Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will this include student loans?

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a point, because I do think that to fail to enact the amendment I proposed would run contrary to the goals that my colleague is espousing that I share. I do not oppose research in stratosphere ozone research. However, we do have much research going on pursuant to our international treaty on ozone. As a matter of fact, we found a number of things already. As my colleagues are well aware, the Nobel Prize was awarded for some of the significant findings in that arena. But the action plan, the climate change action plan is where we bring together the various components that are all important into our plan. It is not, that function, so far as I can tell as a member of the committee, is not provided for elsewhere in the budget.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would read further on page 118, extending on to page 119, there are also prohibitions on research in the area of indoor air, drinking water research conducted by the American Waterworks Association, as well as a number of other prohibitions on scientific research activities. Mr. Chairman, it is my view that it is a tremendous error for Members of Congress, most of whom are not scientists, I think we have three or four scientists among our 435, to substitute our judgment for those of scientists. This is clearly an area that we know, as you referenced earlier, is of significant impact not only to the United States but to the world. My children are 11 and 14. I do not want them to be adults and live in a world where climate change is too late to impact, as the climate change action plan attempts to do on a voluntary basis before it is too late.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Massachusetts will yield, basically if the gentleman looks at page 188 of the bill, line 18, there is a prohibition on the utilization of funds already appropriated for the Climate Change Action Plan. And I would add, in addition to line 17.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to one of the most egregious research bans in this bill. The very thought of Congress banning areas of scientific research should be offensive to all of us and to all American citizens. H.R. 3322 attempts to restrict the EPA from spending money on the climate change action plan, a research program designed to identify cost effective ways of limiting carbon emissions in the future. The genesis of this program was the international concern expressed at the Rio Convention that increased emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in global temperatures or climate change. The Committee on Science has held several hearings on the issue of climate change, and I believe this has been a reasonably productive exercise. We have heard from the world's experts, who represent the vast majority of scientists on climate change, and we have also heard from some skeptics who have participated in the public debate. It is fair to say most Members on both sides of the issue have come away from these hearings better informed, whether or not they were swayed by the arguments. One of the few points of agreement, however, has been that the potential for climate change is plausible and we must continue to carry out the research to understand how much and how soon. At the same time, we must understand how to achieve a reduction in our consumption of fossil fuels and emissions of greenhouse gases. This has relevance far beyond the obvious environmental concerns. It is simply good economics. Whether we do only the most cost effective things that are justified, regardless of whether there is climate change or whether we go beyond the so-called no regrets policy to do the more difficult things, it makes good sense to examine the issue. This is what the climate action plan does. The climate action plan is based on an array of voluntary programs that, if successful, will save almost $2 billion annually by the year 2000. These include programs such as the Green Lights Program, the Energy Star Computer, Natural Gas Star, and other voluntary efforts that are strongly supported by industry. Mr. Chairman, I personally believe that the evidence is mounting that human actions have had an impact on the Earth's climate and will have an increasing influence. I recognize, however, that other well-meaning Members may disagree. We should all agree, however, that we have a responsibility to more fully understand this issue. We should also agree that we should move toward a more energy efficient future beginning with voluntary programs such as those in the climate action plan. This is hardly money down a rat hole, as was stated in our Committee on Science markup. The climate action plan will have far-reaching economic benefits as well as potentially important environmental benefits. I hope Members will join me in striking the prohibition on this program. Let us leave science to the scientists, not to the politicians.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to further add that in the discussion had by my well-respected colleague from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], I think it is really a diversion from the issue before us. The funding actually authorized for NSF's internal operation for 1997 is what is before us, and differences in funding projections for the NSF beyond 1997 in the President's balanced budget plan versus the Gingrich budget plan really are not particularly relevant to this discussion. The outyear budget estimates for individual agencies, let alone specific budget categories such as the salaries and expense account of NSF, are not cast in stone by the proposed funding envelope of the President's budget plan any more than they are by the Republican budget resolution. For example, last year's House budget resolution assumed a total funding level of $3.17 billion for NSF for fiscal year 1997, which is $120 million, or 4 percent, below the estimate for fiscal year 1997 in this year's budget resolution. Also, we are assured in this year's budget resolution that $120 million for NSF salary and expense account for 1997, it will be followed by an equal amount in the next 5 years. However, last year's budget resolution assumed this account would decline by $5 million. The point is that the additional years will be subject to additional authorization and appropriation, and these are made on a year-by-year basis. The budget estimates for NSF beyond 1997 are not relevant to this year's authorization, and I would just make this point: I know that the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] supports NSF, as do I. I know that he believes in their research, as do I, and respects the organization. But if we allow them to be reduced so far administratively that they cannot adequately review the grants and get the funding out to our fine universities, we will have hobbled really something that is a star in our country, and I know that my colleague agrees that the NSF is a star in our country. