Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for organizing this Special Order. Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 1942, then President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued executive order 9066 authorizing the Secretary of War to define military areas in which ``the right of any person to enter, remain in or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions are deemed necessary or desirable.'' By the spring of 1942, California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona were designated as military areas. In May of 1942, Santa Clara Valley Japanese Americans were ordered to ``close their affairs promptly and make their own arrangements for disposal of personal and real property.'' Official government fliers were posted around parts of California instructing families to report to the area's assembly center, the Santa Anita Racetrack, with just the bare necessities, leaving behind their homes, their lives and most personal belongings. Because permanent camps were yet to be built, the Santa Anita Racetrack was home to Santa Clara Valley's internees for at least 3 months. Santa Clara Valley Japanese Americans were forced to live in horse stables until a permanent camp was built for them. In America, 110,000 Japanese Americans and others, not aliens, people of German and Italian descent who were Americans, were evacuated from their homes and incarcerated throughout the duration of the war. Three thousand of those interned were Japanese Americans from Santa Clara Valley. By the fall of 1942, most Santa Anita internees were transported to a camp far away from home, the Heart Mountain Internment Camp in northern Wyoming. Most remained there until the end of the war, 3 long years later. The horror for Santa Clara County Japanese Americans did not end there. Upon release, approximately 7,000 people moved back to Santa Clara County. Most had no shelter, food, money, much less a job. Some returned to find their homes looted and destroyed. The San Jose Buddhist Church offered what it could, shelter and hot meals for most families. In Santa Clara County, the family of Bob Peckham, later to become Federal District Court Judge Bob Peckham, took title to the property of some Japanese American neighbors and was able to preserve that property and return it at the end of the internment so some people in our area did not lose their homes and businesses. All of this happened before I was born, but I remember very well learning about it even before it was added to the history books. My mother was a young woman in 1942. My dad was in the Army, and she was building airplanes at the Douglas aircraft factory for the war effort. She told me when I was young about driving past the race track and how ashamed and guilty she felt. There were people locked up at the race track living in horse stables who she knew had done nothing wrong. People who had been her neighbors had been rounded up suddenly and taken away. My mother told me how helpless she felt. She knew what her government was doing was wrong, but she did not know how to change it. She felt powerless, but she also felt guilty and ashamed because of what the United States Government had done. She was a life-long Democrat and cast her first Presidential vote for FDR, but she never agreed about what he did to her neighbors. There was no apology, no financial support, no help from the Federal Government until many years later. On February 19, 1976, President Gerald Ford formally rescinded executive order 9066. And in 1980 Congress funded the adopted legislation, establishing the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment. August 10, 1988, the Civil Liberties Act was signed into law, authorizing payments of $20,000 to each person that suffered from internment and established the Office of Redress to identify, locate, and pay these individuals. Most importantly, an apology was finally given. By then, my neighbors and my parents' neighbors who had been unjustly incarcerated, our friend, Ed, Jimmy, dad's neighbors, Ted, Raiko, Sam, and many others, received at long last an apology. Some lived long enough to receive the compensation provided for in the law. These efforts were celebrated in the community of Japanese Americans. But they were also celebrated in the broader community, because Americans who were not incarcerated, like my mother, felt the shame and the guilt. And while an apology could not undo the injustice and the compensation did not fully cover the loss, it helped that our country admitted the mistake and tried to make amends. I am proud to say that on February 5 of this year, my colleague from Santa Clara County (Mr. Honda) introduced H. Res. 56, a resolution supporting the goals of the Japanese, German, and Italian American communities in recognizing a national day of remembrance and to increase public awareness of the events surrounding the restriction, exclusion, and internment of individuals and families during World War II. This resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on which I serve and currently has over 60 cosponsors. Today, I support the resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) to recognize February 19 as a Day of Remembrance. It is the least we can do, spend one day per year reflecting on the horrors of internment, remember those who suffered, and work to find ways never to repeat that page in history. I would urge the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), to quickly schedule action for this important resolution so that the country can, once again, engage in healing, and I honor my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for his efforts in helping all Americans to heal.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, in the State of the Union address, President Bush proposed large tax cuts that primarily benefit the top 1 percent of taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's tax cut and other proposals will constitute a majority of the projected $2.1 trillion dollar debt. I object to this; Democrats object to this. But the President and the Republican Party have ignored these objections. The President's plan to eliminate the corporate tax on dividends comprises the bulk of his proposed tax cut--$364 of the $674 billion dollar package--nearly 50 percent. If the President wants us to cut $674 billion dollars in taxes, we should do this right. We should promote a prosperous future for America. We should encourage the intellectual development of our nation's youth. We should focus on families, and students, and make college possible for everyone. Consider the facts--From 1991 to 2001, college tuition grew faster than inflation and family income. According to the College Board, average tuition and fees grew by 38 percent at public four-year institutions and 37 percent at private four-year institutions. Over the same period, median family income increased by only 8 percent. In the last year alone, public universities faced the largest single- year increase in 10 years. In my district, San Jose State University fees increased by 10 percent this year and could increase an additional 20 to 25 percent next year due to state budget cuts. In addition, the burden of student loans continues to increase. Average student loan debt is now close to $17,000, up from $8,000 in just seven years. We cannot let families and students continue to shoulder the burden of rising costs in higher education. This is why I am introducing the Affordable College Education Act of 2003, ACE. ACE puts money back in the pockets of middle-class families who need help with college costs. It will allow American taxpayers to fully deduct college expenses, including tuition, fees, books, supplies, transportation, housing and meal plans. This bill will also help Americans saddled with student loan debt by allowing them to deduct all student loan interest. ACE breaks down financial barriers and ensures what every family wants for their children: the opportunity for higher education. I urge you to support this bill and deal an ACE for American families facing the daunting costs of college.