Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from nearly 100 police chiefs and sheriffs in California begging the Congress not to repeal the assault weapons ban. It occurs to me that the police chiefs and the sheriffs know a whole lot more about this than the politicians in this House who have received contributions from the NRA and who are doing the bidding of their funders. The police do not want to face off against assault weapons on the street, but I think if we vote for this assault weapon ban repeal, we are saying it is OK for the police to face off against criminals with assault weapons in the course of their jobs. Earlier in this Congress we passed the Congressional Accountability Act that said we would live by the same rules as those we passed for other Americans. So as we consider this bill, what is missing in this rule is an amendment to remove the metal detectors from the U.S. Capitol. Let us see how we like having citizens armed with assault weapons in our gallery. We should do that if we ask police officers to live with assault weapons.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with striking the family immigration sections of the bill in order to address these issues in a more seemly and deliberative manner, and I agree with that. If we are for family values, we need to value families; and that is what the Berman amendment would do. However, disapproval of the Berman amendment will also have implications for the business community. I recently received a letter from a Mr. Yao, who lives in Mountain View, CA. I cannot read his whole letter, but I can excerpt from it. He is a senior scientist at his company, an American company, and is originally from China. When he started with the company, it was a very small company, but it has since experienced rapid growth and expansion. Its products are well received. In fact, the company received an award for outstanding achievement from the White House. The major reason why the company has done so well is that Mr. Yao has designed all of the antennas that the company sells and in fact is the holder of a number of patents. However, a few years ago, he missed his daughter in China so much that he was going to take his patients and go home to China. However, the company, fearing to lose him and to lose their business, petitioned to make him a permanent resident so that his daughter could come here. He wrote to me to say that she is now 30 years old, and he is desperate to see her, but she cannot come for a visit because of the pending application. Mr. Chairman, I guess the upshot is that, if the Smith bill passes without the Berman amendment, Mr. Yao can take his patents and go home to China. Then we can have the opportunity to compete with a Chinese company that he founds instead of dominating our economic adversaries abroad. I think it is worth noting that one of the fastest growing companies in our country, Intel, was founded by an immigrant. Sun Microsystems was founded by immigrants. The Java computer technology that is taking off on the Internet was devised by an immigrant. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we fail to adopt the Berman amendment, economically, and also hurting families.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, the H-1A nurses program was established to deal with a nursing shortage that has now evaporated. I understand the claim is that this program is still necessary for rural communities. However, it is important to note that four-fifths of the nurses who entered under the H-1A program went to metropolitan areas. In fact, one-third of them went to New York City. For those rural areas that need nurses, they have the ability to petition for nurses under the H- 1B Program, and they should certainly utilize that. This extraordinary program that was useful for our country at one time expired in September, and it should stay dead. We had 6,000 nurses enter from Canada and Mexico under NAFTA in 1994 alone. Many nurses that came in through this program, and many more are still coming in through NAFTA. We have a nursing surplus right now, and the New England Journal of Medicine is predicting a 54 percent decrease in hospital beds. We are going to be awash in nurses. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time to talk about illegal immigration when we talk about the Pombo amendment. We have talked a lot about that in these last few days. Now we are talking about bringing in a quarter of a million agricultural workers a year, and we are saying that that will do nothing to increase illegal immigration. That is a ludicrous idea. As someone who worked in the immigration field for many, many years, I have been thinking as I have heard the rhetoric today, who are these people? Not the farmers, but who are the people that will leave their families behind for months at a time, come to America, work very hard in hot fields, picking crops for very modest wages? Who are these people? These are people who are desperate for a better way of life and they do not plan to go home. They will send their money back to their families so their families will have something to live on. I do not have anything against these people. I admire their courage. But I also know they will not go home. The 25 percent of the wages that would be withheld from these individuals is probably less than what they would pay to a coyote to come across the border today. So to think that we are somehow going to be remedying the problem of illegal immigration by bringing in a quarter of a million desperate agricultural workers a year is absolutely ludicrous. Those who would say with a straight face that we are doing something about illegal immigration in a bill that contains the Pombo amendment should have red faces indeed. I urge everyone to