Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, today I missed three rollcall votes because I was at the White House attending the Presidential presentation of The National Medal of Technology and Innovation to my constituents, John Warnock and Charles Geschke. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall 758: ``present''; rollcall 759: ``present''; rollcall 760: ``yea.''

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of a distinguished member of my community, the Honorable Alden Edward Danner, upon his retirement after more than 20 years of public service to the State of California and the people of Santa Clara County. Throughout his career, Judge Danner has demonstrated public service values, adhering to the highest ethical standards, respecting the dignity and integrity of all people, and sought solutions while fostering open communication and mutual support for court clients, staff, members of the judicial branch, and justice system partners. Judge Danner applied his expertise in the law and his commitment to the administration of justice and the independent, consistent, and impartial interpretation of the law through his participation as a member of the Judicial Council of California's Task Force on Probate and Mental Health, 1997-1998; Court Technology Advisory Committee, 1999-2005; Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee, 2003-2004, and its Executive Committee, 2005-2006; and the Task Force on Judicial Campaign Finance, 2009; and as faculty for the Center for Judicial Education and Research's Probate and Mental Health Institute, 1997- 1998; and Computer Training for Judges, 1993-1998. The California judicial branch is fortunate to have benefited from Judge Danner's distinguished service as a jurist since his appointment to the Superior Court by Governor George Deukmejian in 1989 and his subsequent election by citizens of Santa Clara County. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Danner served our justice system with distinction, contributing to the resolution of legal issues for the people of Santa Clara County as an associate and partner in private law practice from 1966-1989. Judge Danner earned a Juris Doctorate from Stanford Law School in 1965, after service in the U.S. Army from 1958-1962. It is with great pleasure that I join in celebrating Judge Danner's life and many accomplishments. I thank him for his contributions to our region in California and to our Nation. On behalf of our community, I congratulate Judge Danner and wish him and his family well in his retirement and his future plans.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill is named after William Orton, a Member of the United States House of Representatives from Utah's Third Congressional District from 1991 to 1997. Bill passed away in April of this year. Bill was a tireless advocate for the Law Library, and this legislation is a fitting way to honor his memory. The Law Library of Congress maintains a unique and world-renowned collection. This bill will help ensure that the Law Library will have the resources needed to maintain and expand its collections while at the same time modernizing its systems. The act authorizes, number one, $3.5 million for maintaining and administering the operations of the Law Library, including the cataloging of the collections of the Law Library; two, a line item for the Law Library to ensure the autonomy and ability to improve the Law Library; and, three, the creation of the William Orton Program to provide enhanced or special services and programs for the Library and otherwise support the mission of the Law Library. The Library may carry out the program through agreements and partnerships entered into with other government and private entities, including the American Association of Law Libraries and the American Bar Association. Donations of funds and in-kind contributions in support of the program may be accepted, and it requires an annual report. Finally, H.R. 2728 was amended by the House Administration Committee; and during markup, we made a change in the name of the Law Library to the National Law Library to increase the role and status of the Law Library. This bill authorizes to be appropriated for the program an amount equal to 40 percent of the amount of the donations accepted by the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board in support of the program. This is a 60/40 private-public split. The Law Library is an invaluable resource both to the Congress and the Nation, and we have an obligation to future generations to provide for its continuation through the establishment of the William Orton Program. Some of the organizations that are supporting this bill include the American Bar Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the Northern California Association of Law Libraries. Now, why is this bill important to the point that myself and my colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) have actually spent several years working on this? Not only is this collection unique in the United States and important to the rule of law in the United States; this collection is important to the world. And I will give you an example why. When the Taliban was finally expelled from government in Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan looked to reinstitute the rule of law; and the only place where Afghani law could be found was in the Law Library at the Library of Congress in the United States. It was through that collection that we were able to help in that civil way in the reinstitution of the rule of law. I would just like to say one further word about the late Bill Orton. After he left the Congress, he went back into private practice, but he always volunteered his time. He spent countless hours with the bar association and others, coming and trying to help the Law Library. He understood that it wasn't flashy, but it was important. Actually, that's just like Bill, a guy who wasn't flashy but who was serious and did important things for his country. I can remember sitting on this floor next to then-Congressman Bill Orton, discussing the issues of the day while he had his young son Will sitting on his lap. Many times during State of the Union speeches, young Will would be there with his dad. I hope that in addition to doing these good things through passing this bill that Will and the rest of his family can take satisfaction that Bill Orton's name will forever be associated with this Law Library, and we will always be in his debt for what he has done. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, before yielding back, I would simply thank the gentleman from California for being my partner in this effort. I thank, again, the members of the House Administration Committee for working with us. And remember, once again, our colleague, Bill Orton, who was such a fine person, who did so much in his life. I know that his sons, Will and Wesley, and his wife, Jacquelyn, were very proud of him, and I know that they will take satisfaction that his volunteerism is being recognized through this effort today. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2728) to provide financial support for the operation of the law library of the Library of Congress, and for other purposes, as amended.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, as the Chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, I rise today to honor the extraordinary work of Will Kempton, the current Director of the California Department of Transportation. Mr. Kempton was appointed Director in November of 2004, and in that capacity, he manages a $13.3 billion budget for the Department, oversees $10 billion for the improvement of California's transportation network, and a staff of over 23,000 employees, as well as manages the day to day operations of over 50,000 miles of highway in the State. As Director, Mr. Kempton has provided leadership to the Department on a broad range of issues that impact transportation in the State of California. Some of his many accomplishments over the years include: helping California to rapidly obligate its share of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; overseeing the passage and implementation of Proposition 1B in 2006, which invested $19 billion into the State's aging infrastructure; and leading the Caltrans campaign to deliver 1,088 transportation construction projects valued at $11.5 billion over the last half-decade, and delivered 1,087 of them, or 99.9 percent. After more than three decades of public service, Mr. Kempton announced that he will be leaving as Director of the California Department of Transportation at the end of July, 2009. He has honorably and effectively served the State of California in various capacities throughout his career, including serving as the Assistant Director of the California Department of Transportation in charge of Legislative and Congressional Affairs. Since joining Caltrans in 1973, Mr. Kempton has served in various management positions in the Department helping him to develop a broad understanding