Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is a decent person, and I respect that. But I do not know if he is aware of the government's dismal record of arresting the 16-year-old in his Boy Scout uniform having attended the International Boy Scout Jamboree and then putting him in jail with adult prisoners. The record is not a pretty one, and I just note that the Secretary retains full power to lock up anyone he wants to if they are a criminal, but we have a very serious problem.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just note the most important thing in the PATRIOT Act is the sharing of information between law enforcement and intelligence. I support that reauthorization. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Homeland Security Committee. The Department of Justice has stonewalled Congress on telling us how they are using these powers. I am a member of the conference committee. Republicans met secretly and separately away from Democrats on the conference committee. We have failed to cure the problems in the bill, and we have missed an opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I think it's clear that the primary benefit of the USA PATRIOT Act we passed in 2001 has been the sharing of information between criminal investigators and intelligence officials it enabled. I support authorizing that information sharing capability in the original PATRIOT Act, and I support its reauthorization today. But this conference report on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act fails in important ways. Following the attacks of 9/11, this Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our law enforcement and intelligence agencies new powers to fight terrorism. I voted for that law, but only after securing support for sunset provisions that allowed this Congress to revisit these issues under less trying circumstances. Congress has not done its job in providing the thorough review we need of the PATRIOT Act. Nor has the Bush administration done its job in providing us the information we need to properly evaluate the PATRIOT Act. I have repeatedly sought access from the Department of Justice to the national security letters or NSLs it has issued under section 505 of the act, and underlying materials regarding its use of the material witness statute. I have been seeking access to these materials for over 6 months now, with no response from DOJ. I wrote to them again last month seeking this information, and again received no response. This is vital information about DOJ's actual use of PATRIOT Act powers, information which DOJ steadfastly refuses to provide. Yet with this conference report Congress blindly reauthorizes and makes permanent many of these same powers. In fact, through the cracks in DOJ's veil of secrecy, we've begun to find some information about the PATRIOT Act. We've found out from whistleblowers that the FBI issues more than 30,000 national security letters each year. These are tens of thousands of letters, never reviewed by a judge, demanding information on countless people, the vast majority of whom may be Americans innocent of any terrorist activity. We don't know how many private lives are being swept up in these NSLs, because DOJ won't tell us. This bill does not correct the problems with national security letters. It creates a new process for judicial review, but leaves that review subject to an extremely vague standard. There are no requirements for law enforcement to ``minimize'' its collection of NSLs; that is, there's no requirement for DOJ to segregate the vast amount of information collected on innocent Americans unconnected to any terrorist activity. An audit is provided which would allow DOJ to freely continue stockpiling information on Americans without providing any standard. This bill also adopts too weak a standard for law enforcement to engage in business records searches under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. The Senate passed unanimously what I thought was a very reasonable standard for law enforcement to meet in order to conduct these searches. The Senate required that these searches actually be relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation and related to the activities of an agent of a foreign power. But the conference report adopts a presumption of relevance that would essentially tie judges' hands and force them to grant any requested searches. Adoption of 4-year, rather than 7-year, sunsets on three provisions regarding business records searches, roving wiretaps, and so-called ``lone wolf'' terrorists acting as agents of foreign powers is positive. Frankly, I would have liked to see 4-year sunsets applied to more provisions of the PATRIOT Act, such as the provisions regarding NSLs. I believe these sunsets provide Congress an important opportunity to review how the PATRIOT Act is actually being used. Given how reluctant DOJ has been to share information with us, these sunsets really provide the main source of leverage Congress has over the Department of Justice to obtain information we should be provided as an equal branch of government. Mr. Speaker, I'm very disappointed that this legislation has removed the provisions we passed in the House providing for additional funding for first responders. This is vitally needed funding that local first responders need in the event of another terrorist attack or other disaster. This conference report drops all of these provisions passed by the House. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this conference report. Instead of rushing this bill to conclusion, we should give ourselves the time we need to get the PATRIOT Act right. I, along with some of my colleagues, have introduced legislation that would allow us to reauthorize the existing PATRIOT Act authorities for another 3 months, to take the time we need to correct the many deficiencies still remaining in this conference report. I urge that, instead of voting for a bad bill in order to meet an arbitrary deadline, my colleagues join me in voting for more time to turn this into a better bill.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, continuing my support for an overwhelming majority of free trade agreements, I cast my vote in favor the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement (FTA). In the past I have expressed serious concerns over copyright provisions contained in some free trade agreements negotiated by the Bush Administration that arguably constrain the ability of the United States to modernize our laws to reflect the realities of technology. I have been repeatedly reassured that notwithstanding these copyright provisions, the United States would still be able to modernize our copyright laws. I am also pleased that in other areas of the U.S.-Bahrain FTA, the President finally followed Democratic recommendations to ensure the adoption and enforcement of internationally-recognized basic standards for the people of Bahrain.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor the Reverend Masanori Shobo Ohata as he formally retires from the Buddhist Churches of America and from the San Jose Buddhist Church Betsuin. Reverend Ohata has served as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Institute of Buddhist Studies since 1982. The Institute of Buddhist Studies is the graduate school and seminary of the Buddhist Churches of America. It is the first nonwestern religious seminary to be affiliated with the Graduate Theological Union, an interfaith consortium of seminaries dedicated to study and dialogue in a religious and cultural pluralism. Reverend Ohata has also served as a member of the Board of Trustees for Buddhist Churches of America (BCA) Endowment Foundation since 1998. He was involved with the inception of the Endowment Foundation in 1983. The Foundation has provided over 11 million dollars of direct benefit to vital programs of the BCA which include ministerial welfare, education and administrative support. Reverend Ohata has also served as a Sanyo (advisor) to the Bishop of the Buddhist Churches of America and has advised five consecutive Bishops beginning with Bishop Shinsho Hanayama, whose term ended in 1968, through Bishops Tsuji, Yamaoka, Watanabe and Ogui. Reverend Ohata's contributions to the community are clearly demonstrated in his compassion and understanding. An immigrant himself, Reverend Ohata is a strong believer in the unifying powers of diversity, faith, tolerance and understanding. He has shared this strength through roles within the community. The San Jose Buddhist Church Betsuin sits in the heart of my district and opens its doors to people of every ethnicity, faith, nationality, culture and creed in the spirit of sharing and community. Yearly Obon festivals bring hundreds of people into the halls of the Buddhist church for good food and increased understanding among San Jose's extremely diverse communities of neighbors and friends. Although Reverend Ohata is formally retiring, I am certain that his legacy will continue throughout the sidewalks of San Jose's Japantown and within the vibrant and diverse communities he has touched.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the achievements and life of Pastor Kenny Foreman. I've had the privilege of knowing Pastor Foreman for many years, and can personally attest to his lasting legacy of achievement through selfless ministry. His is the epitome of a life dedicated to serving others. Pastor Foreman has been in ministry for over 50 years and has served as pastor of the Cathedral of Faith in San Jose, California for 35 years. Originally from Crowley, Louisiana, he has built the Church from just a few members to 10,000, offering over 70 vital ministries to meet the needs of the community. Born the youngest of three children to Hansel and Mabel Foreman in Crowley, Louisiana, he was on the road ministering full-time as an evangelist by age 17. Pastor Foreman married Shirley Lowry in 1957, who has been his partner in commitment to ministry. Later, they would be joined by their two sons, Ken and Kurt, who are also part of the Cathedral of Faith team. In 1965 he came to San Jose as the Pastor of The Friendly Bible Church, and soon after produced a weekly half-hour television program entitled, ``Kenny Foreman Presents Abundant Living,'' which was syndicated nationally. Today, Kenny Foreman is the only local minister and programmer who has remained on the air for 35 years. Throughout these years he has never received any income for his television ministry; all financial support received is funneled back into the operations of the ministry. It soon became evident from the growth that the church would have to build. Thus, the Cathedral of Faith, a sanctuary that would seat nearly 3,000 people and its accompanying support structures, was conceived in Pastor Foreman's spirit. Eventually, the Grand Opening of the Cathedral of Faith was celebrated on March 15, 1981. Pastor Foreman and Cathedral of Faith have an absolutely amazing record of community involvement. The work of the church has exploded into over 70 active Ministries including Reaching Out, a food assistance program which operates from a 16,000 foot distribution complex serving 50,000 families annually, and providing food for 200,000 people; California Youth Outreach, originally founded as Breakout Prison Outreach in 1982 in order to meet the needs of young men and women that had fallen prey to gangs and drugs, it also serves on the Mayor's gang task force; and Chaplaincy Ministry a program consisting of over 200 trained Chaplains who visit rest homes and convalescent hospitals each week. Pastor Foreman's lifelong commitment to service has been honored by many organizations, and I am delighted to offer my heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to Pastor Kenny Foreman on his 40th Ministry Anniversary at the Cathedral of Faith in San Jose, California and to call Kenny Forman and Shirley friends.