Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, then I do object.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is a good example of why it is too bad that we have short-circuited the committee process. I actually have a very strong interest in seeing whether we may extend the obscenity statutes to violence. After all, what is more dangerous, sex or violence? As the mother of two teenagers, concerned about violence, I have a legitimate interest in an amendment that would deal with violence. But I look at this amendment and I see it will instantly be declared unconstitutional. Taking a look at the legislative drafting on the first page, as someone who works with the Internet a lot, I can see that this proposal closely patterns the Communications Decency Act, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. I must say that I am concerned, if this were to pass as written, we would be in the awkward situation of telling my teens that whoever sold them ``Shakespeare In Love'' on a video would be subject to criminal sanctions, and whoever sold them ``Attack D.C. 9'' would not. I think that is preposterous. Chairman Hyde has asserted that his amendment would not bar the selling of a film like ``Shakespeare in Love'' to minors because the film has ``redeeming social value'', the standard utilized in the analysis of sexually explicit material. It would appear, however, that Chairman Hyde is not familiar with his own amendment. Nowhere within his amendment may those words be found. Instead, the standard found in section 1471 includes material that, with respect to minors, is designed to appeal or pander to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest, as well as material that is patently offensive and not suitable for minors and material which ``lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors''. I think it is clear that the winner of this year's academy awards, a movie rated ``R'' for a reason, would run afoul of the Hyde amendment. I repeat my distress that we would put behind bars those who sell a video of ``Shakespeare in Love'' to a teenager, but continue to allow persons to sell a Tec-DC9 assault weapon to that same teenager. As a mother of two teens, I have a genuine interest in seeing whether we could extend the obscenity laws to violence. But the Hyde amendment is not a serious effort to do that. Instead, it is a patently political attempt to try to discredit those who would stand up for the First Amendment as political cover for those who, tomorrow, will misuse the Second Amendment in an effort to protect the culture of gun violence and those who profit from gun violence in America.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, here it is, it is one of the poison pills for this bill, H.R. 1501. I think we all knew on the Committee on the Judiciary that the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) could not become law and should not become law. That is why H.R. 1501 was devised with the broad bipartisan support that it had, at least, until the slaughter in Columbine High School. That incident changed our common understanding of what we should do here in America about juvenile crime. This amendment would make it easier to prosecute a 13-year-old as an adult. And, actually, to be clear, it would make it easier for the less than 300 children prosecuted in the Federal system to be prosecuted as adults. So let us be more specific. It would make it easier to prosecute a 13-year-old Native American child as an adult. What has that got to do with the murders at Columbine High School? I am sorry, who are we fooling with this? There are assorted other portions of the amendment, things about the Internet and guns, which I think are serious issues, but the boys at Colorado bought their guns through gun shows, not on the Internet. There are things about enhancing the penalties if a firearm was discharged in a school. Well, those two boys who killed those kids in school in Colorado, they committed suicide. So I do not think that the 5-year enhanced penalty would do one darn thing to deter those two boys from the slaughter that they wrought on their classmates and the families. What we need to do is to focus on the ability of a child to commit such damage if a child is so disturbed that he or she wants to kill others. And that focus is what we are avoiding through this really very disturbing setup, considering amendments calculated to sink this bill, tomorrow's bill, and so the American people will not get what they are asking for: Sensible, modest, moderate gun safety measures that will prevent future tragedies such as those all the parents in America observed saw and cared about at Columbine High School and cared deeply to cure.