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. It is a day that for the first time an Italian American, a Californian, a woman, was nominated for Speaker; but it is historic for me for another reason. Today my son, John Collins, has turned 18 years old, and this is the first time I have ever been away from him on his birthday. He insisted that I come to Washington today. He said I would be letting the country down if I did not come to vote for Nancy Pelosi. And so I took his advice. I wanted to celebrate my son's birthday because he is well known to many Members of Congress. He has spent many hours on this floor teaching Members how to use the computers, arguing politics, policy, and philosophy. He is a wonderful young man. I am immensely proud of him, and I am so glad that he has reached this milestone, his 18th birthday and adulthood.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably detained for rollcall votes 448, 449, 450, and 451. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize the achievements and life of Dr. Roberto Cruz, founder and first President of the National Hispanic University (NHU) in San Jose, California. I am proud to have known Dr. Cruz for over 20 years, and have seen first hand tireless work to establish and expand NHU, one of only three Hispanic universities in the nation, and the only one west of Chicago. Born and raised in Corpus Christi, Texas, Dr. Cruz received his bachelor's degree from Wichita State University in 1964 thanks to a football scholarship. A star middle linebacker and center, Dr. Cruz passed on opportunities to play football professionally in order to teach junior high school in Stockton California. Seeing the need to improve the educational system, he went on to earn his doctorate from the University of California at Berkeley in 1971. That same year, he established the Bay Area Bilingual Education League (BABEL), a consortium of schools and educational institutions developing bilingual education for students in Oakland and Berkeley. by 1976 he was an education professor at Stanford University, where he was appalled at how few Latinos enrolled at colleges. In 1981, Dr. Cruz and a group of loyal supporters established The National Hispanic University in a two-room building in Oakland, California. The goal was to address the learning needs of Hispanics and other minorities, especially non-native English speakers. Over the last 20 years, he has built NHU into a quality, accredited, private four- year university for all. In the few weeks before he passed away on September 4, San Jose's planning commission approved his ambitious proposal to transform the private college, housed in an old elementary school, into a three- story, $18 million full-fledged university campus. A few weeks earlier, NHU made history by becoming the first Hispanic four-year university to be accredited by the prestigious Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), an organization that only accredits 155 colleges and universities from among 3,000 institutions in the region. With this accreditation NHU joins Stanford and the University of California as a nationally and regionally accredited and recognized institution. Dr. Roberto Cruz left us a legacy of young people who have a future because, through the power of education, he let them have one. He proved that Si se puede!

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, should Congress authorize the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States to attack Iraq? The President is asking us to pass this resolution now, but he has not yet made the case for war. I cannot support the President's request that we authorize military force against Iraq. I make this very difficult decision for three important reasons: The United States is not acting in self-defense or from an imminent threat from Iraq, the United States should not be pursuing unilateral action without international support, and the President has not stated an exit strategy. I believe there are times when countries must resort to war, and indeed international law recognizes the rights of nations to defend themselves. I strongly support our campaign against terrorism. But are we voting this week on a case of self-defense? It would certainly be self-defense if Iraq supported the al Qaeda attack on September 11, but the evidence of such support is lacking. I have listened to the administration and met with top officials. I have yet to see any credible evidence that Iraq is connected with al Qaeda. The experts readily admit that there is no real connection. I can believe that Iraq is a threat to the region and to some American interests overseas, but I do not believe the threat is imminent or must be handled with a unilateral military strike. The President is now choosing a new and dangerous policy, the America Strikes First Doctrine, when he argues we can attack any time we feel threatened. I am the mother of a 17-year-old son. Maybe that is why I understand when mothers ask me about Iraq. A life lost to save America is a stinging pain that will always be with a Gold Star Mother. But the knowledge that the loss was necessary to protect the home of the brave and the land of the free gives both comfort and cause. Is America prepared to sacrifice lives when the cause is not to defend America but to start a war unilaterally without a threat? I have not heard the American people say so. We would be having a far different debate had President Bush come to Congress leading the world community and the United Nations or NATO. As of this moment, Great Britain is the only other nation dedicated to military action with us in Iraq. When even Canada is not prepared to march by our side, we have cause to pause and reflect. The United States should be leading the world, working with the world community to resolve an international issue. We should be here, Mr. Speaker, debating a resolution because all other efforts have failed. Sadly, we are here discussing an end result with no end game in mind. This resolution is an unwise step for America that will in the end weaken America. We are at our best when we are first among allies, standing tall for the free world. Let us be at our best when we deal with Iraq. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will not vote to authorize the President to carry out a unilateral and costly ground war against Iraq.