oppose the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Rohrabacher amendment. Mr. Chairman, I guess to some extent I am a little mystified as to why this would even be proposed. Years ago before I ran for Congress, I taught immigration law, at the University of Santa Clara. At the time I pointed out to my students that the provision that this amendment would reinstate made absolutely no sense whatsoever. The correction that is now part of current law makes a lot of practical sense. For people who are here, who entered the United States legally and who have become legal residents under the current law, there is absolutely no reason to force them to buy an airplane ticket, go to an American consulate overseas and then reenter the United States. The correction that the Rohrabacher amendment seeks to undo recognizes that. I will give an example, a circumstance where this might happen. You have a student who legally enters the United States under an F visa to attend graduate school. The individual receives their Ph.D. in physics. They graduate, and for two days they are not employed until they receive a temporary visa to do research in a high-tech Silicon Valley company. Later they fall in love and get married, and the U.S. citizen spouse decides to petition for the individual to make them a permanent resident. Under the current law, you can pay a penalty fee to the U.S. Treasury and have your paperwork done here so long as you did not work in an unauthorized capacity. However, the Rohrabacher amendment would say, ``No, no, you can't do that. Instead you have to buy an airplane ticket, go to the overseas consulate, get your visa there, and then come back.'' There is no benefit to the U.S., there is no benefit to the integrity of our immigration laws. There is no benefit to anyone. There is no benefit to the U.S. citizen spouse, the company or anyone else. The only one who benefits are the travel agents and United Airlines. I would rather have the money go to the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the form of fees. This has nothing to do with illegal immigrations. It has nothing to do with anything but having a sensible, pragmatic approach to having our immigration laws work smoothly. I would add that for the business community in particular, they were strong advocates of this change in the law, because having an individual pulled out of a company to do paperwork abroad can disrupt the flow of important high-tech work, and when there is no good reason for the U.S. Government to do this, it makes no sense. I strongly urge opposition to the Rohrabacher amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, putting aside the fact that this amendment appears to be unconstitutional, and also putting aside--for discussion purposes--whether it is good for our country to have an entire class of people who are likely to live here their whole lives who are uneducated, I would just like to mention those in my county that opposed this provision when we had this discussion in California a few years back: our Republican sheriff opposed it, our Republican district attorney opposed it, the police chief opposed it, and the Chamber of Commerce opposed it. We know that most juvenile crime occurs between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., when kids are out of school and their parents are still at work. 1430 If we think we have trouble with juvenile crime now, try throwing several thousand kids out of school to hang around all day long and get into nothing but trouble. That is why our police chief opposes this. I urge Members to consider that aspect of this very ill-advised and, I would say, mean-spirited amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today is the first day of March Madness, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, and I am proud to announce that two local teams from Santa Clara County are participating in this event: San Jose State University, which will face off against Kentucky in about an hour, and my law school alma mater, Santa Clara University, which will take on Maryland tomorrow. I share the excitement of all the students from these schools, and I congratulate the team coaches, Stan Morrison and Dick Davey. I want to take this opportunity, while the national spotlight is focused on our college athletes, to point out that some of these basketball players, and many more of their fans, rely on Federal loans to attend school. The omnibus appropriations bill that just passed the Congress reduces student aid, including Pell grants and Perkins loans, by yet another 13 percent, raising costs for thousands of students in California, and precluding others from even attending college. Mr. Speaker, I needed help to go to college, and I know that students today need it even more. I also know that this country needs educated employees to compete in the global marketplace. Many Members are rooting for their teams this weekend; I urge them to support the schools that produce these teams as well. Go Spartans. Go Broncos.