Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeatedly that this bill simply treats all children the way that Mexican children are treated. It is true that the bill would subject all children to the ineffective border screening that Mexican children now undergo, but it actually makes that screening much worse. Under the antislavery law, Mexican children are permitted to withdraw their applications for admission and return to Mexico only if the Border Patrol screener determines that the child has the capacity to understand what is going on and can independently agree to withdraw the application for admission. This bill strikes that language. Under this bill, it does not matter whether the child can comprehend that she has been given the option to voluntarily return to her home country because, in this bill, it does not matter what she thinks. This bill now says that while a child may be permitted to withdraw her application for admission, no matter what, she shall be returned-- no matter what, once Border Patrol decides, that is the end of the discussion, and that kid is going home. Now, this is not just about our southern border and children from Central America. This new procedure would apply to any unaccompanied minor child who appears at our border seeking asylum. It could mean that the pregnant Chinese teenager fleeing forced abortion in China simply gets turned away. It could mean that Syrian Christian children fleeing horrific violence and persecution in Syria simply get turned away. It would turn aside a child from Thailand being trafficked for sex. I don't know that this was necessarily the intention of this bill--I would certainly hope not--but that is the way the bill is written. That is the effect it would have, and I think it is simply unconscionable.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, some have been asking whether this bill repeals DACA and puts the DREAMers back in deportation, and the answer is yes. Page 1, lines 5 through 17 point out that no funds can be used for a new application. The DACA applications were a granted deferred action for 2 years. They must make a new application--and there is no guarantee that application will be approved--at the end of 2 years. That is beginning now. So this will require that the DREAMers be removed from deferred action and become subject to deportation. Further, the bill is meant to treat all children the way we treat Mexican children, but it does more than that. Right now, the Border Patrol is required to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a child has the capacity--whether they are old enough--to independently withdraw an application. That is stricken in this bill. The law says now that a Mexican child who raises no persecution or trafficking concerns may be permitted to withdraw an application and voluntarily return home if the child is able to make the decision. This bill changes the law to say that a child may be permitted to withdraw an application, but, in the event, the child shall be returned. It doesn't matter whether the child has the ability to make a decision. No matter what, that kid is going home. So that is new. Current law says that even Mexican children can request to see an immigration judge, but this bill says that is not the case. It makes the CBP person performing the screening the judge, juror, and, in some cases, the executioner. It is worth pointing out that this is not just about kids from Honduras or Mexico. We will be returning the Thai child sex slave back to her traffickers; the Christian child from Syria who has found asylum here in the United States, that child immediately returned; the Chinese teen fleeing forced abortion from China, that child immediately returned. This is an outrageously unconscionable bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the legal experts in the country have urged that we not change the antislavery law. We do recognize the need for resources to make that law work. I can't help but notice that the Republican majority is denying the resources to actually adjudicate these cases in the bill that was before us yesterday. I think it is ironic to say it doesn't work and then say we won't give you the resources to allow you to enforce the law. It is hypocrisy at its worst.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of an 11- year-old Salvadoran boy who is applying for asylum because he was threatened by gang members who killed his cousin and who suffered severe domestic abuse. Andres is an 11-year-old Salvadoran boy, abused by his caretakers and fleeing gang violence after his cousin was killed, he entered the U.S. to reunite with his mother, grandmother (USC), and extended family. He entered in July 2013 when he was 10 years old. He is applying for asylum.