Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the effort that is being made to make sure that children are represented and that their best interests are brought to the forefront. I would note that there is ambiguity in the drafting of the amendment because it would freeze the current law that prohibits the appointment of counsel. However, since this is a plan that is subject to further review when it comes back to the Congress, I would note that the Congress will have an opportunity to actually deal with the appointment of counsel for children as to their dependency status at least when that comes back. I think and I am hopeful that we will actually do that once this plan is put into place. First, the 5-year-old is a child before they are an immigrant. We ought to treat the child as any other child would be treated in a dependency case, with advocacy of their best interests. I very much appreciate the effort that the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) has put into this.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, all of us are frustrated at the agency, and maybe some people are even tempted by this sort of ``blow it up'' amendment. But I think it would be unwise. I respect the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the efforts he has put in, but I think we have our pilot project in the manager's amendment that deals with the management, and that is the problem. It is not the rank and file, it is the management that is the problem. I commend the chairman for including that in his manager's amendment. I just wish that the other amendment to contract with management had been made in order.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I will conclude. I think there is some misunderstandings among some of the speakers because the amendment before us does not repeal procurement law; it merely applies the procurement efficiency laws, the Clinger-Cohen Act, to the INS, and changes the limits for a 2-year time period so that we can get some technology into this agency. Right now, Silicon Valley companies and high-tech companies across the country are willing to come in and do assessments for what the agency needs. And actually, what they are saying is have everyone come in, not a sole source, come in and help this agency find out what it needs. We lack an enterprise architecture, and under current law we cannot do that. If we do not streamline and allow for existing streamlined procedures to be put in place on a 2-year time frame for this agency, we are going to continue to hear what we have for the last 10 years. In 2 years' time we will have some technology. We still have 236 PCs, we still have an agency that is creating paper files. If we do not apply the existing law that allows for streamlining acquisitions to this agency, we are going to end up continuing to waste taxpayers' dollars; we are going to continue to have Americans put at risk because databases cannot communicate with each other. I have seen the picture of Mohammed Atta too many times today. The reason why they were admitted is because the inspector at the gate did not know what the other hand of the INS was doing. And unless we have technology deployed in this agency, that deplorable condition will continue to be true.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide for simplified procedures for acquisition of information-technology solutions to help reform the INS. The simplified acquisition procedures were initially created in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 and augmented under the Klinger-Cohen Act of 1996. These procedures will speed up the procurement process to allow agencies to acquire goods and services they need in a more efficient manner. There are shorter waiting periods after the notices are issued, more flexibility in how requests for proposals are put together, fewer potential bidders have to be notified. It is important to note that competition is still required and bids must be solicited from at least three bidders. Under current law, agencies may use simplified acquisition procedures to acquire goods and services worth up to 100,000 and to acquire commercial items up to 5 million. This amendment further adds to the flexibility for the acquisition of technology as well as the management of technology. It is important to note that within the amendment there is a nondiscrimination provision against small businesses so that we can continue to have small business play a vigorous and vital role in the provision of IT and there is also protection in the Truth and Negotiating Act which would continue to apply, as well as the Federal Cost Accounting Standards Act that would continue to protect taxpayers. The immigration service is an agency that is in the dark ages technologically. I am of the belief that until we allow and actually insist and give the tools to management to bring technology, they will never get ahead of their problem. Mr. Ziegler, the current commissioner, told the House Committee on the Judiciary in March that, ``The INS is big on information but small on technology.'' I would say that is an understatement. Recently, at home in Silicon Valley, there was a convention of IT professionals meeting from the government, the Federal Government primarily, meeting with CEOs and technology wizards in Silicon Valley, and I would like to read what the INS CIO George Bollinger said relative to his role at the INS. ``I am to high tech what Danny DeVito is to the NBA.'' That is the quote of the guy who is in charge of information technology at the INS describing his ability to manage IT. This amendment would allow management to be brought in. I think if we failed to do this, and its proposal is for a 2-year time period only, INS only, we are going to continue to fall further and further behind. This is an agency that is still creating paper files, an agency that is putting material on microfiche. There are over 100 databases that cannot communicate with each other. There is no ability within the agency to even devise an enterprise architecture program, something that the new Commissioner has actually freely admitted. When I asked the last Congress for the technology plan, I was told that they hope someday to update their DOS system. I kid my colleagues not. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to divide the time evenly with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and that he be allowed to control such time. I would note that this amendment has been offered with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) as well as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I have an inquiry for my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). At section 3704(b)(2) of the proposed bill, it states that an employee of a private sector organization assigned to an agency is deemed an employee of the agency for purposes of section 208 of title 18. Section 208 makes it a crime for a Federal employee to take any action in their official capacity if they have a personal financial interest in the matter or if an organization in which they are serving as an employee has a financial interest in the matter. I have no doubt that the authors of H.R. 3925 intended to make detailees fully subject to this requirement. However, because the bill considers detailees employees of the agency, there is some ambiguity over whether they will be permitted to work on matters that have financial impact on their private organizations. Is it the gentleman's understanding that section 208 will prohibit detailees from working on such matters? I think it should be clear for the record that, while detailees are considered employees of the agency, subject to subsection 208, they are also employees of their private organization that are prohibited from working on matters that affect the financial interests of their company.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his response, and I think actually if we made it clear here in the Record, no further action would be necessary. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Waxman

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today we rise to recognize the achievements of Dolores Huerta, co-founder and first Vice President Emeritus of the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO (UFW). Dolores Huerta continues to be a leader in the labor movement and works tirelessly to achieve social change. In 1955, she was a founding member of the Stockton, CA chapter of the Community Service Organization (``CSO''), a grass roots civil rights organization. Recognizing the needs of farm workers at this time, Ms. Huerta organized and founded the Agricultural Workers Association in 1960. It was through her work with the CSO that Ms. Huerta met Cesar Chavez. Recognizing the need to organize farm workers, they formed the National Farm Workers Association (``NFWA''), the predecessor to the UFW. Together, Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez founded the Robert F. Kennedy Medical Plan, the Juan De La Cruz Farm Worker Pension Fund, the Farm Workers Credit Union, the first medical and pension plan and credit union for farm workers. They also formed the National Farm Workers Service Center, Inc., a community based affordable housing and Spanish language radio communications organization with five Spanish radio stations. Dolores Huerta also continued to lobby, and in 1963 was instrumental in securing Aid for Dependent Families and disability insurance for farm workers in California. In 1966, over 5,000 grape workers walked off their jobs in what is now known as the famous ``Delano Grape Strike,'' and The United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (``UFWOC'') was formed. That same year, Ms. Huerta negotiated the first UFWOC contract, marking the first time in U.S. history that a negotiating committee comprised of farm workers negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with an agricultural corporation. In 1975 she lobbied against federal guest worker programs and spearheaded legislation granting amnesty for farm workers that had lived, worked, and paid taxes in the U.S. for many years, but were unable to enjoy the privileges of citizenship. These efforts eventually resulted in the Immigration Act of 1985. Dolores Huerta has worked to better the lives of migrant workers using non-violence. ``I think we showed the world that nonviolence can work to make social change,'' said Ms. Huerta. We wish to thank Dolores Huerta for her tireless efforts to achieve justice and dignity for migrant farm workers. ``Si se puede!''

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we rise to recognize the remarkable achievements of Fernando Zazueta, the Founding Chairman of the Mexican Heritage Corporation of San Jose. Mr. Zazueta is a leader in the community and has been an invaluable friend to us both. Fernado Zazueta was born in Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico and was raised as a migrant farm worker in California. He attended sixteen separate schools before graduating from San Jose High School in 1957, and then from San Jose State University in 1962. During law school, Mr. Zazueta was president of the Ralph Bunche Society of International Law and treasurer of the Law Students Association. As a result of his involvement in the student Court Interpreter Program, Mr. Zazueta published a Law Review article entitled ``Attorney's Guide to the Use of Court Interpreters with an English and Spanish Glossary of Criminal Law Terms'' and served as a special consultant to Arthur Young and Company in the development and presentation of a statewide study. Fernando Zazueta was a key contributor to a published report for the California Judicial Council regarding an assessment of the language needs of the California population as they related to the California justice system. Fernando Zazueta has been an active member of local, county, state and national bar associations and served as both treasurer and president of La Raza National Lawyers' Association of California. Mr. Zazueta served on the State Bar Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation for two terms, during which the commission evaluated hundreds of nominees for gubernatorial appointment. As chairman of the 1979 Community Advisory Council of San Jose Unified School District, Fernando Zazueta examined proposals to alleviate the ethnic and racial isolation of students. Additionally, he has held numerous directorships for nonprofit organizations such as the International Hospitality Center in San Francisco, the San Jose Museum of Art, and the San Jose Convention and Visitor's Bureau. He served on the Board of the San Jose Unified Educational Foundation, which raises over $100,000 for school sports through its annual Celebrity Waiters Luncheon. Fernando Zazueta has been the founder and Board Chairman of the Mexican Heritage Corporation sine 1988, and headed an effort by the corporation to complete the Mexican Heritage Plaza, a $34 million cultural center in East San Jose. Mr. Zazueta has also been instrumental in establishing an annual civic recognition of the founding of the Pueblo de San Jose de Guadalupe as the first civil settlement in California. Fernando Zazueta's other civic and volunteer contributions are too numerous for us to list here. He has been an integral part of our community for as long as we can remember, for which we are truly grateful. As a friend and as a neighbor, his dedication and enthusiasm is treasured.