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002. Copyright laws have always sought to strike a fair balance between copyright holders and society. Copyright protection encourages and rewards authors; but, as the Supreme Court stated in Twentieth Century Music Corp. versus Aiken, ``Private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability. . . .'' To maintain the balance in the digital age, we must find ways to prevent digital pirates without treating every consumer as one. Yes, digital allows perfect copies to be distributed over the Internet, but digital technology also lets copyright holders control how consumers enjoy the books, music, and movies they buy. Online publishers do not just set the price, they can control where, when and for how long buyers use and enjoy what they bought, contrary to the intent of Congress and the DMCA. My bill restores the balance by letting buyers enjoy what they bought in their home, car, or in mobile devices. The bill also helps copyright holders by promoting digital alternatives that are affordable, reliable, secure, and respectful of consumers. Providing room for technological innovation will also spur economic growth and lead to more jobs.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day. I remember when I first met Patsy and saw Patsy. It was in 1970, and I was on the staff of then-Congressman Don Edwards, and I thought this was really somebody, this was really somebody; and I watched her and I watched her on the ERA, and I never dreamed that many years later after she had gone back to Hawaii and come back to the House that I would get to serve with her, and I really value the years I served with Patsy. I knew her really as just a tireless champion for the underdog. She believed in the power of education, and she fought to make sure that every person had the opportunity to do more in life because they had an education. I remember participating in a Special Order with Patsy before the August recess, and we think about title IX rightly about sports; but really Patsy and I were talking about the other aspect of title IX when there were limits, there were quotas on how many women would be admitted to a college, and there were courses of study that women were not allowed to take. So I know I benefited personally from what Patsy did on title IX and my daughter still benefits from what Patsy did. Patsy made her mark and she changed America. There are not very many women in the House who are lawyers. Patsy was one of them, and she had a fine legal mind. She was someone who I always listened to when she had advice to give. She was not afraid to lead. And petite as she was, she was always big enough to share the limelight. How someone could be so tough and so firm and yet be also warm and kind is a wonder. She was funny, smart, brave, a visionary. She helped teach all of us, and we are in her debt. I give thanks to her husband, John, and her daughter, Wendy, for sharing her with us and thanks to the people of Hawaii for sending her to the Nation. People of Hawaii have no idea how she and Neil would stand up and fight for them whenever they needed them to do so. So I know I am not alone in finding it hard to reconcile myself to her absence. I miss her and America is profoundly improved by her gift of time, energy, and pure goodness.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend BAYMEC, the Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee, as they celebrate 18 years of advocating for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in Santa Clara Valley and in communities along the central coast of California. BAYMEC was founded in 1984 by local activists Ken Yeager and Wiggsy Sivertsen. At that time, the Santa Clara Valley region was still reeling from the repeal of city and county ordinances which would have given gays and lesbians protection in housing and employment. BAYMEC was formed to organize the local gay and lesbian community, reverse the political tide, and advance the civil rights of LGBT individuals. The past 18 years has produced a legacy of successes for BAYMEC and for the citizens of Santa Clara Valley. BAYMEC stands as a united front to fight for civil rights and end discrimination, to educate public officials, and to provide a voice for the LGBT community. I am proud of the leadership, volunteers and network of supporters whose dedication has built BAYMEC into an integral part of the fabric of our local community. And, in so doing, BAYMEC is contributing to making Santa Clara Valley and the Central Coast a place where all people can expect to be treated with justice, dignity and respect.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, The Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe is a sovereign Indian Nation located within several counties in the San Francisco Bay Area since time immemorial. In 1906, the Tribe was formally identified by the Special Indian Census conducted by Indian Agent C.E. Kelsey, as a result of the Congressional Appropriation Act mandate to identify and to purchase land for the landless and homeless California Indian tribes. At this time, the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs federally acknowledged the Verona Band as coming under the jurisdiction of the Reno and Sacramento Agencies between 1906 and 1927. The Congress of the United States also recognized the Verona Band pursuant to Chapter 14 of Title 25 of the United States Code, which was affirmed by the United States Court of Claims in the Case of Indians of California v. United States (1942) 98 Ct. Cl. 583. The Court of Claims case judgment instructed the identification of the Indians of California with the creation of Indian rolls. The direct ancestors of the present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe participated in and enrolled under the 1928 California Indian Jurisdictional Act and the ensuing Claims Settlement of 1944 with the Secretary of the Interior approving all of their enrollment applications. Meanwhile, as a result of inconsistent federal policies of neglect toward the California Indians, the government breached the trust responsibility relationship with the Muwekma tribe and left the Tribe landless and without either services or benefits. As a result, the Tribe has suffered losses and displacement. Despite these hardships the Tribe has never relinquished their Indian tribal status and their status was never terminated. In 1984, in an attempt to have the federal government acknowledge the status of the Tribe, the Muwekma Ohlone people formally organized a tribal council in conformance with the guidelines under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. In 1989, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribal leadership submitted a resolution to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Acknowledgement and Research with the intent to petition for Federal acknowledgement. This application is known as Petition #111. This federal process is known to take many years to complete. Simultaneously, in the 1980's and 1990's, the United States Congress recognized the federal governments neglect of the California Indians and directed a Commission to study the history and current status of the California Indians and to deliver a report with recommendations. In the late 1990's the Congressional mandated report--the California Advisory