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of this concurrent resolution, which expresses the sense of Congress that management of IP numbering and addressing should remain in the hands of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, under the oversight of the United States Department of Commerce. This is an important resolution on one of the most pressing issues facing the Internet today. The Internet has become a truly global medium in no small part due to the ``hands-off'' policies the United States has long followed in the Internet space. By one estimate, there are more than 160 million broadband Internet users worldwide. There are an estimated 1 billion Internet users worldwide, of which the United States, the birthplace of the Internet, constitutes less than one-fourth. More than a third of Internet users live in Asia, and nearly one third live in Europe. It has been our ``hands-off'' leadership in the United States that has enabled the Internet to grow so dramatically across the world. The internationalization of the Internet is further evidenced by the widespread availability of IP address allocations, the vast majority of which are outside the United States. For IPv4 addresses, 33% went to the Asia Pacific Region, 32% to North America, 31% to Europe, 3% to South America and 1% to Africa. For IPv6, 56% of addresses went to Europe, 23% to the Asia Pacific Region, 17% to North America, 3% to Latin American and 1% to Africa. These figures clearly show that the current mechanisms for oversight of Internet addressing and numbering have led to an explosion of Internet usage not just in the United States but worldwide. Far from governing the Internet, the United States has followed what can best be described as a policy of benign neglect. The Department of Commerce plays no role in the internal governance or day-to-day operations of ICANN. Rather, the relationship between the Department of Commerce and ICANN is governed by contract, not regulation. The Department of Commerce provides oversight simply to ensure that ICANN fulfills its responsibilities under that agreement. The true policy- making body here is ICANN, not the Department of Commerce. Moreover, ICANN's role under that agreement is best described as creating an open forum for technical coordination, to ensure the continued stability and openness of the Internet. What's needed now is not the abandonment of the ICANN's existing management of IP addressing. Rather, what's needed is a continuation of the policies that have made IP address and domain name management stable, secure, efficient and open. At present, participation in ICANN is open to all who share ICANN's mission of technical coordination. ICANN holds public meetings throughout the year, and across the world. ICANN's staff represents seven different countries and its Board represents twelve nationalities. ICANN is already an international body managing IP addressing and numbering--a private-sector, non-profit, non-governmental international body that's been directly responsible for fostering an open, stable, and worldwide Internet. For all of these reasons, I took great pleasure in reading today that negotiators from more than 100 nations agreed yesterday to leave ICANN, under the oversight of the Department of Commerce, in charge of managing the IP address and domain name systems. This multilateral agreement represents a resounding validation of the role ICANN continues to play, and a resounding validation of the resolution we are considering here today. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important resolution, and join me in voting in favor of it.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Los Angeles County (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart at the loss but pride for the service of Congressman Ed Roybal that we yield back the balance of our time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the life and work of Congressman Edward Roybal. As Chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, I am proud to recognize the accomplishments of the pioneer of California Hispanic politics. In his more than 30 years in Congress, from 1963 to 1993, Congressman Roybal opened many doors for immigrants and the less fortunate in this country, but more importantly he also opened many minds. As the first Hispanic to serve in Congress from California since 1879, his leadership was proof that our Nation's greatness rests in its diversity. He gave future generations the power to be involved in the democratic process by sponsoring legislation which funded bilingual education and inspired thousands to follow his noble example and enter into public service. Californians are proud to call the visionary Congressman Roybal one of our own. But his contribution was not limited to Hispanics or Californians. Congressman Roybal's vision and passion for social justice issues transcended color lines, age groups and district and State boundaries. He worked tirelessly to extend the civil rights and push the Democratic Party to become more attuned to the needs of immigrants and minorities. In addition to all the legislation he fought for and all the programs he sponsored, Congressman Roybal will also be remembered because of the legion of public servants he inspired. One of those, a man who fought for equal rights for farm