Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. LOFGREN. Then I will close on our side. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A lot of things have been said today that will be very helpful, but I think clarifying some of these issues might be useful for Members. It has been said that there is discrimination in this bill. It is important to note that the Visa Waiver Program discriminates on the basis of nationality. That is why there is only one country, Chile, in Latin America that is in the Visa Waiver Program. Everybody else has to go in for a visa interview. There are no countries in Africa that are eligible for the Visa Waiver Program. Everybody in Africa has to go in for an interview to get a visitor's visa. There are only four sites--Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea--in Asia that are eligible. Everybody else has to go in for a visa interview. So a visa interview is not a terrible thing. It helps us understand what people are about. I include for the Record a letter from the U.S. Travel Association in favor of this bill. It is signed by a large number of groups, including the Asian American Hotel Owners Association and The Travel Technology Association. U.S. Travel Association, Washington, DC, December 8, 2015. Dear Members of the House of Representatives: On behalf of the 14.6 million American workers whose livelihood depends on safe international travel to the United States, we are writing in support of H.R. 158, legislation to strengthen homeland security in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks. The horrific attacks in Paris underscore the need for every possible measure to protect public safety. And no one advocates for security precautions more vigorously than travel professionals. Without public confidence in air security, worldwide commerce will be crippled. The Visa Waiver Program (VWP), originally created to facilitate travel, today is one of our most effective tools against global terror. Because of VWP, governments around the world now are working cooperatively at the highest levels of law enforcement to identify risky travelers--both before boarding flights and upon arrival in the United States. For the 38 countries that are currently VWP members, the U.S. has unparalleled authority to inspect their counter- terrorism, border control, aviation and travel document security methods and facilities. VWP protocols require participating nations to issue machine-readable passports that are difficult to forge; promptly enter data on all lost and stolen passports into a central INTERPOL database; and collaborate with the United States law enforcement under essential information-sharing agreements. Since this system was established in 2008, we have denied entry to over 4,300 would-be travelers known or suspected of posing a threat. For the many nations that hope to someday become a VWP member, just that aspiration offers a strong incentive to raise security standards unilaterally, even in advance of their admission. The VWP is a rare, exemplary government program that delivers both security and economic benefits. Even successful programs such as VWP can be improved. In our view, the battery of reforms proposed in H.R. 158 will help make us all safer. We support its provisions to add additional layers of protection, including by increasing preclearance and immigration advisory programs, working with other governments to strengthen their watch lists and vetting systems; and expanding Global Entry to enroll more rigorously screened, trusted travelers. These are thoughtful, effective reforms--and we especially commend bipartisan House leaders for working together toward enacting H.R. 158. As this bill makes its way through the legislative process, we will continue to work constructively with its sponsors. This is a moment when the United States and our allies can send a global message about the seriousness of our air security protocols and our capacity for bipartisan consensus on matters of national security. Thank you in advance and please call on us if we can serve as a resource for your deliberations. Sincerely, U.S. Travel Association, Airlines for America, American Gaming Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association, American Resort Development Association, American Society of Travel Agents, Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Atlanta Convention & Visitors Bureau, Dallas Convention & Visitors Bureau, Destination DC, Destination Marketing Association International, Expedia, Inc., Hilton Worldwide, International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, Los Angeles Tourism & Convention Board, Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority, Loews Hotels and Resorts, Marriott International, Inc., National Retail Federation, National Tour Association,

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman has additional speakers.

