety of the children of our Nation, and I support this amendment.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the committee

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, noting that it is a pleasure to work on a bipartisan basis on such an important matter, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I would ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support this amendment, and Democrats support this. The amendment does not impose anything on States. It simply establishes a set of guidelines for community notification of sex offenders. This model statute is balanced. It reflects both the need of the community to be protected as well as the rights of individuals to privacy and the right to be left alone once they have paid their debt to society. I note further that we have already approved an amendment that will direct that additional research be undertaken into the whole area of child sexual predators. I am sure that the author of this amendment, who is really to be commended for the work that he has put into this, will be looking forward to receiving the results so that we may work together in a bipartisan basis to update these model statutes as more scientific data becomes available to us. I commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), as well as our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), who is a sponsor of this proposal on the Democratic side of the aisle, for their leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I rise in support of the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, as a Californian I have a great deal of appreciation for the amendment that the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) has proposed, and actually when I saw his amendment, the first thing I thought was, great, I want to support that amendment, it is important to empower the parents, it has worked well in California, and I commend him and his coauthor for having the grit to pursue this. Having said that, I do believe that we need some further research on this concept. As I reviewed the concerns expressed by the Department of Justice, one thing in particular did catch my attention, which was the need to do fingerprint checks to make sure that there is a positive ID rather than, as my colleagues know, somebody who has got the same name and the concern expressed that we might get negative information back, and actually the guy could be a very serious problem because of the nature of the data. So I, with a great deal of reluctance, am suggesting that we not approve this amendment today, but I am very hopeful and would actually plead and ask the gentleman to schedule some hearings to see whether we could not perfect and pursue and explore this because this is a wonderful tool in California for parents. And if we could overcome some of the issues that have been expressed in the defects that he has rightly pointed out, perhaps we could be very happy with the result. And so I join with the gentleman in indicating that I cannot support this today, but I do commend the authors of the amendment for their great passion for the well-being of children and their parents and would love to work with the chairman of the committee as we pursue it, as I think all the Californians on the committee would do.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe that this amendment makes a statement that is an important statement about how we value children. Whereas it is true that it is possible under current law for the sentence up to life in prison to be imposed, this amendment would require a mandatory minimum sentence whenever someone engages in the unconscionable act of using a child as a hostage. I think that it is important that the United States Government make that statement that we will not tolerate the use of children in this manner, and that is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Kelly bill and proud to support her amendment today. I am aware, and we may yet have individuals rushing to the Chamber to speak, that there are some who in good faith disagree with this amendment for the following reasons. There are some Members who do not believe in mandatory minimum sentencing, who believe that that is an impermissible and inappropriate intrusion into judicial decision- making. There are some Members who because of their religious faith oppose the death penalty. I actually support the death penalty, but I respect that there are some whose religious beliefs lead them to a contrary conclusion. Let us not, however, be confused that even those who might disagree with us as to mandatory minimum sentences and as to the death penalty do not join with us in ensuring that every wrongdoer in America knows that it is beyond human conscience, it is beyond what is acceptable in a civilized society to use a child as a hostage. I commend the gentlewoman for her amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do support personally the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, as someone who has worked on bankruptcy revision as a lawyer in the past, I cannot stand here and say that the existing system is perfect. In fact it is not perfect, and there are areas in which reform is warranted. However, I do not believe that H.R. 3150, the bill before us, provides an acceptable answer to the defects that currently exist. Much has been said about why we are seeing this increase in bankruptcy filings. It is clear that part of the reason is the massive increase in the amount of unsolicited and unwarranted credit that is being promulgated throughout our country. Last week my little girl received an unsolicited, preapproved credit card application at home. I was of a mind to let her take the card since creditors cannot collect against minors in California, but instead we ripped it up. Because of the problems of this bill, Congress has seen an unprecedented response from people who do not ordinarily become involved in legislative matters of this kind, including bankruptcy judges from all over the United States who have urged us to stop this process because of the bill's unintended consequences. Much has been said about the impact on women and children, and I wanted to note as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary I did support the minor amendments made during committee mark-up to try to address the issue of child support, but they did not fix the problem. In fact, the National Organization for Women wrote after the markup, ``The Judiciary Committee adopted a number of amendments supposedly to cure the problem of having past due child support and alimony obligations compete with credit card debts, but careful analysis shows these changes are only cosmetic. There are still substantial problems with H.R. 3150.'' I believe that is why 20 women's organizations have contacted us to tell us they oppose this bill, including such organizations as the American Association of University Women, the Business and Professional Women of the United States, Church Women United, the Older Women's League and the YWCA of the United States of America. There is another issue that I think needs to be raised for those of us who come from high cost States, and that is the probably unintended, bias against certain parts of our country. Recently I was contacted by a bankruptcy attorney in Santa Clara County. This is a lawyer who teaches bankruptcy law, who represents creditors in addition to debtors, and he says that the nationwide income standard used in the qualifications test for chapter 7 would eliminate most residents of Santa Clara County, in fact most of urban California, from eligibility to file chapter 7. Further, if an individual is able to meet the test, the housing allowance is a further disadvantage. Urban Americans will no longer be able to file for bankruptcy. As someone whose family has lost income to someone who filed for bankruptcy, I do not like it, I understand that no one likes it, but there is a reason for bankruptcy law, and that is so that one can fail in America and yet continue to have a life. That is why bankruptcy is provided for in our Constitution, and I will quote the CEO of a high- tech company who said this to me and Chairman Hyde in Los Angeles a week ago. ``We innovate in this country because we have the freedom to fail. That is what our bankruptcy laws do. Do not change it, do not ruin it.''