Report, recommended that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe be reaffirmed to its status as a federally recognized tribe along with five other Tribes, the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, the Lower Lake Koi Tribe, the Tsnungwe Council, the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation, and the Tolowa Nation. On May 24, 1996, the Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to the regulatory process then issued a letter to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe concluding that the Tribe was indeed a Federally Recognized Tribe. In an effort to reaffirm their status and compel a timely decision by the Department of the interior, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe sued the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Court has mandated that the Department issue a decision this year. That decision is expected in early August. Specifically, on July 28, 2000, and again on June 11, 2002, Judge Ricardo Urbina wrote in his Introduction of his Memorandum Opinion Granting the Plaintif's Motion to Amend the Court's Order (July 28, 2002) and Memorandum Order Denying the Defendant's to Alter or Amend the Court's Orders (June 11, 2002) affirmatively stating that: ``The Muwekma Tribe is a tribe of Ohlone Indians indigenous to the present-day San Francisco Bay area. In the early part of the Twentieth Century, the Department of the Interior (``DOI'') recognized the Muwekma tribe as an Indian tribe under the jurisdiction of the United States.'' (Civil Case No. 99-32671 RMU D.D.C.) I proudly support the long struggle of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe as they continue to seek justice and to finally, and without further delay, achieve their goal of their reaffirmation of their tribal status by the federal government. This process has dragged on long enough. I hope that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Interior will do the right thing and act positively to grant the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe their rights as a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe. The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe has waited long enough; let them get on with their lives as they seek to improve the lives of the members of this proud tribe. To do anything else is to deny this Tribe Justice. They have waited patiently and should not have to wait any longer.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) has said, I have been a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct now for 5\1/2\ years, and in those 5\1/2\ years, in every case, every member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has tried to discharge their duty fairly and to do the right thing. That has always been the goal. There has never been a drop of partisanship in the committee. As we have worked through this, I think it is important to share what the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct reviewed before coming here today. We have heard about this Mr. Detore, who was not found to be a credible witness by the adjudicatory subcommittee. But in addition to that testimony offered to the committee, we reviewed 6,000 pages of testimony, more than 50 witnesses for the prosecution, and 29 witnesses called by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). What we found in the review of the statements of those witnesses that were subject to cross-examination is, regrettably, a pattern of tens of thousands of dollars that were delivered to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) in kickbacks and bribes, the most serious misconduct that we need to address here. Now, it has been suggested that we delay these proceedings. If we delay to September 4, we will know nothing more than we do this evening. We will not have an appellate decision. We will just know what we know today. Mr. Speaker, I would note that article I, section 5, says it is for each House to determine with the concurrence of two-thirds whether to expel a Member. It is not for the House to delegate to the judiciary the decision on who is fit to serve in each body. I would urge that we step up to our unpleasant duty this evening, that we discharge our obligations granted to us under article I, section 5 of the Constitution, and that we act this evening, unhappy as that task may be.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I was the ranking member on the investigative subcommittee serving with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), examining the testimony and evidence presented during the trial. The subcommittee unanimously concluded that the evidence showed that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) engaged in official misconduct of the most serious nature. He traded his official office and powers repeatedly for money, free labor, equipment at his farm and other things. He did so repeatedly and with several different people and companies. He demanded and received tens of thousands of dollars, with salary kickbacks from his congressional employees. He filed two false income tax returns that failed to report more than $75,000 in income from gratuities. As I mentioned earlier, the trial lasted more than 30 days with over 6,000 pages of transcript, more than 50 witnesses called for the prosecution and 29 by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). We took this testimony and reviewed it, but we made an independent review of the sworn testimony and other evidence during the trial, and we unanimously decided that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) should be charged with violation of House rules based on the evidence, not criminal charges. There was testimony, evidence by the businessman who gave the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) gratuities, and that was supported by testimony of public servants who were pressured by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). Eight witnesses testified relative to the kickbacks the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) received, and that testimony was also substantiated. Five employees of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) testified as to the work they were directed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to perform on his farm or boat. One employee testified that he had been there between 100 and 300 different times. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) repeatedly asserts there is no physical evidence of his crimes, but, in fact, there is abundant evidence, including check, bank records, memos, faxes, letters and other documents. I would finally just say that when the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and I rejoined the remainder of the committee for the penalty phase, we joined eight others with the unanimous recommendation, with great sadness, that the expulsion remedy is one that we must do. I feel very sad this evening to listen to this testimony, but I know what our duty calls us to do, and I hope that the House is up to it.