Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have received a lot of advice from my constituents about H.R. 3, President Bush's tax cut proposal. Mostly my constituents have told me not to vote for this plan, although some have urged support. I have listened carefully and read every letter and email. I've thought about what people back home have told me. I take very seriously my responsibility to act prudently in this matter. I have heard President Bush and other proponents of H.R. 3 say that the surplus ``belongs to the people'' and that ``the people have overpaid'' and ``the people deserve a refund.'' Well what about the accumulated national debt? That doesn't belong to some other group of people. What that phrase overlooks is that the accumulated national debt, over 4 trillion dollars, is also ``the people's national debt.'' That debt needs to be paid, and if it is paid, it will be paid off with ``the people's money''. In listening to my constituents, as well as economic experts, I have focused on several elements. First, there is concern among many that a softening of the economy could be countered with a tax reduction that would stimulate consumer spending and help counter recessionary trends. I think it is important to underscore that the American economy is not in a recession, but it is also clear that softening has occurred. In addition to providing relief to taxpayers who want and need it, I agree that a tax reduction effort might well have a salutary impact. To maximize this benefit, the tax cut should be quick, should be directed towards those who will spend it but must also avoid deficit spending. H.R. 3 falls short in these requirements. Second, if we enact a tax reduction plan we must exercise care to insure that we avoid returning to the days of deficit spending, a phenomenon we have only recently escaped. I have focused on the need for fiscal responsibility for the 22 years I have served in public office. As a member of the Board of Trustees of the San Jose-Evergreen Community College District in the late 1970's, I was part of the coalition that reduced administrative costs by more than 25%--and put the money into the classrooms. As a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in the 1980's, I was part of the Board majority that cut spending dramatically and balanced the county's budget. This earned the county its excellent bond rating and saved taxpayers money on interest. As a Member of Congress since 1995, 1 have supported policies that have helped this country to balance its operating budget and to begin to pay down the national debt. I'm proud of that and I believe that fiscal responsibility is good for America. Why? Deficit spending eats up revenue in interest rates. It leads to inflation, which eats up the budgets of families. In fact, some observers have predicted that if the Bush tax reduction plan results in a return to deficit spending, that most families will end up spending more on increased interest rates than they will see in a reduction of tax liability through the plan. Finally, we need to make sure that a tax reduction plan, of an amount that is consistent with a balanced budget and deficit reduction, is constructed in a manner that advances the American principles of fairness and equity. The Bush plan falls short. It postpones too much of the benefit to later years, defeating the effort to stimulate immediate economic activity. It directs 43% of the tax reduction benefit to those whose annual incomes are over $900,000 a year. I have nothing against those with incomes over $900,000 a year. In fact, I think it's terrific that we have a country where so many are able to prosper and to grow incomes. However, directing so much of the benefit to this income bracket is not the best way to stimulate economic activity nor is it perceived as equitable by the American people. People who have middle class incomes are having a harder go of it than those who have met with extraordinary financial success. Finally, there is geographic discrimination in this bill. Because the economy of Silicon Valley has been so extraordinarily successful and because people have worked so hard and productively, median incomes are high. This is a wonderful thing. However, costs are also high in Silicon Valley. Families with incomes that would seem extraordinary in other parts of the country struggle with the costs of housing and childcare in Santa Clara County. Because of the shortcomings in H.R. 3 to deal with the alternative minimum tax, many of my constituents will be denied the benefit of provisions of the bill that will help other middle class people. Let me give just one example: the increased child deduction is a good thing and something I support. Unfortunately, this promised benefit will be denied to my constituents whose annual income is $87,800 a year--just about the median 'income for the county under this bill. That's not fair and it's geographic discrimination. I believe that it is wise to enact a tax cut, but I think President Bush's plan is not balanced and will damage America. There is broad consensus in this Congress that a major overhaul of the estate tax, correction of the so-called ``marriage penalty tax'' and increases in child deductions should be made. Nobody likes taxes, and many of us would like to see further reductions. But reductions have to be in harrnony with debt reduction as well as realistic forecasts of spending. Many of my constituents have told me that they would prefer higher investments in energy research, education and transportation than this proposed tax cut. That is one of the reasons why it is a terrible mistake (as well as violative of the rules of the House of Representatives) to take action on this proposed tax bill before we have even discussed, let alone adopted, our budget. Unfortunately, the manner in which this tax plan has been handled by the Republican leadership of the House has precluded the possibility of give and take, compromise and a sound consensus bill that would serve America well. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March 2, 2001

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of John Burns, the Executive Director of the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County. I would like to recognize Mr. Burns' extraordinary and tireless service to the people of Santa Clara County and thank him for his 32 years as the Housing Authority's Executive Director. John Burns started as the Santa Clara County Housing Authority's first employee in 1968; the Agency now employs a staff of 275. The Housing Authority currently assists over 13,000 families, seniors and disabled in the Section 8 Program and over 2,000 seniors and disabled in the Property Management Program. In addition, the Agency manages 50 duplexes at the Arturo Ochoa Migrant Housing Center in Gilroy, California, which houses 100 families during the harvest season. In the winter months, the center is used for housing homeless families. Under John Burns' dedicated leadership, the Housing Authority diversified its many services to the community to include leasing of housing on the open market, new housing construction, and the management of housing for low income families, disabled and the elderly. The Housing Authority also ensures, through sales of bonds, that new construction in the area includes affordable rental units. The successful effort to pass Measure A in the November 1999 election allowed the Housing Authority greater opportunities to provide affordable housing in areas where it is needed and where the agency had previously not been able to build. Among Housing Authorities, the Santa Clara County Housing Authority has one of the highest profiles in the country and is considered a leader when it comes to creating innovative, affordable housing. A leader in the field as well as in the community, Mr. Burns has served on the Board of Directors for the National Leased Housing Association as well as the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition. He is a member and former President of the Northern California Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Agencies, and a member and former President of the Executive Directors Association of Northern California and Nevada. John Burns was once quoted in a news article that ``I would rather achieve public visibility through results of our programs . . . not public relations.'' This ``low profile leader'' is one of the most respected Housing Authority Directors in the County, a visionary public servant, and a valued friend.