Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about two provisions in this bill, raising the conforming loan limit and the attempt to limit the ability of American citizens to engage in our democratic process currently contained in the manager's amendment offered by Mr. Oxley. Mr. Chairman, in my district, the median price for a home in Santa Clara County is $715,000, yes I said $715,000. The current conforming loan limit is $359,650, about 50 percent of what the median home price is. Mr. Chairman, there are simply not enough homes at or near the conforming loan limit to meet the needs of my constituents. As a result of this shortage of homes priced near the conforming loan limit, many first-time homebuyers are either forced into taking out jumbo loans or are more likely simply priced out of the market altogether. Some argue that the conforming loan limit will not make a meaningful cost difference for homebuyers. Currently there is a .25 percent to .40 percent difference between interest rates on a conforming loan versus a jumbo loan. In today's market that difference can be as much as $135.00 per month. That matters to hardworking families. I remind my Republican colleagues that this administration, in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee spoke in favor of raising the conforming loan limit. Part of Mr. Oxley's amendment is simply un-American. Mr. Oxley seeks to prohibit nonprofit organizations from engaging in nonpartisan, I repeat nonpartisan, voter registration efforts and get out the vote drives in the 12-month period prior to applying for funds made available through the Affordable Housing Fund. If that wasn't bad enough, the amendment further prohibits nonprofits that receive grant funds from subsequently engaging in these important activities. This Congress should be about promoting the values and the processes of democratic government, not trying to limit or suppress them. What are you afraid of, more Americans exercising their right to participate in their government?

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Professor Richard P. Berg for 31 years of teaching, scholarship and service to the Santa Clara University School of Law. Professor Berg has served as a Professor of Law at the Santa Clara University School of Law for 31 years. Throughout his tenure, Professor Berg has dedicated himself to serving the public and working for social justice. He was chair of the Santa Clara University School of Law Public Interest and Social Justice Endowment, which funds financial assistance programs for volunteers and attorneys working in public interest and social justice fields. Last year alone, the Endowment provided $66,750 in summer grants for 23 students working as volunteers with public interest and social justice programs, and $17,000 in Income Supplement Grants for attorneys working with similar organizations. Professor Berg also has served on the board of directors of several public interest organizations, and has been active in international issues, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. He has been the director of the Singapore-Bangkok summer law program since 1984 and is active in dispute resolution organizations such as the American Arbitration Association and Asia Pacific Organization for Mediation. Prior to coming to Santa Clara University School of Law, Professor Berg earned his B.A. in Economics from the University of Michigan in 1965, and received his J.D. from the University of Michigan School of Law in 1968. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from law school, was inducted into the Order of the Coif and served on the Editorial Board of the Michigan Law Review. After earning his J.D., Professor Berg was an Associate in Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Boalt Hall, a Reginald Heber Smith Fellow in Poverty Law, and Staff Counsel and Economic Development Specialist, at the National Housing and Economic Development Law Center in Berkeley, California. He also published an article in the San Diego Law Review on a major class action case, Zahn v. International Paper in 1974, and a short article on Prisoners' Rights and Jail Conditions in the et al Magazine in 1970. On a personal level, I played a key role in helping Richard to marry his wonderful wife of many years, Mare, and we meet every year at the SCCS graduation to enjoy the past and plot the future of our wonderful law school as well as our wonderful country. As an alumna of the Law School, it is an honor to recognize Professor Berg's contributions to the legal community and the Santa Clara University School of Law. Professor Berg instilled in thousands of students an awareness of social justice, and inspired countless attorneys to dedicate their careers to making ``Equal Justice Under Law'' a reality.