of transportation programs and policies at all levels of government. Mr. Kempton is a San Francisco native, and received his bachelor's degree from the University of San Francisco. Mr. Kempton translated his knowledge of transportation programs into the production arena when, as Chair of the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, I helped to hire him as the first Executive Director. During his assignment as Director of the Santa Clara County effort, Mr. Kempton mobilized California's sales tax programs into an effective coalition of ``self help'' counties. The sales tax program he managed is widely viewed as one of the most successful ever undertaken in California, resulting in the delivery of nearly $1 billion dollars in highway improvements in less than 10 years. He brought in our Santa Clara County ``Measure A'' program under budget and ahead of schedule. Mr. Kempton, who now lives with his wife Beverly in Folsom, California, served on the City of Folsom's Parks and Recreation Commission from 1995 until 2003. He also served as the City of Folsom Assistant City Manager for Community Services beginning in January 2003, where he was responsible for overseeing the operations of the City's Community Development, Neighborhood Services, Parks and Recreation, Utilities, and Public Works departments. Will Kempton and I have worked in different capacities on California Transportation projects since 1985. I have met no abler a public administrator in my career. He is, simply, the best. On behalf of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, I would like to thank Will Kempton for more than three decades of public service in the State of California.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the record a speech, titled ``What Would Employee Free Choice Mean in the Workplace'' given by Professor William B. Gould IV, Charles A. Beardsley Professor of Law, Emeritus at Stanford Law School; Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board in the Clinton Administration (1994-1998); member of the National Academy of Arbitrators since 1970; Independent Monitor for Freedom of Association Complaints, First Group America, 2008, to the 58th Annual Conference of the Association of Labor Relations Agencies on July 20, 2009 in Oakland, California. What Would Employee Free Choice Mean in the Workplace? It is a pleasure to be with you here today. By my rough count, this is my third speech to this organization during the past couple of decades. I have enjoyed the chance to speak to and with you in the past and look forward to today's program. I am particularly pleased to renew my contact with Maria-Kate Dowling, Associate General Counsel of the National Mediation Board. Kate was my Deputy Chief Counsel at the NLRB in 1997-98, one of the youngest women (perhaps the youngest) to ever hold that senior of a position. She is illustrative of the very best and brightest who should--and I believe now will-- receive great recognition in Washington today. I want to commend the Association of Labor Relations Agencies for holding this session here today on the practical implications of the Employee Free Choice Act. This significant legislative proposal warrants dispassionate examination in an arena which has been too frequently divided and polarized. My sense is that the bill even with proper amendments--and I am quite confident that if it is enacted it will be amended--will have a considerable impact on the workplace. EFCA and labor law reform contain some of the assumptions that I have held for more than four decades, i.e., that the Act is plagued with lethargic enforcement, creaky and convoluted administrative procedures and ineffective remedies, that it is not working well and that, as a result, some employees who wish to join unions are unable to do so. No one can say with certainty what the precise union membership impact of law reform will be, given the fact that so many other factors are responsible for the precipitous decline of trade unions. But it is safe to say that it is unlikely that any statutory reform in the foreseeable future can by itself accomplish the desirable objective of restoring the middle class--though its proponents so often claim it will! The fundamental need for reform relates to the rule of law. The National Labor Relations Act, once considered a bedrock of labor rights of freedom of association, has not been performing as advertised. There is nothing terribly new about this story. The overriding theme is that justice is being denied through its delay! The loopholes, disproportionately exploited by employers, have dilated into a ``black hole'' in Washington headquarters where complaints can sit for more than five years while workers await reinstatement and back pay. How can we properly address this? I think that the Employee Free Choice Act is right on the mark in establishing a treble damage award for back pay. For too long, an award of back pay minus interim earnings has been regarded by everyone involved on all sides as a ``license fee'' for employer misconduct because back pay is cheaper than a union contract. EFCA also provides for fines up to $20,000 for each employer violation as well as new contempt sanctions. And again, I think that the new law has it right in expanding and making more effective the Board's injunctive authority for employer unfair labor practices--in much the same manner that the statute has established them for union unfair labor practices since the Taft-Hartley amendments. Judge (and I hope soon-to-be Justice) Sonia Sotomayor's opinion in Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc. upholding my Board's view that an injunction was appropriate in the baseball players' 1994-95 strike has made this provision's importance about as well known as anything. On other key issues I think that there is much more room for debate. While card checks are evidence of employee support in some circumstances, I think that they are, as the Supreme Court has characterized them, second best. And in Canada, where the consensus in the 1960s favored card check, a majority of provinces have now settled on secret ballot box elections. Moreover, there will be fewer disputes over the way in which employees mark secret ballots than there will be over cards; fewer disputes means less litigation and less delay. But the unions are right to say that the election system (and indeed many other provisions of the statute) is broken. Accordingly, my view is that the principal breakdown in the election scheme--which has led to the card check proposal--is delay through which employees are subjected to a one-sided, anti-union campaign by employers for at least two months, and in a minority of instances a much more considerable period of time. The answer here is to both expedite elections--to require that they be held within a couple of weeks of the union's petition, as is done in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia--and to reverse Supreme Court precedent excluding non-employee union organizers from company premises so that they can carry their side of the message to employees more effectively in the run-up to the ballot itself. Another reform can provide for postal ballots which give employees a greater opportunity to cast their vote privately in a neutral facility of their choosing outside of the employer's control. In truth, the statute already provides for this, as I noted in my concurring opinion in San Diego Gas & Electric--but I think that Congress can be helpful by explicitly providing that postal ballots can be available within the Board's discretion along the lines that I set forth in San Diego Gas. The plurality in that case, which limited such ballots only to cases where employees are scattered and unavailable, did not rely upon any provision of the statute as it is written today and the Board, as well as Congress, can reverse that poorly-reasoned opinion at any time that it wants. The third important feature of EFCA provides for interest arbitration in first contract negotiations. Clearly, as Professors Ferguson and Kochan have established, there is a problem here--only 56% of newly-certified bargaining units reach a contract, and only 37% do so within the first certification year--that cannot be easily remedied by refusal-to-bargain litigation. The surface bargaining cases have not been an effective avenue through which to establish or restore collective bargaining relationships that should have been less dysfunctional in the first instance. However, EFCA-sponsored interest arbitration, in contrast to the ``grievance'' or ``rights'' variety, is relatively untested in the private sector in the United States. In Canada, which has first contract arbitration in most provinces, the process is rare and used sparingly (except in Manitoba where it is automatic after a specific time period). The conundrum is that the potential for a mechanism like this must be available to rescue bargaining which is at a stall, and yet its mere availability can undermine the collective bargaining process itself which is