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the achievements of Julie Grisham, Senior Public Health Manager for Health Promotion and Director of Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health for the Public Health Department of Santa Clara County. Ms. Grisham is retiring after 30 years of dedicated service to the people of Santa Clara County. Julie Grisham began serving in the Department of Public Health in 1971 as a staff Public Health Nurse. She was consistently commended for her dedication and the quality of her nursing care and was promoted first to Supervising Public Health Nurse and then AIDS Program Manager before assuming her current roles of Senior Public Health Program Manager for Health Promotion and Director of Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health. Julie Grisham demonstrated leadership and vision in both Santa Clara County and the State of California by assuming the responsibilities of President of the California Conference of Local Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Directors and President of the California Public Health Association, North. She took active roles in promoting legislation through such committee assignments as Children and Families Committee Liaison, the Santa Clara County Health Department Frontline Leadership Committee and the Early Childhood Development Collaborative. Julie Grisham is a role model and a leader both in her community and in the county, and is valued as a coworker and a friend. The Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System has benefited greatly from her vision, expertise, commitment and care for the community and her coworkers. I wish to thank Julie Grisham for her tireless and loyal service to the County and wish her the best in her future endeavors. Furthermore, she has my personal thanks for our years of friendship. Though we will miss her creativity, expertise and commitment, her dedication has left its mark on both the Public Health Department and all of Santa Clara County.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I wish today to recognize the accomplishments of William Benjamin Gould IV, the Charles A. Beardsley Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. Professor Gould was Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board from 1994-1998. While awarding William Gould his fifth honorary doctorate, the Rutgers University President remarked: ``perhaps more than any other living American . . . [he has] contributed to the analysis, the practice, and the transformation of labor law and labor relations.'' William Gould has been a member of the National Academy of Arbitration since 1970, and has arbitrated and mediated more than 200 labor disputes, including the 1989 wage dispute between the Detroit Federation of Teachers and the Board of Education of that city, as well as the 1992 and 1993 salary disputes between the Major League Baseball Players Association and the Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee. William Gould was named in Ebony Magazine's ``100+ Most Influential Black Americans'' List for 1996, 1997 and 1998. He is a member of the Stanford University John S. Knight Journalism Fellows Program Committee, and the Rand Institute Board of Overseers. I commend to my colleagues the following article by Professor Gould, which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2001. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 17, 2001] ``Borking''--Then and Now (By William B. Gould IV) When Bill Clinton was inaugurated as president in January 1993, most Republicans in Congress commenced a sustained drive against the legitimacy of his election, notwithstanding the undisputed nature of his victory. Except for the gays-in-the-military controversy, the most immediate conflicts related to confirmation of his nominees at the Cabinet and subcabinet levels. ``Nannygate'' doomed Zoe Baird, his first choice for attorney general, but soon ideas and political philosophy were to affect the debate about Lani Guinier (whose Justice Department nomination as assistant attorney general in charge of the civil rights division was withdrawn), and Jocelyn Elders (who was confirmed as surgeon general). Both were African American. I was the third of Clinton's black subcabinet early selections (for chairman of the National Labor Relations Board), and, although confirmed, I attracted the largest number of senatorial ``no'' votes of any administration appointee during that time. Bill Lann Lee, a Chinese American lawyer from California, was put forward for assistant attorney general, but his nomination was stymied. He was forced to serve on an acting basis, without Senate confirmation. Opposition to Clinton nominees was said by some to be Republican vengeance for the Senate's 1987 rejection of Robert Bork for the U.S. Supreme Court. The press created a verb, ``Borked.'' The term is now attached to the pending nominations of John Ashcroft for attorney general, Gale Norton for secretary of the interior, and the now-withdrawn candidacy of Linda Chavez for secretary of labor. The Borking of Clinton nominees differs from the Borking of the Bush triumvirate. Formal debate about my nomination, for instance, focused on my proposals to strengthen existing labor law. This contrasts with Chavez, who opposes minimum wage, family leave and affirmative action legislation. The contention was that when I would adjudicate labor-management disputes, I would use my reform proposals aimed at fortifying the law. Bork was attacked primarily because he had opposed most civil rights legislation affecting public accommodations and employment. The Senate rejected him because he was outside the mainstream in the race arena and also opposed the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision. Ashcroft and Norton, like Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., extol the virtues of the Confederacy and lament its defeat, which spelled slavery's extinction. As Missouri's attorney general, Ashcroft fought desegregation orders in that state. He was a vigorous opponent of affirmative action. As senator, he single handedly scuttled the nomination of a black Missouri judge to the federal bench--an act which President Clinton properly denounced as ``disgraceful,'' illustrating the unequal treatment of minority and women nominees. As senator, Ashcroft decried the cherished American principle of separation