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to Congress in the fall of 1994, I was extremely honored to represent the people of the 16th District of California, and I was also deeply honored to succeed one of the great legislators in the history of this body, Congressman Don Edwards. As the longtime chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Mr. Edwards is widely respected as one of the foremost protectors of our Constitution and civil liberties. He recently published an analysis of the House antiterrorism bill in our hometown newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News, and I wanted to share his expert insight with my colleagues and his former colleagues. [From the San Jose Mercury News, Mar. 8, 1996] Basic Rights Swept Aside in Rush to Fight Terrorism (By Don Edwards) Once again, in the name of a worthy objective, Congress is considering legislation that aims straight at the heart of the Constitution. The concern is fighting terrorism. The proposed solution, however, is a comprehensive death penalty and anti-terrorism bill that would do nothing to strengthen the nation's defenses against terrorism. What it would do is undermine fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution. The right to confront your accusers is one of those basic rights. Our very concept of due process assumes that a person cannot be punished by the government on the basis of secret evidence. As the great Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter observed, ``Fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts.'' Yet the pending legislation would allow the government to deport legal aliens, including long-term residents, through Star Chamber proceedings where the evidence is made known to a judge, but is kept from the accused and his or her lawyer. Imagine defending yourself against this charge: ``We are going to deport you because we think you are a terrorist but we won't tell you why.'' Another provision in the bill would give Cabinet officials the power to label a foreign group ``terrorist'' and make it a crime for American citizens to support the lawful, peaceful activities of that group. It should be--and already is--a crime to support violent activity, but Americans have always been free to support political and humanitarian activities of foreign groups, from the African National Congress to the Nicaraguan Contras. Another step backward in the pending terrorism bill is the repeal of a modest provision I sponsored to keep the FBI from investigating political activities of domestic groups. Some will remember the FBI's worthless investigations in the 1980s of U.S. citizens opposed to our foreign policy in Central America. In the name of fighting international terrorism, the FBI monitored peaceful demonstrations against U.S. military aid to El Salvador, spied on groups housed in churches, and interviewed travelers to Nicaragua. After the FBI finally admitted that the whole exercise was a waste of resources, I added a small provision to the 1994 crime bill saying that the FBI could not open an investigation of ``support for terrorism'' solely on the basis of political activities protected under the First Amendment. Repealing my amendment would send precisely the wrong message to the FBI, encouraging the Bureau to investigate U.S.-based groups that express lawful political views in a violent struggle abroad. A terrorism bill already passed by the Senate contains all of these provisions plus others that would allow FBI agents to obtain private records without a court order, permit the use of illegally seized wiretap evidence, and expand federal jurisdiction over state crimes. Worse yet, the terrorism bill has become a legislative Christmas tree, on which an assortment of amendments are being hung. Most distressingly, an amendment has been added that would gut the historical right of habeas corpus, under which federal courts have insisted that the U.S. Constitution be followed in state court proceedings. Groups from across the political spectrum--from the ACLU to the National Rifle Association--oppose the bill. Worried Congressional leaders have offered what they call a compromise bill, but they have left untouched the most odious provisions dealing with secret evidence, criminal penalties for support of political and humanitarian activities, and habeas corpus. It's not as if the United States has been defenseless against terrorism. To the contrary, the current legal authorities have proven quite sufficient. In two successful prosecutions in New York, the Justice Department won convictions for the World Trade Center bombing and for a planned series of attacks against the United Nations, tunnels and other landmarks. The FBI promptly arrested suspects in the Oklahoma City bombing. In December, federal agents arrested two men for attempting to bomb an IRS building in Nevada, and FBI agents reached across the Pacific to arrest a man in the Philippines plotting attacks on U.S. aircraft. The success of law enforcement in responding to terrorism without this legislation should be evidence enough that there is no need for new government powers. Nonetheless, the legislative process grinds on, as both parties fear political fallout for appearing to do nothing about terrorism. Congress should take note of the near total absence of public support for this legislation. It is time for Congress to show restraint and reject this latest legislative assault on the Constitution.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on occasions too numerous to count during my first year in Congress I have heard Members of Congress suggest that many of the activities of the Federal Government should be eliminated or pushed back to the States. As a Californian, I have listened with some incredulity to the opinion that our 50 Governors now seem to be viewed by some as the repository of governmental wisdom. This astonishing view seems to be that State bureaucracies are somehow preferable to Federal ones. Aside from this viewpoint, however, there are fundamental questions posed by the helter-skelter rush to defederalize. I would like to share the view of Dr. John Collins, as printed in the Bakersfield Californian. Dr. Collins, a combat veteran of World War II and the retired chancellor of the Kern County Community College points out that while it is popular to bash government, we are the premier country in the world and that is not an accident, but the product of doing something right. Dr. Collins is not only a respected member of his community, he is my