furthered by the Act. The proper approach here, it seems to me, is to provide that the mediator--perhaps in consultation with the NLRB itself--should certify after extensive mediatory efforts that collective bargaining is either at an impasse or dysfunctional. As it presently stands, EFCA simply allows for arbitration to be invoked after three months of collective bargaining and subsequent mediation. Not only is this period of time too abbreviated, but by spelling out a specific period of time after which arbitration is automatic, it encourages the parties to maneuver in anticipation of arbitration in a way which can erode the voluntary collective bargaining process. Moreover, this approach fails to take into account the fact that both sides are frequently learning for the first time as they put together their very first collective bargaining agreement. Arbitration must be used sparingly, although it should remain available in the final analysis so as to shore up a relationship which might otherwise disappear. This must be what the law encourages not only because of the considerations above but also because experience with interest arbitration in the public sector--where it is available in many jurisdictions for police and fire--is itself extensive and time-consuming. Amongst the interest arbitrations that I have done was one between the Detroit Board of Education and the Federation of Teachers twenty years ago where hearings continued day and night for a week, detailed briefs were filed thereafter, and the arbitration board was required to meet and decide on the basis of voluminous submissions at the end of it all. Though we cannot tolerate delays such as the fifteen months which apparently exist in the public sector in Michigan, framers of the law must realize that it will take considerable time and expense. This is another reason why arbitration should be the rare exception and not the rule at the end of collective bargaining. Yet there is one other consideration. My view is that final-offer baseball arbitration, where the arbitrator is obliged to select one package offer or the other, is the best approach because it creates uncertainty which promotes voluntary negotiation. But because there is much uncertainty for the arbitrator as well as for the parties, I am of the view that his award should appear initially in the form of recommendations and that the parties should have 10-14 days to negotiate with the arbitrator acting as a mediator. If the parties cannot resolve their differences in that time, the recommendations within the parameters of the initial award would be final and binding. In this way the real potential for arbitral error is diminished, and the integrity of the process maintained. There are a few other matters that I think you should consider which should be a vital part of labor law reform, and yet are not covered in EFCA. First, Congress should encourage rulemaking in lieu of adjudication so as to avoid repetitive and wasteful litigation which enhance cost and delay. My Board attempted to do this in the 1990s and was stopped by appropriations riders fashioned by the Republican Congress. A different political environment exists this time around and Congress and the Board should take full advantage of the opportunity to resolve disputes expeditiously and sensibly. Second, the amount of litigation before the Board can be reduced if Congress unfreezes the Board's jurisdictional guidelines and thus decreases the volume of cases that come before it by taking into account fifty years of inflation. The freeze has resulted in NLRB assertion of jurisdiction over very small employers. Again, the Republican Congress in the 1990s insisted that I withdraw Board jurisdiction when I was Chairman but, as I pointed out to them, only Congress can change these statutory provisions which were enacted a half- century ago and which have left Board jurisdiction in terms of dollar values the same as it was then--even though the dollar is worth one-seventh of what it was at that time. But at this time, Congress can initiate action on this which will both deregulate labor-management relations for small employers in some jurisdictions and, since state law should be followed, also allow the states to enact more expansive laws protecting union organizing. This promotes the kind of laboratory conditions of which Justice Brandeis spoke a century ago and relieves small business from the federal regulation under which it currently lives. Here Congress can and should take the lead as the 1959 amendments require. Third, labor law reform must take into account that it is not simply employers who are promoting delay before the NLRB and the courts at this juncture--in many instances it has been the Board itself as cases have languished in the black hole in Washington headquarters for half a decade or more while workers awaited reinstatement and back pay. As Professor G. Calvin Mackenzie of Colby College has noted, much of this is attributable to the ``transcendent loss of purpose in the appointment process'' at the NLRB where appointees ``come from congressional staffs or think tanks or interest groups--not from across the country but from across the street: interchangeable public elites, engaged in an insider's game.'' The packaging and ``batching'' of appointees was unknown prior to 1994 and has become so embedded in the appointment process that even President Obama has batched a Republican Senate Labor Committee policy director with his two Democratic nominees. This approach should be abandoned. It fosters delay through the reticence of decision-makers who procrastinate, concerned about congressional reaction. If reappointments were barred, this tendency would be diminished. At the same time, Congress should extend the term of office to eight years, reduce the number of Board members from five to three so as to eliminate the potential for individual Board member obstruction (with the reduction of cases obtained through withdrawal of jurisdiction this can work more easily), and explicitly provide that when a Board member's term expires he or she can serve no longer. In this way we will attract the best people who will serve for the very best reasons. Finally, one of the most interesting developments in recent years relates to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms devised by the parties, particularly as a result of their frustration about the National Labor Relations Board and its ability to function promptly. One classic example of this approach is set forth in the procedures devised by First Group America to deal with complaints involving freedom of association issues arising out of union organizational campaigns or relating to discrimination on account of union activity. The First Group machinery provides that an Independent Monitor (I have functioned in that capacity for the past 18 months) is to make public recommendations regarding such complaints within 30-60 days of the time that they are filed. Most recommendations have been accepted and the program has been praised by both sides. The process is able to move with dispatch because there is simply a provision for investigation rather than a full-fledged hearing. Congress ought to explicitly encourage parties to devise such procedures, and their existence may provide guidance with regard to how lengthy proceedings before the Board and the courts--which are frequently excessively time- consuming or wasteful--can be abbreviated. Conclusion The job of labor law reform is an important one and the Employee Free Choice Act has done more than any other mechanism in recent years to get this issue front and center. The chance to engage in this process does not come often and thus it is important that the country gets it right this time around. EFCA is right on the mark when it comes to sanctions, damages, penalties, and contempt proceedings. It has gone off course in connection with card check--but fortunately through expedited and postal elections as well as union access to private property that matter can be addressed with some measure of success. On arbitration, EFCA got us part of the way there, but much more needs to be done and revised. The reform initiative provides a great opportunity to have a new look at some of the problems that have plagued the Board and the Act for far too long, i.e., the appointments process and its relationship to delay, the failure or inability to borrow from voluntary machinery, and the need to get small employers beyond the reach of the Act either for the purpose of deregulation or for, in those jurisdictions that want it that way, more expansive protection than is provided by the National Labor Relations Act even as revised in 2009--if it is to be. This is the beginning of a great debate. It is a debate which necessarily involves labor and management, Democrats and Republicans, and the result must be not only sensible in content but the product of some measure of consensus and compromise.