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on page 16 of the bill it reads ``partial- birth abortion,'' a term that does not exist in medicine, ``is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother.'' Mr. Speaker, all of us here came to Congress having done other things in our lives; and sometimes I think that God sends us here to tell a particular story, and I feel that way today because I can tell the story of someone who had to have this procedure, and that person is the daughter-in-law of my friend, Susie Wilson. Before I was elected to Congress, Susie was so excited that her daughter-in-law, Vicki, was going to have a little girl. Susie had three boys and there were grandsons, but no girls. We were excited for Susie, and we found out at the end of Vicki's pregnancy that the granddaughter, they had already picked out a name, Abigail, that the baby's brains had formed almost completely outside of the cranium. I saw the ultrasound picture, and it looked like there were two heads on this child. The question was not whether they would have the Abigail they wanted and prayed for, but how they would terminate this pregnancy, and whether in addition to having no Abigail, whether Vicki would also live; and if she lived, whether she would be healthy enough to continue to care for her two boys. So this procedure was what was safest for Vicki, and Susie went down there to be with her at this trying time, and it was devastating not just for Vicki but for her husband and for her whole family. It is not just a woman's issue. So when I read these words, I know there is something else afoot here today, and it is not about medicine and caring for women's health and respecting the trauma that families go through in these very devastating circumstances. It is about 30-second ads. That is why we are here today. We are here to tee up another round of 30-second ads in the November election. I think it is shameful. I hope we can vote against this bill and speak out against this outrageous politicization.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 101, disapproving the extension of the waiver authority in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam. I am proud to represent a community in Santa Clara County that has been greatly enriched by the contributions of its Vietnamese American residents. For many years now, first an immigration attorney, a local elected official, and now as a Member of Congress, I have worked closely with these Americans on two issues close to their hearts and to mine, immigration and human rights. Quite a few of my constituents came to San Jose as refugees, escaping an oppressive political regime. That is why I value their knowledge, experience and support, and that is why I believe their unique perspective on the U.S. relationship with Vietnam deserves deference. While we are constantly told that the government of Vietnam is making progress in the area of human rights, I continue to hear about political persecuting and unwarranted detentions from my friends in the Vietnamese community. Later today, the Human Rights Caucus will be holding a hearing on freedom of expression in Vietnam. Article 69 of the Vietnamese constitution recognizes freedom of opinion, expression and association for all its citizens, but the Vietnamese people are denied these privileges daily. Vietnamese authorities continue to sensor mail, telephone calls and e-mail. Freedom of the press is a joke. While 500 papers exist in Vietnam, not one is privately owned. All radio and television stations are state- owned. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have detailed cases, and their list of abuses is long. The U.S. State Department and humanitarian groups have reported that the Vietnam human rights situation has actually worsened in 2001, especially with regard to ethnic minorities like the Montagnards. There are reports of harassment of prominent dissidents in Vietnam, and Hanoi still implements strict control over the press. If Vietnam is making such great strides towards human rights, then why are we continuing to hear that those who try to express themselves freely are routinely detained? I believe in free trade. I have voted for trade agreements, but I believe that the situation in Vietnam is different. Here we have a clear opportunity to change the course of this Nation's behavior in exchange for trade. If we insist on human rights, Vietnam will comply in order to obtain a trade relationship with America. I ask my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 101. Stand up to the communists in Vietnam. Insist on human rights in Vietnam in exchange for free trade.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today we rise to celebrate the El Rancho Verde Apartments, the largest preservation of affordable housing in the Western United States. This outstanding, $117 million effort has truly been a community effort to preserve affordable housing for families who could not otherwise afford the high cost of living in Silicon Valley. We commend the efforts on the part of several groups: The Related Companies of California; Community Housing Developers, Inc.; City of San Jose Housing Department; State of California Housing Finance Agency; State of California Treasurer's Office and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Built in 1970, El Rancho Verde was at risk of being converted to market-rate property at the expiration of existing HUD Use Agreements. Now, this affordable housing will be preserved for a minimum of 55 years. This rehabilitation project--considered by city, state and federal housing officials to be a model for the nation--preserves 700 low income two and three-bedroom apartments on 36 acres, enabling families to live in San Jose who otherwise might not be able to afford it. We would especially like to applaud state officials, who gave this development the second largest ever allocation of tax-exempt bonds for multifamily housing to date. Recognizing that childcare is another critical issue for low-income families, we commend the commitment to the East Side community in form of structural improvements to the adjacent child development center, El Rancho Verde Child Development Center. The Center serves 75 children, ages 3 to 10, most of whom live at the El Rancho apartments. Thanks to the efforts of The Related Companies of California and Community Housing Developers, Inc., approximately 3,000 people--1,500 hundred of them children--will have a home in San Jose. We wish to thank The Related Companies of California and Community Housing Developers, Inc., for their commitment to making San Jose affordable for all families.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to this bogus bill that will hurt older women. Mr. Speaker, today, prescription drugs play a larger role in modern medicine than ever before. Prescription drugs are used as complements to surgical procedures, as substitutes for surgery, and to help reduce future health risks and treat many chronic health conditions. Yet those who need them the most, older adults, and we know that the majority of seniors are women, often find themselves without either affordable prescription drugs coverage or the means to pay for their prescription drugs needs. Women on average live longer and are more likely to suffer from prolonged chronic illness. In fact, women on Medicare spend nearly 20% more for prescription drugs than men. And--with women's poverty rates twice that of men, prescription drug costs take a bigger bite out of women's limited income. It is a shame that we are not considering a real prescription drug benefit today, one that would benefit all seniors. Under the Republican bill, the more a senior woman spends for prescription drugs, the less coverage she gets. For some reason, the Republican bill forces seniors, your mother, your grandmother, to pay a higher percentage of costs as their needs increase. Mr. Speaker, does this makes any sense?