of church and state, railed against common-sense gun control legislation and, like Bork, denounced Roe vs. Wade. Thus, like Bork, the question is whether he can faithfully enforce and promote laws to which is so deeply opposed. All of this is in sharp contrast to the three of us Clinton nominees whose sin was fidelity to existing law. In 1993, today's supporters of Ashcroft derailed the nomination of those of us who supported the law. Now they support those who would radically transform it. Some deference to a new president's nomination is appropriate. This was not followed in the Clinton era. As a result, the president was obliged to nominate middle-of-the- road and sometimes downright innocuous judicial candidates and to accept Republican selections for his own administrative agencies. No one's interests are served if the Democrats now wreak havoc for Bush in response to the Borking visited upon Clinton. But elected representatives have the right and duty to both scrutinize and reject nominees who are out of the mainstream and who would disturb precedent in the absence of a mandate. A half-million Gore plurality in the voting and the murkiness of the Florida ballot hardly supply a mandate for George W. Bush.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the achievements of Barbara Ann Rieder, Deputy Director of Operations for the Public Health Department of Santa Clara County. Ms. Rieder is retiring after over 35 years of dedicated service to the people of Santa Clara County. Barbara Rieder began serving in the Department of Public Health in 1963 as a staff Public Health Nurse after graduating from the University of California at San Francisco. She was consistently commended for her dedication and the quality of her nursing care, and was promoted to Supervising Public Health Nurse and then Director of Public Health Nursing. Inspiring others with her tireless work for the health of the community, in 1980 Ms. Rieder became the Deputy Director of Operations for the Public Health Department she had joined 34 years earlier. Working through the Public Health Department, Barbara Rieder addressed public health crises such as AIDS and the effects of substance abuse on infants. Her work on behalf of children led to commendations from such diverse groups as the California Nurses Association, San Jose State University and the Women of Achievement Organization. Ms. Rieder's example has led many nurses to take a stronger role in legislative advocacy and public health. In her many articles and presentations, Ms. Rieder brought her compassion for the community to the often arcane matters of health policy. Barbara Rieder expanded her service to the entire state during her tenure as the cofounder and president of the California Association of Public Health Nursing Directors, and as the president of the California Conference of Local Health Department Nursing Directors. Barbara Rieder has been a role model and a leader in her community and in the county. After 35 years of service, her passionate concern for the health of the community is undiminished; her leadership and visionary approach have left their mark on both the Public Health Department and all of Santa Clara County. I wish to thank Barbara Rieder for her compassionate and dedicated service to the County and wish her the best in her future endeavors. Furthermore, she has my personal thanks for our years of friendship. He integrity, vision and strength will be sorely missed, but our lives are the richer for having had the chance to know her.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I offer my sincere congratulations to Robert W. Gross, Ph.D., E.W.E., on his retirement from the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. For sixteen years, Bob Gross has provided distinguished service to the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the residents of Santa Clara County. His hard-work and commitment to the job helped to produce numerous successes for the District and the County. I am honored to have been able to work with him over the years. He will, indeed, be missed. Bob began his public service as an advisor to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Division. Working in the flood control division for ten years, Bob tackled a myriad of flood control issues that face the Bay-Delta region, garnering a reputation for thoroughness and energetic diligence. In addition to his service in the Corps of Engineers, Bob also served a community advisor to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, helping to establish the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge which consists of more than 25,000 acres of protected waters and wildlife habitat. Bob also served as an advisor to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on the important Central Valley Project. Building on these experiences Bob brought his knowledge and skills to Santa Clara, where he ran for, and won, five elections to the Santa Clara Valley Water District's Board of Directors. Representing District 3--a district that encompasses one fifth of the entire population of Santa Clara County and Silicon Valley--Bob worked hard to meet the water supply and flood protection needs of the County's residents. As a member of the Board of Directors, Bob was responsible for helping shape the direction that the District has taken with respect to water policy over the past sixteen years. He was directly involved in many notable and important actions and issues, including the following: MTBE contamination, groundwater recharge. wastewater recycling, and CALFED. Bob served as the District's representative to the South Bay Recycling Project where he worked closely with the City of San Jose and the Bureau of Reclamation, and he also served as the District's representative to the City of San Jose on nonpoint wetland mitigation issues. During his tenure, Bob provided valuable service by reviewing and analyzing state water laws and regulations. As the District representative to the WaterReuse Association of California, Bob served as the Board's liaison and represented the interests of the District. Bob also represented the WaterReuse Association in a number of capacities, including most notably as the State Chairperson for the Potable Committee and a member of the Education Subcommittee. As a member of the Potable Subcommittee, he participated in the preparation of a news media presentation on the safe use of potable water and helped write a public information recycling brochure as a member of the Education Subcommittee. In addition, through his work with the Education Subcommittee, Bob worked closely with the California Department of Fish and Game to create an aquatic and environmental education program for disadvantaged youth. He also represented the WaterReuse Association at numerous conferences and seminars and served as a co-chair for a technical symposium on planned surface water augmentation using advanced treated recycled water and health standards. In 1995, in light of this work and for his outstanding service to the WaterReuse Association, he was awarded a certificate of recognition for personal contributions. In addition to his work with the WaterReuse Association, Bob was also active with many other associations and organizations, including the following: the Association of California Water Agencies, California Groundwater Association, National Groundwater Protection Council, National Water Resources Association, American Water