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise along with my colleague Congressman Bonner to update you about the activities of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct through the end of June 2009. Below we have included a table summarizing statistics relating to the Committee's work through June 30, 2009, along with a brief summary of the Committee's accomplishments through the end of June 2009. About the Committee The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is tasked with interpreting and enforcing the House's ethics rules. The Committee has sole jurisdiction over the interpretation of the Code of Official Conduct, which governs the acts of Members and staff. The Committee is the only standing House committee with equal numbers of Democratic and Republican members. The Committee's staff is required by rule to be--and it is--professional and nonpartisan. Much, if not most, of the Committee's work is conducted confidentially. Members and staff are, by and large, prohibited from discussing the Committee's work. Confidentiality promotes compliance with the rules and, in the investigative context, permits the Committee to independently investigate matters fully without interference or undue influence. Nevertheless, the Committee's duty to maintain confidentiality can make the Committee appear insufficiently accountable or transparent. The Committee, to the extent our confidentiality obligations permit, intends to be transparent, and it will be accountable. To that end, we are submitting the Committee's first semi-annual report on its activities. The Committee's Responsibilities The Committee manages five critical responsibilities: 1. Training. The Committee provides mandatory annual ethics training to over 10,000 employees of the House. In addition, the Committee provides additional, mandatory training for senior staff. Trainings take the form of in-person and computer-based seminars, briefings and interactive presentations. The Committee is in the process of updating its online training materials and has put into place systems for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the House's training requirements. 2. Advice and Education. The Committee provides both formal and informal guidance to Members and employees of the House. Through published guidance, the Committee updates the House on the ethical standards regulating the conduct of Members and staff. It also provides confidential written guidance to Members and staff on specific questions. In addition, the Committee's staff gives informal, confidential advice to Members, staff and the public every day. The Committee has recently set a goal of completing responses to written requests for advice within two weeks of submission and has made significant progress toward improving the timeliness of responses to requests for formal advice. 3. Travel. The Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving all privately-sponsored travel related to official duties offered to Members and staff. The Committee is in the process of reviewing its travel regulations. Exercising its oversight jurisdiction, the Committee, with the benefit of two years' experience implementing the House's travel rules, expects to revise its travel regulations in the near future. 4. Financial Disclosure. The Committee reviews and certifies all financial disclosure reports Members, candidates and senior staff are required to file. These are time-intensive reviews, which require the dedication of substantial staff resources to complete. The Committee is putting into place systems for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the House's financial disclosure rules. 5. Investigations. The Committee investigates and adjudicates allegations of impropriety and violations of House ethics rules by Members and staff. The Committee actively investigates allegations against Members and staff, using a mix of informal and formal investigative techniques to determine the validity of factual allegations, explore potential rules violations and recommend appropriate sanctions and corrective actions. Where appropriate, the Committee refers matters to federal and state law enforcement authorities. In addition, the Committee performs other critical functions to ensure compliance with House ethics rules. Several of these functions are noted in the table below, which summarizes the Committee's activities for the first half this year. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY09.001 Significant Accomplishments Conforming Revisions to Committee Rules Revisions to House rules over the past few years required conforming amendments to the Committee's rules. The Committee did the revisions in two steps. First, the Committee adopted interim rules at its organizational meeting on February 10, 2009. The interim rules conformed the Committee's rules to the more gender-neutral language adopted in the House rules for the 111th Congress. At that time, the Committee announced that it would be conducting a more thorough review of its rules to incorporate new provisions in House Rule 11 regarding the newly established Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). In April 2009, the Committee formed a bipartisan working group led by Representative Ben Chandler and Representative John Kline to review and make recommendations for further, more substantive conforming amendments to the Committee's rules. The working group met formally three times to discuss proposed amendments to the rules. It also consulted with the Office of the Parliamentarian, House Office of Legislative Counsel, and the House General Counsel to ensure the Committee's rules revisions conform to the provisions of the House rules, applicable legislation and the Constitution. The working group's recommended revisions were ultimately adopted by Committee vote on June 9, 2009. The revisions incorporated House Rule 11 and H. Res. 895 (110th Congress), which established the OCE and created the process by which matters are referred to the Committee from the OCE and eventually subjected to public disclosure. The Committee's rules address the three pillars underlying the creation of the OCE: promoting accountability of the Committee; increasing the transparency of the Committee; and ensuring the independence of both the Committee and the OCE. A section-by-section summary of the conforming amendments to the Committee's rules is included immediately below. Summary of Rules Changes Rule 2--Definitions. Conforms the Committee's rules to extant House rules governing the Committee's role as an investigative authority. Incorporates definitions relevant to the OCE. Rule 3--Advisory Opinions and Waivers. Clarifies that the privately-sponsored travel approval process is part of the Committee's Advisory Opinion process. Permits a Member, officer or House employee to request a copy of his or her own travel approval or advisory opinion request, along with the Committee's response to the request. Rule 4--Financial Disclosure. Establishes that the Committee has declined to exercise jurisdiction over review of the timeliness and completeness of financial disclosure reports filed by the Board of the OCE with the Clerk of the House. This provision promotes OCE's independence. Rule 7--Confidentiality. Conforms the Committee's confidentiality provisions to the public disclosure requirements for referrals from the OCE and permits limited disclosures of Committee investigative information to the Board of the OCE when the Committee requests a referral. Rule 9--Quorums and Member Disqualification. Conforms the Committee's member disqualification rule to changes made in the House Rules for the 111th Congress. Rule 12--Broadcasts of Committee and Subcommittee Proceedings. Removes the provision allowing witnesses to terminate audio and video coverage consistent with the elimination of this provision in the House rules. Rule 14--Committee Authority to Investigate--General Policy. Conforms the Committee's rules to extant House rules governing the Committee's role as an investigative authority. Incorporates authority to investigate, consistent with new House rules, based on referrals from the OCE. Rule 17--Processing of Complaints. Removes the provision regarding member disqualification to clarify its broader application to all investigative subcommittees. Rule 17A--Referrals from the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics. Incorporates provisions from new House rules detailing the Committee's process for processing referrals from the OCE, including the timeframes for required public disclosure of OCE referrals. Establishes the process the Committee will follow when it receives an OCE referral pursuant to House Rule 11, clause 3. Provides that the Committee must, in virtually all cases, make public OCE's reports and findings regarding referred matters, as well as make public statements regarding the status of the Committee's reviews of referred matters. The public disclosures follow strict timelines. The rule sets out the basic disclosure process and timeframes for disclosure in detail. Provides that public disclosures required under the rule will