Ms. LOFGREN of California

Ms. LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the California Democratic Congressional Delegation is proud to recognize the achievements of our colleague, Rep. Barbara Lee, upon the presentation of the Lifetime Achievement Award by the 100 Black Men of Silicon Valley. The concept of the 100 Black Men was born in New York in 1963, when a group of concerned African American men gathered to explore ways of improving conditions in their community. These visionaries and industry leaders included David Dinkins, Jackie Robinson, Nathaniel Goldston III, Andrew Hatcher and founding President Dr. William Hayling. The mission of the 100 Black Men of Silicon Valley is to improve the quality of life of our citizens and enhance educational opportunities for African Americans and minorities, through its chapters, in all communities--with a particular emphasis on young African American males. They do this by focusing on mentoring, education, health and wellness, and economic development. It is fitting that Representative Barbara Lee is being honored for her long record of standing for youth and family issues such as criminal justice reform as a member of the Public Safety, Sentencing and Incarceration Reform Caucus. Health and wellness has been at a priority for her in Congress as well. She has fought to establish a United States Health Service and provide health coverage for all Americans. The measure, first introduced in 1978 by her predecessor, Representative Ron Dellums, has been a priority for her since her election in 1998. Representative Barbara Lee has also been committed to promoting economic development and supporting those who need it most, including working to secure investment in housing, transit systems, roads, clean water, and schools to stimulate the economy and create jobs. We wish to thank the 100 Black Men for their tireless efforts to enhance the quality of life for all citizens, and to Representative Barbara Lee for her deeply held commitment to the principle of human rights.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Beatrice Joyce Ellington who recently passed away on August 1, 2005. I have known her since 1980. She was a remarkable person. In fact, if more people just acted as she did, our world would be a better place. Joyce became the first African American woman to head the San Jose Public Library Commission in 1980. In 1974, Joyce successfully argued before the San Jose Unified School District Board and the City Council that vacant land, a valuable commodity in San Jose where a single- family home can easily cost over a half-million dollars, should be used for a library, instead of being sold. Joyce was recognized for her tenacity in pushing for the library in 2002 when the City Council was persuaded by her neighbors and the community at large to overlook the City's rule not to name a public building after a person still alive. At that time, the Empire Library was renamed to the Joyce Ellington branch library. In addition to her accomplishments with the library, Mrs. Ellington was a founder in 1965 of the Northside Neighborhood Association, the oldest of its kind in the City of San Jose. Perhaps the greatest tribute to Joyce was her ability to gather community members of all races, creeds and religions to work together toward a common purpose in the community. The Northside community, where Joyce lived and did her service, is also one of the most diverse communities in California with neighbors, friends and families with roots in Africa, Japan, the Philippines, Mexico and elsewhere. When I attended the service for Joyce, stories abounded of not only her community service, but also of her welcoming heart and home. Joyce was the sort of person who, when she saw a problem simply took responsibility to be part of the solution. That's why she led the effort to establish a lighting district so that the northside neighborhood could have street lights. That's why she looked after her neighbors. It's why she cared about literacy. It wasn't enough that her own children were readers and getting a good education. She understood that it was also important for all the children in her community to love reading and books. She is most certainly a dearly missed community leader, friend and teacher. She not only taught us lessons of service, but also opened the doors for us to teach ourselves at the library so aptly named after her.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th Anniversary of the Justice Studies Department at San Jose State University. The Justice Studies Department at San Jose State was the first degree-granting program in criminal justice in the United States. It was founded in 1930 by August Vollmer, then Chief of Police in Berkeley, California, and T.W. MacQuarrie, the President of San Jose State College. In 1935, nation's oldest professional law enforcement fraternity, Chi Pi Sigma, was founded at San Jose State. The department prepares students for positions of responsibility and leadership in federal, state and local law enforcement, in government investigative branches, in institutional and community correctional offices, the court system, social services, public health, and in the educational field. Alumni of the program have gone on to become leaders and innovators in our community, and have made a positive impact on countless lives. As a Member of Congress, I fully understand the importance and impact that this program plays in securing the safety of our community and ensuring that our laws are carried out fairly and responsibly. I am proud to stand here today to recognize the Justice Studies Department at San Jose State University and I urge them to continue the important work of educating the next generation of justice professionals.