Works Association, the California Water Education Foundation, ALERT--the California Flood Control Association, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, American Desalting Association, Water Environment Federation, California Water Pollution Control Association, and the California WaterReuse Association. Bob's personal contributions to these organizations was also noteworthy. In recognition of his hard-work, Bob was nominated in 1996 for the Athalie Richardson Irvine Clark Prize sponsored by the National Water Research Institute. To be nominated by his peers for this award is a true honor to the contributions and dedication of Bob Gross. Although, Bob achieved significant successes through his work and involvement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the WaterReuse Association, the Corps of Engineers, and numerous other organizations, he also compiled an impressive record of personal and academic studies, projects, and papers on water issues. After earning a Bachelor of Science degree from San Jose State University, a Master of Sciences degree in aquaculture from Nova College International Campus, and a Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental and Water Engineering from Nova College Europe, Bob served as an advisor for fifteen years to the Board of Fellows at the University of Santa Clara, and was an adjunct faculty member at Fareslston and Nova College. Bob has conducted studies on the impact of human pollution on water supplies and wildlife habitat, and he issued a summary paper on the ecological engineering multipurpose facility. On water purification issues, Bob wrote summary papers on recycling wastewater for potable use in San Jose, the reorganization of Santa Clara Valley Water District, and finally on a merger of all water producing agencies. And, in addition to all of his many years of hard work, service and commitment to water issues, Bob has also been honored in other areas as well. Perhaps most notably, Bob was the recipient of the Commendation Ribbon with Pendant from the Secretary of the Army for Meritorious Service in Korea. Bob has also long been a supporter of the Boy Scouts of America, serving as a member of the Board of Directors and District Chairperson. In recognition of his tremendous accomplishments and service to the Boy Scouts of America, Bob was awarded the Silver Beaver Award, one of Scouting's highest honors. Bob Gross has posted an exceptional record of achievement and success. He has served his country and his community tirelessly for many years. It is, Mr. Speaker, truly a privilege to recognize Robert Gross for the outstanding contributions that he has made to the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the people of Santa Clara County. I am grateful for his service and wish him all the best in his well-deserved retirement.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of Kim Chi Trieu, Program Manager for the Social Services Agency of Santa Clara County. Ms. Trieu is retiring after 16 years of dedicated service to the people of Santa Clara County. Kim Chi Trieu arrived in the United States in 1983 as a Vietnamese refugee with two of her young children and $5 in her pocket. Within two weeks, she had found work at Catholic Charities as a job developer. In 1984, Ms. Trieu began her work with the Social Services Agency as a worker with the Targeted Assistance Unit. She helped to establish and put into operation the Central Intake Unit, which was the gateway for newly arrived refugees. Kim Chi Trieu was promoted to Supervisor of the Refugee Unit in 1985. Her tireless work on behalf of the refugee community earned her the admiration and gratitude of Santa Clara County's many refugee populations: Vietnamese, Hmong, Mien, Cambodian and later, Ethiopian, Somali, Polish, Russian, Bosnian, Serbian, Iranian, and Afghan. In a short time, Ms. Trieu was asked to assume responsibility for the Santa Clara County Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Planning Unit. With her belief in community partnership, Kim Chi Trieu invited participation from impacted communities in the ever-changing Refugee Services Delivery System. Universally respected as a tactful mediator, she was skilled at working cooperatively with other social service programs and government agencies to ensure all her clients received the benefits to which they were entitled. In 1996, Kim Chi Trieu expanded her role to assist in the development of the county's Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program, which has been cited by the Urban Institute as one of the top 10 performing programs in the Nation. Kim Chi Trieu has been a role model and a leader in her community and in county government. She has been the anchor to freedom for her family, working two jobs to help resettle two dozen family members including her parents. She has not only lived the American dream herself--she has provided countless refugee families with the opportunity to achieve that dream. I wish to thank Kim Chi Trieu for her compassionate and dedicated service to the County and wish her the best in her future endeavors. Her integrity, compassion, and strength will be sorely missed, but our lives are the richer for having known her.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I just want to speak briefly on the issue of the recount. It is true that I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and formerly taught at a law school and practiced law and the like, but I would like to speak this evening more as just a neighbor and a person who has just come to the Nation's capital from California fresh with the insights from the people who are in my neighborhood who say this: we are not in a crisis. We all wish this were over. We want it to be done. But we also know that we can be patient and get an accurate count. I think it is time for all of us in America to ask everyone in the leadership of both parties to put patriotism ahead of partisanship. Now, it is true all of us had a favorite candidate. I hoped that Al Gore would be elected President, and some of my neighbors hoped that George Bush would be elected President. The truth is we do not know which of them will be elected. But we need to put our desire for our candidate to win to one side in favor of democratic processes. We need to make sure that the vote is counted accurately and that whatever happens reflects the will of the American people. Now, I heard some rhetoric this evening that I found disturbing, in all honesty. It seemed to indicate or to infer that somehow because there was a hand count that there was something unsavory; that there would be something wrong or backhanded about this. But we know that these recounts are going on in a fish bowl. We have hundreds of people watching every single ballot; designated people from both parties. We have CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and the Fox News channel. It is a veritable convention looking at each ballot. It is very clear that there is nothing sneaky that is going to go on in these recounts. In fact, we will have the most accurate count possible. Before I was in Congress, I was in local government for 14 years. I was on the board of supervisors, and we were in charge of elections. Elections are never perfect. Poll workers show up late, ballots get shredded, problems can occur. We know that that is true. But when elections are this close, recounts always occur. And we always, when I was in local government, we