be released by the Committee on the Committee's Web site. Provides that the Committee may receive OCE referrals in two ways that trigger the disclosure process described in Committee Rule 17A. First, OCE's Board may vote to refer a matter to the Committee after completion of OCE's second- phase review. Second, the Committee may request a referral after receiving notice that OCE is reviewing a matter, provided the Committee is already investigating, or has already investigated, the matter pursuant to House Rule 11, clause 3(r). Under that House Rule, as codified in Committee Rule 17A(k), the Committee has the authority to request that OCE refer a matter to the Committee at any stage of an OCE investigation. Because a request for a referral may only come from the Committee, it requires a vote of the full Committee. Provides that the Committee may not request a matter and then allow it to languish in secret. Treats an early referral as identical to an OCE referral made at the end of a second- stage review. Provides that, if the Committee requests a referral from the OCE, the OCE will issue a report to the Committee when it makes its referral. In early referral cases, the rule applies the same strict timelines and public disclosure requirements applicable to all other OCE referrals. The Committee must act on the matter and release a copy of OCE's report, typically within 45 days, with the possibility of one 45-day extension. Consequently, if the Committee votes to dismiss a matter after requesting an early referral from OCE, the OCE's report will become public, along with a statement from the Committee announcing dismissal of the matter. The rule fosters accountability and ensures that the actions of both the Committee and the OCE are transparent to the House and to the public. (The Committee understands that the OCE, in such cases, would not be precluded from continuing its review based on new information made available to the OCE.) Provides that, if the Committee is unable to resolve a matter before the public disclosure timeframes run (for example, by empanelling an investigative subcommittee), referred matters will revert back to the OCE for second-phase review and possible referral of the matter to the Committee. Provides that the Committee may only request one referral of the same matter from the OCE. Rule 18--Committee-Initiated Inquiry or Investigation. Conforms the Committee's rules to House rules and long- standing Committee practice. Incorporates recent House resolutions requiring action by the Committee when a Member, officer or House employee is charged with criminal conduct. Rule 19--Investigative Subcommittee. Adds a provision regarding member disqualification from investigative subcommittees to clarify its broader application to all investigative subcommittees. Rule 23--Adjudicatory Hearings. Clarifies that member disqualification from adjudicatory subcommittees is also governed by the general member disqualification rule, consistent with the House rule revisions in the 111th Congress. Staffing Effective May 1, 2009, the Committee appointed a permanent staff director and chief counsel. In addition, the Committee has hired four additional staff members, including two attorneys and two investigators, three of whom will start with the Committee during July 2009. The Committee continues to actively interview additional candidates for numerous open staff positions. The addition of a permanent staff director has helped the Committee establish several significant policies (described below) that will enhance compliance with the ethical standards of the House. The addition of new staff will permit the Committee to fulfill its responsibilities in a more timely and effective manner. Reduction in Advisory Opinion Backlog At the beginning of this Congress, there was a substantial backlog of advisory opinion requests to which the Committee had yet to respond. Many of those requests were months delayed. In some cases, responses were delayed by as much as a year or more. The Committee has cleared the backlog and has established policies to improve its responsiveness to advisory opinion requests. On May 1, 2009, the Committee established a target of responding to advisory opinion requests, where possible, within two weeks. From the beginning of the year through April 30, 2009, the Committee responded within two weeks to advisory opinion requests about 39% of the time. Since May 1, 2009, the Committee's response rate has jumped to over 80%. The policy change has greatly increased the turnaround time for responses, leading to more timely and effective advice to Members and staff on issues of concern to them. The policy also has encouraged Members and staff to seek confidential advice from the Committee before acting, promoting greater compliance with the House's ethics rules. Improved Data Collection and Case Management The Committee has significantly improved its data collection and case management. Data is being collected and monitored in ways it has not been before. For example, the Committee has for the first time started collecting much of the data included in the report above on an ongoing basis. The Committee has started tracking the length of time it takes to review advisory opinion and travel requests, allowing it to set targets for processing cases. In addition, the Committee is exploring ways to improve its processes and to expand its data collection. Improved Compliance Controls The Committee has significantly improved its processes for monitoring compliance with House rules, including the certification of mandated training for staff and the filing of financial disclosure reports. Specifically, the Committee has, since May 1, 2009, established specific policies to identify employees who, and offices that, have failed to properly certify compliance with the House's mandatory training requirements for staff. In addition, the Committee has put into place policies to identify Members and senior staff who have failed to file financial disclosure reports. These policies will allow the Committee to notify noncompliant individuals and offices, seek corrective measures and take appropriate remedial actions. Annual Review of Travel Regulations The Committee has started its required annual review of its regulations governing privately-sponsored travel. It expects to report its findings to the House by the end of 2009. Investigations The Committee has been conscientiously fulfilling its mission to investigate alleged violations of the House's ethics rules. As can be seen from the report above, the Committee opened 15 new investigative matters from the beginning of the year through June 30, 2009. During that time, the Committee received six referrals from the OCE. In addition, the Committee continued investigating 11 matters held over from the 110th Congress. The Committee completed four investigative matters. The resolutions in two of those matters were publicly disclosed.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to note that I also was at a meeting for the last 2 hours, with the President at the White House, on immigration and unavoidably missed the votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the McGovern-Jones amendment, ``yes'' on the McGovern-Sestak amendment, ``no'' on the Franks amendment, ``no'' on the Akin amendment, ``yes'' on the Holt amendment, ``yes'' on the Connolly amendment, and ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you, Mr. Price. In looking at this amendment, I think it's important for Members to know that they can either vote for it or against it. It doesn't really matter because it's a restatement of existing law. I would direct the attention of Members to section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. Code 1324a(h)(3), which says, and I read it, in part, authorized alien means with respect to the employment of an alien at a particular time the alien is not at that time either lawfully admitted for permanent residence or authorized to be so employed by this act or by the Attorney General. As I say, this provision is not necessary. Current law also requires all employers to verify the employment authorization of employees here in the Federal Government, and there already are criminal and civil penalties for hiring unauthorized immigrants. Again, that is current law. Current law also permits employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of employees pursuant to section 401 and 402 of Public Law 104-208, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That is the E-Verify program that Members are aware of. Current law requires the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of their employees pursuant to section 402(e)(1) of Public Law 104-208; again, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996. So, I provide this information to Members not as an advocate for or against the amendment, simply to note that this is a restatement of existing law.