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and commend Catholic Charities, an organization that is celebrating 50 years of service to the Santa Clara Valley community. Catholic Charities strives to empower the working poor to move beyond basic subsistence to a state of meaningful, quality living by encouraging economic, familial and emotional stability. It does this by developing cultural programs, supplying educational resources about ailments affecting older adults, and providing all of its services in various languages. While born out of Catholic gospel values, Catholic Charities serves people of all beliefs, cultures, ethnicities and ages. The organization's mission is to create a more just and compassionate community in which people of all cultures and beliefs can fully participate and thrive. They serve a diverse population from various ethnic backgrounds including Vietnamese, Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, Sudanese and Bosnian people. The agency works under the premise that the most effective way to affect a person is to connect with them from their personal, cultural perspective. Catholic Charities integrates services address the multiple factors that impact one's ability to be self sufficient and stable. Because these issues have an intergenerational impact, agency programs are geared across age groups to reach entire families. Their services include older adult programs, immigrant and refugee assistance, and housing programs. The agency also offers employment, youth, financial education and behavioral health services in addition to operating neighborhood centers. I have worked with Catholic Charities for over twenty years, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that I am proud of the leadership, volunteers and network of supporters whose dedication have built Catholic Charities into an integral part of the fabric of our local community.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the achievements of Santa Clara County Supervisor Blanca Alvarado. She continues to be a leader in local government and a national leader in the area of juvenile detention reform. Blanca served 14 years as a San Jose City Councilmember representing San Jose's East Side before being appointed to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in 1995, filling the position I vacated when I was elected to Congress. I heartily recommended her appointment and have supported her in her good works ever since. The daughter of a miner, Blanca has always been involved in public life, whether it was helping her parents in union and political activities, hosting a women's radio show called ``Merienda musical,'' working for the Department of Social Services or acting as the local president of MAPA, the Mexican American Political Association. I first met Blanca in the mid-1970's when we served together on the Housing Service Center board of directors before either of us had stood for public office. I found her then to be a caring person committed to her community and especially to the needs of the poor. Those qualities have continued throughout her life--both in her public and private efforts. As a City Councilmember and Vice-Mayor, Blanca actively worked to build neighborhood organizations and developed community plans and partnerships to renovate impoverished neighborhoods. Blanca's devotion to children is illustrated through projects such as the The East Initiative. The Initiative recognizes the importance of securing early access to parent support, health care, and social services for all children and their families. Blanca, as a member of the First Five Commission, lobbied for a school readiness program in the local school district. When the school district was not in a position to join with First Five in creating a school readiness program, the Commission partnered with the community and focused on the neighborhoods surrounding Cesar Chavez, San Antonio, and Arbuckle elementary schools. First Five allocated $750,000 in the first year of the East Initiative alone. Blanca also leads the county-wide effort to eliminate inappropriate and unnecessary incarceration of youth, especially youth of color who are over-represented in the juvenile justice system. Because of her efforts, the county has become a national model in juvenile detention reform. Since the movement began in July 2002, law enforcement, the Probation Department, the Juvenile Court, community partners, and many other participants have committed to shifting their efforts from incarceration to community-based approaches for treating troubled youth, to allow troubled young people to turn their lives around and to have productive, hopeful futures. One of the projects Blanca is most remembered for is her leadership in the conception--and development of the Mexican Heritage Plaza, opened in 1999 and now one of the largest Latino cultural centers in the Nation. Twelve years in the making, and built over a site once picketed by San Jose native son Cesar Chavez, the Plaza is a 55,000 square-foot cultural center with state of the art theatrical venues, a Smithsonian-affiliate gallery space and luscious thematic gardens that serve as a regional resource for cultural programming and education. In addition to her years of friendship, I wish to thank Blanca Alvarado for a lifetime of public service and her determined efforts to achieve social change. ``tSi se puede!''