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops tells us this bill would result in the U.S. sending children who have relief available to them back to the conditions they fled, and will result in many children being harmed and some being killed on their return. I join the bishops in opposing this bill. With this bill, children who have been trafficked, who have fled persecution, violence, and abuse, will be stripped of protections that have existed for years. Our laws provide that victims of persecution and torture must have a meaningful opportunity to request safe haven. We need not prejudge the outcome of these cases. We need only adhere to our laws that ensure that each child is treated in a fair manner, that their case be individually considered, and if they deserve protection under the law, so be it; if not, they go home. This is not new. Refugees have received protection in America for decades. In 1980, the asylum system that we have today was established. Most of the special protections for unaccompanied children were created in 1997. Many were codified in 2002. Critics of the antislavery law of 2008 claim it has caused the influx of kids to America, but the protections began in 1997, 17 years ago. No, kids are fleeing because of the extreme violence in three countries. Children from other countries in the region are not fleeing here. And people from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are fleeing to every other country in the region--a 712 percent increase in asylum cases in Belize, Nicaragua, and the other Central American countries. What the 2008 law actually did was give less protection to kids from Mexico and Canada, and that was a mistake because the U.N. review now makes clear that, as a consequence, we are sending kids who have been sex-trafficked back to their abusers. Rather than fix this loophole, this bill would subject all kids to that flawed process. I can't help but note that this will be the only immigration bill with an up-or-down vote, a bill to strip victims of their protections.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will just thank all of the people who worked so hard on this, certainly on both sides of the aisle, and, most especially, Mr. Blumenauer, who has just been ceaseless in his efforts to make sure that these translators were not left behind and not forgotten. A note on the future: I am happy to support this bill for 1,000 visas today. However, it is reported that there are 5,000 translators backlogged. Now, we don't know, in that 5,000, some may have been murdered already, some may have given up, or some may have gone elsewhere. We don't know that we are going to need an additional number of visas, but we need to open our hearts in the same spirit of bipartisanship that if we fall short, we are going to have to come together as a country. Because we all know, not only is this the right thing to do morally, but for our troops in the field it is essential. People have to know in other countries that if they step forward to assist the United States, the United States will honor its promises to them. That is why this bill is so important, not only for what it does, but what it stands for, and why I urge its adoption. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the author of this bill, who has been a tremendous advocate to make sure that America does the right thing.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5195 accomplishes the important goal of allowing these additional 1,000 Afghan Special Immigrant Visas to be issued before the end of the calendar year. As has been mentioned, this program was established in 2009 to protect Afghan nationals who were placed in grave danger because they were employed by or assisted the United States Government. Having benefited greatly from their faithful service, Members on both sides of the aisle recognized that we owed a debt of gratitude. We owed these people and their family members the opportunity to live safely and freely. The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program has not been without its problems. Many of us have come together over the years to complain that the process for issuing the visas was too slow and cumbersome. Mr. Speaker, from the start of the program through fiscal year 2012, only 1,051 of the 8,500 visas authorized by statute had actually been issued to deserving Afghan nationals. In October of 2012, The Washington Post reported that more than 5,000 Afghan Special Immigrant Visa applications were sitting in a backlog waiting to be adjudicated. Secretary Kerry recently stated that because of ``unconscionably long processing times for applicants, some deserving people were simply falling through the cracks.'' Now, recently, the program has undergone major improvements. In this fiscal year alone, the State Department has issued more Afghan Special Immigrant Visas than in all previous years combined. The process is now moving swiftly enough that we are coming right up against the cap of 3,000 visas that we set earlier this year in the approps act. That is where this bill comes in. By making these visas available to Afghan nationals who are facing danger precisely because they provided service to our country, to America, this bill will help ensure that we stand by our commitment to protect those who helped to protect us. I think it is worth noting that keeping our commitment to these people--the large majority of whom acted as our translators in the field--is not merely a good in and of itself. It is important that the United States stands by its commitment here because we ultimately have to work collaboratively with people all over the globe. We must ensure that the message we send through our actions is that we honor those who take great personal risks to assist our men and women serving overseas and we do not forget what they do. Mr. Speaker, I support today's bill. I hope to work with my colleagues to support future extensions of this program, if necessary. I urge my colleagues to also support this important measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard), who has herself served our country in the armed services.