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee, I certainly do not object to the proposed amendment because I think, in fact, although the amendment makes clear this is an eligible activity, I think that is already clear from the underlying bill. We want to do this, the amenders want to do this. Therefore there is no harm in saying it still again, that we want this to be an eligible activity. However, I do think it is important to put in context what it is we are doing here today in the House of Representatives. We have struggled on the Committee on the Judiciary with a juvenile justice bill that was way too extreme, and due to the efforts of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member, we came up with a bipartisan bill, H.R. 1501, that all of us agree would help in the juvenile justice arena. We had hoped in the committee that we would take that bipartisan bill that we knew would pass, we knew the President would sign, and added the simple gun safety measures that the other body approved prior to the recess. Instead, what we have here in this process today is that bipartisan bill and some innocuous amendments, such as the current one, that I believe are being used as cover for the killer amendments that will be offered later in the day that will sink the entire measure. I think that is a darned shame. This is being done as prelude to what I fear will be a very unproductive effort tomorrow, unproductive from the point of view of those who want gun safety measures, modest ones, commonsense ones such as the Senate has passed, but productive for those who wish to kill commonsense gun safety measures. This amendment is fine, but let us not be fooled by what we are doing here today. This entire effort is devised by those who oppose any efforts to adopt what the American people want, which is modest, moderate, commonsense gun safety measures. I think that is a terrible shame, and really, in so doing we will disappoint the legitimate hopes of the American people for these modest steps.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I represent San Jose, California, that calls itself the capital of Silicon Valley, and, as my colleagues can imagine, addressing the issues posed by Y2K liability is something of interest to me. At home among high tech CEO's there is a division of opinion on whether Y2K will be a huge deal or a little tiny deal. Some people, some CEO's and high tech-ers think that it will be a large problem. Others think it has been much overrated. For myself, I think the possibility of extensive litigation is sufficient for this body to take an act. In a way I think about it as I think about the Titanic. The chances of the Titanic running into the iceberg were very small, but when it happened it was catastrophic, and so I do think it is appropriate for us to put in place some life rafts and some rowboats so that the economy of the United States is not impaired by litigation that is frivolous or unnecessary. On the other hand, I am anxious that we move expeditiously and that we come to common ground on this matter. How do we legislate here in Congress? Too often, people see us arguing and disagreeing, but in truth we know that we come to a conclusion by reaching out to each other and finding out what we can agree on; Democrats and Republicans, what can we agree on; House and Senate, what can we agree on; and Congress and the White House, what can we agree on; because it takes all of those parties to make a law. And because the Y2K issue is coming at us, it is important that we go through this extended process of finding common ground more quickly than is ordinarily the case. If I can just briefly relate a conversation I had with Scott Cook, the founder of Intuit, in San Jose just on Friday. As my colleagues know, he thanked me for my efforts on behalf of Y2K and also pointed out we cannot wait until the year 2003 to get a bill; we need it this spring. That is why we have offered up this substitute. I believe that it offers those things that we can agree upon, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, White House and Congress, and that it offers up elements that will provide the essential life raft for high tech in our economy. Specifically Title I allows for a cooling-off period and incentives to settle for alternative dispute mechanisms just as does the underlying bill. It also requires for a specific and particular pleading, which is an important issue, and requires the duty to mitigate damages. It also includes, requires, that material defects must be the basis for lawsuits, not immaterial material defects, but material defects, and finally does provide for an alteration of joint and several liability so that those defendants who have minimal liability cannot be held totally responsible for the cost unless their conduct constituted fraud. I must say that although this bill, this amendment, may not be perfect, it will get the job done, and it is something that we can agree on. The Justice Department in defining the underlying Davis bill said this: by far the most sweeping litigation reform measure ever considered. The bill makes, and I quote again, extraordinarily dramatic changes in both Federal procedure, in substantive law and in State procedural and substantive laws. The class-action removal is just one situation that we have already discussed in the last amendment. We cannot come to an agreement on that, and as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) said in closing under the hour of general debate, much of what is in the underlying Davis bill was in the Contract with America. Reasonable people can and do disagree on many of those provisions, and that argument can be had another day. What I am saying is we cannot and we should not tie up this essential Y2K matter over those things that we cannot agree on, so I highly recommend this.