Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, many Congressmen more senior than I have expressed concern that a topic as serious as the revision of the laws and procedures governing the national security of the United States deserved more than a day and a half of debate. I agree, and last night, after I was recognized to offer an amendment, I was cut off and not allowed to do so. Consideration of my proposal was prohibited by the majority, but I want to let the American people know what my proposal was. Many people back home in my district have expressed total amazement to me that we would even consider resumption of the star wars missile defense program. We all remember when the Berlin Wall fell and the cold war ended. In light of that fact, why would we want to spend $30 to $60 billion on star wars now? We've already spent $30 billion and we have nothing to show for it. With the cold war over, it is time American families get something concrete and useful for their tax dollars. For the same amount of money that we would spend on star wars, we could extend the school day to 5 p.m. for every child in America. That would be useful to the families that I represent and to families across the country. Working parents could stop worrying about their kids at loose ends, unsupervised from the time school is out until their weary parents return home from work. And wouldn't this help our country immeasurably? We will not be competitive in the global economy unless today's children become the best educated and most productive work force of the future. We should take the money we would spend on star wars and extend the school day in America to 5. We do not need star wars--but we do need today's children to become the rocket scientists of the future. I include for the Record a copy of my amendment, as follows: Amendment to H.R. 872, as Reported Offered by Ms. Lofgren Page 11, line 12, strike ``Title II--Missile Defense'' and all that follows through page 13, line 1, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. LOFGREN

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think that this vote on this amendment is the most important vote that we have faced this year. You know, I have two small children. They go to a little inner-city elementary school, and none of the reasons why I ran for Congress was to make a difference in what they are facing and what their classmates are facing. A watershed moment for me was a year ago October when I took my third-grader to school and they had found a dead body across the street, and the perpetrator was still loose, and I knew that if we did not do something different in this country that my children would not be safe and the other children would not be safe. I knew something then, and I know it today, that part of the answer is prevention. As my mother used to tell me, and as our mothers told us all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We know that there is a Federal interest in safety or else we would not be doing this crime bill at all, and I think it is important that prevention of crime be part of this package throughout the country. You know, when children get off on the wrong track early, we know they are going to get in trouble. We know they are going to cause pain to victims and their families, and we know that there is something, sometimes very little things, that we can do with children when they are 5 or 6 or 7 so that they will get on the right track. Those are the investments to make. I believe that every locality needs to make them. I am a firm believer in local government and, in fact, I am not offended by much of the block grant nature of this bill and said so during the Committee on the Judiciary hearings. Nevertheless, I think we ought to let localities know who are going to participate in this Federal program that some section of that must be used for prevention. Let them use their own creativity. Let them meet local needs. But we need to prevent crime, because a child who is going to become a monster in Nebraska today could be in San Jose, CA, tomorrow, threatening my children.