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to consider H.R. 4582, the Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, which would help the middle class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Kyle Matthew Ota, a member of Boy Scout Troop 611 at the San Jose Buddhist Church Betsuin and one of my constituents, on achieving of the rank of Eagle Scout in April of 2014. Kyle, the son of Pat and Dorothy Ota, began his scouting career as a member of Cub Scout Pack 611 at the San Jose Buddhist Church Betsuin, where he earned the Metta and Sangha awards, as well as the Arrow of Light. Rising through the ranks, Kyle served as patrol leader, troop quartermaster, dharma scribe, troop scribe, senior patrol leader, and den chief. Kyle's Eagle Scout project reflects his longstanding commitment to the people of San Jose, and the residents of Japantown in particular. Yu-Ai Kai, a stellar community-based organization that promotes healthy aging, independent living, and high quality of life, provides multi- lingual community services, social interaction, and a sense of belonging to our elderly citizens. Seniors and their families frequently pass in front of Yu-Ai Kai's Akiyama Senior Wellness Center on Jackson Street while traversing beautiful Japantown, so Kyle constructed an outdoor bulletin board in front of the building. This board displays flyers, schedules, and other information that allows seniors to better understand and utilize the Akiyama's many life- improving offerings. Kyle was a scholar-athlete at St. Francis High School in Mountain View, where he participated in varsity track and intramurals, earned entry into the honor roll and National Honor Society, and was awarded tuition assistance by the California Scholarship Federation. Kyle now attends San Diego State University, where the dedication to community service instilled in him by scouting continues to make his parents--and all of us in California's 19th District--very proud.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, in this country, we have reached the consensus that victims of human trafficking should be provided help. That consensus was north-south, east-west, conservative-liberal, and Democrat-Republican. Human trafficking victims need protections. Now there is a discussion of truncating that protection, and we must say that would be wrong. We know especially for child victims that special care must be taken to elicit the facts of what has happened. And the idea that we would short-circuit that process for children who are human trafficking victims at our border is unconscionable. Now we have received a letter from the National Association of Immigration Judges telling us the ground truth: that special care must be taken for child victims. These are not the same as other cases. I include for the Record a letter from the National Association of Immigration Judges. National Association of Immigration Judges, San Francisco, CA, July 22, 2014. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker, House of Representatives. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives. Re Special Concerns Relating to Juveniles in Immigration Courts Dear Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi: The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) is a voluntary organization formed in 1971 with the objectives of promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Court. We are the recognized collective bargaining representative of the fewer than 230 Immigration Judges located in 59 courts throughout the United States. Our nation's Immigration Court system is currently facing an unprecedented surge in the numbers of unaccompanied minors who have presented themselves at our southern border seeking shelter. As you and your colleagues consider how to address this complex and urgent situation, we would like to offer our expertise to help inform your decision-making. The opinions provided here do not purport to represent the views of the DOJ, the Executive Office for Immigration Review or the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. Rather, they represent the formal position of the NAIJ, and my personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with members of the NAIJ. In the legal arena, it is universally accepted that children and juveniles are a vulnerable population with special needs. Since the passage of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) in 2008, Congress has codified special provisions such as non- adversarial adjudication of unaccompanied children's asylum claims and, to the extent practicable, access to legal services through pro-bono representation. The law recognizes that these children are especially vulnerable to potential human trafficking and abuse. From the perspective of practicalities, because of their vulnerabilities and lack of full competency, Immigration Court cases involving children and juveniles must be conducted in a different manner than those of adults. Immigration Judges are charged with assuring that those who come before them understand their rights and responsibilities under governing law. For minors, it can be especially challenging to effectively communicate the complicated nuances of our law and the possible remedies which may be available to them. Immigration judges are trained to alter their demeanor