Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I was also, unfortunately, on the 8 a.m. flight on United from San Francisco to Washington that never did take off. So I was unavoidably detained. I also missed rollcalls 416, 417, and 418. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of these bills.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, there are many elements of this legislation that are very favorable and deserving of our support, such as additional funding for Pell grants, Head Start, and other education programs. However, I reluctantly must oppose the bill due to the adoption of the Goodling amendment prohibiting the Department of Education from developing national standards for reading and mathematics. Education of our Nation's young people, the future workers and leaders of this country, must be our highest priority. If America is to remain competitive in the global economy, we must have the best educated and best trained work force in the world. In order to ensure this, it is incumbent on the Federal Government to ensure that children across America are receiving adequate instruction, particularly in the core subjects of reading and math. The Goodling amendment will prevent this and may allow many students to fall through the cracks and deny them the education that is critical for their own success and for America's prosperity. I am hopeful that the conference committee will delete the Goodling amendment from the conference report, and that we are ultimately presented with an appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education that provides adequate funding for the educational needs of our young people, and ensures that these resources are actually utilized to prepare them for their future.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, before the House recessed in July, we had a rather contentious deliberation over how to deal with updating our juvenile justice laws. One of the things that we all said, that we all agreed on, was the need to prevent crime among young children. That is what we are talking about in the funding of the community schools issue. What is it? It is small funding for each school that really allows a community to invest in very poor children who need a future. We know that most juvenile crime occurs between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., when parents are still at work and after children have been dismissed from school. Mr. Chairman, last Congress this project was, once again, at risk and utilizing a bipartisan group of Members on both sides of the aisle. We moved together to salvage this program. Let me tell my colleagues, because it is very typical of these projects throughout the United States, about the community school program in San Jose, CA. When I went to this school, the after-school program is run primarily by Catholic charities in collaboration with the school district, the district attorney. I went to this meeting at 7:30 in the evening. There were the parents in their rough work clothes. They had just come back from work. There were tears in their eyes because their hope for their children was that their children would become good students. This is a program that is oriented toward academic excellence, toward tutoring children so that they can achieve in math and in reading, to giving them hope for a future and giving peace of mind to hard-working parents who do not want their children out on the streets while they are still at work. I will say that in the case of the Catholic charities project in my district, there is a 5-year plan for each child that the parents buy into, that the teachers buy into, so that at the end of 5 years not only will the child be law abiding but the child's academic achievement is intended to increase beyond grade level. We are now in our third year. I am pleased to announce that our progress is good. Not only are children not getting into trouble, not only are children not being victimized in tough neighborhoods, not only are parents being relieved of their worry that their children may be victimized while they are waiting before they get home from work, but academic achievement is on the rise. Lots of times Members may look at a line item in the budget and say, I do not know what that is; maybe it is disposable. But I am here to tell Members of the House, and there are certainly Members on both sides of the aisle who know it firsthand, that this is seed money that allows communities to invest in young people and their academic excellence. It is a prevention effort that works. I heartily recommend and endorse the gentleman's amendment and urge its passage. I would like to reemphasize that the concern expressed by some Members that I understand and empathize, about the source of funding, has been altered. Legislating is about listening, learning, and improving. We did that. We learned that the source of funding was defective. The gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], to his credit, has changed it. I believe that the Members who expressed concern have withdrawn their opposition to the amendment. I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I share the concern that has just been expressed by the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee about the outrages that are currently going on in Cambodia. Just this week, we read in the Washington Post accounts of what has gone on. These were confirmed by numerous reports of torture, Hun Sen's forces capturing individuals, gouging out the eyes of people who they were interrogating, and then killing them; cases of bodies found with hands tied behind their backs, bullets in the head, fingernails pulled out, tongues yanked from mouths with pliers before the murder was done. This is the kind of outrage that occurred during the regime of Pol Pot. I hope that our country can act with a great deal of strength this time to prevent the Holocaust from growing. Mr. Chairman, I feel a personal stake in this in a sense because of the number of individuals I have met in this country, Cambodian Government officials, who have since been murdered. I think of those young individuals who were democrats with a small d, and they have now given their lives for democracy. We need to stand up for them. I appreciate the amendment being offered by the chairman of the subcommittee. However, I am mindful, I do not know if the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] intends to offer his amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman is doing, but in this case I think that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] to the amendment which takes this step a little farther really merits our attention.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a clarification question. It is my understanding that the gentleman's amendment would, while doing all that he says, still permit the standard humanitarian aid; is that correct?

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

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rohrabacher amendment. I really believe that on both sides of the aisle we are of one mind on the outrage that is going on in Cambodia. We want to take a strong stand. I appreciate the Bereuter amendment, and I support this further step. I understand, I am not a member of this committee, that the Bereuter amendment, comments on it might be technically correct. But I think this takes a stand, as my colleague has noted, the international community, in addition to this Congress, needs to stand up for human rights and for democracy and against a repeat of the killing fields in Cambodia. In addition to this, I hope that our administration is listening tonight so that they may take those steps necessary to rally around the international community, our allies that are also contributing that half of revenue into Cambodia. We need to act internationally to prevent an even greater disaster that has yet occurred and to insist that civility be returned to Cambodia, that democracy exist in that country, and that we will stand by those Cambodians who have risked their lives and their families and the lives of their families in behalf of freedom.