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. I have heard the comments that the provision in the bill is fine because it is diversity jurisdiction, and I just do not buy that argument. I will tell my colleagues why. Take a look at the provision that creates sort of class action coverage for the actions of district attorneys, our local prosecutors. It specifically exempts State attorneys general. So the argument my colleagues are making that these cases need to be brought and heard in Federal court when there is diversity of any sort at all does not wash if we are exempting the State attorneys general from the provisions of these consumer protection actions. I called yesterday, I was ill last week and I wish I had called him before yesterday, but I called the district attorney in Santa Clara County. He was stunned to see this provision and adamantly opposes it. He put me in touch with the California State Attorneys General Association. They could not believe that this provision would be proposed; and they were absolutely amazed that it would seriously be considered, that their divisions that act in behalf of the people would essentially be shut down because they could never comply with rule 23. Please, support this amendment and cure this serious problem in the bill.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that there have been problems in the area of class action lawsuits. We have heard some reference to those problems here today, and certainly the Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony about some of the issues that do need to be addressed. However, the fact that there are problems with coupon settlements does not mean that we can adopt any old thing as a remedy. In fact, this bill has some flaws, and the amendment before the body now is a very important amendment because it cures one of those flaws. This is an amendment that is very important for local prosecutors. H.R. 2341, oddly enough, prevents district attorneys from taking civil actions to benefit the public under the guise of ``class action reform.'' This provision of the bill is opposed by the California District Attorneys' Association, and that is because this provision of the bill is not limited to consumer protection class actions brought by plaintiff attorneys. It has a far-more reaching effect. It federalizes any State cause of action that is brought on behalf of the general public. California, like many other States, has enacted strong antitrust laws that prohibit unfair combinations and unlawful restraints of trade, and Californians have chosen to allow their district attorneys, in addition to the State attorney general, to enforce these laws in State courts. This bill would usurp California's choice with an expansive definition of ``class action'' that includes any case brought on behalf of the general public. The Federal Government should not force a local prosecutor to try State antitrust lawsuits in Federal court. Nor should the Federal Government force local prosecutors to comply with Federal class certification requirements that they likely cannot comply with, and if they fail to comply, their cases will be dismissed and very likely they will not be able to refile in State court. This bill would have a chilling effect on State and local antitrust law enforcement, as well as consumer protection actions in the civil side that are undertaken by district attorneys. The ability to bring these suits is a powerful tool for local district attorneys, many of whom, including in my own county of Santa Clara, have set up consumer protection units. In fact, one such unit in the San Francisco District Attorney's Office successfully settled a major consumer protection action against Providian Financial Corporation that netted $300 million for consumers. I would note that in addition to standing up for consumers, local district attorneys can also generate revenue for local government in their very modest fees that do not match the fees that we have heard talked about on this floor. Now, some have asked me, how can this bill do what I have described? I would simply direct Members to page 15 of the bill where class action is defined in this way: ``The named plaintiff purports to act for the interests of its members (who are not named parties to the action) or for the interests of the general public, seeking a remedy of damages, restitution, disgorgement, or any other form of monetary relief, and is not a State attorney general.'' Well, I think the drafters of the bill have understood that State attorneys general bring civil actions. They just apparently have not understood that district attorneys and city attorneys can bring those same kinds of actions. It does not make any sense at all to force those district attorneys into Federal court, where they are going to then be asked to comply with rule 23, and the district attorneys will not be able to comply with rule 23 because they are not bringing a class action lawsuit, and, then, according to the bill, their lawsuits made on behalf of the people, most mandatory, will be dismissed. So this amendment offered by myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a former prosecutor in California, would remedy this serious defect in the bill. I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds to note that in the Providian case I mentioned where the district attorney in San Francisco pursued a remedy for the citizens, the public, the people in San Francisco, obtaining a $300 million benefit for consumers, there was incomplete diversity and it was not removed because one of the subsidiary defendants was from out of State. However, under this act, that action would have to be removed and would have to be dismissed, because rule 23 relative to class actions cannot possibly be complied with by district attorneys acting on behalf of the people, and I think that this is a very stealthy way to eliminate jurisdiction of district attorneys and city attorneys acting in their civil capacity on the part of the people. I would urge that this amendment be adopted to cure this fatal defect. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 5 so that the page numbers comport with the report this morning.