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of a talented and dedicated public servant, Mike Curran. For the past twenty-three years Mike has been the director of the NOVA workforce board. NOVA is a nonprofit, federally funded employment and training agency that provides customer-focused workforce development services in cooperation with the local community of business owners and educators in Silicon Valley. NOVA was founded twenty-five years ago and Mike has been the director for all but two of those years. Under his leadership, NOVA has received international recognition for its ability to design, develop, and deploy cutting edge operations that meet the unique talent development needs of Silicon Valley. It goes without saying that it is Mike's leadership and vision that has made this possible. He has been described as ``a premier example of the Silicon Valley work ethic-- tireless, unstoppable, someone with his finger on the pulse of how employment affects our daily lives'' and I cannot agree more. Mike has dedicated his life to community organizing, development, and service. His commitment to Silicon Valley is lifelong--Mike was born and raised in Silicon Valley and has chosen to make his home there with his wife Elaine and their two children, Brendan and Megan. As we celebrate Mike Curran's retirement from NOVA workforce board, I cannot help but be saddened by it. However, I am certain that this is not the end of Mike's service to Silicon Valley or his commitment to making a difference in the day-to-day lives of the people in our community.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of a distinguished member of my community, the Honorable Marilyn Morgan, upon her retirement from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the San Jose Division of the Northern District of California. Judge Morgan has served on the federal bench with honor and integrity for 21 years. She has been an exceptional jurist, committed to fairness in the decisions impacting those who have appeared before her. Throughout her life and career, Judge Morgan has sought to ensure that all parties, including those with limited access to services and legal representation, have justice and equality. However, her extraordinary dedication to public service extends far beyond her courtroom. Prior to her legal career, Ms. Morgan worked in the civil rights movement in the area of voter registration. After receiving her J.D. from Emory University, Ms. Morgan returned to her native San Jose to start her own practice in bankruptcy law, representing both debtors and creditors. She also served as a bankruptcy trustee. In that capacity, she quickly identified a need for a communications clearinghouse for trustees to connect and share ideas and educational resources. Ms. Morgan was co-founder of the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, an educational and advocacy organization for Chapter 7 Trustees that continues to thrive and boast a nationwide membership. Among some important firsts, Ms. Morgan served as the first woman President of the Santa Clara County Bar Association in 1985-86 and as the first bankruptcy lawyer appointed as a Lawyer Representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. She has also served as a member of the Bankruptcy Advisory Committee to the United States District Court and as a referee and probation monitor on the State Bar Court. Since her appointment to the bench in 1988, Judge Morgan has continued her extensive contributions to the legal community. She is one of the co- founders of the Congressman Don Edwards American Inn of Court, a professional association dedicated to promoting civility and enhancing communications between the bench and the bankruptcy bar. She has also served on the Board of Directors of Lincoln Law School of San Jose, Consumer Credit Counselors of San Francisco and its subsidiary, BALANCE, and the Bay Area Bankruptcy Forum. Judge Morgan has been a powerful advocate for the improvement of the legal system. In 2007, Judge Morgan testified about ``Protecting Home Ownership'' before the Subcommittee on Administrative and Commercial Law of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1997, she also testified before the National Bankruptcy Review Commission regarding proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. In 2007, the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys recognized Judge Morgan for her extraordinary service in the field of consumer bankruptcy law. In 1999, she received the Fresh Start Award from the local consumer bankruptcy community in recognition of her contributions to improving the consumer bankruptcy system. Judge Morgan has also been an active and effective advocate for improving the quality of, and access to, legal services available to the public. She has served as President of the Santa Clara County Bar Association Law Foundation and a trustee of Santa Clara County Law Related Education. She is also a co-founder of the Pro Bono Project of Santa Clara County. Judge Morgan has been a frequent provider of continuing legal education through the Bay Area Bankruptcy Forum, the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, the Santa Clara County Bar Association, the California Bankruptcy Forum, the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, the American Law Institute--American Bar Association, and the Norton Institute. In addition to her contributions to the legal community, Judge Morgan has given generously to her broader community. One of the first women admitted to membership in the Rotary Club of San Jose, she has truly fulfilled its mission of ``service above self.'' She has served on the club's Board of Directors and has been intimately involved in developing Los Amigos de Washington School, a Rotary program that provides support to the students, families and teachers of Washington Elementary School through activities, events and mentoring. Judge Morgan has been a regular at the school, reading books to several classes and mentoring a group of fourth grade girls. She has also served on the Board of Directors of the American Red Cross; the San Jose Cathedral Foundation; The Women's Fund; the Santa Clara County Public Facilities Corporation; the Santa Clara County Building Authority; the Downtown YWCA; and the Santa Clara County Century Club. For more than 30 years, Judge Morgan has been an outstanding pillar of our community in San Jose, a forceful advocate for the improvement of the legal system and the community at large, an inspiration and role model for her public service, a loyal friend to the many people with whom she has worked along the way, and a jurist whose common sense and legal acumen has provided justice to those who have appeared before her. She is married to the Hon. (Ret.) James R. Grube, and they have three children, Terry, Elyse, and Mark. It is with great pleasure that I join Judge Morgan in celebrating her life and many accomplishments. I thank her for her contributions to our region in California and to our nation. On behalf of our community, I congratulate Judge Morgan and wish her and her family well in her retirement and her future plans to continue in service to her community.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of Vietnam Human Rights Day and to recognize the daily struggle for freedom in Vietnam. Fifteen years ago, Congress designated May 11th as Vietnam Human Rights Day, recognizing the plight of the people of Vietnam under the repression of their communist government. I am sad to say that these conditions persist to this day. Just last week, Vietnam's human rights record was examined by the United Nations Human Rights Council, under the Universal Periodic Review. As part of this proceeding, numerous non-governmental organizations reported a wide range of serious abuses. Journalists, dissidents, and whistleblowers are imprisoned merely for questioning government policies in public or calling attention to corruption or other wrongdoing. Citizens are arrested, detained, and imprisoned without due process of law. Independent political parties and labor unions are banned. In all of this, the Vietnamese government scorns the rule of law, violating its international human rights obligations and, often, its own constitution. Abuses of religious freedom are also a serious problem. In its Annual Report for 2009, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has again called for Vietnam to be designated as a Country of Particular Concern by the State Department. I commend the Commission for making this recommendation, and urge the State Department to follow its advice. The United States granted Vietnam Permanent Normal Trade Relations in 2006. Since then, its already abysmal human rights record has gotten even worse. Once the Vietnamese government got the trade agreement that it wanted, it felt free to escalate its repression. It is time for the United States to consider how it can use its considerable leverage to assist those who are striving for human rights and democracy in Vietnam. I rise to honor their efforts and sacrifices.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, as the Chair of the California Democratic delegation, I yield to our colleague for a happy announcement.