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment corrects two provisions in the bill that will impede the internal operation of the National Science Foundation. First of all, the amendment restores funding for NSF salaries and administrative expenses to the President's request level in order to avoid ill-considered staff reductions. Second, it removes provisions which together eliminate funding for one of NSF's directorates and which would trigger perhaps inadvertently a reorganization of NSF's administrative structure. NSF is not a bloated bureaucracy. Between fiscal years 1983 and 1993, NSF's full-time staff positions remained constant while its budget nearly tripled and the workload measured by numbers of proposals processed more than doubled. In the current fiscal year, the cost of operating NSF is 4 percent of the total budget, which is a modest and reasonable level of administrative overhead. Due to the dedication of its workers and investments in infrastructure, NSF has improved its efficiency, resulting in increased productivity. H.R. 3322 proposes to cut the budget for salaries and administrative expenses by more than $7 million below the current fiscal year budget and 9 million below the request. NSF has determined that after taking into account fixed costs for rent and utilities, such a cut would translate into a reduction of 120 people, assuming the average compensation level across the agency. The science and engineering staff comprises about one-third of total personnel and one-half of the total payroll. NSF estimates that a budget cut of this magnitude will result in layoff of scientific and engineering personnel, the people who run the research programs, and would degrade the efficiency of operations. Moreover, this cut would result in a reduction of one to $2 million in the computer networking investment NSF is now making to streamline internal operations and improve communications with the university research community. These investments have been the basis of past productivity improvements and have helped NSF to meet the growing workload demands while avoiding staff increases. The net result of the cuts proposed by H.R. 3322 would be to impede virtually all business operations of NSF from disbursement of payments to university researchers throughout the Nation to the timing and quality of research award decisions. My amendment restores funding to a reasonable level for the internal operations of this already slimmed-down agency. In addition, my amendment removes the provisions of the bill that eliminate one NSF directorate. These provisions do raise a reasonable issue. That is what approaches can the agency take to further streamline its organization and reduce administrative expenses. Ideally, organizational changes will be found which will both reduce costs and improve the efficiency of the agency's operations. Mr. Chairman, my objection to H.R. 3322 is that it presumes that the way to achieve such improvements is through elimination of one of the agency's directorates. It may be that such a course of action is the best approach, but we cannot make that judgment in the absence of evidence. This Congress should not be making an arbitrary determination. No hearings have been held by the Committee on Science on this matter. NSF has developed no plan for reorganization that lays out the advantages nor provides an estimate of cost savings of such a change. I would also point out that section 111C of the bill on the one hand bans use of fiscal year 1997 funding to more than six directorates while section 130 specifies that the agency has until November 15, 1\1/ 2\ months into the new fiscal year, to present a reorganization plan to Congress. This again suggests the agency is being forced into significant change prior to developing a realignment plan and that congressionally mandated cuts have more to do with our belief system and politics than with streamlining. Rather than impose a congressional mandate for a specific organizational change in NSF, it seems to me it would be more reasonable to mandate a thorough review of the operation with an accompanying plan to achieve administrative cost reductions and improve efficiency of operations. With such a plan in hand, the committee would be in a position to mandate useful changes. My amendment strikes the prohibition in fiscal year 1997 funding for more than six directorates, strikes the limitation of six assistant directors, imposes a requirement for NSF to submit by February 15, 1997, a reorganization plan with several options to improve operational effectiveness and to reduce administrative costs. My amendment stipulates that NSF evaluate as part of the plan the elimination of one directorate. The Congress will have time to consider the NSF recommendations through the hearing process prior to consideration of fiscal year 1998 authorization legislation. By following this procedure, we would be able to make an informed decision on necessary legislation. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just wanted to make a few brief comments on the amendment and what we are talking about here. We are talking about a reduction in this year's funding for staffing the NSF. I am a new Member of Congress. I have been here only about 18 months, but I have yet to hear in my 18 months in Congress any hint from any Member of this body that this is a highly politicized organization. In fact, quite to the contrary, I have heard from both sides of the aisle a great deal of comment about the excellent work done through the auspices of the NSF, the fine science they have produced. So I have a sense that this is a good organization and that we ought to listen to the director of the organization. So I would like to quote the director, Neal Lane, who has commented on the bill, and which I think my amendment speaks to. He says that he is very disappointed with the proposed reduction, and says, ``Our analysis of the committee's reduction in this area shows that it would require the elimination of 120 FTE's, roughly 10 percent of our work force--in 1 year.'' He goes on to say that: A reduction of this kind would demoralize our highly talented and dedicated work force. If we fail to provide sufficient resources to adequately staff and support NSF, the result will be less coordination, less oversight, less efficiency, and a real degradation in the integrity of the merit review process and the quality of our programs and operations. This is a lot of money where I come from, $7 million, but I also think it needs to be put in the broader context of the overall budget for science and the overall budget for the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be pennywise and pound foolish to make a reduction of 10 percent of the scientists in HSF, as the director suggests would be the result, that would preclude them from adequately managing the remainder of the budget that we are providing for in the budget, and augmented, I might add, by the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. This is not a question of bureaucracy, it is about good management, in making sure that the resources that we are investing in science are wisely managed and prudently overseen and that there is a good interface between our higher education community and the National Science Foundation. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking at some length on this because I think we know that failure to adequately invest in science is really a blow to our future. Although there may be sit-ins or demonstrators talking about the National Science Foundation, it may not be on the talk radio, really, the constituency for investment in science is the next generation. Failure to do the prudent thing in this regard is really a failure for the next generation, my children and others in their age bracket. The 10- and 11- and 12-year-olds will be reaping the problems that we sow here through a misstep. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, the National Science Foundation employs almost exactly the same number of people in 1994 as it did in 1984, that despite a 2.5 times increase in the amount of work that they have had to do. So I do not think it is correct to say that we want to build an empire. In fact, this is an agency that cut its overhead and staff from 6 to 3.9 percent between 1982 and today. It is a reducing agency. It is an agency that is becoming more efficient, but it takes some staff to administer the program. I think we all agree that it has been administered efficiently and well and to the benefit of our Nation and to the scientific future of our country. I ask that the amendment be supported.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 582 and H.R. 1972.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk today about what the people want. Six weeks ago, the people of California considered whether or not they should lose their right to a recovery when wrongdoing occurred, and they voted not to do that. I think that when they find out that the tobacco companies, the NRA and others want to keep them from holding wrongdoers to account, that the Consumers Union and Mothers Against Drunk Driving disagree, that they will agree with me that we should not override the President's veto.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, no person should be a victim of crime particularly a crime of violence. But we are particularly offended when a victim is especially vulnerable, when that victim of violence crime is a child, when that victim is a frail person or another person who is particularly unable to protect themselves. I think this bill speaks to that and says that as a society we are going to make sure that we have raised the standard of protection for the most vulnerable among us. Although criminal law serves many purposes, one of the functions of criminal law, be it at the State or Federal level, is to set the standards for what society expects of each of us. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that I was able to work on a bipartisan basis with members of the committee to strengthen the bill, to broaden the definition of violent crimes as suggested by the Justice Department, to raise the definition of the child from 11 to 14 so it would include those up to but not including 15-year-olds, as well as to add a provision about other vulnerable persons. Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is sound. Mr. Chairman, I would also note that the Justice Department has just released a Bureau of Justice Statistics report on sentencing patterns in violent crime, and note that on average, offenders who commit violence against a child serve and are sentenced to shorter sentences than those who victimize adults, which is confusing and inexplicable. This bill would help remedy that anomaly. Mr. Chairman, there will be at least two amendments that I am aware of that will strengthen the bill and are measures that I support wholeheartedly, but world not, I believe, have been germane in committee. But I did want to address the overall bill and congratulate those who have worked on it, and to urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for offering his amendment. I am a cosponsor of his bill, the Amber Hagerman Act, which the amendment is based upon. Last year, when the Congress approved the Sexual Crimes against Children Prevention Act, I raised the issue that the sentences instituted in that legislation were insufficient. I think this amendment goes a long way towards remedying that problem. I am a freshman in this House, but throughout my career here and in local government, I have been very much committed to rehabilitation programs and to assisting people in improving their behavior so that they would no longer pose a threat to society. But I find myself supporting life