and lexicon to adapt to the more limited life experiences and understanding of minors, but that alone is not enough. The judge must carefully gauge the response they receive to be sure that the minor truly understands what he or she is being told, rather than feigning compliance in order to please the judge as an authority figure. Judges must assure that a minor is put at ease in an inherently stressful and unfamiliar setting. These precautions are not solely for the benefit of the minor, but are a practical necessity for a judge in order to obtain the information necessary to arrive at a fair and accurate result based on a true understanding of the child's situation. To do so, an atmosphere of trust must be established, and a rapport developed which assures that the minor is both emotionally able and psychologically willing to discuss issues which may be embarrassing, shameful or traumatizing. In order to accomplish this, a judge frequently has to take more time than in the case of an adult to make the child feel sufficiently safe so as to fully participate in the hearing. This often involves multiple hearings, so that familiarity with the people, location and general process can ease tensions and inspire confidence. Because many of the juveniles we see in proceedings come from countries where governmental authorities are corrupt or pose a danger to them, Immigration Judges need to be particularly aware of the environment in which their hearings are conducted, so that their neutrality and independence is clearly demonstrated, enabling a minor to address difficult issues without fear or a feeling of futility. We must go to great lengths to create an courtroom environment where our hearings are not perceived as coercive. Frequently we find that both children and adults who appear in Immigration Court do not understand the difference in the roles of the government trial attorneys and judges, and even when provided pro bono counsel, assume that everyone associated with the proceeding functions as a prosecutor or law enforcement official. At this early stage some of our judges have reported concerns about the lack of quality of interviews that have resulted in ``negative credible fear'' findings and summary deportation orders at the border. For all these reasons, it is particularly important that Immigration Judges be the ones charged with making these crucial determinations, rather than Border Patrol agents. The complexity of a judge's job is increased exponentially due to the language and cultural differences which we routinely encounter, as well as the limitations upon minors who are not represented by attorneys. Under governing regulation, children under sixteen without responsible adults to help them cannot accept service of the charging documents which initiate removal proceedings, and those under fourteen without a responsible adult cannot enter pleadings to those charges. In addition, in the vast majority of cases, the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility for relief rests on the minor, even though their ability to gather the evidence necessary to support their claim--whether it is personal documentation, general country conditions information or expert opinions--is greatly reduced because of their age. In many cases, the lack of corroborating evidence may be fatal to a claim for relief from removal. This is even more true for a child's case, since their ability to provide clear, consistent and detailed testimony that could support a claim without corroborating evidence may be compromised by their age. All these factors lead inexorably to the conclusion that removal proceedings regarding juveniles should not be subject to strict time constraints regarding scheduling or decision- making. Judges need the ability to tailor the time frames of various aspects of the proceedings to the emotional, physical and psychological state of the individual in court. The ability to find local counsel or obtain supporting evidence and documentation can vary significantly depending on an individual's age, mental capacity and custodial circumstances. The adage ``haste makes waste'' is apropos to the context of these cases, because speeding up or truncating the process creates an unacceptably high risk of legal errors which directly lead to higher rates of appeal. Rather than making the process move more quickly overall, the opposite occurs as appeals cause a backlog and delay at the higher levels of our court systems, which in turn, drives up the fiscal costs of these proceedings. This effect has been proven by past experience when proceedings at the Board of Immigration Appeals were ``streamlined'' only to result in an outcry from the federal circuit courts and harsh criticism of the lack of proper records for them to review, resulting in remands rather than resolutions. Similarly, bypasses to Immigration Court proceedings such as expedited removal proceedings have been subject to serious criticisms by neutral observers, including the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. In this situation, the concern is not that ``haste makes waste,'' but that hasty decisions could result in loss of lives or limbs, by deporting individuals to a country where they face persecution. It is our experience that when noncitizens are represented by attorneys, Immigration Judges are able to conduct proceedings more expeditiously and resolve cases more quickly. Judges