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Committee on the Judiciary for 11 years, and I have concerns that the committee is not fulfilling completely its responsibility. There have been no oversight hearings in the full committee of either the FBI or the Bureau of Prisons in the whole 11 years I served. The last general oversight hearing on the FBI was at the subcommittee level in 1997. The lack of committee oversight has created real problems in the way the FBI fails to conduct its business properly. Last February, in an appropriations subcommittee, we found out that the FBI had invested about $170 million on its Virtual Case File computer system and they admitted that $104 million of that spending was a loss to taxpayers. Then in March, the whole projects was scrapped and we learned from news reports that the new Sentinel system will cost an additional $792 million. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General tells us in the July report that the FBI's backlog of untranslated FISA material continues to grow. This means that material that is vital to our national defense is not getting looked at in a timely manner. It often gets discarded before it is looked at, and that is unacceptable. Earlier this year, I worked with many of my colleagues to introduce the Violence Against Women Act, which is in this bill. My bill would have included provisions that established grant programs to protect child victims of domestic violence, grant programs for housing needs, to protect immigrants who are victims of domestic violence and to protect victims of domestic violence on tribal lands. Not all of these measures made it into the bill, and I am hopeful in conference those provisions that were left out can be added in. I want to mention one issue which has recently come to my attention, which is the issue of tribal victims of domestic violence who are not receiving VAWA's protections. I was going to offer an amendment today to allow the Attorney General to appoint prosecutors designated by tribal governments as special assistant U.S. Attorneys to bring VAWA prosecutions in Federal Court. However, when I looked into it, it turns out the Attorney General already has this authority through his general authority to appoint special prosecutors. So I would like to urge the Attorney General to address this issue and to use his authority to make sure that perpetrators of domestic violence on tribal lands do not escape prosecution. We do not always need to change the law, we just need accomplishment and accountability in the administration, and I hope we can use our oversight authority to make sure we have the kind of accomplishment and accountability in the FBI that we are currently lacking.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of San Jose, California, I extend our deepest condolences to the thousands who have lost family and friends, and to those who are still searching for loved ones. As the chairperson of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, I want to let the people suffering today know that we care and that we Californians stand with them. The people of California have also faced natural disasters in the form of earthquakes, floods, and fires. I recall the Loma Prieta Earthquake on October 17, 1989, that measured 7.1 on the Richter scale. Sixteen years have passed, but everyone who lives in the bay area remembers where they were when the earthquake struck. Americans everywhere stood with Californians, and this gave us the strength we needed to recover, rebound and rebuild. As difficult as that earthquake was for us in California, the situation in the Gulf Coast is infinitely more challenging. Homes across the Gulf Coast are gone. People are left with nothing but the clothes on their back. Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian, Bay St. Louis, Waveland, Kiln, Slidell, and other towns barely exist. Our Nation has never had a city in the desperate shape that New Orleans finds itself in right now. The rule of law has broken down. People at the Superdome and the Convention Center are suffering in ways that are just not seen in our country in the 21st century. Mayor Nagin has said that thousands may be dead in New Orleans. This is an unprecedented human tragedy. As a Nation, we must be steadfast and commit ourselves to save these people. We must stand with all of the people of the Gulf Coast and let them know that we are here today to help them get back on their feet. We are here to lend them a shoulder to lean on. We will be with you as long as it takes to get your lives in order, as long as it takes to get our cities back. The people of the Gulf Coast have experienced hell on earth over the past week. They will face challenges in the coming days, weeks and months that are almost unimaginable. People are hungry, sick, homeless, and desperate. The storm has hit everyone hard and it has hit the poor hardest of all. The Federal response to this disaster has been too little and too slow. The situation must change and it must change right now. Last night I flew across our great country to be here today to participate in this emergency session of Congress. It is important that the necessary resources be provided for this disaster, but actual leadership by the administration is desperately needed right now. There are dead bodies floating in New Orleans as we speak. There are tens of thousands of our fellow Americans who have been without the help that they need for this entire week. I do not believe that our Federal Government is incapable of mobilizing to meet this disaster. The problem is that we have not yet done so as comprehensively as is necessary. Even the President stated today that the response of his administration has been inadequate. There will be plenty of opportunity in the months to come to analyze what we could have done better, but today our task is simply to do better, to engage in a massive mobilization to save the lives of our fellow citizens and to end the chaos that has descended upon New Orleans and other areas devastated by this hurricane. Our Nation stands united with the victims of this ruthless storm. Our fellow citizens from Mobile, Alabama, to New Orleans, Louisiana, need to know that they have our commitment to do all that we can. The bill we passed today is just a start. We will recover. We will rebuild. We will prevail. In the days and weeks to come, the Congress will have many tasks before it, from fully funding the Army Corps' efforts, to revising the bankruptcy laws so the victims who have lost their homes can have a fresh start. But today, we call on you, Mr. President. Article 2, section 1, the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States. We expect that the resources, the food, the water, the health care, the evacuation, the shelter will be brought to bear so our fellow citizens can end their suffering.