Mr. LOFGREN

Mr. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to make a special tribute to Dr. Louie Barozzi in honor of his retirement as the Director of International Programs and Student Services at San Jose State University. He has brought a wealth of knowledge, sensitivity, charm, and service to the university and community in the 30 years he served at San Jose State--the only place he has ever worked, in fact. Louie started at the university in 1968 as an Advisor at Large. On his way to becoming Director of International Programs and Student Services he served as Counselor in Counseling Services and Chair of the Academic Senate. There are not enough adjectives to describe Louie Barozzi. Some of the most apt include kind, thoughtful, insightful, caring, sensitive, hard-working, conscientious, flexible, eternally optismistic, generous, wise, humorous, witty, sympathetic, and friendly. Louie is always willing to lend a helping hand and make time for those in need. He has been a mentor to many, serving as a surrogate father to students and a wonderful father to his own children. His wonderful sense of humor has helped carry others through difficult situations, and his ability to convey wisdom without being imposing has served him and students well over the years. Louie is a wonderful asset to San Jose State and our entire community, and I am proud to extend to him my most heartfelt good wishes in honor of his retirement.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to make a special tribute to a proud American who is celebrating the 50th anniversary of his U.S. citizenship. Emery Grosinger came to our country more than 50 years ago as a young boy who had already endured a lifetime of hardship. Born in a part of eastern Europe that has passed back and forth between Romania and Hungary, Emery at the age of 10 was deported, separated from his family, and sent to concentration camps, including Auschwitz. He survived and came to the United States after World War II. He served in the Army, started a business, and raised a family. Mr. Grosinger is having a celebration for being an American for 50 years. But all of us in America also need to celebrate his 50 years as our fellow American. His life and his passion for freedom and for justice are part of what makes our country great. How fortunate we are to live in a country that stands as a beacon of freedom for the world. How fortunate we are that America looks not to where you are from, but to what is in your heart and where you are going. People like Emery-- whose hearts led them to America and whose love for our country enlightens us all--give our country hope and a bright future. Mr. Grosinger loves America, and I am proud to extend to him my most heartfelt good wishes in honor of the 50th anniversary of his U.S. citizenship.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievement of Chief of Police Roy Sumisaki, who has served the city of Gilroy, California for more then 7 years. Through trials and triumph Chief Sumisaki has distinguished himself as a devoted crime fighter in a career that has spanned 28 years. Born in a Japanese-American internment camp during World War II, Chief Sumisaki graduated from Gilroy High School and joined the United States Army. His career, which included at tour of duty in Vietnam as an intelligence officer, spanned 32 years, 8 of which were on active duty. He retired from the Army a Lieutenant Colonel. During his military service, Chief Sumisaki was awarded the Purple Heart, two Bronze Stars, and Air Medal, the Combat Infantryman's Badge, and the Vietnamese Honor Medal. Soon after resigning from active duty military service, Chief Sumisaki pursued a career in law enforcement. He holds a master's degree in police administration from Golden Gate University and attended the FBI National Academy. He joined the Pacifica Police Department in 1974, and later transferred to the Marina Police Department, rising to the rank of Commander. While later serving with the Chico Police Department, he rose to the rank of Captain. In 1990 he returned home to Gilroy to become the first Asian-American police chief in the continental U.S. During his tenure Chief Sumisaki worked tirelessly to make Gilroy a safer place to live and work. A testament to his high level of professionalism, Chief Sumisaki was awarded the National Police Commendation Medal. Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Chief Roy Sumisaki upon his retirement from the Gilroy Police Department.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, United flight 52 was late from the West Coast; and I was, therefore, unavoidably absent on rollcalls 110 and 111. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, this amendment is offered by myself and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to correct what is a very serious defect in our Federal criminal and civil procedures. Under our Federal law and the law of many States, children can be compelled to testify against their parents, and parents can be compelled to testify against their children. Although most prosecutors refrain from subjecting a family to this terrible situation, it can and does occur. I have long believed that parents and their children should be shielded from this trauma, and that doing so would not do significant damage to the administration of justice. Therefore last month the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and I introduced H.R. 3577, which currently has 18 cosponsors in the House. This bill, the Confidence in the Family Act, is identical to this proposed amendment. This amendment would ensure that parents and children could not be compelled to testify against one another, and that confidential communications between parents and children will be protected. These privileges would be similar to the privileges currently provided under Federal law to spouses, and would be developed by the courts in light of the common law, reason, and experience. Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that, except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or act of Congress, the privilege of witnesses, persons, governments, States, et cetera, will be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States. We went to this development of evidence back in 1975 when the Committee on the Judiciary recommended, and the Congress adopted, the rule that allows our courts to develop the details of privileges and exceptions. As you note, in the amendment that the development of this exception for parents and children should follow that allowed for spouses. In answer to some questions that Members have had, spouses currently can be compelled to testify against each other in certain circumstances. For example, threats against spouses and spouses' children do not further the purposes of marital communications, and therefore are not protected from disclosure. Similarly, marital communications subject to the privilege are subject to an exception for crimes committed against a minor child and the rule that one spouse cannot be a witness against the other is subject to exception where one spouse commits an offense against the other. That is U.S. v. Allery. Why is this important? I think many of us, without going into any of the details, recently observed a situation in which a mother was asked in a very high profile case to testify about confidences that her daughter had placed in her. When I saw that, and it is not a new thing in the law, I immediately thought of my daughter who is 16 years old, and I thought, could the government force me to reveal what my 16-year-old told to me in confidence? There is something quite wrong about that. We parents spend most of our lives trying to make sure that our children trust us enough that if they have a problem, if there is something that is troublesome, they always know that they can, and they should, come to their mom and sort through it with us so that we can help them make mature decisions, so that we can help them lead a good life, and come to where they need to be. If the young people of this country understand, as they currently do now, unfortunately quite well, that the confidences revealed to a parent as we sort through the things that we do in adolescence could be forced out into public view, that important bond, that important value, that family value is unalterably disrupted. We have talked a little bit about the details and the exceptions to this rule of evidence, but I think it is important to understand why there are exceptions to forcing testimony at all. We do not force a husband and wife to testify against each other, and the reason why is that we have said that the spousal relationship is so important that we will not allow it to be disrupted by the government for any purpose. Surely, the relationship between mother and daughter, between father and daughter, between father and son is as valuable, as precious as that between husband and wife. I hope that the House will look favorably upon the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, that is a substantive disagreement; and that is fair enough. I would like to point out, however, in defense of the proposal, even though I understand his valid and thoughtful objection, but the better view in terms of the cases as to criminal activity in the area of spousal privilege is that the privilege does not apply to furtherance of this.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. I think the point made about hearings is not a balanced one and it is one I have made from time to time on this floor about other bills. We have offered it up as an amendment to this bill because it is germane and because I am reasonably confident that my bill will not be heard.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, I recognize that the gentleman from North Carolina disagrees on the substance, but I did want to clarify so as not to mislead in terms of my previous comment. I was referring to line 3 in Rule 501. ``The privilege of a witness, person, government, State or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States and in the light of reason and experience,'' is what I meant to refer to so as to avoid any confusion. And as my colleague notes in the amendment, on line 3, page 2, the amendment suggests to the court that the privileges to be carved out for parent-child should be similar to those with the same exceptions that have been devised for the spousal privilege. Further, in answer to the question as to foster parents or stepchild, I have suggested, on line 17 on section 3, that such individuals should be included if the court recognizes that the individual is seen as having the right to act as a parent.