workers of California, was a young man in San Jose named Cesar Chavez. In 1947, Mr. Roybal first ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. Reacting to his defeat he founded the Los Angeles Community Services Organization, CSO, with a goal of mobilizing L.A.'s Mexican Americans against discrimination in housing, employment and education. The CSO was founded on the idea that people would learn from each other and would craft solutions to mutual problems, and the model caught on and chapters formed throughout California. In San Jose, Cesar Chavez's first experience in politics was registering voters for the San Jose CSO, and the rest is history. Today, Congressman Roybal's legacy lives on in Congress and in cities across this country. More than 6,000 Hispanic elected officials have followed him into public service. His daughter and our colleague, the distinguished Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, now represents part of her father's old district in East L.A. Lucille carries on her father's work of fighting for compassion and diversity in our government. Although he has passed from this earth, Congressman Roybal's passion for the poor and his vision for a more inclusive America will live on in the law books of this country and in the hearts and minds of those who have been touched by his service to our country. On behalf of the my California Democratic colleagues and my constituents in San Jose, I am honored to be here this evening to pay tribute to former Congressman Ed Roybal. We thank his family for supporting his work over many years and for being the source of tremendous pride for him, his wife, Lucille, his three children, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, Lillian and Edward. Our thoughts are with you during your grief, and we are honored to be in this institution that was graced by Congressman Roybal. This evening, we are going to co-manage the time. We have the Chairperson of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, my wonderful colleague, Mrs. Napolitano, who will speak now for 4 minutes; and then we will yield back to the many colleagues who are here this evening who want to remember Ed.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we have heard many things today about Congressman Edward Roybal, what a giant he was, what a leader he was, how he stood up for people who had too little, how he changed our world. I am mindful all of us who lost a dad know how very hard it is in a very personal way. Leader or no, it is still your dad. I also know that the best way maybe to know a person, to know someone like Congressman Roybal, is to look at his daughter, who is the same kind of tenacious, dignified person who will stand up for those who have nothing and make a difference, as she is making a difference, just as her father did in the Congress for those in need. I would like to yield to our beloved colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order today.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who preceded me as Chair of the Democratic delegation.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Congressman Jose Serrano from New York. (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee I had the opportunity to review quite carefully this bill. While I disagreed with the Supreme Court decision, I must confess that the bill before us today is not drafted as carefully and clearly as I would have hoped. There will, in all likelihood, be litigation if this bill becomes law because the exemptions are written in such a way that reasonable people may disagree as to their meaning. I hope that I can help clarify the application of this bill in at least one area: The meaning of the bill as it relates to affordable housing. What follows are the concurring views in the Committee Report accompanying this bill. It is my hope that by including them here today during our floor debate that in the future this clarification will be of value to public entities, litigants and the courts. At markup, I intended to offer an amendment to this legislation creating an exception to the definition of ``economic development'' for the development of affordable housing for low-income residents. I ultimately decided not to offer this amendment, however, based on my recognition, and the apparent recognition of my colleagues, that this bill as introduced does not in any way limit the ability of States and local governments to exercise their eminent domain powers for the building of affordable housing for low-income residents. In fact, during markup, I pointed this out and received no objections from my colleagues. The provision of low-income housing, whether by a for-profit or a non-profit entity, should not constitute ``economic development'' under the definition in this bill because such activity constitutes neither ``commercial enterprise'' nor an activity designed to ``increase tax revenue, tax base, employment or general economic health.'' Rather, the development of affordable housing for low-income residents constitutes a traditional public purpose for which eminent domain powers have long been recognized. Given that this bill will not in any way limit the exercise of eminent domain powers for the development of affordable housing, I concur in the Committee's report.