Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Well, I will use those 15 seconds, Madam Chair, by saying just a few things. First, the litigation reform mentioned is really to retroactively undo a case that was fairly and squarely won in the courts. Number two, that section 18 is basically just a giveaway to the banks. There's some good things in this bill. The post-grant review, overall it does more harm than good. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes on Friday, May 13, 2011, due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have recorded the following votes: rollcall No. 323--``nay,'' rollcall No. 324--``nay'' rollcall No. 325--``aye,'' rollcall No. 326--``aye,'' rollcall No. 327--``aye,'' rollcall No. 328--``aye,'' rollcall No. 329--``aye.''

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 17th anniversary of Vietnam Human Rights Day. The inspiring images of young people fighting for democracy in the Middle East remind us of the ongoing struggles around the world for the basic human rights that we've enjoyed in America for so long. It's a struggle that has been going on in Vietnam for far too long. Journalists, bloggers, whistleblowers, and religious communities face harassment, abuse, and imprisonment for speaking out. Pro-democracy activists are arrested and jailed under draconian and wide-reaching anti-propaganda laws, often without due process. The U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released its 2011 Annual Report two weeks ago, on April 28, and it states that ``[t]he government of Vietnam continues to control religious communities, severely restrict and penalize independent religious practice, and brutally repress individuals and groups viewed as challenging its authority.'' Despite consistent pressure from Congress and human rights organizations, the Vietnamese government continues to violate its international human rights obligations, silencing the voices of its citizens through repression. On this May 11th, I ask my colleagues to reflect on the struggles of the courageous Vietnamese citizens who are striving to implement change in an authoritarian society. I would also ask my colleagues to urge the State Department to redesignate Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern, as USCIRF has recommended every year since 2001.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would just like to commend the gentleman for bringing this measure and how important it is that the Holocaust be remembered right here in the heart of our Capitol. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of Mr. James Rubino, a dedicated member of our community who was known to the hundreds of people whose lives he touched simply as ``Papa.'' Jim was born in San Francisco on January 31st, 1913. He was a first- generation American, born to immigrant parents, Sebastiano and Maria Rubino. He met his wife, Ebe Rubino, in 1938 and they were married in 1940. During WWII, Jim worked for Matson, refinishing the inside of war planes and selling vegetables out of his truck that he called ``Jim's Market on Wheels.'' After a few years he wanted a healthier life for his children, so he moved his family to a ranch in San Martin. He raised ``layers'' and ``fryers'' (chickens) along with his two children, Mike and Lynne. Jim's son Mike became the band director of Live Oak High School and started the Emerald Regime Marching Band and Color Guard in 1970. Jim, with the help of his wife Ebe, cooked and catered each year for the band members and their families for band retreats, competitions, and fundraisers. He often fed a few hundred students and parents at once. Jim was one of the first chefs of the Gilroy Garlic Festival's Gourmet Alley creating his now famous Stuffed Mushrooms which are still a festival favorite and fundraiser for the band. For nearly three decades, Jim fed our young musicians on trips all over the country, and even on three trips abroad. He was there when the students won the Bands of America Championship in with the highest overall point score ever recorded in that competition, a record which was held for 30 years. He was there again when his son led the Emerald Regime as they played ``Stars and Stripes Forever'' across the Great Wall of China. Last year, Jim and Ebe celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary. Jim passed away on February 7th of this year at the age of 98. He lived at his ranch in San Martin until the day he died, and Ebe still lives there now. I want to commend the life of a true American--the son of immigrants, the father of a teacher, the grandfather of musicians, a farmer, and a friend to everyone he met.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my opposition to the Pence amendment and efforts to eliminate the Title X family planning program. Title X funding has connected millions of American women with essential health care since it was created forty years ago. Given that federal funds, including those provided through Title X funding, are already banned from being used for abortion service, the real impact of this proposal is that over 5 million Americans will lose access to health care services--including important preventive care, such as cancer screenings, annual exams, and contraception. This is a time when we should be focused on creating jobs, helping middle-class families, and encouraging innovation, not restricting access to health care for millions of Americans. Thank you Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose these efforts to eliminate Title X funding.