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor from H.R. 4645.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, title IX was passed by the U.S. Congress on June 23, 1972, and signed by President Nixon on July 1, 1972. This important civil rights law prohibits discrimination in education programs and activities receiving Federal funds. And as we pause to celebrate the 30th anniversary of this landmark legislation, we can easily see how the law has allowed women and girls increased opportunity to participate in athletics. What I think has been overlooked by some is how this law has also spurred great improvements for women in the areas of access to higher education, job training, career opportunities, and math and science skills. America has focused more attention on the issues of sexual harassment and created better learning environments for women because of title IX. I remember before the passage of title IX, schools and universities often had separate entrances for male and female students. Women seeking admission to many colleges and universities were forced to have both higher test scores and better grades than their male counterparts just to get in because there were limits on how many women were allowed, and the chances of women being admitted to medical school or law school were slim because in many cases the female students were limited to less than 15. Those who were lucky enough to get into college found themselves with curfews. I remember mine was 10 p.m., one had to be into the dorm by 10 p.m. So, so much for cramming for tomorrow's exam in the library along with male students. Women applying for doctoral programs had explained how they would combine a career and family, but of course that question was not asked of their male counterparts, and oftentimes men were given preferences on scholarships and women were not. Before title IX, girls were just 1 percent of all high school athletes, and athletic scholarships accordingly were almost nonexistent. So as a result, athletic scholarships were just not available. Title IX has expanded opportunities for girls and women to pursue career education. Many of these careers were off limits before 1972, and when school segregated vocational education by sex, and I recall that the girls all took home ec and I learned how to sew, actually I already knew how to sew, but the boys took vocational ed that could lead to really good-paying jobs, and that day is now over as well. After 30 years, women in educational institutions have made progress. Before title IX, women often lacked tenure in colleges and universities. They were promoted at a slower rate than their male colleagues. Fewer women were employed as administrators. And that has now changed as well, and it was part of the wave of change that title IX helped bring. One of the most significant breakthroughs that title IX has made possible is how the many barriers in nontraditional fields such as math and science have been shattered, and I cannot emphasize the importance for America of that. I recall looking for employment for the first time in the want ads and they were segregated into men wanted, married women wanted, single women wanted. That day is over in part because of title IX, and I think we can celebrate the changes that we have made and look forward to the additional changes to come. And I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for organizing the testimony tonight, and I yield to her with gratitude for her leadership in this issue.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of Joyce Ellington and would like to recognize her extraordinary and tireless service to the residents and members of Northside Neighborhood Association. Ellington has served on the board of San Jose's oldest neighborhood group, Northside Neighborhood Association (NNA) during its entire 36- year history. In addition to becoming the first African-American chair of San Jose's Library Commission in 1980, she was the driving force behind obtaining a library for the Northside area in the early 1970's. With help from then-Mayor Norm Mineta, another NNA original member, federal funding was obtained for the construction of the library. In 2000, unbeknownst to Ellington, NNA proposed to rename the library in her honor and eventually petitioned the city council for approval. The renaming of the library in Ellington's honor not only recognizes her achievements as a community activist, but is also a way to honor the diversity of San Jose, and in the Northside neighborhood, one of San Jose's oldest communities and where most African-American families lived in the turn of the century and early 1900's. Ms. Ellington has lived in Northside for over 70 years and her home, built in 1908, is the oldest home in San Jose with continuing African- American inhabitants. Joyce Ellington has devoted her life to enrich and advance her community, and her contribution deserves to be honored to serve as an inspiration for neighborhood children and for the residents of San Jose. I am proud and grateful to thank Joyce Ellington for reminding us all that one person can truly make a difference in the lives of many.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for allowing me to share this time, and for their leadership and imagination in bringing H.R. 4664, the Investing in America's Future Act of 2002 before us today for our consideration. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important piece of legislation. I have long been a passionate advocate for the National Science Foundation and the work they oversee. This work begins the laudable goal of doubling NSF's budget over the next 5 years. Competition for NSF grant funding is very intense. Every year NSF receives about 30,000 proposals for research in education projects. Of these, about one-third only are funded. These grants usually go to colleges, universities, academic consortia, nonprofit institutions, and small businesses. The NSF also supports collaborative projects between universities and industry, as well as U.S. participation in international cooperative research and education efforts. By increasing the amount of money available for grants, the NSF will be able to greatly enhance opportunities for scientific inquiry, and will generate invaluable progress in a wide range of fields. The resulting discoveries will help drive economic growth and enhance the quality of life for all Americans. NSF is the second largest source of federal funds for academic research. Students of mathematics, science, the environment and engineering will be better able to compete in the global marketplace because the investments made by NSF will generate exciting opportunities to enhance their studies. I believe our Nation is well served by increasing the resources available for NSF. For these and many other reasons, I am proud to support this bill and I know this measure will pass the House today with overwhelming bipartisan support. This day will mark a day when we make the future of this country immeasurably brighter and bigger because investing in science is always a good investment.