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I will certainly vote for this amendment, but I fear that it does not fully solve the problem that has been identified by many. Before the PATRIOT Act, the government could obtain only limited records from hotels, storage facilities and car rental companies, and only if those documents pertained to an agent of a foreign power. Now, the government can seek any records from anyone as long as it is relevant to an investigation. The FISA court does not really have any discretion to deny these requests and, once they are granted, they are subject to a gag order. Now, the Justice Department has told us that they have never once used section 215 relative to libraries, and I have no reason to disbelieve them; but the American Library Association reports that they have received 200 formal or informal requests for materials, presumably under some other section of the law, perhaps grand jury subpoenas, I do not know. The fact is that Americans are aware of this issue, and I believe this is having a chilling effect on first amendment rights in terms of reading and speaking. I believe it is important that government have the opportunity to obtain records when it is necessary to fight terrorism. I do believe, however, that the relevance standard is too low. I also believe that when the House that previously approved a carve- out for identifiable information from libraries it spoke about the chilling impact. I believe we have a better way to get these records and also to untrouble readers. So while I will support the amendment, it falls short of what is necessary.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, after 9/11, I worked on the drafting of the PATRIOT Act in the committee and in the weekend drafting session, and I voted for the act on the floor. I think it is important to know that most of what is in the PATRIOT Act is not actually before us today. It is only the 16 provisions that are so- called sunsetted, which means that we need to review them and renew them, that are actually before the House today. First and foremost, as the Justice Department said in their letter to me today, the most important thing in the PATRIOT Act is to help remove the legal barriers that prevented law enforcement and intelligence officers from sharing information so they could, so-called, ``connect the dots.'' That is important. There are other important things in the act. I think it is worth noting that there are some things that disturb Americans that are happening in the United States relative to the arrest of American citizens and the holding of American citizens without charge, without access to counsel; but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the PATRIOT Act. They are not in the PATRIOT Act, no matter how concerned we might be about them. I believe, however, that even though there are important components to the PATRIOT Act, there are some things that deserve more attention and more fine-tuning than they have received in this bill. For example, section 505 of the act grants law enforcement the authority to issue national security letters, which are essentially administrative subpoenas, for all sorts of personal records about anyone without judicial oversight. These records include telephone and Internet records, financial documents and consumer records. In addition, we enhanced this section in subsequent legislation to ensure that even more records could be subpoenaed from travel agencies, pawn brokers, casinos, car dealers and more; but all of this is without oversight of a court. Prior to the act, national security letters could only be used to get records when there was reason to believe that the subject of the record was an agent of a foreign power. Not only did the PATRIOT Act remove the requirement that the subject of the record is a foreign power; it lowered the standard by which those records could be obtained to the relevancy standard. We have not had meaningful oversight, in my opinion, on this provision of the act. Assuming that law enforcement does need the ability to get some of these records, and I do not dispute that, we do need to have some standards in place. As has been mentioned by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), one court has already struck down this section of the act as violative of the Constitution. We know from our inquiry to the Justice Department that this provision has been used hundreds of times. We got six pages back of redacted records, but we really do not know the full impact; and we need to know more than we do today before we allow this sweeping tool to be renewed. I also want to mention section 215 of the act. I believe that it may be important to obtain certain records, as has been outlined. But, again, we need to have a standard that is beyond relevancy. So the question here really is about balance. We need to prevent terrorism, we all agree on that; but we also need to protect and defend the Constitution that has served us so well. So I would urge that we have the oversight that we will need by having some sunsets, and particularly taking a look at the national security letter. We do not need to violate our Constitution to keep our country safe.