Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Davis of Virginia is a principal cosponsor and I don't see him here, so I will yield to Mr. Holt for 1 minute.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear that the Holt bill is optional for jurisdictions. No one is required to opt in, so no one would be rushed unless they wanted and felt they could take advantage of this legislation. I would note also that several States have undergone very rapid conversion. I would note that Governor Crist from Florida was a witness before the Election Subcommittee in House Administration, and he had the entire State of Florida switch from the electronic machines to optical scan in really a matter of months. This is a matter of intention if you want to do it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that this has not been a hurried effort. In fact, we reported out of the House Administration Committee the original Holt bill before last Easter, Easter of 2007, and have been working with interested parties and across the aisle since that time. It's worth noting that these changes can happen responsibly and also quickly. For example, in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, they're going to switch from DREs to optical scan in 7 weeks, before this primary. And I would note that the legislature in Iowa has voted, I understand the vote was nearly unanimous, to transition from DREs to optical scan, and that's going to be done before this November election. So I think that this measure would help cities and counties who want to take those responsible steps. I would yield to the author of the legislation, Mr. Holt, an additional minute.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my pleasure to rise in strong support of H.R. 4056, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2008. This measure establishes a formal process by which Congress will be able to recognize acts of bravery by men and women in Federal law enforcement who become injured in the course of their duties. Each year, approximately 150 Federal law enforcement officers are injured in the line of duty. Although more than 70 Federal agencies employ law enforcement officers, only two of these agencies have an awards mechanism to recognize officers who are injured in the line of duty. This bill addresses a long overdue need to establish a process for congressional recognition of the dangers these officers face for our safety. It would authorize a Member of Congress or the Attorney General to present in the name of Congress a Congressional Badge of Bravery to an officer who is cited by the Attorney General based on the recommendation of a board established by this measure. Madam Speaker, the men and women in Federal law enforcement, like many hardworking public servants, must often work long and sometimes irregular hours. Unlike other public servants, however, Federal law enforcement officers undertake their responsibilities with full knowledge that they are at risk of severe injury, or worse. This bill will now accord these brave men and women formal congressional recognition, an honor that is so very much deserved. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth) for his leadership on this important legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, 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 and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4056) to establish an awards mechanism to honor Federal law enforcement officers injured in the line of duty, as amended.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to yield to the author of this legislation, Mr. Ellsworth, who represents his district in Indiana with distinction, but also represented the district as their sheriff for many years, and it is therefore very appropriate that I yield to him 5 minutes.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to act swiftly to pass a strengthened and seamless extension of the Research and Development Tax Credit. The R&D tax credit expired at the end of last year, creating an unacceptable degree of uncertainty for our country's most innovative industries. An investment in R&D is an investment in the U.S. economy. In 2003, for example, U.S. companies invested $140.1 billion in domestic research and development. As we have seen in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, that investment has strengthened our economy and led to remarkable technological advancements. At a time when our economy is shedding jobs, a swift extension of the R&D tax credit makes abundant sense. More than 90% of the benefits of the credit are attributable to salaries of workers performing U.S.- based research. A permanent extension of the credit would be ideal. Since its inception in 1981, the R&D tax credit has been extended 12 times for periods ranging from 5 years to 6 months. Given the long time horizon for returns on R&D investments, this ad hoc and piecemeal approach to extending the credit is problematic. Nonetheless, the prospect of the credit lapsing altogether is even more problematic. Given the intense global competition faced by our most innovative industries, we cannot cede any more ground to those countries that provide expansive, permanent R&D incentives to lure away R&D investments. Swift action on the R&D tax credit is critical to innovation centers like the Silicon Valley and to the overall health of the U.S. economy. We must act quickly and decisively to maintain and advance America's place as a leader in innovation.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1053) supporting the mission and goals of National Crime Victims' Rights week in order to increase public awareness of the rights, needs, and concerns of victims and survivors of crime in the United States.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, tonight Allen Ruby will be honored by the University of Santa Clara School of Law. Since the House is in session, I will not be able to participate in this important event. But I do want to note that there is no one more worthy of honor and recognition as a lawyer and as a person than Allen Ruby. In 1965, after earning his bachelor of arts from Michigan State University in only 3 years, he came west to Stanford Law School. Since graduating from Stanford Law School in 1969 he has practiced criminal and civil law in San Jose. His demonstrated skill and commitment to justice enabled him to be admitted to the Supreme Court Bar in 1993. I first came to know Allen Ruby when I was a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The county was embroiled as a defendant in long-standing litigation. As the only county supervisor who was also an attorney, it fell to me to recommend to my colleagues the best lawyer in town to represent the county's interest. Allen Ruby was the best. To participate with Allen Ruby in preparation of the county's case was to watch an attorney of rare talent. He acted with integrity and ingenuity and served the people of Santa Clara County well. Allen Ruby has represented a who's who of clients not only in Silicon Valley, but around the United States. One of his most important public interest cases was the government false claims whistle-blower case, United States of America ex rel Henry Boisvert v. FMC Corp. The matter began when Boisvert, an FMC test analyst, found deficiencies in the U.S. Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The all-terrain vehicle was designed to carry troops and equipment through water and on land but it leaked, making it a danger for troops. As a result of his continued reporting of vehicle flaws, Boisvert was terminated from his employment. Allen Ruby was able to prove that the termination by FMC was wrongful after he filed suit under the False Claims Act. Ruby's zealous representation of Boisvert for the last 5 years of this 14-year lawsuit resulted in an important victory for the public interest as well as the individual whistleblower. Mr. Ruby's extraordinary ability in trial is also appreciated by his colleagues. Their respect for Mr. Ruby gained him membership in the American Board of Trial Advocates and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. In 1999, the Santa Clara County Trial Lawyers Association named him Trial Lawyer of the Year. Mr. Ruby's integrity was not just noted by clients and colleagues, the Santa Clara County Superior Court also recognized his expertise and skill by naming him Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Pro Tem, presiding over jury trials and court trials from 1987 to 1991. Allen Ruby's legal career is impressive and his legal acumen has made him an attorney who has merited the trust of individuals and corporations in the most crucial of times. But the legal acumen that has inspired that trust is built on his values and deep commitment to justice. His personal sense of responsibility to insuring access to our system of justice has moved him to take action outside of his profession as well. Amidst his landmark cases, he has still made time to serve others in several capacities, including as a Silicon Valley Law Foundation board member. Allen Ruby is honored and famed as a trial lawyer, but he grew up in a family of modest means. He was blessed by parents who loved and nurtured him and helped him to develop the values that have served him well throughout his life. Between high school and law school Allen Ruby followed in the footsteps of his father and was a wrestler on the Midwestern professional wrestling circuit. He learned many lessons through this experience, many of which have contributed to his success as an attorney. He has stated about the experience, ``I learned how to get beat and not whine about it, and that was the most valuable lesson I could have learned as a trial lawyer.'' Allen Ruby is not only a spectacular lawyer, he is a valued friend and a respected member of our community in Silicon Valley. I join with Santa Clara Law School in recognizing and honoring him.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the second anniversary of the signing of the Manifesto on Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam. This Manifesto, originally signed by 118 Vietnamese citizens and subsequently signed by thousands of others, has been an inspiration to many who seek to bring democracy and human rights to the citizens of Vietnam. Many signers of this document have been detained and have endured great sacrifice in the name of their cause, and it is with the utmost respect that I rise in their honor.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, on this, the 81st anniversary of his birth, I would like to join my colleagues in honoring Cesar Chavez, an individual that the late Senator Robert Kennedy called, ``one of the heroic figures of our time.'' I also join the call to pass H. Res. 76, establishing a national holiday in his honor. San Jose, the city I represent in this great House, became the hometown to Cesar and his family beginning in 1939, and since then our community has always had a special place in its heart for Chavez. A man of extraordinary accomplishments, Chavez continually called attention to the plight of those who, like him, had to struggle to attain their piece of the American dream. In remembering him today, we keep in mind those Americans working every day on farms in California, and around the country, to secure a better future for their family. An American who heeded his Nation's call to service in World War II, Chavez remained committed to making his country stronger by empowering the least powerful of its citizens. A tireless organizer, he inspired countless individuals to participate in the democratic processes that make this country great. As Americans, we do well to remember Cesar Chavez today. His calls for economic justice resonate in 2008 just as they did 50 years ago, and his early leadership on environmental issues serves as a reminder that we are all stewards of this land. Cesar Chavez was, without a doubt, a true American hero. As we honor his life and remember his many achievements, we in this great body must not forget the hard-working Americans he fought for. Though no longer with us, Cesar Chavez's work continues.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support of the rule so we can adopt H.R. 3773. There's been a lot of very misleading and confusing rhetoric about the issue of immunity. The truth is the phone companies have immunity already under current law. It's 18 U.S. Code, section 2511. And let me just read part of it: ``Notwithstanding any other law, providers of communications services are authorized to provide information in two cases: if there's a court order, or if they receive a certification in writing by a person specified in the title or the Attorney General of the United States that says either no warrant or court order is required, all the statutory requirements have been met and the assistance is required.'' The statute says no cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communications if they have received this certification. I submit the entire text of section 2511 for the Record. [From Westlaw, 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2511, Effective: Nov. 25, 2002] United States Code Annotated Currentness Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Refs & Annos) Part I. Crimes (Refs & Annos) Chapter 119. Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications (Refs & Annos) Sec. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who-- (a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when-- (i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or (ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or (iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States; (c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; (d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or (e) (i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511(2)(a)(ii), 2511(2)(b)-(c), 2511(2)(e), 2516, and 2518 of this chapter, (ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, (iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and (iv) with intent to or improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation, shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5). (2)(a)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. (ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with-- (A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or (B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required. setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required. No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officer, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter. (b) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Commission in the enforcement of chapter 5 of title 47 of the United States Code, to intercept a wire or electronic communication, or oral communication transmitted by radio, or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained. (c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. (d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by that Act. (f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted. (g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person-- (i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public; (ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted-- (I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress; (II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public; (III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or (IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system; (iii) to engage in any conduct which-- (I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or (II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act; (iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or (v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted. (h) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter-- (i) to use a pen register or a trap and trace device (as those terms are defined for the purposes of chapter 206 (relating to pen registers and trap and trace devices) of this title); or (ii) for a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such service. (i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer, if-- (I) the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser's communications on the protected computer; (II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation; (III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser's communications will be relevant to the investigation; and (IV) such interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to or from the computer trespasser. (3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to such person or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient. (b) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication-- (i) as otherwise authorized in section 2511(2)(a) or 2517 of this title; (ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication; (iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or (iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency. (4)( a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) Conduct otherwise an offense under this subsection that consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted-- (i) to a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or (ii) as an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls, is not an offense under this subsection unless the conduct is for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain. [(c) Redesignated (b)] (5)(a)(i) If the communication is-- (A) a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is the private viewing of that communication and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain; or (B) a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, then the person who engages in such conduct shall be subject to suit by the Federal Government in a court of competent jurisdiction. (ii) In an action under this subsection-- (A) if the violation of this chapter is a first offense for the person under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) and such person has not been found liable in a civil action under section 2520 of this title, the Federal Government shall be entitled to appropriate injunctive relief; and (B) if the violation of this chapter is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) or such person has been found liable in any prior civil action under section 2520, the person shall be subject to a mandatory $500 civil fine. (b) The court may use any means within its authority to enforce an injunction issued under paragraph (ii)(A), and shall impose a civil fine of not less than $500 for each violation of such an injunction. credit(s) (Added Pub. L. 90-351, Title III, Sec. 802, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 213, and amended Pub. L. 91-358, Title II, Sec. 211(a), July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 654; Pub. L. 95-511, Title II, Sec. 201(a) to (c), Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1796, 1797; Pub. L. 98-549, Sec. 6(b)(2), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2804; Pub. L. 99-508, Title I, Sec. 101(b), (c)(l), (5), (6), (d), (t), 102, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1849 to 1853; Pub. L. 103-322, Title XXXII, Sec. 320901, Title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(f)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2123, 2147; Pub. L. 103-414, Title II, Sec. 202(b), 204, 205, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4290, 4291; Pub. L. 104-294, Title VI, Sec. 604(b)(42), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3509; Pub. L. 107- 56, Title II, Sec. Sec. 204, 217(2), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 281, 291; Pub. L. 107-296, Title II, Sec. 225(h)(2), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2158.) Current through P.L. 110-195 (excluding P.L. 110-181) approved 3-12-08 Simply put, the phone companies have immunity. The only issue is, do they get their day in court to tell a judge that they have immunity? This bill allows for that. I think the phone companies, like any other party, have a right to assert their defenses and be heard by a judge and have their case be heard. This bill provides for that. Now, why wouldn't the Bush administration be supportive? I think the administration is more concerned about their liability than the phone companies.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I would just note that, as the gentleman has mentioned, it is important that we honor the 5 years of service and sacrifice of our troops and their families in the war in Iraq and remember our troops serving in Afghanistan and throughout the world. I would note that Ranking Member Ehlers is a cosponsor of this resolution, and both conflicts are still ongoing. Our troops' efforts have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Their sacrifice and dedication to their country must be honored, as well as the sacrifice and dedication of American troops stationed at home and around the world. And I am pleased that we will have this important recognition in the people's House, in the rotunda. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I send a concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 313, to the desk and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to discharge the Committee on House Administration from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 306, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks in the Record on the two concurrent resolutions just considered.