always respected that those recounts needed to occur so that the people's will could, in the end, rule the day. When the recount will decide who will be the leader of the free world, of course we need, as the American people, to exhibit patience, and we have time for that patience to play out. We have a President. He will be President until January 20. So we certainly have time to make sure that all the votes get counted. America has confidence that the current President of the United States, whether we support him or do not support him, was elected in a way that reflected the Constitution and the rules; and we need to make sure that the next President, whoever he is, has that same confidence on the part of the American people. That is why it is important for the partisans in this discussion to just back off, just back off and let the vote and the counting of the vote take place. If it is necessary, hand recount all of the votes in Florida. That would be fine. Let us make sure that the people's will is reflected in the electoral college; and then all of us can live with the result, whatever it is. However disappointed we might be, whether it is our candidate or the other side, the American tradition is to allow the transition of power to proceed smoothly and to celebrate the fact that we are a violence- free democracy that understands that our institutions are more important than any election. So, please, let us, all of us, back off and put our patriotism ahead of our partisanship. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding for these few comments.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we vote against this misguided effort to include provisions of so-called reform of the Bankruptcy Act that would impose an indiscriminate means test that will be injurious to women, to the payment of childcare; and not only is this process disappointing, the substance of the bill before us falls far short of what this body should do for the hard-working and poor people of this country, more than half of whom file for bankruptcy because of health care costs.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there is much that is good in this bill before us today. I am particularly gratified that the efforts to fight trafficking in the sex trade have been included in this matter, so that we can actually get success in the fight against that this year. I think the provision of visas for those who are fleeing from their oppressors, whether it be sweatshop or sexual abuse, is extremely important. Obviously, the Violence against Women Act is enormously important. And although reasonable people can differ, and I think there is a technical issue in the Aimee's Law provision that absolutely must be corrected, that I think the ranking member of the committee will raise and hopefully will be able to deal with, I also support the Aimee's Law concept. That is why I am so upset that with all of these good things that we would have bipartisan support on, and I think nearly overwhelming support, that, for some reason, the provision, the very controversial provision, about Internet and wine sales has been included in this matter. It does not belong in this package of bills. It is not about protecting children from abuse, and it just really is very distressing. I have two teenagers, and they are good kids and their friends are good kids, and the argument that has been advanced is that we have to prohibit the Internet sale of wine to protect children. Well, as a mother of two, that is preposterous. If a kid wanted to go out and buy alcohol, they are not going to get on the Internet, pay 20 bucks a bottle for wine in my district, or up in the Napa Valley, wait a couple of weeks for it to be delivered, and that is how they are doing underage drinking. That is not the way the real world works. So, I urge a no vote on the rule in protest for this Internet wine sales tax. It is just so distressing that it has been included.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the reminder of the Committee on Judiciary members, the origin of the glitch. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, though, that I think that the issue of H-1Bs is more complicated than training programs; 98 percent of the H-1B visa holders have at least a bachelor's degree, half of them have a master's degree or Ph.D., so I am very much for the job training programs that are included in this. It is important, but it is a different employee group than the H-1B visa holders. And for that, I am hopeful that we will be able to do additional funding and additional emphasis on math and science education, so that poor children who are in great numbers are not getting to colleges they should be and not getting into the Ph.D. programs as they should be will have that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I would further note that this is about not just shortage but excellence, and we will always want the ability to recruit worldwide. A country that would not want somebody like Linus Torvalds to be in America and want to be one of us is a country that is inexplicable. So we will always want to be able to do that, but that does not obviate the need for putting massive effort and attention and additional resources especially into poor schools for poor children. We were losing bright minds. It is an outrage for those families and those kids, but further it is something that this country can no longer afford to do. So I am eager to support this. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, for yielding to me. I am hopeful that next year we can do much, much more.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, as well as the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), the Committee on Rules. I very much believe that this is the right thing to do today. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) referenced, this was the fee that was included in the bill here in the House. Because of the glitch, and I cannot argue with the parliamentarian in the other body, it could not be included, because revenue increases can only be instigated in the House and thus this is an essential thing to do. I do agree.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill before us. While I certainly respect our ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), I do not always share their viewpoint on mandatory minimums, but I do respect their thinking. I do believe that even if one concurs in their overall approach on the issue of mandatory minimums, this is an exception to that general rule. Smuggling of aliens is a very serious and I would add very dangerous thing to do. It is something that criminals are making vast fortunes doing, and we know that the body count in the desert between the United States and Mexico is rising as the coyotes are taking more money but also abandoning people in the desert. A fine for a coyote is just part of the cost of doing business. It is like a license. I think the only way to add to the cost of doing business in a way that will be meaningful to people who would abuse helpless people in this way is to have an actual strong sentence that puts that abusive person out of business and behind bars for a deterrent period of time. I would also like to note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) in committee did agree to several amendments that make this bill targeted towards what it is aimed at. For example, family members were excluded from the bill. Good samaritans who might become involved in saving people who were abandoned were excluded. Finally, we excluded people who were not involved in anything such as this, for example, people in the sanctuary movement who were not profiting or in the business of being a coyote, because the idea is to make a real constraint on those who are smuggling in aliens and who are endangering so many men, women, and even small children as they do it. So I respect very much my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, and his comments, but I do think this bill is worth voting for. I enthusiastically support it and plan to vote for it. I thank the gentleman for his great courtesy in recognizing me.