Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, I would just note that all of the modern cases that I have been able to find in the spousal immunity area that would be the guide in the parental/child immunity cases do make exceptions for criminal activity. I would note also that in the case cited by our colleague, the Kaczynskis, I would join in his admiration of the Kaczynski family that came forward under very trying circumstances and did the right thing and did save lives, and they did it voluntarily. I believe, had they relevant evidence, clearly that since they came forward with the evidence, they would have testified.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, as someone who is steeped in the law and a former judge, I am sure the gentlewoman is aware of the so-called trilemma that lends doubt to the veracity of testimony compelled by a parent against a child. If the parent faces this dilemma, she can either fudge the truth, she can betray her child's confidences, or she can go to jail. Under those three choices, many prosecutors and many judges have grave doubt about the veracity of testimony, because some parents choose to fudge the truth, the first option.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, I just would like to note that I think in 1973, in the 93rd Congress, that the reference, at least the notes from the Committee on the Judiciary note several privileges that were recognized and then followed into rule 501 for future delineation. I understand that the gentleman's objections are well-stated and sincere, and everyone has respect for his judgment. I would just like to note that I am in my second term. I was not here during Iran Contra to object or to introduce bills about that. I think it is terrible if Mr. North's minister was called by the grand jury. As to the calling of the mother of the individual referenced, I think that is objectionable as well. I did not know about it until after I introduced this bill.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievement of Ms. Claudia Alvarez, whose essay on bilingual education won a third-place prize in a prestigious national essay contest sponsored by Scholastic, Inc., an educational publishing company. Claudia's essay, ``Estoy Orgullosa de Ser Bilingue'' (``I'm Proud To Be Bilingual''), very eloquently extols the virtues and enrichment of bilingualism from her personal perspective. Claudia wrote her essay last year as a 5th-grade student at San Antonio School, located in the 16th Congressional District of California. More than 40,000 students nationwide participated in the essay contest. Claudia's third-place finish earned her a $1,000 educational grant from Scholastic, Inc., which was matched with a grant from New Star, an educational testing company. In addition, Claudia has been honored by the California Association of Bilingual Teachers at its recent convention in San Jose, California and was flown to Dallas, Texas with her teacher, Ms. Norma Rodriguez, to be honored by the National Association of Bilingual Teachers. In its March 4, 1998, issue La Oferta Review, a bilingual newspaper serving Silicon Valley, published Claudia's essay in English and Spanish. Claudia's outstanding achievement is indicative of the potential of our young people when provided with the proper educational tools. Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join with me in recognizing the outstanding achievement of Ms. Claudia Alvarez. [From La Oferta Review, Mar. 4, 1998] I'm Proud To Be Bilingual (By Claudia Alvarez) I'm proud to be bilingual because that is who I am. I'm proud to be bilingual because my first language, Spanish in my mother tongue. It is the heritage from my ancestors. I'm proud to be bilingual because it is a privilege. When you speak one language well, you may feel like you are holding the world in your hands. Those of us who speak two languages is like holding two worlds full of opportunities. Being Bilingual is like living in two rich exciting worlds, which one does not take over the other. Instead, they complement each other. Being bilingual opens more doors to the way of success. Also being bilingual is like having double brain capacity, because I can communicate my feelings, my fears, and dreams in more than one way. Being Bilingual is having double opportunities to communicate these dreams. To be able to speak two languages, is like living in two worlds full of surprises, adventures, and lots of promises for a brighter future. I'm proud to speak English because it is the language I learned at school. It is the heritage I received from the educational system, and it is my country's official language.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am also here to discuss my proud cosponsorship of the SAFE Act. As the preceding speaker, my colleague from Virginia has noted, it is time, finally, for the United States to take the forward-thinking policy to avoid and abandon the flawed policies of key recovery, and to allow Americans to have complete protection from hackers and others who would steal and invade their privacy, and, in some cases, their well-being. Mr. Speaker, the current administration is searching for answers to the current encryption dilemma. As with their preceding administrations, they are listening, as they should, to the concerns of law enforcement and their needs to keep us safe from predators and terrorists. That is absolutely appropriate, but it is not appropriate to fail to take action when the policy that we have today is so seriously flawed. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that as we continue this dialogue, the American people will become more vigorous in standing up for their rights to privacy in the digital age and on the Internet. There are many things that Republicans and Democrats disagree about. Today, we will have most likely very vigorous, perhaps even acrimonious disagreements, about the way campaign finance reform has been brought to this floor, the limitations on debate, and really the very unfortunate attention that has been given to campaign finance reform, legitimate campaign finance reform, by the majority. Putting that to one side, we should, nevertheless, work together where we do agree, and there is broad support among both Democrats and Republicans for a sound encryption policy that makes sure that all of us have access to the strongest encryption available in the world at large. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for his leadership in this effort, and look forward to resounding support from the entire House, and later the Senate.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there now exists a serious defect in our Federal criminal and civil law and procedures that has unfortunately been brought into focus by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation of the President. Under Federal law and the law of most States, children can be compelled to testify against their parents, and parents 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, today I am introducing a bill, the Confidence in the Family Act, to ensure that parents and children cannot 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 provided to spouses under current Federal law, and would be developed by the Federal courts in light of the common law, reason, and experience. Under current law a mother can be given the choice of providing testimony that reveals her daughter's most personal confidences, or go to jail herself. A child can be put on the witness stand and forced to reveal personal discussions with his Dad. It does not matter if this testimony relates to the most private confidences that parents and children often share in the course of seeking comfort, support, or advice. The damage that such an experience can cause parents, children, and familial relationships is readily apparent, and worthy of our concern. It is not at all clear that forcing parents and children to testify against each other provides great access to truth and justice. When a potential witness is put into such a predicament, they face what legal scholars refer to as the cruel ``trilemma.'' The witness has three choices: they may testify truthfully, they may testify and lie, or they may refuse to testify and risk contempt charges and imprisonment. Among these options, testifying falsely may often be the most appealing. The other choices certainly have serious societal repercussions. Most jurisdictions recognize privileges for individuals in certain relationships (e.g., husband-wife, lawyer-client, psychiatrist-patient) to refrain from testifying. Surely, the confidences shared between a mother and daughter deserve at least as much respect as those between psychiatrists and patients. I believe that the law should recognize the special nature of the relationship between a parent and child, and that is the basis for this legislation. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important decision.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I understand that under House rules it is too late to withdraw as a cosponsor of H.R. 3310, the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1998, which is to be considered by the House tomorrow. However, new information has come to light about H.R. 3310, which compels me to declare that I can no longer support the legislation as it is drafted. I share with many of my colleagues the desire to streamline unnecessary and onerous regulatory requirements. Small businesses should not be overburdened by government regulations in this highly competitive economy. It is with this goal that I signed onto H.R. 3310. Unfortunately, I have learned that this bill will have unintended consequences that go far beyond paperwork reduction. H.R. 3310 throws out the wheat and the chaff. Besides addressing technical violations of reporting requirements, it also creates disincentives to report information vital to public health, workers safety, the environment, and to the smooth running of our economic markets. To cite just one example, this bill creates disincentives for businesses to file reports with the Food and Drug Administration about the adverse affects of new drugs and products. I join the Administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and numerous labor and environmental groups in opposing H.R. 3310 in its current form.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to note with great sadness the passing of our colleague, Steve Schiff. I was part of the 1994 Democratic freshman class from west of the Rockies. When I arrived here in Washington, I found what I guess can best be described as a tumultuous time. But Steve was there. He was like a beacon of light, someone who was willing to stretch his hand out across the aisle, someone who was always interested in moving for the good of the country, and not anyone who would let the tumultuousness of the time get to him. I served with him on the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Science. We also served together on the Subcommittee on Basic Research as well as the Subcommittee on Crime. Steve was someone who had tremendous passion for science and what science could do for this country and for humankind. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, which I think he got to chair because of his district, his efforts went far beyond his district. They went into the future of humankind. He did a tremendous amount of good work for this Nation. The country will miss him, and I will miss him personally. My prayers are with his wonderful family at this time of enormous loss for them, his district, and America.