father-in-law. I know him as someone not only who is a loved family member, but the kind of American who those of us in Congress should listen to. Like the rest of his generation, he suffered the poverty of America in the Depression; he helped save our country and the world from totalitarianism during World War II; he achieved professional success through education and then dedicated his life not only to raising a good family, but to helping his community have educational opportunities. His wisdom is gained through experience and we should listed carefully to his admonition that we are the United States, not these United States. The remarks of Dr. John Collins follow, as they appeared in the Community Voices section of the January 22, 1996 edition of the Bakersfield Californian: Preserve ``One Nation, Indivisible'' The history of the United States has its roots in the British colonies, which though of themselves as semi- autonomous little nations. When these colonies became states with the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, they continued to view themselves as part of a loose union of separate entities. This view was held in spite of the disastrous experience with the Articles of Confederation, which provided for no strong central government. For 200 years we have been torn between those who want the states to be ascendant and those who see the need for a dominant central government. Before the Civil War, the term ``these United States'' was in common usage. When in 1861 Robert E. Lee, a colonel in the United States Army, was offered the position of general-in-chief of the Union armies, he said he could not turn his back on his country. By that he meant Virginia, not the United States. Prior to the Civil War, there had been a serious governmental crisis over nullification wherein one state, South Carolina, took the position that a state could nullify a federal law (tariff in this instance). Andrew Jackson stood firm and the central government prevailed. Also, in the early days of our history as a nation there were a number of Supreme Court rulings which gave precedence to the central government. However, the issue of ``states' rights'' seemed never to get settled. When Lincoln was elected as the first Republican president, his election precipitated the secession of 11 Southern states from the Union. This formation of the Confederate States of America was the extreme position with regard to ``state rights.'' The South argued that states had the right to authority of what they viewed as a hostile central government. A great civil war ensued that lasted four years, with more than 1 million causalities. Lincoln steadfastly and successfully conducted the Civil War to save the Union--to preserve the country as one nation, indivisible. His enormous and enduring contribution was and is that we have one country, not two, or four, or even 50. However, in time the old dispute over ``state rights'' surfaced again, and again, and again, right up to 1996. We see now the spectacle of people who represent their states or districts serving in the United States Congress preaching ``states' rights.'' They want to turn over to the states responsibilities that have resided with the central government for many years. This isn't a new argument, but it is startling coming at this late date, when we can see the terrible effects of parochialism and tribalism around the world. Lincoln saved us from Balkanization. He made sure that it is ``the United States,'' not ``these United States.'' Our debt to Lincoln is huge, and we should not be persuaded easily that it is better to have 50 different policies on the environment, civil rights, Social Security, health services and many other central government functions. It is popular now to bash the government. But over the long haul of history the government has served us well. It isn't an accident that we are the premier country in the world, the only superpower. We achieved that status because we have a good system of government. Democracy isn't an easy system. There are all kinds of tugging and pulling as we continue to give everyone a voice. Let's not kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Let's not turn the future of this country over to 50 state legislatures. Let's keep one nation, indivisible.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the most important things in this telecommunications reform bill is the provision that I advocated when the bill was before the House some months ago, and that is affordable access to the Internet for schools. I would like to thank all of those Members of both sides of the aisle who fought for this and who kept with it in the conference, because this is one of the items in which no high-priced lobbyists were involved. No one was interested but the parents and the teachers of this country. It will make a tremendous difference, especially for children who come from less affluent families. Recently my hometown newspaper did an analysis of Internet access and test scores and found that for children in low-income neighborhoods whose families do not have a lot of money, their test scores rose dramatically just with their introduction to the Internet. So I think this is a stellar day for schoolchildren. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that I was very angry when I heard that some people would jeopardize this very important bill by putting in extraneous measures having to do with abortion. I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and the gentlewoman from New York, [Mrs. Lowey], who disagree on the underlying issue, for clarifying that these provisions are unconstitutional and now the legislative history is such that they are not valid.