Ms. LOFGREN. Just briefly, frankly I would have preferred that in every case localities would have to get together and put together a comprehensive plan in order to get any money. But that is not what this amendment does. It is a very narrow amendment that I actually wish would go further, that basically says when the city gets more than 200 percent of what the county has, you are going to have a problem. If those cities utilize that for police, the administration of justice will be impaired. In the case of smaller cities, it would be 400 percent. So I think this is targeted to a problem. Perhaps it is not the perfect solution, but it is the solution we were able to come up with. It is only when the counties bear the cost of prosecution and incarceration. So I still think it resolves a problem that will be created by the bill absent this or something like this, because in the end both the cities, the counties and the citizens and unless we have something like this, the prosecution then may suffer.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Very briefly, although in a sense this is analogous to the plan in last year's bill that provides for a comprehensive plan as a condition precedent to receive the funds, but only in the limited circumstance where a city gets a disproportionate amount of money compared to a county, the intent is for those two entities to work it out as they would have in last year's crime bill, in a comprehensive plan, to make sure that the system works. I will give the gentleman an example. Mr. Chairman, I understand that under this formula, Chicago would get in the neighborhood of $60 million, and Cook County would get $700,000. Cook people that Chicago arrests unless they get together and figure out what they are going to do as a unit, so that is in the city's interest, it is in the county's interest, it is in the citizens' interests, and I think the precedent was really set last year.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I have made no secret that I have philosophical problems with this bill overall. I did not agree with taking the $2.5 billion out of the local grant program and putting it in prisons. I think we ought to do a minimum setaside for prevention programs. Those are philosophical disputes that I have. Nevertheless, to the extent that this bill passes, I think it is very important that this be a workable bill. I very much enjoyed working with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] to make sure this does work well. The issue that is really pertinent is when a city or cities gets a very large amount of money and the county gets comparatively less, the administration of justice will be defeated. We all know that it is important to arrest people who have committed crimes and who threaten our neighborhoods, but if the funds are not available to prosecute those individuals and to move forward in the process, ultimately the act of arresting somebody is not good enough. We need to make sure that the entire system works, from arrest to prosecution to local incarceration, and ultimately, to prison, if that is the end result of the prosecution and conviction. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this remedy outlined by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] and myself I believe will resolve this issue. I do not think it is controversial. It has been devised on a bipartisan basis, and I would recommend it to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as Americans we should be devoted to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights and our respect for the Bill of Rights is what has kept our country free for over 200 years. The fourth amendment to our Constitution is part of our precious Bill of Rights. Today in America we are legitimately worried about crime. As the mother of two young children I know how much I worry about their safety. I worry that unless we do the right thing our country will be an even more dangerous place by the time they are adults. But even as we worry about crime we cannot worry less about freedom and the freedom guaranteed by our Bill of Rights. Because of our concern about crime the operation of the exclusionary rule which protects the fourth amendment has been increasingly narrowed over the past years by the Supreme Court. Police can act in emergencies, police are excused under the Leon ruling when they execute a faulty warrant in good faith. This lets the police do their job. But H.R. 666 goes further than that. The fourth amendment is not in our Constitution to protect the guilty, it is there to protect innocent regular Americans. It is to prevent the government from coming into your home whenever they want to. It is to protect the American people from big government that would intrude on our privacy. H.R. 666, if it is constitutional, would allow the government to intrude on our privacy without having an impartial magistrate review the situation. That is why, as the mother of two little children, I will vote for the fourth amendment offered by Mr. Watt. I worry about my children's freedoms, freedom from the fear of crime is something I want for them. But I also want them to enjoy the freedoms that Americans have always had to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. So given that we would get a report back on that specific subject, I would like it to be known that I will not be offering amendment No. 89. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the chairman of the committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]. As the gentleman knows, I was prepared to offer an amendment, amendment No. 89, that would ask the Commission to report back and investigate the extent to which States require local governments, without their consent, to perform duties imposed on State government by the unfunded Federal mandates, including any duty to pay a matching amount as a condition of Federal assistance. In reviewing this matter, it has been suggested to me that this investigatory and review function is really already included within the scope of what will be reviewed and reported back to this Congress.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I urge that we step back from this amendment today and take the time that is necessary to analyze what this amendment would do to our Constitution. You know, as a member of the board of supervisors in Santa Clara County, I am mindful we spent more time analyzing the impact of a use permit for a golf course than this body has spent analyzing the impact of this amendment. Whether you are for or against the amendment, our people sent us here to make sure that we avoid the law of unintended consequences, and I do not think we can honestly say that we understand the unintended consequences of this amendment today. What is an outlay under the amendment? Is it a Federal loan program? Would it include guaranteed loans? Would it include working capital for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation? Does it include the Postal Service? Does it include the Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae? We do not know. What about tax compliance? Does it include a bill that raises taxes for some and not for others? I urge that we take our time and do the job people sent us here for.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like also to support the amendment before us today to look after the interests of children. I have been a Member of this body for not very many days and I have heard a lot in the last few weeks about the 100-day deadline. But I would like to talk today not about 100 days from now, but 20 years from now, and the things that we do today, how it will affect the world that we live in and our children live in 20 years from now. All of us who are parents, and I think that includes most of us in this House of Representatives, love our children and I know that is true of all of the Members here, whether they are voting in favor of this amendment or not in favor of this amendment. We know that our children are the most precious things that there are in the world, and our own families, and I think at some level as parents and as community members, we know that all of the children in the country really carry the future of our country in their small hands. I think if we look at what our economic competitors are doing around the world, not just what should we do, what do we feel we should do but economically what we should do as a country, we know that our competitors are literally betting the farm on the next generation. They are throwing everything they have got to make sure that their future work force is going to be topnotch and they are going to be competitive and they hope will be the next generation work force. I have been prepared to offer in the Committee on the Judiciary an amendment to the balanced budget amendment that would have exempted investments in childhood education, in childhood health for the same reasons I am supporting this amendment. If we do not make these long- term investments and remove every impediment there is to investing in the young people in this country, then we are not going to have a good country in the future and we are not going to have an educated work force, we are not going to have a healthy work force, we will not have a good country. I know that I care about that and I know that every Member of this House cares about that. I would therefore urge adoption of this amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments that are really very similar in three different sections of the bill. For efficiency's sake only, I ask unanimous consent to consider all three at one time, en bloc.

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just say that I think local governments throughout our country place their hopes on us to stand up for them today. I will offer later today an amendment to ask the commission that is proposed to review this, and I am hopeful there will be support for that and ultimately there will be relief for the cities and counties of America. But I would argue as well that in the interim we do need to take steps, especially considering the cuts that are likely to occur in this Congress and the very high probability that the budget of those cuts will be shifted to local government and not assumed by the State government and the citizens themselves will be distressed. We will fail in our mission to provide mandates, really which I am very much in favor of after my 14 years on the board of supervisors in Santa Clara County.