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, although we do not have time to go into a full debate on everything, I do think it is important to clarify a couple of points that have been discussed. First, there is a provision in the substitute on page 14, on line 13, relative to material defects that must be applied with particularity; and I think that is very specific and does put requirements on the pleaders. There was a comment made that the intent or the drift was that a court might just remove the provisions relative to joint and several for a reason that was frivolous. It is only fraud that would allow a court to do that if there was minimal negligence. The definition of fraud found on page 21 is standard definition of fraud. I mean, it is not something new. If it is less than perfect, I do not know if it is, but certainly we can work on it. But I thought it was important to clarify those.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) which strikes the class action section of the bill. Class action procedures offer valuable mechanisms for the little guy to get into court where a defendant may have gained a substantial benefit through injuries to a large number of persons. I think H.R. 775 creates an undue burden on this important pro-consumer procedure. We have had a discussion of some of the issues, but I think it is worth pointing out that some of the procedural issues are enormously burdensome in terms of notification. For example, one of the persons who argued against this in committee said if a party has to, in writing, deliver the notice of an offer to every member of the class every time an offer is made, that party could end up with a situation where opposing counsel may offer $10, and then that offer has to be mailed to everyone; and then the next hour an offer of $11 is made, and that offer has to be mailed to everyone in the class. It is really quite unworkable, and I do not see that it is really on point to the grit of the Y2K issue. The elimination of the complete diversity requirement for Y2K is also a problem. The Judicial Conference has told us that in their judgment this will swamp the Federal courts and prove to be impossible. That is a concern we ought to listen to, because access to courts is important to everyone, but it is also enormously important for businesses to have access to courts. If our high-tech industries cannot get into court to litigate infringement cases because the courts are crippled by taking over all class action lawsuits in America on Y2K, that will be a problem for all of us. Finally, and I do not want to be too nit-picky about it, but I do think it is worth pointing out that there are some provisions in the section that I think none of us know what they mean; for example, on page 29, line 20, ``the substantial majority of the members of the proposed plaintiff class.'' What does that mean? And ``governed primarily by the laws of that state.'' The laws of conflict of laws are very particular, and I think that should this pass this will prove to be a complete mystery to courts who try to interpret it.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that makes the point that Congress doesn't need to pit the needs of disabled children against the needs of non-disabled children in meeting our commitments with IDEA--the individuals with Disabilities Education Act. There are other alternatives available. As is often the case, Mr. Speaker, this Republican-controlled House lacks imagination when confronting important issues. It is ironic that on National Teacher's Day we are pitting disabled children against their non-disabled classmates. Instead of depriving our schools of important funds from other federal education programs, as the Republicans suggest, I propose that we use an existing federal program to meet the obligations of IDEA. I think the Medicaid program is ideal for this approach. The concept of my legislation is simple: after any school district has spent $3,500 on a student who is eligible for IDEA funds, the school district can receive full federal funding from the Medicaid program for additional required services mandated under IDEA. The idea behind IDEA was that children who are disabled must receive the assistance they need to achieve their academic potential. That's the right thing for those children and their families. It's also the right thing for America--so that every individual has the maximum chance to be a contributor. But who pays has been a problem for many years. Especially problematic for cash-strapped schools are situations where extraordinary expenses are required for a severely disabled child. These expenses can ``bust the budget'' and pit the parents of disabled children against the parents of non-disabled children. Because of the high costs of providing special assistance to the disabled, it is believed that some school districts tend to overlook findings that assistance is needed. That is counter-productive to the goal of helping disabled children succeed in school. But it's hard to blame the schools. The necessary funding has never been provided by the state or federal governments for this great IDEA. The use of Medicaid to fund IDEA solves most of these problems. Since the Federal government funds 50% of Medicaid, shifting extraordinary expenses to the Medicaid program would ensure that the Federal government does its part. Because the rest of Medicaid funding comes from the states, the use of Medicaid also would ensure that states do their fair share and don't shirk their obligations to local schools. Adoption of this proposal would remove the disincentive now in place for schools to avoid providing help to disabled children. Additionally, it would remove the animosity that can develop between the parents of disabled and non-disabled children for scarce resources. I think this change makes a lot of sense and hope that a bipartisan majority can put solutions ahead of politics and pursue this plan. Let's not allow a lack of imagination and compassion to short-change all our kids and schools.