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute a business in California's 16th District that has been honored for its generous support of local nonprofit organizations. South Valley Disposal and Recycling, Inc., of Gilroy, CA, was selected as Business of the Year by the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce because of its contributions to the community. South Valley Disposal and Recycling, Inc., has been involved in many efforts to help the needy in Gilroy and Santa Clara County. Its management and employees have successfully promoted the biannual food drive for the Second Harvest Food Bank as well as charitable drives by the Salvation Army and Toys for Tots Programs. Their support has helped the nonprofit Odd Fellow-Rebekah Children's Home provide care and health services to children in crisis. Additionally, South Valley Disposal and Recycling, Inc., is working to keep our environment clean by promoting recycling opportunities, taking a proactive role through public education. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to express gratitude and appreciation to South Valley Disposal and Recycling, Inc., as it is recognized by the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce in honoring Mr. Tom Carr of Gilroy, CA, for his extraordinary volunteer efforts. Mr. Carr has been named ``Man of the Year'' after also receiving ``Volunteer of the Year'' recognition from the city of Gilroy and the ``Elk's Distinguished Citizenship Award.'' What is so noteworthy about Mr. Carr is the pride that he takes in his community and his dedication toward keeping his city safe and beautiful. I am aware that Mr. Carr spends on average several hours each day eradicating graffiti from throughout the city. His work sends a signal, loud and clear, that we will not allow taggers to take over our neighborhoods. That is important, because fighting graffiti is a vital step toward keeping our streets safe. Likewise, Mr. Carr has been a staunch supporter of our local police department by helping to raise funds for special projects that enable the department to better serve the public. Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 1996, at the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce's Annual Meeting and Awards Dinner, Mr. Carr will formally receive his award. At this time, I would like to invite my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in saluting this fine community volunteer.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievement of my constituent, Rudy Galindo who--as of Saturday, January 20, in his native city of San Jose, California--became the reigning U.S. figure skating champion. While that accomplishment alone is worthy of accolades and admiration, it is even more praiseworthy when one considers the personal tragedy and professional obstacles Rudy had to overcome to capture the gold medal at this year's national championship. Rudy first rose to national prominence in the skating world when he and Olympic gold medalist Kristi Yamaguchi combined their talents to win the 1989 and 1990 pairs competition. Following their success, both skaters embarked on solo careers. But Rudy had much more to contend with than the adversaries he would face on the ice. Personal tragedy struck the Galindo family in 1993 when his father suffered a fatal heart attack and his brother died from symptoms related to AIDS that same year. Rudy had already lost his coach, Jim Hulick, to cancer in 1989. If that were not enough, another of Rudy's coaches, Rick Inglesi, died of AIDS in 1995. Despite his personal loss and professional setbacks, Rudy persevered, even though the odds were often not in his favor. To win the national championship, he had to best a field of nationally recognized skaters, including two former national champions. Unlike many of his competitors, Rudy could not afford some of the advantages available to other skaters who had secured the financial backing of sponsors and skating organizations to subsidize their training costs. Rudy paid for his own choreographer, his own costumes, and his own music, and got his sister, Laura Galindo, to serve as his coach. To cover the costs of his career, Rudy taught skating to children in his spare time. He lived with his mother and rode his bike to work. In spite of the obstacles he encountered, San Jose's Rudy Galindo-- bolstered by the highly charged cheers of a hometown audience--skated into the history books last Saturday night, becoming the first Mexican- American to win the national championship. With the athleticism of a Michael Jordan and the grace of a Mikhail Baryshnikov, Rudy skated his way to the national crown, completing eight triple jumps while gliding to the music of Swan Lake. His artistic and physical talents earned him the only two perfect scores handed out by the judges at the competition. Rudy disappointed only his competitors and the odds-makers who had labeled him a long shot. But Rudy beat the odds, and in doing so he has joined the ranks of other great skaters from the Bay Area, most notably Peggy Fleming, Kristi Yamaguchi, Brian Boitano, and Debi Thomas. On and off the ice, Rudy Galindo has demonstrated the courage and perseverance of a national champion.