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1. While I agree with my Republican colleagues that we need to address our nation's deficit, the budget cuts being proposed would do more harm than good for our economy. Specifically, the legislation's cuts to science and technology research would impair our ability to compete globally. H.R. 1 would dramatically reduce investments in the Department of Energy's Office of Science, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). These agencies conduct cutting-edge science and technology research that keeps America innovative and competitive. The budget cuts will not only create significant job losses today but also stagnate our economic growth in the future. As a resident of Silicon Valley, I know firsthand what investments in science research and development can do for our economy, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 359. This bill will unnecessarily eliminate the $3 checkoff box--it's voluntary--on tax returns to fund Presidential elections, and it could increase the influence of special interests in the funding of Presidential campaigns. Now, the bill has been fast-tracked by the Republican leadership-- without any hearings, no markups, no respect for the committee process. As a member of the House Administration Committee and as a former chair of the Subcommittee on Elections, I am very concerned by the end run around our committee and the lack of deference shown to the committee and its members. Speaker Boehner promised 2 weeks ago, when he took the Speaker's gavel, more transparency in the legislative process and to focus on job creation. Last week, the new majority fast-tracked a health care reform repeal bill. This week, they expedite the repeal of this voluntary program without the proper process. So I think the Speaker may need to revisit his statement about process and transparency. In addition to the process concerns, I question the need for Congress to pass this bill at all. I was here as a young staffer when the Judiciary Committee took up the impeachment of President Nixon. It is worth remembering that the public finance system was created as a direct result of the Watergate scandal. Remember Phillips Petroleum, which illegally contributed $498,000 to the Nixon campaign; or Ruth Farkas, who told the Watergate grand jury that she gave $300,000 to the Nixon campaign as an explicit exchange for an ambassadorship to Luxembourg; or the Nixon tapes that revealed that Secretary John Connally shook down dairy farmers for $600,000 in contributions in exchange for raising milk price supports--to the detriment of children who needed milk around the country. These incidents eroded public confidence, not only in the Nixon administration, but in the entire system. In response, pursuant to the General Welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress passed sweeping election reforms, including the Presidential checkoff system. Now, I would not argue that this system is perfect at this time. I think it does need reform. But I think mere elimination without a committee process is a huge mistake. I would hope that the committee could convene, that we could sort through what the problems are with this current system and how do we fix them, work in a bipartisan way to create the fixes, and then come to this House for the solution. I urge opposition to this bill.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with Congressman Michael Honda to recognize the career and accomplishments of Mr. Alberto Carrillo, Sr., a dedicated employee of the Office of Human Relations of Santa Clara County. Prior to our election to the House of Representatives, Congressman Honda and I served on the Board of Supervisors for the County of Santa Clara and so we are well aware of the important work done by the County's Office of Human Relations. They work diligently with our extremely diverse community to build positive inter-group relations, to eliminate prejudice and discrimination and to foster the peaceful resolution of conflict. Alberto has worked tirelessly advocating for civil and human rights in our community. Both with the County and in his capacity as a community activist and volunteer, he has worked toward building opportunities in housing, employment, education, business and government for Santa Clara County's diverse community. His experiences outside of the County speak to his dedication. He began his career with the Mexican-American Chamber of Commerce, held leadership positions in the Mexican-American Political Association, and has served on many nonprofit boards of directors and advisory boards. The Congress wishes Mr. Carrillo the very best as he continues this new chapter in his life in retirement.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career and accomplishments of Mr. Alberto Carrillo, Sr. a dedicated employee of the Office of Human Relations of Santa Clara County. Prior to our election to the House of Representatives, I served 14 years on the Board of Supervisors for the County of Santa Clara and so I am well aware of the important work done by the County's Office of Human Relations. They work diligently with our extremely diverse community to build positive inter-group relations, to eliminate prejudice and discrimination and to foster the peaceful resolution of conflict. Alberto has worked tirelessly advocating for civil and human rights in our community. Both with the County and in his capacity as a community activist and volunteer, he has worked toward building opportunities in housing, employment, education, business and government for Santa Clara County's diverse community. His experiences outside of the County speak to his dedication. He began his career with the Mexican-American Chamber of Commerce, held leadership positions in the Mexican-American Political Association, and has served on many non-profit boards of directors and advisory boards. The Congress wishes Mr. Carrillo the very best as he continues this new chapter in his life in retirement.