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment although it does not make some of the changes recommended by Mr. Scott in committee about ascertainment and minimization that we believe are important. It would allow for the requirement of oversight, which I think is important. The chairman has said many times that hearings have been held. They were, but they were basically held since April. We do have a tendency to postpone our work until it must be done. One of the things that I hope we will take a look at that has not been discussed is section 209 relative to obtaining electronic information with a subpoena. That is a routine matter that caused no concern because it stored electronic data and that is not new law. The reason why we need to look at it before 10 years from now is that as technology changes and all telephone communication becomes Voice Over Internet Protocol, theoretically every phone call would be subject to seizure by subpoena, which is not something I think any of us would agree we intend to do. That should be a wiretap standard and it may drift down to a subpoena standard. That is why we need oversight, not because there is a bad guy out there necessarily, but because the technology is going to change and change swiftly and potentially very much alter what we think we are doing here today.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that we have spent since 9/11 only a couple hundred million dollars in homeland security to secure our rail systems. That is the real problem here. We spent nearly $25 billion on air security and a couple of hundred million on rail. I would also not that although I do not oppose the death penalty, I doubt very much the death penalty is going to deter the suicide bombers. I think we need to look at not deterrents but at actually preventing the terrorists from harming Americans by protecting the systems and putting our money where our mouth is and in securing these rail systems which we have failed to do. As my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary knows, I also serve on the Committee on Homeland Security. We are well aware of how deficient our efforts have been in this regard. That is the crux of this problem, not threatening suicide bombers with the death penalty.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to concur with the comments made by the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and to thank my colleague from California for the amendment, and just note that as I read through it and agreed with this, and I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, it occurs to me that there are a few other items that perhaps should have been included, and I am hopeful that the committee might, we do not have a sunset, but we might actually spend some time scrubbing the code and making sure that we have scooped them all up in an appropriate way.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, having just seen this amendment for the first time today, there are questions that are raised. I understand what the intent is, and perhaps if this passes we can clarify this in a conference committee; but I wonder about the liabilities of the banking industry that acts innocently to help immigrants transmit funds home. The banks in California have been encouraged to regularize the remittance program. We talk sometimes about illegal immigration, and that is not anything that any of us approve of; but it is not the same as terrorism, and it is also not the same as those immigrants. It is also a financial services industry. I do wish we could have heard from the financial services industry on this point because certainly it deserves some clarification. Maybe it does not do what has been suggested. We have had some communications from those who are concerned it does. But I do want to raise that on behalf of the California banking industry that has really stepped up to avoid the fraud and crime that has occurred with remittances before they did.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, many of us, when we think about terrorism, feel exactly the way the proponent of the amendment does, that we want to exert maximum force against the offender. Those who would kill deserve to pay the ultimate price. On the other hand, I am aware that there are people in our country and in our Congress who for religious reasons do not believe in the death penalty. The Pope did not believe in the death penalty and, obviously, he was not for terrorism any more than our religious colleagues who have that objection are for terrorism. So I think it is important to state that. I also want to say I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I have been for 10 years. If there was a hearing in the subcommittee that I am not a member of all well and good, but I think this amendment poses some new things that the full committee would benefit from going through. The reduced number of jurors that is being proposed, the procedural changes that are quite new, I think, deserve the attention of the full committees. It is possible that this measure could run into constitutional problems. And I think we would be better served to sort through that in a thorough way than to expose these elements of the PATRIOT Act to court challenge. Finally, I would just say as I said before, even though we seek, understandably, retribution against those who would do these horrible crimes, I am just skeptical that imposing the death penalty is going to deter the suicide bombers. Really, what we need to do is to spend the time and the money to take steps to protect ourselves in a more thorough way than we have done since 9/11. As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am acutely aware, and we are on both sides of the aisle, I can tell you of the shortfallings that we have in our protection against terrorism.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, here is my question. Section 208 of the Social Security Act apparently states it is illegal to use a false Social Security number for activities to obtain employment. If I am a 14-year-old kid and I go out and make up a Social Security number so I can get a job and pretend I am 18, and I get money for it, have I violated section 208? And if so, if I deal with a bank, is the bank falling afoul of this terrorism statute?