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Eleanor Villarreal, named ``Woman of the Year'' by the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce in Gilroy, CA. I know Eleanor and have had the pleasure of working with her over the years on matters important to the district I represent in this 104th Congress. Eleanor is being honored for her contributions to our community as a prolific volunteer and strong advocate for children. Eleanor Villarreal is well known in Gilroy, having served on numerous local boards and for spearheading community events benefiting Gilroy residents throughout the years. She was the first woman to become president of the Gilroy Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. She is president of the Salvation Army Council and a regular volunteer for the Special Olympics. In addition, Eleanor has lent her skills to volunteer efforts such as the Toys for Tots Campaign, the Gilroy Garlic Festival, the Exchange Club, Gilroy 2000, the Hispanic Cultural Festival and too many others to include in these remarks. So very significant among Eleanor's contributions is her continuing work with the Odd Fellow-Rebekah Children's Home where she successfully organized a multi-million dollar campaign to fund a 20,000 square foot expansion of facilities. The new facilities allow this dedicated agency to better meet the demands of the troubled youths it serves in a more home-like setting. Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 1996, the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce will honor Eleanor Villarreal at its 43d annual meeting and awards dinner. I would like to invite my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join with me in expressing gratitude and appreciation to Eleanor for her efforts.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a man whose record of community service spans more than two decades. Dr. Philip Buchanan will receive the Firman B. Voorhies Volunteer of the Year Award from the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce at the chamber's 43d Annual Meeting and Awards Dinner on February 2, 1996, in Gilroy, CA. It is an honor to join with the chamber in acknowledging Dr. Buchanan's many contributions. Dr. Buchanan is best known for starting Gilroy's Christmas street ornament program over 20 years ago; a program that provides for the purchase, maintenance, and installation of the street pole decorations each year. Over the years, Dr. Buchanan has used the program to get residents involved in civic pride, enlisting participation from the Boy Scouts, for instance, to help youth to take an active interest in their city. A two-term Gilroy City planning commissioner, Dr. Buchanan now serves as chair of the Citizens Committee, working on bike trails and sound wall planning. He has cochaired the Grants Committee of the Gilroy Foundation and played an active role in making the world famous Gilroy Garlic Festival a success year after year. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Dr. Philip Buchanan as he is honored and invite my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in saluting Dr. Buchanan for his efforts.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have studied the materials about the Government shutdown that could happen this Friday. I'm worried about something nobody seems to be talking about--funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission. I'm not an expert on the SEC; not many Members are. But, I know when the Stock Market crashed in 1929, it didn't do America much good. The SEC is supposed to keep that from happening again. I have a letter from the SEC that says, ``in the event of a disruption in funding . . . we fear the protection of investors and capital formation could be seriously hampered and it would seriously compromise the SEC's ability to oversee the securities markets . . . and could hamper the agency's ability to react quickly in the event of a market disruption.'' The SEC would be unable to respond to requests for Commission action to facilitate capital raising, mergers and acquisitions, and tender offers. Initial public offerings couldn't move forward. I represent Silicon Valley. How will America be improved if the high- tech, cutting-edge companies of Silicon Valley are stopped from raising Capital through IPO's? We have 4 days to act--to fund the SEC at last year's level. Let's protect America's economy and get that job done tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, January 19, 1996. Hon. Harold Rogers, Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Rogers: We are writing to request your help in the upcoming negotiations for a new Continuing Resolution or appropriation action. We strongly urge you to support language that maintains the SEC's 1005 funding level of $297 million and maintains the fee rate at the current rate of 1/ 29th of one percent of the offering amount. In the event of a disruption in funding authority for the Securities and Exchange Commission, we fear the protection of investors and capital formation could be seriously hampered. In addition, the amount of money deposited into the U.S. Treasury from SEC filing fees would be reduced. In our view, operating at this minimal emergency level would seriously compromise the SEC's ability to oversee the securities markets. The impact of a disruption in the SEC's funding authority would include: No new investigations. Enforcement staff would be unable to open new cases. While emergency actions to freeze assets or otherwise protect assets would be permitted under the contingency plan, the agency's ability to detect developing situations which present imminent threat to investor assets would be impaired. No work on existing investigations. Enforcement staff would have to cease ongoing investigative activity, except where appearances in court are required or investor funds are at active risk. No review of corporate filings except in emergency situations. The normal processing of corporate filings by companies seeking to raise capital in the markets would be significantly impaired. No regular examinations except in emergency situations. There are certain inspections that the SEC conducts regularly and continually; during a funding disruption, regular examinations and inspections of broker-dealers, investment companies, and investment advisers could not be performed. The absence of such reviews, in