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H. Res. 20, calling on the State Department to list the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' with respect to religious freedom. The State Department removed Vietnam from the CPC list in 2006, and since then, the human rights situation in that country has deteriorated significantly. After a brief improvement while Vietnam was seeking membership in the World Trade Organization, the Vietnamese government returned to its former ways--intimidation and repression of basic human freedoms. According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's (USCIRF) recently released annual report, ``The government of Vietnam continues to control government-approved religious communities, severely restrict independent religious practice, and repress individuals and groups viewed as challenging political authority.'' Vietnam remains a severe violator of religious freedoms, and the CPC designation is a potentially powerful tool that should be used to highlight this shortcoming and encourage action. USCIRF has recommended CPC status for Vietnam every year since 2001, and continues to do so this year, advising that ``[g]iven these ongoing and serious violations, the uneven pace of religious freedom progress after the CPC designation was lifted, the continued detention of prisoners of concern, and new evidence of severe religious freedom abuses, USCIRF again recommends that Vietnam be designated as a CPC in 2010.'' I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I strongly urge the State Department to follow the advice of the Commission and redesignate Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my concerns regarding the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010. The American economy is slowly recovering from the worst recession we've seen since the Great Depression. While there has been some improvement, the economy is still fragile, and we need to ensure that our tax policy for the near future supports job growth if we are to continue on this path of recovery. Unfortunately, the tax package that the Senate has sent us today does not support the creation of new jobs. The United States is quickly being surpassed by other countries in infrastructure and clean energy investments. Rather than supporting tax policies to reverse this trend, the Senate's tax package focuses on tax cuts for the wealthiest in our population and old energy sources that do not present great possibilities for our future. While the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) made important strides in closing that gap, this legislation is a step backwards. The Senate's tax package includes a one year extension of the Treasury Grant Program enacted in section 1603 of ARRA that allows renewable energy companies to receive a cash grant in lieu of either the production or investment tax credit. The Program was designed to allow renewable energy projects to continue while investor demands for tax credits lagged in a sluggish economy. Unfortunately, a one year extension is insufficient to ensure a steady stream of investment in renewable energy projects and may stall the momentum we've built in creating a strong, green economy. Further, the tax package fails to include the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit from ARRA, a program that was immensely useful. The tax credit was created to expand domestic clean energy manufacturing. America needs to rebuild its manufacturing base to compete in the global marketplace. The Manufacturing Tax Credit is crucial to laying a foundation for the United States to be a leader in the clean energy manufacturing industry. The failure to extend these critical programs will have negative economic impact across the country and in my district in San Jose. As a Member from Silicon Valley, I represent many renewable energy and energy efficiency companies that are currently utilizing these credits to create jobs and stimulate the economy. By not including robust renewable energy programs as part of our tax policy, we are failing to invest in our economic future, and for that reason, I am unable to vote for the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, Shigeru Yamada was brought to the United States from Japan when he was 10 years old. He entered the country on a non-immigrant visa with his mother and his two sisters, and remained here on his mother's student visa for over 3 years. Although his mother became engaged to a U.S. citizen, which would have resulted in lawful permanent resident status for Shigeru and his sisters, tragedy prevented this from coming to pass. When Shigeru was 13 years old, his mother was killed in a car accident, and he and his siblings were taken to live with their maternal aunt and uncle in Chula Vista, California. When Shigeru's aunt attempted to formally adopt him, she was unable to complete the process before he turned 16 years old. Under current immigration law, virtually all adoptions of foreign children by U.S. citizens must be completed before the child's 16th birthday in order for the child to qualify for legal status in the United States. Although Shigeru's sisters obtained legal status through adoption and marriage, Shigeru continued to reside here without such status. Despite these difficulties, Shigeru shined. He graduated with honors in 2000 from Eastlake High School, where he served on student government, participated in numerous community service activities, and excelled at football and wrestling. He was an All-American Scholar and was named ``Outstanding English Student'' his freshman year. He was also voted the ``Most Inspirational Player of the Year'' in various sports, both at the junior-varsity and varsity level. He served as vice president of the associated student body his senior year. Shigeru later obtained an associate's degree from Southwestern Community College. Shigeru's story highlights so many things that are wrong with our current immigration system. First, Shigeru is just the type of young person who would benefit from the DREAM Act, which passed the House with bipartisan support 1 week ago today. More importantly, America is just the country that would benefit from providing Shigeru a path to lawful status, so that he could continue to excel and serve as a model to all those around him. Second, Shigeru's story highlights the nonsensical inflexibility of our international adoption rules. Earlier this summer, the House passed H.R. 5532, the International Adoption Harmonization Act of 2010. H.R. 5532 would harmonize our international adoption rules by setting the uniform deadline by which all adoptions must be finalized at a child's 18th birthday. One purpose of H.R. 5532 is to ensure that when a child is legally adopted by U.S. citizen parents between the child's 16th and 18th birthdays, the child is permitted to remain with his or her parents in the United States. The need for this commonsense piece of legislation was demonstrated by the many private immigration laws enacted by previous Congresses to provide exactly this form of relief to just those individual children who came to our attention--bills just like the one before us today. H.R. 5532 remains stalled in the Senate, which represents a real failure to protect American families and adopted children. I remain hopeful that our Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that passage of the DREAM Act and H.R. 5532 are both in America's best interest. But under current law, S. 4010 represents the only option for Shigeru Yamada to remain in the United States, the country that he rightly calls home.