have found that cases with legal representation generally 1) reduce the number and length of proceedings for benefits for which individuals are ineligible; 2) generally require fewer continuances for preparation (including when applications must be processed with other agencies); 3) obviate appeals based on a lack of understanding regarding legal rights or concerns about fairness; 4) take less hearing time for judges because they are better researched and organized; and 5) tend to reduce the number of futile claims which utterly lack a basis in the law. Because of those and several additional reasons why attorneys are beneficial to our process, allowing judges to grant reasonable requests for continuances, based on their knowledge of the local availability of low fee and pro bono counsel, ends up being the most time-efficient approach. A due process review of the fundamental fairness of any proceeding requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the nature of the private interest affected; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation through the procedures used and the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the fiscal and administrative burdens that those additional or substitute procedural requirements would place on the government. Immigration Judges are in the best position to guarantee due process, while at the same time efficiently and fairly conducting removal proceedings. However, to do so, they must be given the flexibility to balance the needs of the individual appearing in court with the interests of an expeditious adjudication based on the unique situation presented in each case. Rigid deadlines hamper rather than enhance that ability, and artificial constraints on the time necessary to fairly adjudicate cases will likely promote litigation, rather than resolve individual cases. For all these reasons. NAIJ strongly opposes the proposed implementation of a seven-day adjudication time frame for these cases. With the proper allocation of resources to allow the hiring of sufficient Immigration Judges and support staff to assist them, we would be able to schedule all hearings within appropriate time frames. Justice would be served and legal challenges to individual outcomes reduced. While the need to address the surge in juveniles is seen as paramount now, the overall context of this crisis cannot be overlooked. As of today's date, there are only 228 full time Immigration Judges in field offices, handling a nationwide caseload of more than 375,500 cases. The average time to decision nationally has now climbed to 587 days. The unfortunate and ironic fact is that with long delays, people whose cases will eventually be granted relief suffer, while those with cases which will ultimately be denied benefit. Individuals with ``strong'' cases are trapped in limbo inside the United States while family members abroad become ill and die, family members who can provide them with eligibility for an immigration benefit die, and their claim for relief becomes stale by the passage of time. Conversely, those individuals who do not qualify for benefits, or who have adverse discretionary factors making them undeserving of legal status are allowed to remain for years, possibly accruing eligibility for relief, while their cases are pending. We believe that the totality of this situation deserves your immediate attention, so that fairness and balance can be assured to all who appear in our nation's Immigration Courts. If the general needs of our entire caseload are sacrificed to address the short term crisis, we fear that the overall reputation of the Immigration Court system will be damaged unnecessarily and irreparably. Of course, if we can provide any additional information or answer specific questions you may have, please just let us know. Very truly yours, Dana Leigh Marks, President.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, after nearly two decades, it does make sense to make this moratorium permanent. The moratorium is one of the reasons for the huge growth in the digital economy. The Internet wouldn't be what it is today without affordable Internet access. And, by the way, this tax relief is not to companies. It is to individuals who access the Internet. Madam Speaker, I applaud the Judiciary Committee for ensuring that the moratorium is made permanent before it expires. But the work on discriminatory taxes is not done. Wireless access to the Internet is still vulnerable to discriminatory taxation. The average tax is 17.2 percent--it goes as high as 25 percent in some States--and a disproportionate number of low-income Americans access the Internet only through wireless devices. We have the Wireless Tax Fairness Act that I introduced. It has 220 cosponsors. So, in addition to voting for this moratorium on Internet taxation, I would encourage my colleagues to ask for a vote on the Wireless Tax Fairness Act that, after all, is sponsored by a majority of this House.