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Zzzz's to A's Act'' and to draw attention to an important issue for high school students across the United States. Those of us who have teenagers know how tough it is to get them out of bed early in the morning. My 14-year-old and 17-year-old are bright, eager students. But you would never know it when they have to wake up at the crack of dawn. They feel wiped out instead of raring to go. I knew there had to be an explanation, other than laziness or rebellion. My answer came a year ago, when I read about scientific findings confirming that puberty changes the body's sleep cycle in such a way that makes it difficult--if not impossible--for most teens to fall asleep before 10 p.m. and to awaken early in the morning. Scientists also report that teens need more sleep than they will ever need again in life--at least 8 to 10 hours a night. It doesn't take a rocket scientist--or a sleep scientist, in this case--to put these two facts together and realize that when high schools start before 8 a.m., kids are in class when they are sleepy. This sleep deprivation has harmful effects on learning abilities. it can lead to academic, behavioral, and psychological problems. Sleep deprivation also puts teens at risk for accidents and injuries, especially when driving. There's a simple solution: adjust high school hours to be in sync with teenagers' body clocks. As a mother I saw the need for change, and, as a Member of Congress I thought I could help. Today, I am reintroducing legislation to put teens in school during their most alert hours. My bill, called the ``Zzzzz's to A's Act'', could do more for improving education and reducing teen crime than many other more expensive initiatives. It encourages school districts to consider pushing back starting times--not shortening the school day. My bill would make it easier for districts to do so by providing a federal grant up to $25,000 to help cover administrative and operating costs associated with changing hours. A number of school districts across the country are looking at adjusting their hours, and handful already have. The districts in Minnesota, Arizona, and Kentucky that now start classes later have seen grades improve and student aggression decline. In addition to boosting academic performance, adjusting school hours helps mitigate the problem of juvenile crime. It keeps teens off the streets during the late afternoon hours when they are most likely to commit or be the victim of crime. FBI data shows that almost half of all violent juvenile crime occurs between 2 p.m., and 8 p.m., when many adolescents are without supervision. My ``Zzzzz's to A's'' legislation has been endorsed by the nation's leading sleep researchers and by organizations from the National Sleep Foundation to Kids Safe Education Foundation and Rock the Vote. Teens are paying a heavy price for following the old adage ``Early to bed, early to rise.'' It's time for high schools to synchronize their clocks with their students' body clocks so the teens can go from ``Zzzzzz's'' to ``A's.''

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to join the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) in introducing this resolution in honor of Professor Doan Viet Hoat. It is a rare individual who is willing to sacrifice their own personal freedom for the sake of their fellowman, and when we do find such a person, it is important for us in Congress, and society at large, to recognize their achievement and the purpose of their struggle. This journalist spent 19 of the last 21 years in Vietnamese prisons. Dr. Doan repeatedly was arrested for his efforts to bring about political change. He was offered his freedom if he renounced his political views, but he did not succumb to the will of his captors. Instead, despite the temptation of freedom, he continued to write, to smuggle out of prison essays, and to be a leader for freedom in Vietnam. Last year the Vietnamese government released 7,000 prisoners, and Dr. Doan was among them. As a scholar in residence at Washington Catholic University, Dr. Doan remains committed to his fight for Vietnamese democracy. We are pleased he was finally able to receive the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award he won in 1995. I hope that Congress will act swiftly to adopt this resolution of commendation.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to congratulate the exceptional people and groups in Santa Clara County who have earned the Human Relations Award. The award, presented last week by the Santa Clara County Human Relations Commission, recognizes their exceptional service to the community in the area of human and civil rights. The honorees are a diverse group--people of different ages, nationalities, languages, colors, and cultures--united by their efforts to improve the lives of those in need. They make an important difference in the community and are an inspiration to us all. The Human Relations Award recipients are: Mary Bernier, a full-time volunteer who works to make the community aware of major social and economic issues. Cathy Bouchard, who assists people with developmental disabilities reach their