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Although the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and I do not always vote together, I think he speaks wisdom this evening on the need to move beyond the narrow confines of this act. Clearly we do need to and we have broken down the walls between law enforcement and the intelligence community so that we can piece together the full picture and connect the dots. We need to do a much better job of protecting America from terrorists by taking those steps we can. He is right to offer this sense of the Congress amendment. We need to have more vigorous action in addition to the sense of the Congress activity. All of us believe we ought to fight terrorism. Many of us are concerned that we have failed to do the balance of privacy and the Constitution in some parts of the 16 provisions that are before us this evening. As we know, most of the PATRIOT Act is actually not before the House of Representatives this evening. It is only 16 provisions, and of those 16 provisions, there are concerns about a few of them. But those are serious concerns, and we believe that those concerns can be dealt with. We are hopeful that, as this process moves forward, that the Senate that has taken these issues of civil liberties more to heart on a bipartisan and I would add unanimous basis may in the end prevail so that those who are troubled by the failure to really deal with some of the constitutional issues will in the end be able to support a bill at least at the end of a conference process. But I do commend the gentleman for offering his amendment. It does not solve the other problems, but it is the right thing to do, and I look forward to supporting it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support the amendment. No American should be investigated solely for membership in a nonviolent political organization or for engaging in other lawful political activity. This is important to all of us, but I wanted to note that in California we recently learned of the danger of not living up to the standard. It has been reported by several media sources that the California National Guard was spying on the Mothers of Dead Soldiers and a group called the Raging Grannies, who are average age 75 years old, who were having a peaceful demonstration on the grounds of the State Capital on Mother's Day. I requested hearings in the Committee on Homeland Security. I have written to the California National Guard regarding this very serious allegation of a breach of first amendment protected activity. Federal funds may have been used. I will vote for this amendment. It is the right thing, but we also need to have very aggressive investigative action when we hear about allegations of misconduct. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a member of our committee.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, although I plan to support this amendment to protect aircraft in U.S. airspace, I do want to rise and express my disappointment that the majority refused to accept an amendment that I offered in committee to further protect civilian aircraft. In committee, I offered an amendment that would punish those who sell dangerous 50 caliber sniper rifles to known terrorists. Unfortunately, some in the majority viewed this as a gun control measure, but it is not. This is a national security issue. Mr. Chairman, 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles are an ideal tool for terrorists because civil aircraft may be vulnerable to them. In fact, even early promotional materials for the 50 caliber rifle reference their threat to civilian aircraft. The promotional material states that the weapon could ``target the compression section of jet engines making it capable of destroying multimillion aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.'' The rifle's brochure goes on to say: ``The cost-effectiveness of the 50 caliber cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than $10 can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft.'' Since 9/11 our country has made great efforts to secure our civilian airplanes and airports. Terrorists will obviously adapt to our tactics; so it is vital that we plan and think ahead. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we make it difficult to get weapons on a plane or into an airport, terrorists may look to destroy airplanes from longer distances. That is what the 50 caliber rifle is designed to do. These rifles are accurate at ranges of at least 1,000 yards and even further in the hands of a trained marksman. In essence, these weapons could give a terrorist the ability to take a shot at an aircraft from beyond most airports' security perimeter. There is already evidence that terrorists have sought these weapons. According to the Violence Policy Center, al Qaeda bought twenty-five 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles in the 1980s. My amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary simply said that if someone sells a 50 caliber sniper rifle to someone who they know is a member of al Qaeda they have broken the law. That amendment was defeated, and I think it is a shame. We should have passed my amendment and made it more difficult for terrorists to get ahold of these weapons. Unfortunately, we did not do so. I will certainly support the gentleman's amendment but with regret that we did not do more. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, when I looked at today's floor schedule, I was pleasantly surprised to see an item addressing the issue of declining United States competitiveness in the world. The fact is the issue of competitiveness has not been a priority for Republican leaders in this Congress or in any preceding one in the last 10 years, and I thought perhaps finally the Republicans had woken up. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed when I read the text of the proposal because this plan is nonbinding; it has really nothing that will make the United States more competitive. That is what I have come to expect in this Congress, this Republican-led Congress: more talk and no action. And once again this resolution has failed to propose specific policies that would actually boost technological innovation or our commitment to education. As many know, I represent Silicon Valley, along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), the most creative and innovative place on Earth; and if I were to bring your resolution back to the leaders of the Silicon Valley, the engineers, the techies, Ph.D.s, venture capitalists, educators, CEOs, I think I would be laughed all the way back to D.C. I suspect that you did not consult with any of the people in the tech industry because, if you did, we would have had something with a little meat on it that meant something. We need a sustained commitment to Federal funding of R&D. The 2006 budget proposed by President Bush continues to cut R&D. It underfunds the National Science Foundation by billions of dollars; and the fact is if we do not count weapons research, this administration has sharply reduced federally funded scientific research, and this nonbinding resolution will not do a darn thing to change it. We need to dramatically improve our math and science education in our country. We know that we are falling short, and meanwhile we are continuing to fail in our funding promises to No Child Left Behind. We need to reform our immigration policies so that the best and brightest students can come and study in the United States and not be poached by universities who are benefiting in Australia and England and elsewhere through our short-sighted and bureaucratic policies; and we need a sustained commitment to science research and education. We cannot afford to sit back and pass nonbinding resolutions that do nothing. We could at least enact the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Eshoo) bill for stock options. With an exploding deficit, reduced support for education of Americans, a door shutting on Nobel-level scientists from abroad, no energy policy that will lead to energy independence, this proposal is worse than nothing because the right wing will not take action on competitiveness and will probably say they did something if this stupid and meaningless resolution is permitted to pass. Republicans are like the guy in court who killed his parents and now pleads for mercy as an orphan. They have controlled the House of Representatives for 10 years. Their policies for the last 10 years have shorted education. They have shorted science. They have eliminated protection for tech innovation. These words do not change those failed policies, and I hope that we turn down this resolution and tell the truth that our policies are threatening the competitiveness of our United States, and this mere meaningless resolution will do nothing, nothing, to solve that.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, this week I and over 60 of my colleagues will introduce a comprehensive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA is set to expire on September 30 of this year, so it is vital that this Congress quickly consider and pass the reauthorization. Since its passage in 1994, VAWA has been a great success. It has provided over $5.5 billion in Federal funding to improve our criminal and community responses to domestic violence. But the statistics remain alarming. One in every four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime. Last year, California law enforcement received 198,000 domestic violence calls, with weapons involved in over 136,000 of those cases. The reauthorization that we are putting forward this week will go a long way to stop this troubling reality. And I want to acknowledge particularly the hard work of my colleagues who worked on this bill. It is truly a collaborative effort that includes prevention, not just response. And we must, we must approve reauthorization before the expiration on September 1. It needs to be broad, and it needs to be this bill.