imprisonment on the second conviction for pedophiles, though, because I think that while rehabilitation works in some categories of offenses, I recognize that there are predators among us who simply must be kept away from potential vulnerable victims. I believe that the law must play a role here. I would argue as well that keeping predators, pedophiles, away from their future victims is also important in preventing a cycle of crime. When we look at who is a pedophile and their chances of improving themselves, unfortunately we find a situation that is, indeed, grim. In 1981, I commissioned an analysis of California's mentally disordered sex offender program. I was concerned to find that for those pedophiles who had been through the mandatory counseling program, their recidivism rate was actually higher than for those who had been merely imprisoned. I would also note that a 1992 Minnesota study of rapists and child molesters again found that the counseling and rehabilitation programs simply did not work with this offender group. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that those who victimize children through sexual mistreatment are twice as likely to have multiple victims as those who have victimized adults, and further that those who victimize children are likelier to have themselves been victimized as children. In fact, violent offenders who victimized children sexually were twice as likely as other violent criminals to have been physically or sexually abused as a child. Nearly one quarter of the child victimizers were sexually victimized when they themselves were children. Further, 31 percent of the female prisoners in this country were victims of child sexual abuse and some 75 percent of those who are prostitutes in this country were also sexually abused as children. We consequently have a situation where we have a crime that tends to be repeated over and over again. The rehabilitation efforts that we have in place seem to do nothing whatsoever. We also have a crime that repeats in its cycle of violence so that the innocent victims too often go on to victimize other innocent people as adults. I am someone who actually opposed California's ``three strikes, you are out'' law because the net effect of that measure is often to send people who have stolen a six-pack to prison for life. That is a misuse of resources. However, it is a good use of our resources to put pedophiles in prison for life to save their future victims, until we find some other method to deal with this group of offenders, which we have yet to do. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that this bill and this amendment are before us today. One of the things that I was committed to doing when I came to Congress was to make sure, if nothing else, that we put children first, that we ensure their safety is our highest priority, that we interrupt the cycle of childhood violence and sexual abuse. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] and hope my colleagues will join me in approving this amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter amendment. It is based on the Protection From Sexual Predators Act, which I have cosponsored. I would like to note, in response to the issues raised about germaneness or correctness, not as a technical matter since the amendment is germane, that this proposal is also about enhancing sentences for those offenders whose behavior is not amenable to improvement by any means that we have yet been able to devise. As with pedophiles, we have yet to find a method or program that in the case of most rapists changes their behavior so that they will cease being a threat to other innocent victims in the future. I think for this reason the penalty proposed by the author of the amendment is as appropriate as the punishment adopted previously by the Frost amendment. I would note further that this bill is about enhancing penalties in selected cases for sound reasons. This amendment is as sound as the Frost amendment; it is as sound as the Chrysler bill. It deserves support. For a Congress that has allowed logging in the Tongass National Forest as part of an appropriations bill to now say that this amendment is not connected enough with a bill to enhance sentences is, I think, rather curious--very curious. Mr. Chairman, I know that not every Member has had a chance to read through the jurisdictional basis that the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] has referred to, but I would urge Members to do so. I know that there are genuine concerns that can be expressed about the jurisdictional issues and the scope and breadth of Federal law, but I think that Members who do have reservations, if they will read through the amendment, will be reassured that in fact this measure is well in keeping with the Chrysler bill and the Frost amendment. I would urge that we step back, think again, and approve the Slaughter amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, that we have reported the Megan's Law bill to the House, and I urge every Member to support this legislation. California has recently moved into the sexual predator notification business, and although it is not an easy task to undertake, we have found that it is workable and has not created the vigilante environment that some who have qualms about this bill worry about. I have heard some Members whom I respect a great deal advance the view that those who have been convicted of preying upon a child and have served a prison sentence and then been released have paid their debt to society and that this is further punishment. I disagree with that point of view. Convictions are not secret in America. We can go down to the courthouse and find out who has been convicted. What Megan's Law does is to make that information available to those who need to know it most: parents, neighbors, and potential employers. I think that Megan's Law is about balancing the rights of privacy of a convicted pedophile against the safety of the public, and, most importantly, of children. When I think about the damage that abuse of children does, not only to that individual child but to our entire fabric of society, I am even more enthused about Megan's Law. I am aware that 25 percent of those who victimize children as adults were victimized and abused as children themselves. That does not mean that every child who has been victimized will grow to be a victimizing adult, but there is an obvious cycle here that needs to be interrupted. As the parent of two children, I know that if there is danger in my neighborhood, I want to be aware of it. I want to take every step that I possibly can to make sure that my 14-year-old daughter and my 11- year-old son are safe. And I know that as a parent, I am like every other parent in this country: I want to do the right thing so they have a good future. This legislation gives parents the tools that they need to take those steps. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, unfortunately, the the recidivism rate for pedophelia is very high. Looking at studies of pedophiles going back to the late 1970's and early 1980's, it is pretty clear that as a society we have failed to come up with anything that works for these people. I thus urge the adoption of Megan's law.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I read that the majority leader made this statement on Sunday: Maybe we ought to take another look at the amount of money we are spending on education. And I thought, finally, good--we do need to take a look at the amount of money we are spending on education. I saw today in the Washington Post that in Korea kids get out of school at 10 p.m., and they go to school 6 days a week. Is it any wonder that they are leaving us in the dust? They have gone from Third World to major competitor in a few short years because they are putting money into education. But I learned, in fact, that the majority leader's proposal is to cut education funding to pay for a proposal to cut the gas tax. This is not the direction we should be heading. Where I come from, families are indeed struggling to pay for very high gas bills; they are commuters. But the thing they know more than anything else is that, if we want to get ahead as a country, it is important to take the long view and make sure that our kids are the best educated in the world.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, San Jose will commemorate the 135th anniversary of Temple Emanu-El, the city's oldest synagogue, and I know that all the Members of this House will want to join me in marking this historic event. A few dedicated families founded the Temple in 1861, originally named Bickur Cholim, to care for the sick and needy, to ensure proper burial for the dead, and, as their original articles read, to ``[further] their Holy religion and language.'' The Temple has continued to serve this mission through this day. Temple Emanu-El has a long history of service to both the Jewish community and the San Jose community at large. Through Interfaith Sabbaths, the congregation's work with the homeless through the Coalition of Churches and Synagogues, and their community outreach through concerts and pulpit exchanges, the Temple Emanu-El community is active in San Jose cultural and civic life. As current Rabbi Mark Schiftan remarks, the Temple provides a beacon for Jewish values and ethical imperatives for the entire community. The history of Temple Emanu-El truly mirrors the development of San Jose. In 1861, the fledgling Temple relied on the strong support of the community's churches and civic organizations to construct its synagogue and build its congregation. Over the next 80 years, it grew with the city until a fire in 1940 destroyed the sanctuary. I am proud to tell you that, once again, the community responded enthusiastically, helping the Temple continue its services and programs. The new sanctuary was completed in 1948. Temple Emanu-El's last 50 years have been a whirlwind of rapid growth and community development. I believe that, like San Jose, this synagogue will remain an active center of our vibrant Silicon Valley community. One of the Temple's former Rabbis, Joseph Gitin, reminds us that although the Temple has grown, its fundamental role is unchanged. ``Here,'' he says, ``we learn that our faith and discipline of Jewish ethical values prepare and equip us to live meaningful lives.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe that no matter what our particular religion may be, we all strive for a similar goal. I would invite my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Temple Emanu-El's 135th anniversary.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, politicians in Congress have issues. We have wedge issues, we have issues we put in direct mail and we have rhetoric. I have heard a lot of partial discussions, selected comments that are meant to inflame, meant to persuade, and I think in some cases meant to mislead. But the people who will be hurt by this bill do not have issues. They have tragedies, and they do not need this bill to pass. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about people I really know, my friend Suzie Wilson's son and daughter-in-law, Bill and Vicki Wilson, and their wonderful children, Jon and Kaitlyn, because 2 years ago this April 8th they lost Abigail. They were very much looking forward to Abigail. They had had two baby showers. The nursery was full of pink ribbons waiting for Abigail, and in the eighth month they found out that all of Abigail's brains had formed outside of her cranium and that there was no way that this child could survive. It was a tragedy. They took their case to the doctor, who was able to save Vicki's life and to save her fertility. The question that faced them was not whether Abigail could live, but how would Abigail die and whether Vicki's uterus would burst while Abigail was dying. I am glad that Vicki and Bill had the chance they did to keep their family intact. I know because we had a lot of tears, we friends of the family. They did not need the Congress of the United States to help them at that moment. They needed a doctor. They needed the love of their friends and their family. They needed the guidance of God. Mr. Speaker, I have talked to Members in this body who have told me privately that if it were their wife, they would want this procedure, and then gone ahead and voted for this bill. I would ask all of you, do your politics with some other issues. Hurt someone else. Search your conscience and look at my friends, the Wilson family. Think of them and put politics aside.