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, remember when Republicans told us we had so much money in the treasury that we would run out of debt to redeem? When their majority leader was worried about a surplus of the surplus? And when our President told us there was plenty of money--enough to protect our country, leave Social Security untouched and still give a huge tax break to top income earners? It wasn't very long ago that we heard such things, but that isn't what we face now. We have a war, we have a recession and we have a tax cut. We need to pay for the war, work our way through the recession and take another look at the tax cut. It's just crazy to continue along as if nothing has happened with the budgeted tax cuts for top income earners that were adopted on the premise that we would have surpluses. We need to get together and take another stab at that plan-now that we know the surpluses are gone--to see whether we can manage all three: war, recession and tax cut. One thing we know is that we have to pay for the war efforts. Where I come from we have a saying: When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. I think this bill may be an attempt to use the war as cover: to pass a provision to allow the federal government to borrow billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund. This is necessary not because of the war, but because of the earlier tax cuts. Where I come from most people tell me that they don't think it makes sense to borrow money from Social Security to fund that tax cut. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has conducted an analysis. What they found is this: the period for measuring solvency in the Social Security system is 75 years. Over that period the projected revenue loss for the tax cut will be $5 trillion larger than the entire Social Security short-fall. That, in the end, is why the debt ceiling needs to be raised and why, I believe, Republicans who said so recently ``not to worry'' don't want to have a recorded vote to borrow money. America must be militarily strong to face the military challenge. Yet we must also acknowledge we cannot be militarily strong if we allow ourselves to become economically weak. The people who send us here expect us to be honest with them, in times of war and peace but especially in war. My Democratic colleagues and I are insisting that we level with the American people and we'll continue to oppose this effort to drive America back into deficit spending and diverting the Social Security trust fund. I've heard some of the older members in the Republican party defend their raid by saying that Democrats did it when they were in charge. Well, I have served in this House since 1995 and have only served in the minority. I served for 14 years in local government where our budgets had to balance each year. When I got here, we agreed--both Democrats and Republicans--that we would balance the budget and create a Social Security ``lock box''. That's been approved many times by nearly unanimous votes. It is pathetic to hear now that Republicans want to reject that pact we made with each other for the benefit of our country. Yes, we are in a hole. We will need to raise the debt ceiling until we figure out how to stop digging, perhaps by freezing taxes. I think we should raise the ceiling for 60 days. That would give us time to meet--and get a plan to stop digging the hole. Let's vote the money for the war effort that both Democrats and Republicans supported in the Appropriations Committee, take out the riders that deal with things that have nothing to do with the war and have a separate vote to raise the debt ceiling 60 days. Let's take those 60 days, have a budget summit and get our fiscal act together. Fighting the war and supporting our troops is something we all agree on. I would hope that we could also agreed that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to borrow money from Social Security to fund a tax break for the most affluent--a reverse Robin Hood move that takes from the least wealthy to give to the most wealthy. We need to fund the war, but we don't need to wipe out Social Security to do it. And let's remember that our soldiers and sailors have parents and grandparents too--people who need to count on Social Security being there in their old age.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of San Jose broadcaster Robert S. Kieve. I would like to recognize his efforts as a radio pioneer deeply dedicated to the idea of the media providing a community service. He will be honored with the Spirit of San Jose Award on Monday, May 20, 2002. Since 1967, Kieve had been one of the ``mom and pop'' owners holding out against large conglomerates, demonstrating the value of local ownership through his editorials, community involvement and loyalty to employees--who own 25 percent of his broadcasting company, Empire Broadcasting. In recently selling one of his radio stations, Kieve shared those profits with his employees in an usual and caring move for the business . . . but not for him. Kieve, a former Eisenhower speechwriter, has been a pioneer in hiring women in an industry that women are dramatically underrepresented. He has, for thirty years, been an outspoken, committed and vital force in San Jose, always willing to offer his opinions and provide a forum for others to share theirs. Always willing to try something new, Kieve recently started three Internet radio stations featuring Beethoven, traditional country and big band. Kieve will continue to operate two stations, KRTY-FM and KLIV-AM after his recent sale of KARA-FM, a San Jose institution, and will use a portion of the profits to help create a charitable foundation. I am proud and grateful to thank Robert S. Kieve for reminding us all that one person can truly make a difference in the lives of many.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise during National Teacher Appreciation Week to honor the teachers at Selma Olinder Elementary School for their outstanding and tireless efforts to raise academic achievement levels for all students at the school. Selma Olinder Elementary School is a K-5, inner-city school in downtown San Jose, California with 67% of its student population being English-language learners, meaning that their primary language at home is something other than English. Also, 77% of the student population is identified statistically as ``disadvantaged'' and qualifies for the federal free lunch program. From 1999 through 2001, as a result of the diligence of the teachers and their commitment to the ``Success For All'' reading program, the number of students reading at or above grade level increased by over 14% and within this same period, the Academic Performance Index was raised by more than 25%. I am proud and grateful to the teachers for their enthusiasm, and for reminding us all that one person can truly make a difference in the lives of many. I would especially like to recognize Laurel Browning, who has shown admirable dedication to her students at Selma Olinder Elementary School.