the worst case, could place the assets and retirement funds of investors at risk. The agency's ability to detect situations that present imminent threat to investor assets would be impaired. No review of periodic filings. Quarterly and annual reports would not be reviewed. The assurance of adequate financial disclosure for investment decisions could be compromised. Limited market oversight. A funding disruption would reduce market monitoring staffing to skeletal levels and could hamper the agency's ability to react quickly in the event of a market disruption. Regular inspections of stock exchanges and markets would cease. No review of stock exchange (NYSE, AMEX, NASD, etc.) pending rule proposals except in emergency situations. The ability of exchanges to respond in a timely fashion to changing market conditions and to introduce new products will be hampered without SEC approval of their filings. No transactional assistance except in emergency situations. The staff would not be able to respond to regular requests for exemptions or other necessary Commission action to facilitate capital raising activities, mergers and acquisition transactions, and tender offers. During the government-wide shutdown which occurred November 14 through November 20, the fee rate for registration statements filed pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 reverted to the statutory rate of 1/50th of one percent from its current rate of 1/29th of one percent. Had the fee rate not been restored to 1/29th of one percent in a subsequent continuing resolution, the U.S. Treasury would have lost approximately $30 million. As you know, the SEC is funded through the Commerce- Justice-State (CJS) appropriations bill, which was vetoed by President Clinton on grounds unrelated to the SEC. The SEC portion of the CJS bill, however, is non-controversial. It would provide the SEC with funding at its fiscal 95 level of $297 million, and provide the SEC with authority to continue to collect securities fees to offset much of its appropriation. The SEC is a very small agency that is charged with a very large mission: promoting the fairness, efficiency, and preeminence of our nation's securities markets. We are aware of the many challenges you face and difficult decisions you must make in the days ahead. We respectfully request that you seriously consider the SEC's funding. Sincerely, Steven M.H. Wallman, Commissioner.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, for a further question, I know that I was in local government for many years, a year ago I was sitting in a local government office, and I had the opportunity to speak to some of my former colleagues over this 3-week break period. They are having a very tough time putting their budget together, because they do not know what the Federal Government is going to do. So I know that had I been back where I was year ago, no way would they walk away and adjourn for a month's paid vacation without this job done. But I am aware a year ago you were in the private sector in the business world. I am wondering, in the private sector employment, would a man in your position have taken a month's paid vacation with this amount of work done?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman is aware, I mentioned earlier this afternoon my concern that the Securities and Exchange Commission is supposed to run out of money completely on Friday. I know the gentleman has a strong background in financial markets. I am wondering what is his point about the debt ceiling, defaulting on the debt while the Securities and Exchange Commission has to shut down. Would that be helpful to America's markets and the economy of not only America, but the world?

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as another freshman who has not yet spoken to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I would like to note that I served in county government. The gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] and I were both on boards of supervisors, and I balanced 14 budgets. One of the things we would never have done in my former job in local government was to leave town until the job was done.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am new to Congress, but when I reread the Constitution last night, I reminded myself again that the Constitution provides for systems of checks and balances, vetoes and veto overrides. Nowhere is there a provision to shut down the Government when we do not succeed in getting our own way. But as the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] said: ``We are only going to vote today on what the Republicans want to do.'' I think it is important that the gentleman said that. We are only going to allow those agencies to go back to work that the gentleman from Texas and the Republicans like. One of the questions I have, although I will vote for this because I want the retirees from the railroads to get their money, is what happens to startup industries in Silicon Valley? If a startup industry wants to go public after next week, because the Securities and Exchange Commission is running out of money, this company, even after 18 months of work, will not be able to do so. It may be that we do not think that the Securities and Exchange Commission should be involved in this process at all, but we should not leave these companies hanging out to dry. We should be grown-ups, like Senator Dole.