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Congresswoman Karen Bass, Congressman Xavier Becerra, Congressman Ami Bera, Congresswoman Julia Brownley, Congresswoman Lois Capps, Congressman Tony Cardenas, Congressman Jim Costa, Congresswoman Susan Davis, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Congressman Sam Farr, Congressman John Garamendi, Congresswoman Janice Hahn, Congressman Mike Honda, Congressman Jared Huffman, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congressman Alan Lowenthal, Congresswoman Doris Matsui, Congressman Jerry McNerney, Congressman George Miller, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, Congresswoman Gloria Negrete McLeod, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Scott Peters, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, Congressman Raul Ruiz, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, Congressman Adam Schiff, Congressman Brad Sherman, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Congressman Eric Swalwell, Congressman Mark Takano, Congressman Mike Thompson, Congressman Juan Vargas, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and Congressman Henry Waxman to honor our dear friend Mike Garcia who is retiring after more than 30 years of service to working families in California. Mike served as the President of Service Employees International Union United Service Workers West (SEIU USSW) between 1988 and 2014, where he led 40,000 janitors, security officers and airport workers across California in the fight for good jobs. Mike has been involved in the labor movement since 1980, when he began his career organizing janitors first in San Jose and later in San Diego in the ``Justice for Janitors'' campaign. In 2010 he oversaw the merger of several local unions into SEIU USWW, a statewide union of property service workers. Mike guided SEIU USWW through years of dramatic growth, taking a union of 1,800 janitors and building a powerful statewide local on the forefront of fighting for immigrants' rights and lifting working families out of poverty. Mike had a deep understanding of policy and the questions that matter most to working class Californians. He was also extremely brave; willing to face the strongest adversaries when fighting for those who needed his help. According to Mike, his greatest accomplishment was winning the historic janitors' strike of 2000 in Los Angeles, an action he proudly notes ``changed the lives of thousands of janitors and their families because USWW members--the real heroes of the strike--laid it all on the line for a chance to win and bring their families into the American middle class.'' In retirement Mike will remain a powerful voice for vulnerable populations and a strong advocate for comprehensive immigration reform to help millions of aspiring citizens achieve better lives. Mr. Speaker, we ask the entire House of Representatives to join us in honoring Mike Garcia for his service to our Country.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to know that the Director of National Intelligence has confirmed publicly that the government searches vast amounts of data, including the content of emails and telephone calls, without individualized suspicion or probable cause when it comes to U.S. persons. Last week, the director of the FBI testified under oath, before the Judiciary Committee, that this information is used for prosecution and without a warrant. This amendment is simple. It allows us to get the bad guys, but it also says use probable cause and the Fourth Amendment. It also closes a backdoor to technology holes. The broad support for this, I think, shows why it is important for Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin; myself; Mr. Conyers of Michigan; Mr. Poe of Texas; Ms. Gabbard; Mr. Jordan of Ohio; Mr. O'Rourke; Mr. Amash; of course, Mr. Massie; Mr. Holt; Mr. Nadler; Mr. Petri; Ms. DelBene; Mr. Farenthold; Mr. Sanford; and Mr. Butterfield--this spans all over this House of Representatives, from right to left, with Members saying: yes, we need to protect our country, but we also need to honor our Constitution and especially the Fourth Amendment. We started this Congress by reading the Constitution of the United States aloud in this Chamber. Let's finish this bill by making sure that we honor that Constitution by adopting this amendment.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my sorrow over the tragedy that occurred on May 23rd in Isla Vista, a community adjoining the University of California at Santa Barbara, and to add my voice to the chorus of Americans demanding, ``Not one more.'' My heart goes out to the families of the victims of this senseless tragedy. The lives of UCSB students George Chen and Cheng `James' Yuan Hong of San Jose, Weihan `David' Wang, Katherine Breann Cooper, Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, and Veronika Elizabeth Weiss were cut far too short. This terrible event has touched not only my community of San Jose, but my office in DC, which is home to several Gauchos. We owe it to these families to act immediately to address gun violence in our country. Incidents like the one that occurred in Isla Vista are becoming far too common. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 608 and to commit to action on preventing gun violence.