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, as Chairwoman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, I first learned about Hotaru Ferschke and her late-husband, Marine Sergeant Michael H. Ferschke, Jr., when the Subcommittee formally met to consider H.R. 3182, a private immigration bill introduced by Representative John Duncan. The Ferschke case highlighted a little-known provision in our immigration laws, which states that when a marriage takes place between two persons who cannot both be physically present during the ceremony, the marriage is not valid unless and until it is consummated. The provision allows no exceptions, even where the bona fides of the marriage is recognized for other purposes and consummation of the relationship prior to marriage can be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt. Last month, I joined Representatives Duncan, Jim McGovern, and Lamar Smith in offering H.R. 6397, a bill that would amend this provision of our immigration laws to account for situations--like the one presented here--where the failure to consummate such a marriage was the result of service abroad in the United States Armed Forces. I was pleased that the House passed that bill by voice vote, but we now must await final passage in the Senate. In the meantime, S. 1774 provides the only means by which Hotaru Ferschke will be able to obtain lawful permanent residence in the United States, so that she may raise her son--Mikey--in the country for which his father gave his life. Moreover, as the House is poised to pass the first private immigration bills that will be sent to the President in 6 years, it is worth making some brief remarks about such bills more generally. Private legislation is perhaps the narrowest, most targeted form of relief that Congress can provide. Private immigration bills have long been recognized as necessary in compelling circumstances where the inflexible application of existing law would lead to extraordinary hardship. Such bills also can help Congress identify systemic problems with our laws. This country has a long history of passing private immigration legislation. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 1936-2004, at least one private immigration law was enacted in each Congress. During the Cold War, Congress enacted well over 1,000 private immigration laws. This long history came to a grinding halt in the 109th Congress, when Congress failed to enact a single private immigration law. The same was true of the 110th Congress and, until just recently, the 111th. The Senate's passage of the two immigration relief bills before us today--S. 4010 and S. 1774--is therefore important not only for the two beneficiaries of the bills and their family members, but also for the private bill process itself. Our immigration laws are broken--there can be no doubt about that--and I am a firm believer that those laws must be reformed. But even a perfect set of laws will occasionally result in cases of extraordinary hardship, for which an individual exception to the law may be necessary. Private immigration relief bills have played a significant role in our history, and I am hopeful that they will continue to play such a role after today's important votes.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1377, honoring the accomplishments of Norman Yoshio Mineta. Norm Mineta has had an extraordinary career as a public servant, making countless contributions both to our nation and to the city of San Jose, which I've had the pleasure of representing since 1995. Norm Mineta was born in San Jose in 1931, to Japanese immigrant parents who owned a successful insurance company. In 1942, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Executive Order 9066 declared all persons of Japanese ancestry to be ``enemy aliens,'' and his family, along with many other Japanese-American families, was forced to relocate to an internment camp. Despite this treatment, Mr. Mineta's father volunteered to teach Japanese to American soldiers, and Mr. Mineta himself ultimately participated in the Reserve Officers Training Program while at the University of California at Berkeley, and after graduating in 1953, served as an Army intelligence officer in Japan and Korea. Following his military service, Mr. Mineta returned to San Jose to join his father at the Mineta Insurance Agency. He was active in the community, serving on the Santa Clara Council of Churches, and the city's Human Relations Commission. In 1967, he was appointed to fill a vacant City Council seat, which he was later elected to, and in 1971, he became the first Asian American mayor of a major U.S. city, when he was elected as mayor of San Jose. From 1975 to 1995, an important period of growth in Silicon Valley, Norm Mineta represented California's 15th district in the U.S. House of Representatives. Over the course of his ten-term tenure in Congress, his many accomplishments included co-founding the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, securing a formal apology and financial reparations for interned Japanese Americans, and serving as the Chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee. In 1995, Mr. Mineta returned to the private sector as a Vice President at Lockheed Martin. In addition, he served as Chair of the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, which offered a number of proposals for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reform that were adopted by President Clinton. In 2000, Mr. Mineta became the first Asian American to serve in a Presidential Cabinet when he was named as President Clinton's Secretary of Commerce. The following year, President George W. Bush asked him to serve as his Secretary of Transportation, where he played a key role in the nation's response to the attacks of September 11. In 2002, the San Jose International Airport was renamed the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport in honor of this native son. In 2006, President Bush awarded Mr. Mineta with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. He has also received the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun from the Japanese Government. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and honoring Mr. Mineta's contributions and service to our country and to the city of San Jose.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the Immigration Subcommittee, which I chair, held 17 hearings in 2007 to examine every aspect of immigration reform, and one of the most memorable in the series of hearings was the hearing on the plight of undocumented young people who have been brought to the United States as children, including Tam Tran, then a Ph.D. candidate at UCLA who tragically later lost her life in an auto accident. They grew up in the United States, attended American high schools, often knowing no other country as home, no language other than English, yet they were faced with a dead end once they graduated from high school. Their immigration status prevented them from working, paying taxes, serving in the military. They could never get right with the law, even though they had done nothing wrong. The only thing they had done was to obey their parents. The DREAM Act would allow these young people to apply for conditional immigration status with a series of conditions and would allow these young people to step forward, register, pay their taxes, get right with the law, and contribute to this wonderful country. You know, we hear a lot about the rule of law. I think it is worth remembering that we write the laws in this country, and we need to address this issue. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that this bill, if we pass it, will increase revenues by $1.7 billion.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. We will have a $2.2 billion deficit reduction over the next 10 years. So we can do the right policy and also have the right fiscal impact by passing this bill. I recommend that we help these innocent children who did nothing wrong.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month, which took place in November. Although November has passed, it is never too late to raise awareness about this disease, which afflicts an estimated 5.3 million Americans, including 480,000 in my home state of California, and affects another 11 million family members and friends who provide countless hours of unpaid care to those suffering from Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. This is a disease that exacts high tolls from the American public, both financially and emotionally, and we must do all we can to eradicate it. I urge my colleagues to commit to take action to support caregivers, and to invest in research and education so that we may diagnose, treat, and eventually find a cure for Alzheimer's.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I call up privileged resolution, H. Res. 1737, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for purposes of debate only, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control those 30 minutes. Of my remaining 30 minutes, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama, the ranking member on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Mr. Bonner, for purposes of debate only, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control those 15 minutes.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to just make a couple of brief comments before turning back to Mr. Butterfield. First, although the issue of two Members in 1983 being censured for sexual misconduct has been mentioned, historically censure has been used a variety of times, including the very first time, for insulting the Speaker of the House; insulting the House, Mr. John Chandler, by introduction of a resolution containing unparliamentary language; Mr. Hunter, using unparliamentary language; Mr. Holbrook, using unparliamentary language. So I think it is important to at least have that history. I want to say one other thing. And we do not discuss the executive session deliberations of the committee, but I feel obliged to note, since I think a misimpression could be had, that in fact Mr. Rangel did sign a settlement effort, and the committee was unable to reach a settlement agreement with Mr. Rangel earlier this year. Now, it may well be that the committee and the House could do a different sanction. Mr. Scott identified several Members and former Members and staffers who are either still serving sentences in prison or still in court being tried in ongoing proceedings of misconduct. I think it's precisely because of that failure to put Members of this body and the American public first, to demand a higher standard, that the committee on a 9-1 vote recommended this sanction. We need a higher standard. Mr. Rangel himself has acknowledged that we must meet a higher standard. Process is about protecting the integrity of the House as much as it is about sanctioning an individual who has violated the rules. The nonpartisan committee counsel recommended this. On a 9-1 vote the bipartisan committee recommended this. This is a wrenching decision for us all. It is not with any pleasure at all that I stand here today presenting the committee's report. And finally, it is for each and every one of us to sort through our own conscience, mindful of the obligation we have first and foremost to the American people, to protect the integrity of the House as we decide what to do. Each of us must cast the vote that we think is right, and I will respect each Member who does that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a member of the committee.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the chair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and as chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee in the matter of Mr. Rangel, I rise in support of the resolution which calls for censure of Representative Charles B. Rangel. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution provides that ``each House may punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.'' In the House, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is charged with recommending and enforcing ethical standards that ensure that Members and staff act in a manner befitting that public trust. It is the role of the committee to review allegations that a Member has violated those standards. In this case, after a lengthy and thorough investigation that spanned more than 2 years and resulted in a 5,000-page report, the committee concluded that this Member violated those standards. We were charged with recommending an appropriate sanction to the House. The entire report has been available to Members of the House and the public on the committee's Web site. Many portions of the report have previously been publicly released, some since July. Here is a brief summary of the findings of that report and why the committee recommended censure. In this matter, we found that Representative Rangel engaged in misconduct in four areas. Mr. Rangel improperly solicited individuals and entities with businesses and interest before the House to fund the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York. He misused official resources to make these solicitations for millions of dollars. He improperly solicited funds from lobbyists. He failed to file full and complete financial disclosure statements for 10 years. He accepted a favor or benefit related to his use of a residential, rent-stabilized apartment as a campaign office under circumstances that created an appearance of impropriety. He failed to report and pay taxes for years on income he received from a property he owns in the Dominican Republic. We found that Representative Rangel's conduct in each of those four areas violated laws and regulations, as well as the rules of the House and standards of conduct, namely that he: Violated the Gift and Solicitation Ban, a statute enacted by Congress in 1989; Violated clauses 2 and 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service; Violated postal service laws and regulations issued by the Franking Commission; Violated the rules of this House, including the Code of Conduct; Violated the Purpose Law, a statute which derives directly from the Constitution; Violated the Ethics in Government Act; and Violated the Internal Revenue Code. A bipartisan majority of his colleagues concluded that 11 of the 13 counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation regarding these areas of his misconduct were proved by clear and convincing evidence. We found his actions and accumulation of actions ``reflected poorly on the institution of the House and, thereby, brought discredit to the House.'' Nothing we say or do here today will in any way diminish his service to our country or our gratitude for his service, both in this House and as a hero of the Korean War. But that service does not excuse the fact that Representative Rangel violated laws. He violated regulations. He violated the rules of this House. And he violated the standards of conduct. Because of that misconduct, the nonpartisan committee staff recommended that he be censured, and a bipartisan majority of the committee voted to recommend censure. The committee also voted to require that he pay restitution to taxing authorities. Censure is a very serious sanction and one rarely imposed by the House. The decision to recommend that sanction was not reached lightly. In making its recommendation, the committee considered the aggregation of Representative Rangel's misconduct. The committee concluded that his violations occurred on a ``continuous and prolonged basis'' and were ``more serious in character, meriting a strong Congressional response rebuking his behavior.'' For the violations related to the payment of taxes, the committee considered not only the amount of taxes he failed to pay over many years, but the fact that he served at various times in highly visible and influential positions as both chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. It brought discredit to the House when this Member, with great responsibility for tax policy, did not fully pay his taxes for many years. Some have questioned whether a recommendation of censure is consistent with the committee's past precedent. It is true that in the committee's roughly 40 years of existence, the House has censured just four Members. But it is also true that for precedent to be followed, a precedent must be set. We follow precedent, but we also set it. For example, nearly 30 years ago, the committee recommended that two Members be reprimanded for engaging in sexual relations with pages. The House rejected the recommendation and instead censured those two Members. It is possible that if that situation were to occur again today, this House might not feel censure is a severe enough action. Many of us in this body pledged 4 years ago to create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history. Censure for this misbehavior is consistent with that pledge. At the hearing, the nonpartisan committee counsel said clearly that Representative Rangel's pattern of misconduct appeared to reflect ``overzealousness'' and ``sloppiness.'' But he also said that did not excuse his misconduct. In light of those considerations, a bipartisan majority of the committee concluded that it was appropriate to recommend to the House that Representative Rangel be censured. Throughout this matter, key decisions were made with bipartisan votes. Not all votes were unanimous, but each was made on the basis of a bipartisan, majority vote. The purpose of the ethics process is not punishment, but accountability and credibility: accountability for the respondent and credibility for the House itself. Where a Member has been found by his colleagues to have violated our ethical standards, that Member must be held accountable for his conduct. Representative Rangel has violated the public trust. While it is difficult--actually painful--to sit in judgment of our colleague, it is our duty under the Constitution to do so. And, accordingly, I bring this resolution to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.