potential and realize their dreams. Meg Bowman, a true community activist, educator, and untiring advocate on behalf of women. Don Burt, M.D., a doctor who volunteers regularly at the Rota Care Clinic in Morgan Hill and works to promote better relationships between various cultural and ethnic groups. Rita and Larry Demkowsky, who serve the poor and needy through Loaves and Fishes. Dzung C. Do, an attorney at Asian Law Alliance who has helped over 16 different language groups work toward citizenship. Barbara Emerich, who advocates for children and quality public education as an active member of the 6th District PTA, League of Women Voters, and Violence Prevention Council. Cliff M. Eppard, who works to assure that basic food, safety, and financial needs are offered to seniors and others. Nancy Flanagan, who has united the board and staff of Alliance for Community Care, a consolidation of three major mental health agencies. Experanza Garcia-Walters, who has made significant contributions through her years of community involvement with the Latino Nurses Association, Planned Parenthood, and the Hispanic Foundation. Victor Garza, who has long shown true dedication to the community in a number of roles. He is a former member and Chair of the Human Relations Commission; founder and Chair of La Raza Roundtable; Vice Chair of the Mexican Heritage Corporation; and volunteer with the American GI Forum, America Heart Association, and E.O.P. Advisory Board of the Evergreen Valley-San Jose Community College District. Victor is always ready to work towards building a community of respect and concern for all. Andrew Gonzales, the past president of La Raza Lawyers Association, has established a scholarship banquet for incoming law students at SCU, works closely with new law students, participates in career days, and works with community organizations. Sparky Harlan, Executive Director of the Bill Wilson Center, has worked on behalf of homeless youth for over 25 years. Dr. Robert Hersch has served on the board and worked with every aspect of Live Oak Adult Day Services. Delia U. Jurado is a leader of Filipino community volunteers who works on behalf of seniors, new immigrants, and community groups. Lor Layso, a leader in the local Cambodian community, has helped hundreds of Cambodian refugees adjust to life in America and eventually apply for citizenship. Alette Lundeberg has helped Santa Clara County and the community assist welfare recipients from welfare to work. Elizabeth Menkin, M.D., serves the community over and above her professional duties by volunteering with the Mother's Milk Bank, MADD, and child-care and hospice programs. Ann Holland McCowan and John Holland McCowan. Six-year-old John worked with his mother, Ann, to found Kids Cheering Kids, an organization to better the lives of children with special needs in Santa Clara County. Judy Nakano volunteers with the San Jose Buddhist Church Betsuin and Girl Scouts, bringing the two groups together. Dr. T.J. Owens, Dean of Students at Gavilan Community College in Gilroy, has devoted most of his life to education and community services. He is a former member of the Human Relations Commission and is the past president of the Friends of the Human Relations Commission. Rolanda Pierre-Dixon, a Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney, promotes a ``no excuse for domestic violence'' theme at court, community meetings, conferences, and task forces. Robert Riordan plays the role of ``grandpa'' in the lives of many young people who do not have grandparents nearby. Jerry Rosenblum, a senior partner in a San Jose law firm, uses his legal expertise to serve the community at places like Live Oak Adult Day Services. Father Mateo Sheedy, Pastor of Sacred Heart Church in San Jose, is an inspiration to us all. In the words of Santa Clara County Supervisor Blanca Alvarado, ``Everybody loves him; he is one of the best human beings.'' Lillian Silberstein, Executive Director of the National Conference for Community and Justice, has initiated many civil rights programs and promotes understanding and respect among all races, cultures, nationalities, and religious affiliation. Vicci Smith, a student at San Jose State University, volunteers as co-director of the university's Women's Resource Center. George Soto, interim Director of Employment Benefit Services of the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, brings honesty, integrity, fairness, and commitment to the human concerns of all. Deborah Stinchfield has been a volunteer at the Mid-Peninsula Hospital Foundation for 21 years, where she promotes awareness of end- of-life issues and hospice care. Colette and Frank Swaringen have developed the ``Script for Safe Kids,'' a video used across the county to alert to the common lures used by child abductors. Joseph R. Tembrock is a founder of Sacred Heart Community Services, the Rotating Shelter in Cupertino, and the Interfairth Hospitality Network. Florence Trimble, known as the Mother Teresa of Gilroy, has dedicated her time and love to recruiting volunteers to address the needs of the homeless. Forrest W. Williams provides valuable service to programs for young people. He has been a mentor for many years and serves on the San Jose Planning Commission and the United Negro College Fund Executive Advisory Board. In addition, I would like to congratulate the six community groups who received the Human Relations Award. The groups are: AAUW Committee on Homeless Women and Children--Los Gatos/Saratoga Branch; Adelante Mujer Hispana of Santa Clara County; Almaden Council Pacific Bell Pioneers; Dispute Resolution Program Services Volunteers, Office of Human Relations; Filipino Youth Coalition; and Mountain View Diversity Forum.