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor those killed during the Khojaly Massacre on the 16th anniversary of that terrible event. On February 26, 1992, 613 Azerbaijanis lost their lives. I ask that this Congress remember those who were killed that tragic day.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, although we sometimes disagree in the debate over broader immigration policy, we all agree on one thing--that we should recognize and honor the brave Border Patrol agents who risk their lives every day on our border. Day in and day out, in often harsh conditions over unforgiving terrain, they seek to protect our borders, save from death those economic migrants lost in the desert, and protect our country. They often do battle with drug smugglers and human traffickers who have no respect for authority--or even life. Yet rarely are these agents recognized for their courage or their sacrifice. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a tragedy for us to publicly recognize the selfless contributions that these Americans make for their country on a daily basis. In this case, that tragedy is the death of Luis Aguilar, a Senior Border Patrol agent who lost his life in the line of duty while trying to apprehend suspected drug smugglers near Yuma, Arizona on January 19, 2008. Agent Aguilar leaves behind his loving wife, Erica; his two children, Luis and Arianna; his brother, Marco Antonio, also a Senior Border Patrol agent; his sister, Angie; and his parents, Luis Aguilar and Cecilia Silva. They have all paid a heavy price for the service Luis Aguilar gave to protect this great Nation. Today we honor Agent Aguilar and all of the other Border Patrol agents who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. We extend our deepest condolences to his family, as well as the families of all those who have fallen. This Nation owes a debt of gratitude to them and all of the other Border Patrol agents who devotedly and selflessly work to keep us safe.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor the great contributions of Margaret Gregg and would like to recognize her exceptional and tireless service to the homeless in Santa Clara County. Ms. Gregg, who was named Woman of the Year for the 23rd Assembly District of California, is formally retiring after seeing 8 years as Santa Clara County's Homeless Concerns Coordinator. In 1992, Ms. Gregg was hired to become the Executive Director of the San Jose Family Shelter. She remained in that position until November 1999. In February 2000, Margaret Gregg became the Homeless Concerns Coordinator for the County. Ms. Gregg has been responsible for facilitating the County's McKinney-Vento Grant, that brings about $8 million each year to more than 30 different homeless serving organizations. In 2006, she convinced the County to conduct a census of the homeless and followed that effort with a Task Force to create a 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. Ms. Gregg also coordinates the Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homelessness, an organization of 250 local non- profits and government agencies. Ms. Gregg's contributions to the community are clearly demonstrated in her compassion for and understanding of the homeless. With her Catholic background and 30 years of teaching elementary and high school students and special education students, Ms. Gregg is a strong believer in the unifying powers of faith, tolerance and understanding. I commend Ms. Gregg for her valuable service to our community and wish her the best in her future endeavors. We are very fortunate to have benefited from her compassion, expertise and commitment. She has left her mark in Santa Clara County.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Baha'i Community of San Jose's 50th anniversary. The Baha'i Faith, in just 150 years, has become an independent, second most widespread world religion whose five million followers are made up of more than 2,100 diverse ethnic, racial and tribal groups. The organization has more than 157,000 members in the United States. The Baha'i Faith includes teachings that promote the principle of equal rights for men and women, advocate compulsory education, abolish extremes of poverty and wealth, honor work performed in the spirit of service to the rank of worship, recommend the adoption of an auxiliary international language, and provide the necessary agencies for the establishment and safeguarding of a permanent and universal peace. The Baha'i Communities of San Jose and of the United States operate more than one thousand grassroots social and economic development projects throughout the world. This faith-based organization not only provides spiritual guidance for their members, but they also provide charitable work to the community at large. Some of their local civic activities include the membership in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Association, membership in the Network for a Hate Free Community, Juneteenth Festival, Second Harvest Food Collections, highway cleanup, and 22 years sponsorship of a service awards banquet recognizing notable individuals and organizations for their community service based on Baha'i principles. Baha'i Community of San Jose provides these valuable services at no cost to the Baha'i Communities of the South Bay and the Santa Clara Valley Community at large. In their 50 years of dedication and hard work. Baha'i Community of San Jose has assisted thousands of people. Baha'i Community of San Jose serves people of all beliefs, cultures, ethnicities and ages and serves a diverse population from various ethnic backgrounds. It is indeed an honor and a privilege to have a warm, welcoming, and nurturing organization in my district that appreciates and honors the diversity that makes America, and specifically San Jose, California a most desirable place to live, work and raise a family.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Hrant Dink. He was a Turkish-Armenian journalist and a defender of the freedom of the press. His belief in this freedom never wavered despite his prosecution and conviction under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which makes it a crime to discuss the Armenian Genocide. Sadly, Mr. Dink's life was taken one year ago on January 19, 2007. I am proud to cosponsor H. Res. 102, which condemns the assassination of Hrant Dink. This bill urges the Turkish government to continue to investigate and prosecute those responsible for Mr. Dink's murder and to protect the freedom of speech in Turkey by repealing Article 301. The repeal of this Article will ensure that Hrant Dink's legacy will live on and that his death will not have been in vain.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, due to an inoperable beeper, I unfortunately missed recorded votes No. 1142 and No. 1143 on Tuesday, December 11, 2007. Had I been present to vote, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 1142 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 1143.