Ms. LOFGREN. Why? Because it is important for our country that this program, this Visa Waiver Program, be tightened up, that we are assured that it is being operated in a safe and secure manner. I am happy that we can work together on a bipartisan basis to do this, because we are at a time in our country when reckless and racist things are being said about some of our fellow Americans--people who are saying that if you are of the Muslim faith, somehow you are a threat to the United States. That is not true. And it is important for us to stand up against that rhetoric, to stand up for all Americans and people of all faiths, but also to work together on sensible, modest reforms to the VW Program. I am glad that we will, hopefully, stand together in the face of outrageous racist rhetoric and that we will also stand together supporting this modest reform to the program. I would note also the suggestion that the bill does not solve all the problems. As I said in my opening statement, the most important part of this program is the database provisions. If countries do not want to share their data, they can't be in the Visa Waiver Program. I think that, as we move forward, more and more countries will understand we need to collaborate together, and I urge support for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our whip.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee as well as of the Homeland Security Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, all of us watched with horror the events in Paris. November 13 was France's September 11. And all of us have paused to consider what further should be done to make sure that America is safe because our first obligation, as Members of Congress, is to make sure that America is safe. So, as we watch the refugees from the Middle East pouring into Europe, concern has been expressed--and I think correctly--who are these people hidden among the many helpless victims? Are there those who would pose a threat? It is worth noting that our process for refugees is completely different. No one gets into the United States unless they have been completely vetted. This process starts with the U.N. referring only those people who are vulnerable, who have been tortured, who have been victimized, who are helpless women and children, for screening by us. We have a process that includes soliciting information from the DEA, from the intelligence agencies, from the FBI, and the like. All of those agencies have a veto. If there is a problem, they veto the admission. The process takes 2 years or more, and a very small number of people actually are admitted. Of the 2,000 or so Syrian refugees who have been admitted to the United States, the overwhelming majority are children and widows who have been victims of torture, who have seen their husbands beheaded. The bill before us, as has been described by the Speaker and the author, would stop the refugee program. They call it a pause. They would stop it because it completely restructures the very elaborate system that we have. By putting the FBI as the lead agency, they would have to hire agents, send them over. It would be a pause. That is what they have described. We think it would take a couple of years to start up. Now, why is that a bad idea? ISIS is our enemy, and we need to fight them, and we need to defeat them. But we are fighting on two levels; one, military, but also, this is a fight of values. America stands for freedom. We are the beacon of light, of democracy, of freedom in the world. And part of that value of America is allowing people who are escaping monsters like ISIS to be able to become Americans like us. We need to screen and make sure that we are completely safe. But if we stop that program, we give ISIS a win. Please defeat this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to all of this debate with keen interest, and it is with a sense of great sadness that we were unable to come up with a bipartisan bill today. I would like to note, however, that a bill was introduced by myself and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) that actually is much tougher than the bill before us. It would relate to all refugees in terms of their identity and their excludability--including Nigerians because we are worried about Boko Haram and Somalians because we may be worried about al Shabaab--and that is a tougher approach. I recommend it. But we also took good ideas from Mr. McCaul's bill. It is a good idea to do some sampling on the IG. It is a good idea to have some reporting to the committees. Unfortunately, our bill was not made in order; but it is a stronger bill that incorporates the good ideas from the Republican bill and a smarter approach to deal with the threat.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, in honor of Veterans Day next week I would like to speak- out against predatory lending practices that target our nation's veterans. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense finalized its rules under the Military Lending Act that would protect our service members and their families from the endless cycle of debt frequently created by payday loans. However, the MLA does not provide these same protections to those brave women and men who have already served their country. There are already many challenges for veterans reentering civilian life. The threat of being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lenders does not need to be added to the list. It is within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's authority to protect our veterans from the predatory payday lending industry. They must act to end the dangerous payday loan debt trap by creating strong consumer protections and encouraging innovative alternatives for veterans who need short-term, emergency loans to make ends meet. It is my hope that the CFPB will make this issue a priority and quickly provide the financial protections our veterans deserve.