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I just wanted to make a couple of quick points. First, it is easy to be a critic and it is hard to be a builder. The high-speed rail project is a big project, it is difficult to do, but we are going to get it done. Sometimes I wonder, when people say don't do high-speed rail, how they plan to deal with the millions of additional Californians that are anticipated to clog our roads and need transportation infrastructure. It has been suggested by dispassionate engineers that we would need at least two or three additional airports in California. We would need several, as many as five, additional lanes, north-south, in the middle of California to match the capacity of high-speed rail. How are we going to do that? Do we think that that is not going to be expensive? The alternative to high-speed rail is not nothing. That is impossible for a State as vibrant as California, with an economy as booming as it is, and a future as bright as we have. I would note also that the idea that it is inappropriate to use cap- and-trade funds, I just simply disagree with. California is among the first in the Nation, I would say, and it has got wide approval in the State, to do this cap-and-trade system, to bring down carbon emissions. Funds will be generated through that project. Some of those funds will go to this very worthy project. So I disagree very much with this amendment. I don't believe that we will be successful--my God, I hope we are not--in stopping this visionary project that is going to allow the State of California to continue to prosper and for transportation north-south needs to be met into the future. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the California Democratic congressional delegation, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This misguided amendment would prohibit additional Federal investment in California's high-speed rail project. As we know, California is in the midst of constructing the Nation's first truly high-speed rail system. The project was approved by a strong majority of California voters in 2008 because we Californians know that high-speed rail is the most effective and environmentally sustainable way to increase mobility across the State. Now, the project is already creating jobs for Californians. In fact, more than 70 firms that have committed to performing work on this project have offices in the Central Valley, and many of these firms, happily, are veteran-owned. In San Jose, the California high-speed rail project is already providing immediate benefits by investing $1.5 billion in the Caltrain Modernization Program. This program will create over 9,500 jobs, over 90 percent in the San Francisco Bay area. Now, the government's independent watchdog, the GAO, conducted an extensive audit of the project. And you know what? They gave high marks to the authority's business plan for high-speed rail. Members of Congress are right to conduct proper oversight of infrastructure projects across the country. However, regardless of your views on the merits of this project, I think most of us would agree that attempting to kill a single project through the appropriations process is bad public policy and sets a horrible precedent. I would note that electrified trains are really part of the future. China already has 5,000 miles of high-speed rail, and they intend to double that. Spain has 1,600 miles of high-speed rail, and they are building more. More than a dozen other countries have their own successful high-speed rail systems. Even Morocco is building a high- speed rail system. But we don't have anything in the United States except for what California is doing. I would note that California is almost always on the leading edge of progress for our country. We are leading in energy conservation. We are leading in alternative energy, and we have the best public university, the University of California, in the entire United States. We always lead. Now, it is important that the State of California has identified an ongoing source of funds to support high-speed rail, and that is the cap-and-trade funds. Is that appropriate? Yes, it is, because the cap-and-trade funds are generated through energy conservation, and the high-speed rail system is going to help move Californians in an environmentally suitable way. It is important to be visionary here. You know, when we started building the interstate highway system, when the first mile of highway was built, we didn't know that 50 years later we would still be identifying interstates to build. We need to begin with high-speed rail in California. California is behind this project. The California Democratic delegation is behind this project. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment, put our neighbors back to work, and allow California to continue building the Nation's first true high-speed rail project. We will all be proud of that project as it nears completion. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo and Congressman Mike Honda, to honor the life of our friend Janet Gray Hayes, the first woman elected as Mayor of San Jose, California. We often use words like pioneer and trailblazer in tribute to inspiring and remarkable individuals, and that certainly is true for Janet Gray Hayes. She made a profound impact on our community in San Jose, and in a larger sense, was one of the pioneers who helped open the doors for women to serve their communities in public service. Born Janet Gray Frazee in Rushville, Indiana, on July 12, 1926, she was the second of two daughters of John P. Frazee, Jr., and Lucile Charman Gray Frazee. Like other members of the famed ``Greatest Generation,'' she grew up in the hard scrabble years of the Great Depression. These humble beginnings, and the personal challenges she overcame, taught Janet Gray about character, empathy for others, and standing strong when it came to matters of principle. Janet Gray would go on to pursue a higher education, graduating as a Phi Betta