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of David Jennings Brown, Sr., whose business acumen, community service and family dedication are inspirational. Acclaimed as a pioneer developer of Silicon Valley and San Francisco Bay Area business parks, David J. Brown is a man of vision, compassion and energy. David began his business career developing and managing commercial and industrial income properties for Newhall Land & Farming Company and Holvick deRegt & Koering. He then became the Regional Vice President of Boise Cascade Building, where he completed the acquisition and commenced the development and management of four major Bay Area Business Parks. With a vision to create a commercial and industrial real estate development and management company offering the utmost level of integrity and service, David founded Orchard Properties in San Jose, California in 1973. During its 32 years of operations, Orchard Properties developed over 1,400 acres and 7 million square feet of commercial/industrial property in Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, and Sacramento Counties. Through the teamwork of over 200 individuals, Orchard Properties earned numerous awards and special recognitions over the years, including being named Developer of the Year four times. And, as a result, David is being inducted into the ``Developer Hall of Fame'' by the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) in May 2009. Beginning in 2007 NAIOP Silicon Valley felt that it was important to take a moment to reflect upon the significant role that very few individuals have had in shaping the look and feel of Silicon Valley and the role Silicon Valley's Commercial Real Estate community has played in the international business community. Silicon Valley, as we know it today, is the result of the efforts of a few developers who did big things in the 60's and 70's, including building speculative, flexible buildings that allowed high tech companies to expand, contract and change creatively, a visionary concept from the 1960's. It was considered to be very, very risky and was not often attempted. Yet, the NAIOP Developer Hall of Fame honorees were pioneers who took risks, had vision and worked tirelessly building an industry providing a foundation of the entrepreneurial economy that today is replicated around the world. In 1995, David acquired a ranch located in Wolf Creek Valley outside of Pagosa Springs, Colorado where his family built BootJack Ranch, which has become one of David's true passions. BootJack Ranch is a one- of-akind world-class family compound and retreat. The ranch is considered to be one of the finest and most beautiful recreational and fly fishing ranches in the country. The Brown Family enjoys using BootJack Ranch as a tranquil retreat to provide rest, renewal and introspection for their family, Christian ministry leaders, executives and others in need of a place of silence and solitude. BootJack Ranch is also the backdrop numerous philanthropic events including the annual Music in the Mountains Festival. The Browns also founded the Pagosa Springs affiliate of the Durango festival of the same name in 2001. Music in the Mountains, Pagosa is a world class music festival featuring a wonderful variety of composers, artists and styles from classical to country and Celtic showcased in the beautiful mountain scenery. David has 3 daughters, 2 sons and 11 grandchildren. He and his wife recently relocated to Paradise Valley, Arizona where David is currently the Vice Chairman of the Mayo Clinic Arizona Leadership Advisory Council. I would like to thank David for his contributions to the community and commend him on his meaningful and productive career.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 342 and the designation of May 2, 2009 as ``Vietnamese Refugees Day.'' Millions of Boat People and other Vietnamese refugees endured harrowing voyages to escape the tyranny and depravation of communist Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands of those refugees reached the United States, and we are all better for it. Like so many immigrants before and since, they came seeking freedom, and in turn became valuable members of their new communities. I have the privilege of representing many Vietnamese-Americans in San Jose, California, and can attest to this first-hand. Unfortunately, I cannot speak with the same warmth about the situation inside Vietnam. To this day, the Vietnamese government refuses to respect the basic human rights of its own citizens. Reports by the State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and non-governmental and Vietnamese American organizations document egregious abuses of free speech and expression, religious liberty, and many other fundamental freedoms. So today I rise to honor the experiences of Vietnamese refugees, and to commend the Vietnamese Americans who have successfully rebuilt their lives in the United States while fighting for the rights of those left in Vietnam.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project and all those who have contributed their time and effort to ensure that historic images and vital data from the Lunar Orbiter missions of the 1960s are not lost to future generations. In 1965, Charles Byrne, an engineer with Bellcomm, Inc., had the foresight to propose that NASA record data from the Lunar Orbiter missions onto tape recorders. NASA agreed and the images returned from the Lunar Orbiters were backed up on AMPEX FR-900 tape drives. To date, these images are some of highest resolution images we have of the Moon. Those images include a high-resolution version of ``Earthrise,'' the first picture of the Earth from the Moon's vantage point. Time Magazine has called this image ``the photo of the century.'' The tapes also contain the first stereo imagery of the Moon's surface. Indeed, these are some of the best images of the Moon ever taken, far superior from those received from the Hubble telescope. Astonishingly, all of the images stored on the 1,500 14-inch diameter tape reels were nearly destroyed. With its focus turned to the Apollo mission, NASA saw little further use for the tapes. Fortunately, Nancy Evans, co-founder of NASA Planetary Data Systems, convinced her superiors at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to retain the tapes. Evans also salvaged three refrigerator-sized FR-900 tape drives, which she stored in her own garage for two decades. Evans and Mark Nelson, of Caltech, managed to get a few tape drives running but their project ultimately folded. NASA turned down her requests for assistance after placing an estimate of $6 million on the cost to restore the data. Fortunately, Evans' efforts caught the attention of Dennis Wingo and Keith Cowing, both of whom have been focused on space exploration for many years. They arranged to move the tapes and drives to NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California. Ames' director, Peter Worden, arranged for them to store the equipment in an old abandoned McDonalds, which they jokingly referred to as ``McMoon's.'' Wingo and Cowing began working with Ken Zin, an army veteran, to get the drives up and running. NASA contributed $100,000 to the efforts. Cowing invested his own money in the project and the team enlisted the support of local students to recover the images. There is still a long way to go to complete this project but the public's interest in it is more than just a matter of historical record. The images have the potential to push NASA's climate data back a full decade. And just as the Lunar Orbiter images provided data crucial to safely landing our first astronauts on the moon, those same images will assist the current efforts of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission by providing a baseline for understanding the changes to the Moon between the 1960s and present day. As with the Lunar Orbiter's images themselves, the efforts of those who have devoted themselves to this project should not go unnoticed or unrecorded. Although space exploration is a vast, complicated enterprise, it ultimately relies on individuals who have the vision and imagination to move us forward. The Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project is an example of that kind of vision and imagination, and those who have contributed to the Project and to preceding efforts surely deserve our gratitude.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Rodney John Diridon, ``Rod,'' on the 70th anniversary of his birth. In addition to celebrating the commemoration of a life well spent, I would like to acknowledge the dedication he has exemplified in serving the Valley of Santa Clara for over half of his life. Diridon, the son of an immigrant Italian railroad brakeman, has focused on transportation issues for decades. A most effective proponent of public transportation, Rod Sr. is considered the ``father of modern transit'' in Santa Clara County and credited with countless achievements including building the light rail system. He is a former member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and a former candidate for the California State Assembly. Upon his retirement from public office in 1994, the main train station in San Jose was renamed ``The Diridon Station'' in his honor. He currently heads the Norman I. Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University, and is a former chairman of the board of the High Speed Rail Authority. Rod's service to his community and country started much earlier in his life. From 1963 to 1967 he served in the U.S. Navy as a Fleet Officer and Combat Duty Officer in Vietnam. In 1969, Diridon founded the Diridon Research Corporation, later renamed Decision Research Institute (DRI) in 1972. DRI conducted market research, needs assessment surveys and legislative consulting throughout the United States. As founder and president he developed a ``shared survey'' research procedure subsequently adopted by the UNICEF of the United Nations. His political career began in 1972 as the youngest person ever elected to the Saratoga City Council. He retired because of term limits, after completing 20 years and six terms as chairperson of both the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and Transit Board. He is the only person to have chaired the San Francisco Bay Area's (nine counties and 104 cities) three regional governments: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the Association of Bay Area Governments. To find the basis for Rod's call to public service, one need only look at his family's roots. Rodney John Diridon was born in Dunsmuir, California in 1939 to Claude and Rhoda Diridon. As the son of Italian immigrants, Rod's father, Claudius Diridoni was compelled to change his name when bigotry in the railroad employment system kept him from being hired. After becoming a union member, Claude was protected from discrimination, thus starting the Diridon family's long appreciation of organized labor. Although Rod was dyslexic, through hard work and determination, he was a good student and member of championship football teams in high school. While working his way through college as a railroad trainman, he attended Shasta Junior College and Chico State, each for one year. He then transferred to San Jose State University, where he was a student leader, and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Accounting and an MSBA in Statistics. He was married to Mary Ann Fudge from July 4, 1964 until 1999 and raised two children, Rodney Jr. born September 10, 1969, and Mary Margaret, born September 14, 1971. On June 10, 2001 he married Dr. Gloria Duffy. Rod has chaired over 100 international, national, state and local community service programs and projects, most related to transit and the environment. He served, in 1993, as the chairperson of the American Public Transit Association in Washington, D.C., and more recently as the North American Vice President of the International Transit Association in Brussels. He has been an advisor to the Federal Transit Administration and in 1995 chaired the National Research Council's Transit Oversight and Project Selection Committee. Rod chaired the NRC's Transportation Research Board's study panel on ``Combating Global Warming Through Sustainable Transportation Policy.'' He is frequently asked to provide testimony to Congressional Committees. Diridon has received published recognition and numerous awards for his contributions and has served on numerous organizations committed to community service at the national, state, regional and local levels. He has been most involved with transportation, the environment, arts and human rights fund-raising and advocacy.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you, Chairman Brady, for yielding. As vice chair of the Committee on House Administration, as well as chair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I find myself in kind of a unique position of dealing with this funding resolution both as a member of House Administration, where we heard the testimony of every chair and ranking member, read the budgets of every single committee, but also as chair of the Committee on Standards, I, along with the ranking member, Congressman Bonner, gave testimony and made a budget request. So I am pleased to note that the committee funding resolution today is not just about how much money a committee receives, it's about resources necessary to meet and fulfill duties and obligations. Now when it comes to the so-called Ethics Committee, obviously, we know--and this is bipartisan--we have a very strong responsibility to ensure that the House adheres to and upholds the highest standards of ethics. To that end, the Ethics Committee annually produces thousands of written advisory opinions and informal opinions; it educates Members and staff and other employees of the House; it reviews annual financial disclosure filings; and, when necessary, conducts investigations into possible violations of the House rules. In the last Congress, the House greatly expanded the duties and responsibilities of the Ethics Committee. It has required that the committee conduct mandatory annual ethics training for every officer and employee of the House. That means we must train roughly 10,000 employees each year. The House also requires that the committee review all staff and Member travel requests that are privately funded, which I can tell you is a voluminous task. In addition, the House voted to establish the Office of Congressional Ethics, which we expect will increase our workload. As you can see, the committee's mandate has grown significantly. The resolution before us does provide some additional funding for additional staff and for the adoption of new technologies to allow us to fulfill our expanded mandates. I very much support the resolution, not only for the Ethics Committee, but for the other committees. This is a tight budget. It's not everything that everyone wanted, but these are tough times as well. I think the chairman and the ranking member have done a marvelous job. I, for one, would like to thank them for listening to the plea of the Ethics Committee and our increased responsibilities.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, fellow attorney, my fellow Californian, the former attorney general for California, Congressman Dan Lungren, for joining with me in introducing this bill first in the 109th Congress, then again working to get the bill on the floor in the 110th, and now, once again, in the 111th Congress. And I am grateful to Chairman Brady for moving this bill so promptly. I think starting this early perhaps we'll get this all the way through the Senate and over to the President and accomplish something that's really quite important for the legislative branch. As has been mentioned, top law graduates in the top law schools in the Nation seek clerkships in the judicial branch and sometimes in the executive branch, but we don't have that here in the legislative branch, and he's right, we do owe some gratitude to Dean Larry Kramer for proposing this idea. Here's what Dean Kramer said: ``This bill will serve an important role by educating young lawyers and future leaders of the profession about the legislative process. It will be enormously beneficial for both the profession and the public if some of the Nation's brightest young lawyers begin their careers in the legislature and so develop and can convey to the public an appreciation of Congress and the legislative process equal to that lawyers have shown for courts and the judicial process.'' This really isn't about getting work out of these bright, young lawyers. It's about starting off on the right course and having the respect for Article I that we hope that they will get by working with us here in the Congress. We believe that this bipartisan bill, that will be bicameral, bipartisan, will make a difference not today, not tomorrow, but 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now, to make sure that Article I is elevated as it should be. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I thank the chairman. I thank Congressman Lungren, and I thank the dean of the Stanford Law School, Larry Kramer.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1319. My name was mistakenly submitted by the bill's sponsors.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, that is not a germane point. I would raise a point of order.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Peters). It was a pleasure to work with him to reach agreement on his amendment, and I appreciate his commitment to ensuring that Americans have credit counseling under the Bankruptcy Code, especially in these difficult economic times. His amendment, Mr. Peters' amendment, ensures that homeowners will be able to meet their obligations, to obtain credit counseling without risking foreclosure. It strikes the right balance, and it shows real foresight, judgment and skill on Mr. Peters' part, and I appreciate supporting his amendment, and I appreciate his presence here in our body.