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are considering this amendment today. In fact, the genesis of this idea came to me in a constituent letter in February 2014. I was contacted by a constituent who works at a local Federal facility who was surprised and dismayed that he was unable to charge his electric car at work. We found that, due to a quirk in the reading of current law, Federal agencies were prevented from providing EV charging facilities for personal use by their employees. Thanks to this constituent's suggestions, I introduced a bill last Congress, the EV-COMUTE Act, to allow Federal agencies to provide charging stations for their employees at no cost to the taxpayer. I am grateful to my colleagues, Mr. Massie and Ms. Eshoo, for joining me in this effort, both as cosponsors of the EV-COMUTE and of this amendment. This story is a great example of democracy at work and the power of citizen participation in generating ideas. After two Congresses of introducing the EV-COMUTE, I am happy to support this amendment here today. It is a straightforward amendment that will make Federal workplaces more efficient, flexible, and innovative by allowing the GSA to install and operate electric car charging stations at Federal facilities for use by employees at no cost to the taxpayer, fully covered by user fees. Currently, if Members of Congress and their staff choose to drive an electric vehicle to work at the U.S. Capitol, we have the option to pay a fee to plug in our vehicle so that it will be fully charged and ready to go when we leave. But our constituents that work at Federal agencies outside the Capitol don't have the option. My district in Silicon Valley continues to lead in advancing innovation in the EV charging industry. Yet, nearly 5,000 Federal employees in my district do not have access to charging facilities at work. Congress approved electric vehicle recharging at the U.S. Capitol complex with strong bipartisan support in the House and Senate. This amendment corrects the disparity and allows Federal employees more choices in how they commute; gives the GSA and agencies flexibility on whether to provide charging, how to provide it, including through contractors; improves air quality while reducing reliance on foreign oil; and does so at no cost to the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to expand workplace charging and transportation options. I thank Mr. Massie for being my partner in supporting and pursuing this innovation.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned and saddened by the recent reports of increased violence in Israel and the West Bank. I join with Secretary of State John Kerry and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon in urging both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to publicly condemn the violence, use rhetoric that will calm tensions in the region, and refrain from making public statements that will incite violence. It is my hope that Secretary Kerry's visits with President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu this week are helpful in putting an end to the violence that has already taken so many lives and allows for a constructive dialogue that can ultimately lead to a peaceful resolution for the region.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Congresswoman Eshoo. You know, it is a small community that we have in Santa Clara County, even though we have millions of people who live in the region. After Don Edwards was elected, there was a young mayor called Norm Mineta who wanted to run for Congress. We went to the max trying to help Norm Mineta trying be elected to Congress, and he ultimately was. Later, Norm Mineta helped a young fellow to the max get elected, and we were so proud that that young legislator was also successful in being elected to Congress, actually in the seat that overlapped that was formerly Norm Mineta's seat. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), my colleague in Santa Clara County and also southern Alameda County.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Honda for that statement and for his leadership in following the example of Don Edwards. You know, when Don Edwards announced he was going to retire after 32 years in Congress, I called him--actually, I heard a rumor--and I begged him not to do it, that we needed him in Congress. He said, there are some new guys on the Judiciary Committee. You don't have to worry about civil rights and civil liberties because they are in good hands, and one of those people was Bobby Scott. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Scott for those wonderful words. We have quite a number of California Members as well as others who have asked for their statements to be put in the Record, as our time is expiring at this point, but I just would like to make a couple of final comments. We have talked about Don Edwards' legislative record, but it really was rooted in his values. He was someone who cared about people who didn't have enough, and when he rewrote the Bankruptcy Act, he was thinking about working people who couldn't actually make ends meet. When the service workers in the House were laid off every time the House recessed and without any ability to actually have a paycheck, the one person they sought for help was Congressman Don Edwards. I remember lobbyists came in to lobby in favor of discrimination against women, and I was on his staff. He said, ``Well, let me call in the young lawyer I rely on for this.'' When I walked in, that was sort of the end of the conversation. He lived a long time. He changed this world for the better. We loved him greatly. The fact that so many people went out to California to help him--former staffers, people like Jim Copeland and Debbie McFarland, who actually went out to make sure he had what he needed-- was a tribute to the kind of person he was. As has been mentioned, he was very liberal, but he got along with people who were very conservative. I remember he and Henry Hyde, as ranking member, got along quite well and had a great deal of respect for each other. At this point, I would just like to say that we miss Don Edwards. We honor his life and contributions. We know that we cannot mourn him. For his 100 years, he made a difference, he made our country better, and we love him for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Madam Leader. It is wonderful for those who served with Don Edwards, for those who knew him by reputation, and for those who worked for him to--