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

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

Ms. LOFGREN. The three amendments were printed in the Record. It is an amendment to section 2(7) to give rights to local government vis-a- vis State governments on Federal matching programs, an amendment to section 102(a)(1) that does the same thing for the Commission study, and an amendment in section 301 that provides for the same rights of local governments.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have been a Member of this body for 16 days, but I served in local government for 14 years and understand from that experience the real problems posed by unfunded mandates. One of the things I hoped to do as a Member of this body was to support some relief from unfunded mandates. I hoped to be able to vote for a well-crafted bill that would, in a thoughtful and targeted manner, provide relief. Unfortunately, the bill before us today needs further work. The definitions of what is covered as a mandate and who is protected needs clarification. It is my hope that after considering various proposed amendments that will be offered to this bill I will be in a position to enthusiastically support it. The amendments which I am offering are part of the effort to improve this bill. In all honesty, while Federal mandates that were unfunded did sometimes create problems for the local government in which I served, even greater problems were caused by unfunded mandates imposed by the State of California upon county government. The phenomena is the same as that which has sparked the movement to curtail unfunded mandates at the Federal level. It is easy to posture and look good if you don't have to assume the responsibility for actually paying for what you do. While we may all condemn Governors and State legislators who engage in such behavior, for State programs this behavior is beyond the jurisdiction of the Congress to curtail. However, our jurisdiction is clear when the programs being off-loaded to local governments are Federal programs. Take for example the AFDC program. Much has been said about a Federal-State partnership on welfare. but in California it is counties who administer the AFDC program, hamstrung as they are by State and Federal bureaucratic rules. The non-Federal share of AFDC is not entirely paid for by State government but is instead shifted to county government as an unfunded mandate. Over the years, the county share has increased without additional revenues provided by State government. The State is now discussing shifting the entire non-Federal share to county government. Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the type of action we seek to avoid in this bill. Let me share some examples of the magnitude of the existing problem. In Santa Clara County, California's fourth largest, less than 5 percent of the county budget is available for local priorities. In Erie County, NY, of comparable size, only 27 cents of every tax dollar raised locally is available for local priorities. Counties and cities are at the bottom of the political food chain. Under the unfunded mandates bill before us, States could agree to enter into large Federal matching funds in the future by allowing the non- Federal shares to be foisted off on local governments. When this occurs the problems of unfunded Federal mandates will remain unresolved. And, frankly, given the magnitude of change and potential budget cuts looming in our future, it is reasonable to assume that this problem for local governments will get much worse. The amendment I am proposing would give some protection to local governments from unfunded Federal mandates. It would allow local governments the same rights in dealing with State government as the bill before us give States in dealing with the Federal Government when Federal matching programs are at issue. All of the polling data I have reviewed indicate that the most popular level of government is local government. There is a reason for this. The average citizen cannot saunter down to the State House or the House of Representatives. They can easily go down to the city council or board of supervisors and be heard. Action can be immediate. There is another reason why the American people have more confidence in the government that is closest to them. our country, we will need to engage the creativity and energy of communities across this great Nation. This cannot be done from Washington and it cannot be done from a State capital. It has to happen right in a community with local leadership. The American people understand this and so should we. If we allow Federal mandates to travel down the political food chain to local governments we will help to insure that the local creativity we need to deal with problems never has a chance to get moving. We cannot allow local governments to be saddled with the cost and bureaucracy of federally mandated programs that miss the mark when we need them to be creatively and effectively innovating change. The committee report says that H.R. 5's purpose is to ``strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State and local governments.'' Unless we adopt the amendment which I have proposed, we will fail in this mission. There will be no effective partnership with local government created by H.R. 5. That would be a sad mistake and a disappointing missed opportunity. For true partnership, all parties need both responsibilities and rights. This amendment would give rights along with responsibilities to local governments when Federal matching- fund programs are at issue. I urge passage of the amendment.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. My intent in offering it in the purposes clause has to do with making later amendments germane and, secondarily, in the entire committee report and hearings we talked about creating partnerships between States, local governments, and the Federal Government, and my point is, and I understand this is a new proposal, and I was not here to work on the old bill, but unless we give some rights to local government on Federal matching fund programs, we will not create a true partnership. I think it would be a terrible mistake.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just answer to my colleague from California that I think there is a legitimate Federal issue here. The proposed amendment would deal only with Federal programs where a matching requirement is in place. Under the bill, mandates that are matching are really not covered as mandates, and so we can see a phenomenon in the future such as occurred in the past in California and other States where a State will agree to enter into a program; there is a Federal purpose which is why we are discussing it here today, and agree to assume a share of the cost, because it is a helpful program. That is all well and good so long as that State accepts the responsibility for actually paying their share. If, however, State government is allowed to essentially dump that burden off to local governments, then really the intent of H.R. 5, which is to have the people who are making decisions be accountable, responsible for what they do will be frustrated. We will not achieve the goal which we seek, and that is why the amendment is limited only to Federal matching programs.