Ms. LOFGREN. Certainly. Mr. Chairman, I will let the gentleman defend his own amendment, rather than doing it for him. But I would just say that opinions differ. I really feel in this case, given the dependency that Cambodia has on the international community, including the United States, for their very survival, that the opportunity to greatly influence events there is present, and it may not always be present. I would like to further state that as we move forward in this effort, we must make sure that our partners, our international partners throughout the world who have also provided aid, stand with us in isolating this lawless government from funds. I would further say, as we move forward hoping for elections that I would strongly urge must be supervised once again by the United Nations or the international community, we must gain a guarantee that the winner of the election actually gets to take power this time. I think it was a very serious mistake that we failed to do that last time that has helped create this problem. Mr. Chairman, with that, I do not know if the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would like to defend his amendment for the comments made that this is beyond our jurisdiction.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, does the gentlewoman from Connecticut happen to know the amount of money that has been spent on this investigation by the House so far?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman represents an area more in the interior of the country, but the gentleman and I are members of a very small group here in the House, the Scandinavian Caucus. As I think back in listening to the gentleman speak about his district, I am reminded of my own grandfather who was an immigrant, and he had his naturalization certificate and he hung it on the wall, he was so proud of it. As the gentleman is talking about newcomers coming in, I do not recall ever a time when people of Scandinavian descent were hunted down to see if there was proof of their citizenship. Yet he was an immigrant, much more than many of the Latinos in California whose families have lived in California for generations, long before my family arrived. I wonder whether in the gentleman's experience there has ever been these issues raised about what are the Scandihoovians doing there, and are they legit?

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, I do.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am known here in the House as someone who is not a ranter and a raver, if I can use that phrase. I like to work whenever possible in a bipartisan manner to find common ground and to achieve real progress for the American people. I think all of us were sent here to do this and to make a difference in that way. But I find myself unable to remain silent any longer about the Sanchez race. You know, I am mindful that the investigation that has been going on has now consumed more time than the entire campaign and election did from filing to election date, and I think there is something wrong when an investigation that produces nothing continues throughout what looks to be a plan to consume the entire term of the person's office. Now if there was any evidence of behavior that would affect the outcome, perhaps we could be more patient with this, but as the Washington Post has pointed out and as a matter of longstanding law as well as precedents of this House, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in this case, and there is no credible evidence that has been brought forward that would lead any objective observer to the conclusion that the outcome of this election will be changed in any way through additional investigations. As the gentlewoman from New York knows, I am a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and in that capacity I serve on the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization. I regret to report that the state of the records of the Immigration Service is so poor that the information being asked for frankly is not going to be able to be delivered in any kind of timely fashion. And by way of example, when the first request was made to the Immigration Service to match up names with INS records was delivered, 500,000 names came back, nearly, well, almost the entire population of a congressional district from all over the United States. Obviously this proves nothing. The numbers are now down to such a short percentage that there is no way the outcome could possibly be affected. Now I have heard Members on the other side of the aisle stand here in this well and become highly enraged and distressed and upset at the concept that this investigation would be perceived as racist and would be perceived as sexist and would be perceived as partisan, and I believe that those individuals who spoke in that manner did so in good faith and honorably. But I am here to say that if you continue after today, you are warned that in fact it will be taken in that manner by people of good-faith, not only in California and Ms. Sanchez' district but throughout this country, because Sanchez is as American a name as Lofgren or Smith or Wong, and yet the only individuals being looked at are Americans with names like Velazquez and Sanchez. And that is being taken very poorly in those sectors and, I think, rightfully so. We are not asking to see the naturalization papers of any Flahertys or Clintons, and I think that the voters and Americans in California have got it about right as to the impact of this investigation. I have come to know Congresswoman Sanchez as a very strong, forceful voice for ordinary working people in her district. I think it is important for the Republican Party to put this matter to one side to allow Congresswoman Sanchez to do her job, and we will have another election just next year. Candidates can run and voters can choose. That is the way to settle this at this point. And I would just urge that Members in good faith, Members of this House who take their oath of office seriously, will step back, ditch the partisanship, let the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] do her job.