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill that should become law. I am a little bit surprised that we are standing here tonight. We did not realize that the bill would be brought up this evening and actually when I learned that it would be, I was standing in line buying a new computer to replace my computer which had its memory burned out in a power surge recently. I was glad I was able to get into the car pool lanes and get here in time to talk about why this bill deserves our support. It was about a year ago that I began drafting some of the measures that ultimately found their way into the bill passed by the Senate last night. But I was not the only one on our side of the aisle who worked on this bill. A core group, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) really put in the extra effort as a drafting committee and certainly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, has been a leader in moving this forward along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and finally our hero in this on our side of the aisle, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, who has been stalwart in his efforts to make sure that we would get a bill such as this passed. Mr. Speaker, I have to give the Senate credit. This bill is better than any of the other bills that have been put together, including the one we drafted, because it takes the best of so many measures and includes them all. It does things that are important in reforming the permanent side of the immigration system which is almost broken because of bureaucratic delay. It allows for portability of H-1B status as well as portability of I-140s and labor certifications. It does something about the per-country limits that would, absent a remedy, mean that scientists from certain Asian countries would be disadvantaged versus scientists from European countries. This fixes that problem. There is lots of good news in this bill, and we should all support it. There are, however, two things that are not in the bill that I think we need to fix. The first has been mentioned by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and that has to do with the Central American refugee issue as well as the legalization era from the Reagan administration. We hoped that those two measures would become law this year as part of the Commerce-State-Justice bill. The President has threatened to veto the bill if these Latino fairness issues are not included, and 152 Democrats last week wrote a letter to the President saying he would sustain his veto if Latino fairness issues are not included in the Commerce-State-Justice bill. So we are sure that that is going to happen. The second issue is the fee issue that has already been mentioned. The Senate parliamentarian correctly ruled that the fee in the Senate bill was a revenue increase and therefore could not be initiated on the Senate side. I do not believe we should stop this process of moving the bill forward. We should pass this bill just as it is so we do not have to conference it. But that means we are going to have to include a fee in another measure, probably an appropriations bill that is moving forward. I am sure that we will get the support of our colleagues across the aisle to make sure that happens because there was broad bipartisan support for a fee that would fund education and training programs. I think that we have cleared the deck for approval of this bill. It is the best bill that has been considered yet. I would urge all of us to vote for it and to vote for it with some great degree of enthusiasm. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, much of our economic prosperity is very much related to the Ph.D's who have come in from all around the world to come and be Americans with us. We are the better for that.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the achievements of Charles R. Trimble, the founder of Trimble Navigation Limited and Chairman of the United States Global Positioning System Industry Council. Mr. Trimble is this year's recipient of the American Electronics Association's Medal of Achievement. Recipients of this award are recognized for their significant contributions to the high- tech industry and for distinguished service to the community, the industry and humankind. Charles Trimble has shown vision and dedication in managing one of America's premier technology companies; his leadership by example has helped mold the success of the U.S. technology industry. Under Mr. Trimble's careful direction, Trimble Navigation Limited grew from a startup housed in a reconstructed theater to the first publicly held company engaged solely in providing GPS solutions. Trimble now has 23 offices in 15 countries; its products are distributed in 150 countries worldwide. Charles Trimble holds four patents in signal processing and several in GPS. He was a member of the Vice President's Space Policy Advisory Board's task group on the future of U.S. Space Industrial Base for the National Space Council. In 1991, he received INC Magazine's ``Entrepreneur of the Year'' award. Throughout his career, he has published articles in the field of signal processing, electronics, and GPS; he has contributed to a number of technology initiatives in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Silicon Valley, and Washington, D.C. His interests and influence reach far beyond the scope of the high- tech industry. Charles Trimble was a Member of the Board of Governors for the National Center for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. In 1999 he was elected to the National Academy of Engineering. I wish to thank Charles Trimble for his dedicated leadership in the high-tech industry and commend him on his admirable accomplishments. I offer my warmest congratulations on being awarded the American Electronics Association's 2000 Medal of Achievement. Furthermore, he has my personal thanks for his many courtesies to me--from sharing his in-depth knowledge of science and technology to stepping forward to advocate intelligent science and technology policies. Charles Trimble is not only a great scientist and industrialist; he is a great human being. My life is richer for having had the chance to know him.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of this body to vote for this measure. For years, before I was elected to Congress, I served on the County Board of Supervisors in Santa Clara County. It was in that capacity that I really started to understand domestic violence. In the year before I became a Member of Congress, we did a survey of our county hospital and found that over one-third of the emergency room visits to the county hospital were related to domestic violence. We know that nationwide a third of the women who are murdered every year are murdered in the course of domestic violence by an intimate partner, and that 20 percent of all violent crimes against women are related to domestic violence. This authorization will provide $92.5 million to the State of California to help women who are victims of domestic violence. I know firsthand, from the shelter in my neighborhood in San Jose, that women need to be able to escape with their children to safety as a first step to removing themselves from this violence. This act is essential in providing those resources.