Kappa at the University of Indiana. She met her future husband Kenneth while she was a student at the University of Chicago. They married in 1950, after Janet Gray earned a master's degree in social work, and she supported his medical studies. Their marriage would last for over five decades until Kenneth passed away in 2013. In 1956, when Janet Gray's husband Kenneth took a job as a physician at Agnews State Hospital, they moved to San Jose. Having been raised in an active Republican family, Janet Gray was introduced to politics at a young age when her family home became an official campaign base for Wendell Willkie, the Republican presidential nominee in 1940. But her real impetus for launching into the world of civics and politics came when she was eight months pregnant and made an appeal to the City Council for a school crossing guard in her neighborhood. That battle for a simple community issue would ultimately take sixteen years, but it unleashed Janet Gray's involvement in San Jose politics. By 1960 she became the president of both the San Jose and Bay Area Leagues of Women Voters. Six years later she was appointed to the San Jose Redevelopment Board and rose to become chair. In 1971, Janet Gray won election to the San Jose City Council, and four years later, sought to succeed Mayor Norman Mineta after he was elected to Congress. Against tremendous odds, and against a deeply entrenched establishment that fought her candidacy, she won. Her election threw the doors open for other women to follow, sparking a movement for women to get actively involved and seek public office. Over the next two elections, women were elected to eight of the eleven City Council seats and three out of the five Santa Clara County supervisor seats--including a future Member of Congress named Zoe Lofgren. San Jose was declared the ``feminist capital of the world.'' And as Janet Gray welcomed delegates at the 1977 National Women's Political Caucus, hosted in the city, she proudly remarked that ``In sunny Santa Clara Valley, you are in the heartland of women in power.'' However, Janet Gray's accomplishments were not limited to her milestone election. Her successful stewardship running a major city shattered long held myths that women could not be successful executives. Janet Gray made a commitment to improving access to the mayor's office and presided over San Jose's growth during the high-tech development years by laying out a vision to make the city ``better before we make it bigger.'' That vision for San Jose is present today in a city that has focused on smart growth and urban planning to avoid urban sprawl and achieve a better quality of life for its citizens. When asked by her son to name her biggest source of pride, Janet Gray replied ``I was proudest of the fact that I could open doors. I had a lot to do with these women getting where they are today.'' Her generous assistance, guidance, leadership and friendship helped emerging women leaders after her succeed. Mr. Speaker, more than fifty years ago, Adlai Stevenson praised another pioneering woman when he said of Eleanor Roosevelt that she would `rather light a candle than curse the darkness.' Those words are also fitting for Janet Gray Hayes. Because of her, and other pioneering women like her, future generations of women inherit a country where women are increasingly encouraged to engage in serving their communities and our country in public office. We invite all of our colleagues in Congress to join us in paying tribute to the remarkable life and legacy of Janet Gray Hayes.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the role that Mr. Sensenbrenner has played in this and honor him and his wife, Cheryl, for their commitment to freedom. But I must oppose the FREEDOM Act that is on the floor today. This is not the bill that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. I voted for that bill not because it was perfect but because it was a step in the right direction. After the bill was reported out, changes were made without the knowledge of the committee members, and I think the result is a bill that actually will not end bulk collections, regretfully. As Mr. Scott has said, our job is not to trust, but to codify. And if you take a look at the selection changes made in the bill, it would allow for bulk collection should the NSA do so. Further, I would note that the transparency provisions have also been weakened. The 702 section would no longer be reportable by companies who receive orders, and instead of the Attorney General noting decisions that change the law, it is now sent over to the Director of National Intelligence. Regrettably, we have learned that if we leave any ambiguity in the law, the intelligence agency will run a truck right through that ambiguity. And I think that is why all the civil liberties groups have withdrawn their support from this bill: the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, CDT, Open Technology. I would add that FreedomWorks and other libertarian groups have also pulled their support. Companies like Facebook and Google have also pulled their support of the bill. Now, I hope that we will defeat this bill and come back together-- because we do work together well here in the Judiciary Committee--and fix the problems that were created, I think, at the insistence of the administration and give honor to Mr. Sensenbrenner's original bill that had 151 members cosponsoring it.