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, you know it reminds me, Congresswoman, of an incident that happened, and I have only been in this Congress now for 32 months, but I served in local government in California for a number of years, and several years ago the Republican Party in southern California hired guards and posted them around the polls but only in sections of town that were primarily Latino. And, in fact, the Republican Party was sued over that and the court found that it was discriminatory and the Republicans were fined. Many people in California are likening this investigation to that more egregious, and, I would say, intentional, effort to try and discourage Americans who are of Hispanic descent from exercising their franchise, as every other American should do. It is certainly, I think, the wrong message for America, the wrong message for our children to see. We are living in a country, fortunately, where what defines your Americanism is not where your parents or grandparents came from, it is not whether your name is Smith, Wong, or Sanchez, it is not the color of your skin. It is your belief in freedom, it is your belief in the ideals of this country that make you. It is your willingness to stand up for your country that make you an American in belief, and the separating out of Hispanic Americans I think is terribly wrong. And I will make this prediction as well, that in the end Latino Americans in California have taken great offense at this, and I think are certainly registering to vote in much greater numbers than historically has been true, and I think what I am hearing from my constituents or Latinos is that they now understand in quite a different way which party is on their side, and I have recently heard that from other Americans whose parents immigrated from places other than Europe, including friends in the Korean-American business community and others. So I think in the end this will all be resolved, but for now I think it is important for us to step back. I have heard people say, well, in 1984 something happened that the Democrats did that was wrong. I was not here then. If the Democrats did something wrong, they should not have done it, but we should not do a bad thing. We should do what our oath of office requires us to do, what is right for America, what is right for this House and hold up our heads proudly.

Ms. LOFGREN. Does that include the cost incurred by the Immigration Service to comply with all these many requests that have yielded nothing?

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I want to inform the House that the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Murtha has informed me that the Appropriations Committee has reviewed allegations with respect to the Navy and the low-bid awardee of a contract to provide cockpit video recording systems for the F/A-18, and that the committee has found the Navy's conduct and the performance of the contractor to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. This should put this issue to rest.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I will not object. I just wanted Members of the House to understand what we are doing here. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1109 is a technical amendment bill introduced by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]. I understand that the Senate recently passed S. 670, which is an identical piece of legislation, and that we will be calling up S. 670 at the end of our debate on H.R. 1109 so that the legislation may go directly to the President when and if it passes. Section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended last year to make it more difficult for certain children of U.S. citizens living abroad to receive certificates of citizenship. Section 322 previously provided that a foreign born or adopted child of an American living abroad was eligible to receive a certificate of U.S. citizenship if he or she was under 18 years old and had an American parent or grandparent who spent a total of 5 years in the United States, at least 2 of which were after age 14. The amendment, placed a special restriction on children born before November 14, 1986. For those children to be eligible to receive a certificate of U.S. citizenship, the American parents or grandparents are required to have been physically present in the United States for a total of 10 years, at least 5 of which were after age 14. Unfortunately, last year's conference committee meetings were closed. I have not been able to find anybody who can fully explain how this change came about or why it came about. It certainly does impose burdens on Americans that are unwise and that on a bipartisan basis we object to. I think it is one example again of how haste in these matters can end up producing bills that have consequences no one wanted. I would urge adoption of this measure as a sensible revision for what I think was a mistake made in the last Congress.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1348, the Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997. This is a companion bill to legislation passed last year establishing Federal jurisdiction over war crimes. I think that every Member of this body agrees that we must actively and aggressively support civility, that we must oppose oppression and war crimes and that we need to bring those to justice who commit crimes against humanity. During the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, the civil war in Bosnia and the massacres in Rwanda, many perpetrators acted without fear of retribution, and we must do more to change this attitude. This bill expands the definition of war crimes to include violations of any convention signed by the United States, including the Hague Convention, an important source of international humanitarian law, and I urge support of this legislation. I would like to note that, although there was strong support on both sides of the aisle for this bill, there are those in this House who on principle oppose the death penalty. I am not among those Members but I do respect those whose religious beliefs have led them to the conclusion that they cannot support the death penalty. I think that we ought to respect those differences of opinion among us and also understand that even those who feel that the death penalty is an inappropriate sanction because of their own religious beliefs still do condemn war crimes and still do believe that we ought to do our very best to oppose crimes against humanity and war crimes throughout the world.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply expresses the sense of the Congress that violent criminals should face severe penalties for their behavior. I think the resolution gives us an opportunity to reflect on one of the biggest success stories in memory, which is the huge decrease in the crime rate, an astonishing 34 percent reduction since 1991, and it is continuing to fall. I think it is important to realize that there are different elements contributing to the falling crime rate. First and foremost, I think it has been aggressive community based policing, the 100,000 new cops on the beat program. Second, I agree with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that repeat violent offenders do need to be kept from their potential victims and that efforts to keep violent criminals incarcerated for most of their sentence have played a role in the falling crime rate. Third, gun control efforts that we have enacted, including the Brady bill and the ban on assault weapons have done a lot to make our communities safer. Last but not least is the role of prevention programs. I would say of the four elements of a balanced program, it is prevention that has been most starved for attention and for resources. The cumulative effect, however, of the four balances, community policing, career repeat violent offenders being incarcerated, as well as the gun control, and then, finally, prevention programs has yielded this result. I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] for his resolution. I think it is absolutely appropriate that we recognize one of the four elements on our balanced approach, and I would also ask us to reflect that it is not just that one of the four elements, but the prevention measures and the other that have helped achieve the success that we are now starting to achieve.

Ms. LOFGREN

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