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House of Representatives today in the name of democracy, in the name of hope, and in the name of peace. As long-standing supporters of Israel, we recognize and respect Israel's unquestioned right to self-defense. The United States has a long history of promoting and supporting democracies. It has long considered Israel its closest ally in the Middle East, because Israel is a democracy. It is because of our passion for democracy that we cast votes against the procedural steps needed to bring House Resolution 392 to the floor. These procedural steps prevented any amendments or any substitute resolutions to be considered by the Congress. We were not permitted to consider or debate either Senator Lieberman's or Congressman DeFazio's language. We were not given the opportunity to meet with our constituents and hear their thoughts and concerns on this divisive and complicated matter. Nor were there any hearings on this resolution. This is wrong and does not speak to debate that is central to our democratic process. While we support House Resolution 392 in its final form, we have concerns that this resolution presents a one-sided view of a many-sided reality. We cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people and the loss of innocent civilians. We cannot ignore the economic hardship the Palestinians have endured as they continue their attempts to create their own Democratic nation. And we cannot ignore the physical damage done to Palestinian infrastructure in Jenin, in Ramallah and other towns in the West Bank. Even with the Resolution's shortcomings, we believe it is critical to speak out against acts of terrorism that have claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Israeli civilians. The United States is scarred by its own September 11th experience and we have a new and somber national consciousness of terrorism on our soil. We continue to hold out hope that the Israelis and the Palestinians will be able to achieve the peace of the brave that has proven so elusive. We are confident that the United States will be a true partner for peace and help bring a 21st Century Marshall Plan of resources and hope to those who today carry a rage of desperation.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anybody in the House, or for that matter in the country, who disagrees with the proposition that this is an agency that is a mess. If we took a poll probably it would win as the worst Federal agency. It might have some competition from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but it is probably the worst Federal agency. The question is what to do about it. I voted against this bill because I fear that although there is no question that the authors and proponent have complete sincerity and have worked hard to fix the problem, I fear that some of the details in this bill may actually have the effect of making things worse. Some of the things that concern me, and in this case the details do very much matter, is the new Associate Attorney General that the bill creates to replace the current commissioner. Now, there is broad agreement that the enforcement and so-called benefits division would benefit from some separation, that there would be value in having some focus in each of those activities. After that is where we get the problem. Under the bill, the new Associate Attorney General actually has a higher position than the current commissioner, but unfortunately does not have very much authority. He does not have line authority over the two new bureaus that would be created, and I think that is a serious problem when we are looking to a strong management to fix the problems that are in this agency. Furthermore, I think there is a problem with the criteria that is within the bill for the selection of the new bureau chiefs; and I will just point out one concern I have, which is the bureau chief for the new benefits division is required to be someone with 10 years of Federal benefit processing experience. That is a recipe to say we have got to have a bureaucrat, a long-term Federal bureaucrat head up this agency. And I would argue that the people who are in that role are the problem, they are not the solution. So I have a concern that we will end up regretting that provision of this act. I also have a concern about the structure that will be embedded in law about the field office. One of the concerns that all of us who have worked with the Immigration Service have had over the years is the fiefdoms that exist in field offices throughout the United States. If someone goes to an office on the West Coast and they go to an office in the Midwest, they will get a different ruling on what the law is. That is ridiculous, but that is the way the Immigration Service is currently organized. It needs to be changed, and passage of this act will prevent that change from occurring. The Office of Children's Services I think is a step forward under current law, but it does not go as far as the bill that has been introduced by Senator Feinstein in the other body, and myself on this side, and I hope that we could go further than is encompassed in this bill. Finally, I believe that the issue of management really does need to be addressed in this bill. I had several amendments offered in committee that were withdrawn to avoid a sequential referral to another committee, but if we look at the culture that has grown within this agency, we have got middle managers who have been there for years. They know they are going to be there after the Commissioner or the Associate Attorney General, whoever it is, is gone. We need to clean house in the management ranks. We have in the manager's amendment a pilot project that will help us do that, but we also need to give the Commissioner or the Associate Attorney General real authority to select new management from the private sector without regard to the attenuated process that we face today. We need to clean house, and we have not in this bill given the tools necessary to completely clean house in the management ranks; and I am not talking about the rank and file, but the management. Finally, we have an amendment I will discuss when it comes up, but an amendment to assist with the procurement of technology, because in addition to management weakness in the agency and in the middle management ranks, this is an agency that is in the dark ages technologically. I was interested in the comments made by the chairman about the fingerprints. He is absolutely right. It is just crazy that we have people come in over and over and over again. The reason for that is, although the technology is available off the shelf, we have got the creation of microfiche and paper files. We have not implemented technology that is really necessary to get beyond the current state in this agency, and frankly I do not think there is the management capacity to even understand what technology is required in the agency. I am hopeful that as this process moves forward, we will be able to address the issues that I have raised today, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their very sincere and diligent efforts to reform this agency. Although I disagree on some components, I do recognize that they care a great deal about this, and I honor them for their work.