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 38, I was unavoidably detained at the White House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, no one in this body is for fraud, but unfortunately this bill has nothing to do with fraud. As the gentleman from Indiana, my friend and colleague, has mentioned, unfortunately, the immigration records cannot prove U.S. citizenship. Mr. Speaker, as the letter from OMB received yesterday points out, the Social Security Administration records also will not definitively reveal the status of citizenship. When we put the two together, we do not get anything more than what is there to begin with. We cannot prove citizenship with these records. So why are we here today? We are here today to consider a bill that would deter and discourage Americans who are not Anglo from voting. Whether intended or not, that will be the effect. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). I was a school girl 34 years ago when the gentleman from Georgia stood on that bridge for voting rights. Today I think that all Americans need to stand together once again to overcome the forces that would take us back to the days of Jim Crow, that would take us back to the days when poll taxes were in place. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand together for America.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3037. I do regret only that it has come up so quickly that many Members who would be here to speak in favor of it were not even aware that it was going to be brought up. It is important that this country, who stood shoulder to shoulder, stood side by side and fighting communism in South Vietnam, stand yet again with those who have been the victims of torture and oppression subsequent to the fall of the South Vietnamese Government. I know because of the many times that I have worked with refugees in California, trying to help their families away from the oppression, that people still face in Vietnam how important this measure is, and I commend the authors for jumping through I do not know how many legislative hoops to get it on this floor today. I would also like to bring, because she was not aware it was going to be on the floor any more than I was before I got the call, that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] from Orange County and I recently held, with others, a human rights forum and study under the Human Rights Caucus, and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] and I learned firsthand from the testimony how important this measure is. And so I am sure I join with others, including my colleague from California, in urging support of this bill. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for allowing me to say these few words in support.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote. Motion to Table Offered by Mrs. Fowler

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, without question, a fundamental necessity of our republican form of government is the participation of citizens in the electoral process. Today, across America, millions of voters will go to the polls and select their Representatives in Congress, the Governor's mansion, or their city council. These choices are extremely important and should enjoy the benefit of the collective wisdom of all citizens. Can you imagine if you were a voter today in Alexandria, VA, and, before you could reach your polling place, the media begins to report that, based on results in Richmond, Norfolk, Roanoke, and other areas, the Governor's race was over? Obviously, this might discourage you from making any extra effort in casting your vote. Although this is a preposterous example for Virginia or other individual States, this is exactly what happens every 4 years during most Presidential elections. It is demoralizing to be a voter on the West Coast on the way to the polls and hear on the car radio that the Presidential election is over--without your vote. In America's West, reports of results from the East is one significant factor in depressing voter turnout in Presidential elections. Certainly, Congress cannot restrict the freedom of the press to report factual information. However, we can take steps to delay the release of election results until after they would impact voters in States where polls are still open. Today I am introducing the National Election Fairness Act, which will restrict State and local election officials from releasing Presidential election results until after all polls have closed in the continental United States. This bill will not restrict the ability of news organizations to conduct exit polling or employ other methods to predict election outcomes, but will merely prevent official Presidential election results from being announced before western polling places have closed. I believe this limited measure will help to increase voter turnout in Presidential elections in my home State of California and in other States in the Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and taking steps to ensure a more equitable election process that values the votes of a voter in California or Washington as much as a voter in Florida or New York.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th District of California by the Secretary of State of California and was seated by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 7, 1997; and Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and Whereas allegations made by the losing candidate, Mr. Dornan, of voter fraud in fact were revealed to be legitimate voters living at a Marine barracks, sisters living at their nunnery as well as the zookeeper at the Santa Ana zoo Whereas for the first time in any election in the history of the United States the INS has been asked to verify the citizenship of voters, a task that the INS is unable to accomplish with accuracy, precision or certainty with the immigration records available to them. Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has had nearly a year to present credible evidence of fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election to the House of Representatives Whereas the Committee on House Oversight is pursuing a seemingly never ending and apparently unsubstantiated review of this matter reminding observers of the famous Dickens novel ``Bleak House'' And Whereas the House has a right to expect this matter to be resolved professionally as well as promptly and certainly before half of Congresswoman Sanchez' term of office has passed Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end and now therefore be it; Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed upon the expiration of November 7, 1997.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, it does not seem possible that it has just been one year that we had the good fortune to know Walter in the people's House, the House of Representatives. In some ways, I feel like I knew him very well in that one short year, and I thought, well, why is that? Because our districts are kind of neighbors? Well, maybe that is so. Because we are one of, I think, only two Swedish-Americans in the House of Representatives and we used to tease each other about that? Maybe that is the truth. But as I think about it, I think I feel I know Walter very well because we all do, because he took the time to share himself with each of us and not just with us, with his constituents. I think about what we have lost and what his constituents have lost, what his family has lost, and I also think what we have gained. When I think of Walter, I think of several things. I think of his integrity, and I remember sitting here on this floor when we would be casting our votes and for the freshmen Members, trying to make those fine decisions, trying to understand all of the forces at play, and Walter would say something like, ``I think the right thing to do is this.'' Not the political thing, not the popular thing, but ``I think the right thing is to do this.'' And then he would do that thing. I think of Walter as a sparkley-eyed person, and I think of the jokes that he and Reverend Ford used to tell, sometimes in Swedish so the rest of us would not understand, and the jokes that he would tell. He proved up the truth that you can have values and integrity, but you don't have to be grim and not fun to be around. I think about Walter as a modest and egalitarian person, who treated the most modest person from his district or on the street as the owner of the country, who did not put the rich or the powerful or the important on any higher pedestal than the least person he ever met. And it is those values that we got from Walter. It is that that he gave to us. Where does a person get their life, their attitude towards life? Surely from their values. In Walter's case, from his faith. I also think his severe accident really had a very large impact on him. He talked to me, and I think to many perhaps, about how it made him understand in a very real way how precious life is, when he had confronted the fact that he was really not expected to live, but he fought his way back. After that, he took, without ever telling anyone, no press, never made much of it, but he always made a point to go back and visit the rehabilitation center where he spent those months and to visit with the people who were still there or who had become ill since he had left and to give them some hope, just by being there, that he had made it and they could, too. Finally, I think of Walter as someone who loved his family in a way that was very special. I think of him and Lois walking these floors at night when the votes were going, because Lois was here as his life partner, but also his values partner. I think of the pride that he had in his children and how he would share that pride and how wonderful that was, and I think of how honored he felt that his neighbors had selected him to come here for a short while to represent them, to trust his values to be translated in their behalf. He knew that all of us are here passing through at the request of our neighbors to do the people's will. He did not know it would be just for one year. In that one year, he has done more than many do in decades. For that, Walter, we all thank you, honor you, and thank your family.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in expressing our very sincere condolences to the Capps family, to the residents of Walter's district and really to this country, because Walter was a special person. Walter was an honest man in a time when some of us see things but fall short of that. He was honest intellectually. He loved this job. And in all the discussions I had with him, he talked about what a great honor it was to share the power and the hope and the ideal of this country with people who felt that they were left out. I can remember nights walking through the halls when he would be showing young people from his district this building and explaining the majesty of the Congress and making them feel that they owned it as much as anyone in this country. To Lois, we honor you for all you have done with Walter. He could not have done it without you. We miss you, Walter.