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I understand the procedural objections to this, and certainly when I made the suggestion during our hearing that we could probably handle this on the suspension, I believed that was the case. Obviously, there is more controversy than I had believed at the time. But I still believe that this bill is very much worth supporting, and I do support this bill. If I believed what the New York Times and the Washington Post said, I would indeed be concerned. I was a strong supporter of the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. I signed the discharge petition. I voted for it. I am glad it passed. I would note, however, that what the bill before us does today is really a lot more modest than the rhetoric would lead one to believe. It does not repeal section 441(b) of the act that prohibits contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations. And all of the hoo-rah-rah about soft money and corporate money, I am sure it is sincere, is simply, as a matter of law, incorrect. What this bill would do would be to allow communications on the Internet to avoid the heavy hand of regulation. And I do believe that is important. Today, if a local candidate has a Web page and they decide to say something very positive about the election of their party's candidate for President, they have a problem under the FEC rule. And if my Web site, Lofgren for Congress, links to Feinstein for Senate, I probably am violating the rules. And there is no need for that. We do not want the heavy regulatory load on the Internet, nor do we need to do it. Under current law, unless we pass this exemption, Daily Chaos, which if they call me for a comment on a candidate and it was run on their daily Web site within the specified time, we might have an actual problem here unless they are entitled to the press exemption. It is not clear that they are. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important since the court was not sure what our intention was when we passed BCRA that we should make it clear that the Internet is not part of the public communications covered by the act. I do believe that in coming from Silicon Valley, especially so, that the ability to use the new technology to promote the viewpoint of individuals is essential to the growth of democracy. We have seen ever- increasing numbers of people participate in elections. I think part of the reason for that is the ability to use the Internet to communicate. We are concerned, and rightly so, about the cost of TV. It costs a huge amount of money to run TV ads. Well, the cost to send an e-mail is almost nothing. So the use of the Internet is a great democratizer; that is little ``d,'' not big. We need to make sure that communications using the Internet are protected. Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that what this bill will do would be to protect the technology, to protect the Internet itself. It would not reduce in any way the prohibitions found in 441(b) any more than a corporation could use its funds to buy lawn signs or political signs; they could not pay for ads either. And so I do think that it is worth noting that for the record I would just like to say that in this case the bloggers have got it right. This bill will keep the FEC out of the business of regulating political speech on the Internet.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I did opine at the hearings, since there was complete agreement among all of the Members present, that we did not want to regulate the Internet, that we might be able to take care of this on the suspension calendar. And I never have felt so powerful in the minority as I do today.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I was the only Democrat present.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I do.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I do not remember.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in gratitude to recognize the extraordinary achievements, community leadership and life of Andrea Naomi Leiderman of Mountain View, California. She had recently celebrated her 10th anniversary on June 21, 2005, as Director of Government and Community Relations Director for Kaiser-Permanente Santa Clara, California. I am proud to have known Ms. Leiderman for over 25 years, and have witnessed her unyielding fervor and tenacity in contributing to the community at large. Andrea Leiderman was a tireless advocate for those with no voice in the fields of health care, education, and youth issues. Ms. Leiderman helped others as a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Education, serving as president in 1995 and 2000. She was a trustee of the Foothill-De Anza Community College District, adjunct professor at Evergreen Valley College, a member of the Human Relations Commission, and former Member of the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party. In fact, Ms. Leiderman was the youngest chairwoman of the Santa Clara County Democratic Party in 1987 (at age 28) and to date, the only woman to hold this position. Born in Boston, Andrea came to our Valley when she was 4. She grew up on the Stanford University campus and later attended Vassar College, majoring in Political Science. After college, she was a legislative assistant to former Representative Matt McHugh of New York. She was later an LBJ Congressional Fellow for Representative Norm Mineta of San Jose. Andrea received two graduate degrees from the University of California, Berkeley in both Public Policy and Education Administration. She served on the Joint Child Care Commission for the county and was on the Boards of the Mission City Community Fund and the Euphrat Museum of Art. During her last year and a half struggle with cancer, Andrea was instrumental in getting the necessary approvals for Kaiser Permanente's new Medical Office Building for the South Bay Region. The loss of Andrea is a terrible blow to our community, her friends and her family. We can take comfort, however, in knowing that in the short time she was with us she made a difference. She enriched the lives of others, especially those in need. She was a true friend and a heroic leader. I join so many others in mourning her.