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Until this year, I was a member of a local government, and we actually had the responsibility to make AFDC work; and I ran for Congress wanting to change welfare as we know it. We do need to make changes. As I listen to the debate here, I am mindful that many of the people in this Chamber have never had to actually make these programs work at a local level. It is not the Governors who make this work, it is the counties and cities throughout our country. I have here a letter I received today from the League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, urging us to vote ``No'' on the welfare reform conference report. They understand that block granting in their words, ``dismantles the critical safety net for children and families.'' They point out that without an individual entitlement they will not have sufficient funds to provide child protective services. They say the restrictions on legal immigration go too far and will transfer costs to local government. They point out that the block granting of child nutrition programs is wrong in that a child's educational success is essential to the economic well-being of our Nation's local communities. And, they say the welfare reform conference agreement would shift costs and liability and create new unfunded mandates for local governments, leaving them with two options: cut other essential services, such as law enforcement, or raise revenues. Earlier this week I called two people upon whose advice I rely: a friend who is an administrator of my county and a Catholic priest, and they both urged me to vote against this conference report for similar reasons. It does not adequately emphasize the well-being of children. I came here to reform welfare, not to dismantle it for a simple budget cut. This bill does not achieve reform, it just achieves a cut. Finally, I wanted to say that I saw an article in my local paper today by Governor Pete Wilson urging that we support this legislation and suggesting that he has exhibited creativity. Do not make me laugh. All he has done is taken local governments' property taxes, and unloaded the problems on them. I would urge a ``no'' vote and hope that we get back to a real reform of welfare.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have been reading through the veto message of the President. I think there is some good news and some misplaced rhetoric here on the floor today. The President supports the securities bill, I believe, that is before us. And what remains are sort of nerd-like lawyers issues on the technical details of the language. The President says he supports the second circuit standard for pleading. So do I. That is what is included in this bill. The President says he supports the safe harbor language in the bill, but he is concerned about the legislative history. I am mindful that years ago the President of the United States taught law school, and years ago so did I, and this is an issue that lawyers can argue about, but I think the sounder course is to override this veto and get this bill done. I am not meaning to say that the President does not disagree on these technical issues, but in his veto message he does support it overall. I would like to say the overheated rhetoric about fraud is entirely misplaced. These are very technical issues, and I think the sounder course is to override this veto.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. If I may inquire, I am a freshman Member of this body, and so perhaps this is the way things normally go, and I am certainly not opposed to working hard. But I, as do many parents in the Congress, have a little boy who believes in Santa Claus. I am wondering when I will get to take him to visit Santa Claus, and further, when all of the wonderful things that Santa Claus is going to bring him will actually arrive. He did point out to me the other day that we did not work last Friday and we did not work this Monday, and we did not start working until late on Tuesday, and now it is 2 o'clock and we are knocking it off for the day. My question is: Are we going to be working on Saturday to finish the appropriations bills not yet done? If not, why are we leaving now so that myself and the other parents might actually get their children to visit Santa Claus?

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, right after college, I came to Washington, DC, and I became an intern in the office of Congressman Don Edwards. One of the things that I did at that time was work on his dream to have a wildlife refuge in south San Francisco Bay. Because I worked on his staff, I saw perhaps a different side of the amount of effort that it took for Congressman Don Edwards to actually make this dream a reality. From calling committee chairmen every day for months at a time until he was heard, to working with local governments on zoning issues, and with the business community to make sure that their support would be in place, he did everything that it was possible to do to make this wildlife refuge a reality. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people know Don Edwards as a defender of civil liberties and civil rights and the Constitution. I heard him introduced as ``the Congressman representing the Constitution,'' and that is a legacy that he has left for our country. But this wildlife refuge is another legacy that he has left for our country. The educational center in Alviso, CA, near my district, is host to hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren who can learn about the wonder that is the bay and the marshlands, including my own children. Because of Don Edwards, the California clapper rail and the saltwater harvest marsh mouse are household names in my home, and I thank him for that. I thank him for all that he has done for our community, and I think it is fitting that the schoolchildren who go to visit the wildlife refuge will know of Don Edwards and know that that wonderful resource would not be there but for this wonderful, honorable and fine man's diligent efforts. I thank you, Don Edwards. I thank my colleagues, and I urge everyone to support this wonderful bill.