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the conference report due to the inclusion in the bill of unnecessarily restrictive export controls on computer products. Two years ago, the administration determined in an uncontested study that computers of at least 5,000 MTOPS, that is millions of theoretical operations per second, were currently widely available worldwide and that computers up to 7,000 MTOPS would be available the next year; that is, this year. Based on that study, the current policy allows exports of computers between 2,000 and 7,000 MTOPS without a license for civilian end-use. The U.S. Government made this policy after the Department of Defense, the State Department, and the Commerce Department concluded it would not jeopardize national security. However, Mr. Speaker, the conference report would repeal this sensible policy and try to limit exports of technology that has already been widely available for purchase abroad for over 3 years. Since competitive products are already available from our foreign competitors, such a policy would hurt U.S. computer companies without improving our national security in any way. This year, U.S. sales of these computers to Tier III countries will total about $500 million. By 2000, this number is expected to grow to between $1.5 billion and $3 billion in a total worldwide market of $7 billion to $12 billion. That is why I believe that the U.S. Export Administration in their fax to me on Friday indicated, quote, The waiting periods in the bill are an affront to normal decisionmaking processes, are unnecessary, and make no technological sense, Furthermore, the U.S. Export Administration fax to me, said: The requirement to conduct postshipment checks will become an extraordinary resource burden, is unadministrable, and is unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, supporters of this amendment will invariably bring up anecdotal stories about inappropriate computer sales. Certainly we must prevent powerful computers from ending up in the wrong hands. Current U.S. law restricts such sales. We should absolutely discuss ways to improve communications between exporters and the agencies that track dummy civilian end-users. However, restrictions on domestic exporters will not stop anyone from getting 7,000, or even greater, MTOPS computers because they are already available across the globe. Moreover, current law includes strong penalties for companies that sell to military users or sell restricted technologies. Several companies are currently under investigation under these laws. We do not need new legislation to maintain national security. Violations of current laws can result in a 20-year prohibition on all exports, prison terms of up to 10 years, and fines of up to $50,000 per violation. The Spence-Dellums amendment included in the conference report will add layers of bureaucratic impediments, and I would urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the conference report. It is defective for many reasons, as has been described by my colleagues. But I want to point out the error in the provision relating to exports of computers. I think it is important to outline that no one is saying that there is not a level of sophisticated computers that should not be controlled. In fact, there should be. The problem is, from concept to concrete, we run into an error and problem in this bill. The 2000 MTOPS is not a computer that needs to be controlled. In fact, by next year the Pentium II 450 megahertz version will be, in all likelihood, 2000 MTOPS on one chip. To change the 2000 MTOPS, because obviously a Pentium II should not be controlled, it is readily available, there is a very lengthy process in the bill that involves multiagency review, and then a 180-day period for Congress to review. I would note that this is an industry where it used to be a law, that it was 18 months. We are down to 9-month product cycles. So by the time the review provision has occurred, the market will have moved further and we will never catch up. That is why I think that this is, although I am sure it is well- intentioned, I think it is out of kilter with the technology that we face, and therefore, seriously flawed. I believe that is why the Commerce Department, and I quote, said, ``The waiting periods make no technological sense.'' I believe that those who have proposed this mean and intend to do a sensible thing to protect our country. I honor those intentions and those well meanings, but I must point out that between good intentions and sensible results there has been a glitch, in this case. I believe we ought to defeat this conference report, we ought to relook at this, and make sure that we actually take those steps that will actually protect our country, rather than this flawed result.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Gordon and Anita Chan, and their family, selected as ``Early Pioneers of the Valley'' by the Chinese Historical and Cultural Project in San Jose, CA. I know the Chans well as I have had the pleasure of working with them over the years on matters important to the district I represent in the 105th Congress. Among many other things, the Chan family is being honored for their valuable contribution in the opening of the Museum of Chinese American History in San Jose in 1991, and their continued efforts to establish a traveling exhibit of Chinese American history. Gordon Chan's grandfather, Chien Lung, came to America in 1880, and became a very successful farmer in the Sacramento Delta area. History books refer to him as the ``Chinese Potato King,'' a prosperous farmer until he was forced to sell his land because of Alien Land Laws in the 1920's. Gordon's father, Ted Chan, started a successful flower-growing business, and served as president of the Chinese Wholesale Flower Market in San Francisco. Gordon and Anita, who met while attending college, continued working in the flower business, and have expanded into real estate development and restaurant operations. The Chans have shared their success with others in our community through their many generous contributions to local groups and organizations, and most importantly, they have been an encouragement to others to actively participate in civic affairs. Gordon Chan is legendary in San Jose for his community work, having served on many boards and commissions in our county. Mr. Speaker, on October 25, 1997, the Chinese Historical and Cultural Project will honor the Chan family as ``Early Pioneers of the Valley,'' at its 10th Anniversary Gala Celebration, the Dragon Ball. I would like to invite my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in saluting the Chan family as they receive this very distinguished honor.