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of extending the religious worker visa program. I applaud my colleagues for recognizing the importance of this provision to religious communities across America. My only reservation to the passage of this bill is the temporary nature of the extension. I believe that Congress should extend the religious worker program permanently. I believe that the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, the Christian Science Church, the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints and other churches, synagogues, temples and mosques across America have much worthier work to accomplish than lobbying politicians every 3 years to allow a few thousand nuns, monks, sisters, brothers, cantors and other religious workers to enter this country. Religious workers are among the most valuable members of our American society. They come to America at the call of their church and expect only the opportunity to serve. The services they provide to the communities they become a part of are immeasurable. For example, religious workers are involved in caring and ministering to the sick and elderly. Think about the hospitals and local hospice care facilities across the country and the comfort those who offer spiritual solace provide. These facilities and their patients are all the better for our religious workers. Religious workers work with adolescents and young adults offering them spiritual guidance and counsel at a critical time in their lives. Religious workers are involved in helping refugees adjust to a new way of life. Think of how frightening it must be to come to a new land and how welcoming it must be to know that you still have a church, where someone can lead a prayer in the language of your parents. Most importantly, religious workers help our poor. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, in 1997, I read a letter from Mother Teresa urging Congress to extend this program. She said ``my sisters serve the poor in Detroit where we have a soup kitchen and a night shelter for women. Let us all thank God for this chance to serve his poor.'' That letter moved me and many of my colleagues to create legislation that would extend this provision permanently. While I applaud Congress for bringing this H.R. 4068 to the floor, I wish with all my heart that I could make this extension a permanent one. I thank all of my colleagues who have worked with me on this issue, and I especially want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) for his willingness to reach across the aisle to work with me on this important issue and for his successful struggle to bring a good resolution, although not a perfect one, to the floor today. I thank the gentleman and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the gentleman his judgment. It is my understanding from law enforcement that the ability to actually prosecute these traffickers and to put an end and decrease the number of people who are brought in and abused is really very much dependent on the ability of these women to escape and to understand that they will be given refuge; and if you cannot escape and be given refuge, then you really cannot cooperate with the police, and we will never be successful in eliminating and prosecuting and ending this trafficking in human beings as sex slaves. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from North Carolina if that is his understanding as well.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to the 5,000 per year cap on trafficking of victim visas imposed by the majority. The majority has not been able to cite a single bit of evidence in the hearing or in the markup to support a cap of 5,000. We understand from the prior speaker that there is opinion that this may be sufficient, and if that is the case there is certainly no harm in not having an arbitrary cap. If it is less than 5,000, then there will be no issue but if, if, one year there is more than 5,000 we would find this cap to be morally wrong. It is an unfortunate fact of life that we can never predict how many people will be the victim of trafficking and how serious their plight will be; how many of them will seek refuge in our wonderful country, a bastion of freedom. Congress has granted similar discretion to increase refugee caps and there are no caps for asylum candidates. So it is my view that we have room in this vast, wonderful, prosperous country for victims of sex trafficking and slavery, and I do not want to be an American who says to the 5,001 victim, they are out of luck. In fact, the evidence is that the cap of 5,000, in fact, may be too low. There was recently an exhaustive report by the Central Intelligence Agency titled, the International Trafficking in Women to the United States, a Contemporary Manifestation of Slavery. That is the name of the report. It outlines women who are brought to the United States to work as prostitutes who are abused as laborers or servants, and even if this report overestimates the number of trafficking victims by a large factor, the limit of 5,000 would still be too low and it would deny thousands of victims of trafficking any right to remain in this country. So I think we ought to put this into context. We have already in this country women who have been brought here and really held in virtual slavery, sometimes as victims of sexual oppression. When those women break free, we want to make sure that they have found refuge in this country of freedom. We do not want to then turn them away back to their abusers. So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to lift up their hearts, remember that America stands for freedom, to understand that we have room for the 5,001 victim of slavery who is held here and seeks freedom and to support the motion to instruct conferees.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I proudly pay tribute to California on its 150th birthday. I would like to congratulate the great state of California and to recognize the Sixteenth District for its contributions to California's rich history. Mr. Speaker, the history of California begins long before the introduction of Europeans to our land. For centuries the Ohlone, locally the Muwekma, lived in peace and in tranquility along the banks of the Guadalupe River in what has since become the city of San Jose. But centuries of peaceful existence for the Muwekma came to an end when, on November 29, 1797, Spanish Lieutenant Jose Juaquin Moraga established the Pueblo de San Jose de Guadalupe. Created for the purpose of supplying the presidios of San Francisco and Monterey with food, the Pueblo became the first civil settlement in California. The Pueblo was originally located one mile north of what is now downtown San Jose, but due to flooding by the Guadalupe River, the Pueblo was forced to move south. With its fertile soil, the new location quickly became a center for agriculture. The rich harvests of the fields attracted