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the California Democratic congressional delegation to honor the life of Don Edwards, who passed away earlier this month at the age of 100 in his home in Carmel. Congressman Don Edwards was someone I was proud to know for many years. He was born in San Jose, California, in 1915, growing up on South 13th Street. Living in San Jose at an idyllic time, he took the trolley to play golf as a young man, attended public schools in San Jose, received his bachelor's degree from Stanford University, where he later studied law, and was admitted to the Bar Association of California in 1940. He became an FBI agent during the Depression. He used to talk about his service as an FBI agent, which he jokingly referred to as ``long hours looking for auto thieves in Indianapolis.'' But, in fact, he served with great distinction in the FBI, and he went on to serve in the United States Navy as an intelligence officer and a gunnery officer in World War II. He was first elected to represent what was then California's Ninth Congressional District in 1962, and he served for 32 years, until January 3, 1995. I remember the first time I saw Congressman Don Edwards. It was before he was a Congressman. He was giving a speech in Mitchell Park in Palo Alto, California. I was just out of elementary school, and I remember how impressed I was and inspired I was by his words. He, in turn, had been inspired by President Kennedy to run for Congress, and he was successfully elected that year. Over the years, he represented such communities as San Jose, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, parts of Milpitas, Fremont, and Union City. He served on the Judiciary Committee and served as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights for 23 years. He also sat on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Now, Congressman Don Edwards was one of the foremost defenders of civil liberties in Congress. In the 1970s, along with Senator Frank Church and his committee, they exposed the pervasive abuses of civil liberties in J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO, which monitored, infiltrated, and disrupted entirely lawful civil rights and antiwar organizations; and his stature as a former FBI agent really allowed him to be effective in this role. In his first year in the House, he voted to abolish the House Un- American Activities Committee, and he was involved every year. In fact, I helped him in the early seventies in trying to abolish HUAC. He finally succeeded in 1975. He was involved in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was a dignified and important member of the House Judiciary Committee during the consideration of the impeachment of Richard Nixon. And he was known throughout the country as somebody who stood up for the Constitution. Earlier today, former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman came on the floor, and we were talking about former Members' right to be present on the floor, but they do not have the right to address the Congress as a former Member. She wanted everyone to know that she was so proud that she was able to serve with Congressman Edwards on the Judiciary Committee, and she is not alone where people were able to serve with him. His contributions will live on for many generations, as demonstrated by the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildfire Refuge, which was the first urban wildfire refuge in the United States. I remember he used to call the chairman of the committee in the seventies every single morning, saying, ``Where is my wildfire refuge?'' because such endangered species as the California Clapper Rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse were on the verge of extinction, and now they are not because of his work. As I said, he was a stalwart defender of the Constitution, a tireless advocate for the rights of women, and was known as the ``Father of the Equal Rights Amendment,'' which he introduced every year. Congressman Edwards was also known as a champion of civil rights. After becoming chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, then known as Subcommittee Number 4, he managed the Equal Rights Amendment on the House floor in 1971, the extension of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, and all other civil rights bills of the era. Now, outside of Congress, he took part in civil rights marches in the South. His son Len was a Freedom Rider, and he joined Len Edwards during the Mississippi Summer. He visited Dr. Martin Luther King when Dr. King was imprisoned in the Birmingham, Alabama, jail. And Don Edwards spoke out against apartheid while visiting South Africa. Congressman Don Edwards had a long, fulfilling life, and part of that fulfillment was his marriage to Edie Wilkie Edwards until her death in April of 2011. She and he were very involved in a group that no longer is active in the House called Members of Congress for Peace Through Law because they were people who believed that we could have a peaceful world, and the route to peace was the rule of law. Congressman Edwards is survived by four sons, Len Edwards, Samuel, Bruce, and Thomas, as well as four grandchildren and five great- grandchildren. He died peacefully and with a great deal of grace. According to his son Len Edwards: ``He died as he lived, an elegant man.'' He leaves a legacy of supporting civil rights, advocating for those less fortunate in our society, and as being a strong defender of our Constitution. In fact, in his district, they used to call him not the Congressman from the Tenth Congressional District, but the Congressman from the Constitution. I am fortunate that when I graduated from college in 1970 and I came to Washington without a job, I walked into his office and he hired me. I worked for him for nearly 9 years, both here in Washington and in his district in San Jose. He helped me enormously by giving me time off to take exams while I was taking my law school classes. He helped me and mentored me, and I feel a great debt of gratitude to him personally for all he did to help me, but mainly to inspire me and a whole generation of Americans to believe in their country and to believe in their Constitution and to believe in the rule of law and civil rights. With that, I yield to the gentleman from California, (Mr. Farr), my colleague.