settlers, causing the population of the area to rise quickly and steadily. The rapid growth and development of this area marked an important time in California's history. By 1798 the Pueblo was so widely populated that its inhabitants constructed a one story, adobe Town Hall to meet the citizens' needs. The Hall housed the jail, courtroom, council chamber, and the offices of various governing officials. One such official--Luis Peralta, an Apache Indian from Tubac, Mexico, was particularly influential in California's development and growth. At the age of sixteen Peralta came to California with two hundred and forty other colonists on the Juan Bautista de Anza Expedition from Mexico. In 1807 the Spanish government appointed him to the position of Comisionado del Pueblo de San Jose, and during his tenure he helped to shape the growth of the Pueblo and the surrounding area. His endeavors in furnishing troop supplies, supervising public works, and keeping the peace earned him good favor in the eyes of the Spanish government. In 1820 Spain granted Peralta 44,000 acres of land, the largest land grant of the time. The grant included the present day cities of Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Alameda, Piedmont, and parts of San Leandro. Peralta split the land between his four sons: Vincente, Doming, Antonio and Ignacio; they went on to develop and populate the land. Thanks to the development of the Pueblo and the areas surrounding, this area has continued to grow and flourish through present times. It continues to contribute to California's economy as a center for high tech and manufacturing companies as the ``Capitol of Silicon Valley,'' and ranks second as a national leader in exports. Mr. Speaker, again I would like to congratulate the people of California's Sixteenth District for their influence on the history and prosperity of the state.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would note for the Record that yesterday I was unavoidably detained because I am a United Airlines customer. There were flights that were considerably delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all of the rollcall votes yesterday evening.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 99. I represent San Jose California, a community greatly enhanced by the presence of immigrants. Many years ago, as a Supervisor on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors I worked with refugees escaping a brutal and oppressive political regime. As an immigration lawyer, I did my best to help these courageous individuals adjust to their new life. During that time, I met families torn apart by a government that would not let them leave unless they escaped. All of these families sacrificed--so that some of them could see freedom. Over the past two decades these brave people have become my friends and my neighbors. I have learned lessons about freedom and liberty from them. These same people tell me that we must not waive the Jackson- Vanik amendment. I am a strong supporter of fair trade. I believe that an economic search for open markets often results in a more open society. I believe that an economic dialogue often results in an enhanced political one. I also believe that a trusted economic partner can evolve into a trusted political ally. However, not every nation travels the same path to a more open society. In the case of Vietnam, I believe we can achieve more by making Vietnam live up to the free emigration requirements of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. Why? Because Vietnam is so eager for a trade relationship with America that they would improve their human rights policies in order to get it--but only if we insist. One cornerstone of our trade policy with nonmarket economies has been the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. This amendment requires that a country make progress in allowing free emigration in order to achieve normal trade status. More than two decades after the end of the Vietnam War, my congressional staff in San Jose continues to receive letters from Vietnamese American families seeking reunification with a brother or sister, a mother or a father, a son or a daughter. Think of what this resolution says to them. More than two decades after the end of the Vietnam War, they are still waiting for a loved one. And in the face of their wait, we are exploring the extension of normal trade relations to a nation that still holds those captive who would leave if only they could. I understand my colleagues when they say Vietnam has changed. It has changed, but not enough. In a 1999 review of Vietnam's human rights record, the State Department reached the conclusion that Vietnam's overall human rights record remained poor. The report pointed out that ``the government continued to repress basic political and some religious freedoms and to commit numerous abuses.'' The report pointed out that the government was ``not tolerating most types of public dissent.'' Additionally, reports from human rights organizations indicate that he Vietnamese government has tried to clamp down on political and religious dissidents through isolation and intimidation. Dissidents are confined through house arrest and subject to constant surveillance. During her trip to Vietnam Secretary Albright said that the bilateral relationship between Vietnam and the United States ``can never be totally normal until we feel that the human rights situation has been dealt with.'' I agree. The essence of this debate is freedom--how we can best achieve greater freedom for the Vietnamese people and how we as a nation can more greatly influence the government to create a more open society. I believe that course is to pass this resolution. After all, leverage is no longer leverage once it is given away. I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 99.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 322, which honors the wonderful contributions of our nation's Vietnamese-Americans in raising awareness of human rights abuses in Vietnam. I thank my colleagues Mr. Davis and Ms. Sanchez for their hard work on this issue. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important resolution, and urge my colleagues' overwhelming support today. I represent San Jose, California, a community greatly enriched by the presence of immigrants. Quite a few of my constituents came to San Jose as refugees, escaping the brutal and oppressive political regime in Hanoi. I worked with those refugees as a Santa Clara County Supervisor, and many of those people have become my friends throughout the years. I believe that they have a unique perspective on the state of our country's relationship with Vietnam that is of immense value. A quarter century after the fall of Saigon, the Communist government continues to oppress its citizens and violate their basic human rights. Stories of political repression, religious persecutions and extra- judicial detentions are all too common. Many Vietnamese-Americans have worked tirelessly to bring these violations to light, here in the United States and to the international community. As a result of their extraordinary dedication, awareness of the abuses of the Vietnamese government is growing exponentially. I applaud their continued effort to bring democratic ideals and practices to Vietnam. This resolution is a small token of our gratitude for the hard work of the 1 million Vietnamese-Americans living in our country. I am proud to support it.