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a true humanitarian and an outstanding member of my hometown community of San Jose, California. Judge Marilyn Morgan has served on the United States Bankruptcy Court with honor and distinction for over ten years. To acknowledge her exemplary service on the bench, as well as her prior service as an attorney and trustee, the consumer bankruptcy community of Division 5 of the Northern District of California is honoring Judge Morgan with the Fresh Start Award. This honor is given to those who have provided outstanding leadership on issues concerning the bankruptcy system and those who strive to improve it. The Fresh Start award also honors those who have worked hard to maintain equity, integrity, fairness and compassion in the system. Judge Morgan is a shining example of the best in our judicial system. Judge Morgan demonstrated her commitment to fairness and justice even before pursuing her career in the field of law by working in the civil rights movement in Atlanta with (now Congressman) John Lewis and others. Prior to serving on the bench, Judge Morgan practiced law in San Jose, and was always mindful of the needs of our community. She provided pro-bono legal assistance to underserved members of our community and served as secretary of the Pro-Bono Project. Judge Morgan represented both debtors and creditors in chapter 7 and chapter 13 cases. She also found time to serve as a Chapter 7 trustee, and in that capacity was a founder and officer of the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees (NABT). As an expert on bankruptcy law, Judge Morgan has participated as a panelist or moderator at seminars conducted by groups such as the Norton Institute, the American Law Institute-American Bar Association, and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. She also served as a panelist before the National Bankruptcy Review Commission as it studied the need for bankruptcy reform. While practicing law, Marilyn Morgan participated in the activities of several professional associations, serving as President and Treasurer of the Santa Clara County Bar Association and as a trustee of the Santa Clara County Law Related Education Committee, to name a few. She is an active member of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges. In addition, she has been an officer or director of many community organizations in San Jose, including the Rotary Club of San Jose, the American Red Cross and the Downtown YMCA. Judge Morgan has shown leadership on many issues of concern to the bankruptcy community in San Jose. She was instrumental in the creation of the Chapter 13 subcommittee which has provided a valuable forum for communications between the Bench and the Bar, as well as a vehicle to elevate the practice of law. On January 14, 1999, Judge Morgan received the Fresh Start Award. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Judge Morgan for receiving such a special award. She is to be commended for her efforts to improve the consumer bankruptcy system in her community

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we should continue the authority granted the managers by the lame duck 105th Congress. I do not believe we should approve managers or any of the expenditures they have requested, and I will tell Members why. Since we voted in the lame duck Congress on December 19, I have been listening to my constituents, the people who live in my district, in the supermarkets, in the malls, on the street. People are very disturbed by what the House of Representatives has done. I have had citizens break down into tears talking to me about our Constitution and what they think we have done to our Constitution. I have never before seen feelings this intense among regular people about a political issue. I think we ought to listen to what the people are saying. They understand at a very basic level what Ben Franklin told us: Impeachment is the alternative to assassination. Impeachment is to prevent damage so severe to our constitutional form of government that we dare not wait until the next election. The people of this country have decided, for the most part, that what has been presented to us does not meet that constitutional test. And yet we are moving forward against the Constitution and against their sound advice. And I think we have finally today an opportunity to undo the wrong that we have done to our country. If impeachment becomes just another tool for partisan Congresses, our American system of government will change. We may lose the strong presidencies that helped bring us success internationally. And in this dangerous world, that is very unwise. Future Presidents and Congresses will look back on this mess for political lessons. If zealotry is the loser politically, it will be a positive outcome for America. Americans will have the chance to deliver that message next year in the elections, but for now let us listen to the American people. Let us vote against appointment of the managers and the budget.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party in this House has made a tragic decision for the Nation and a decision that will permanently damage our constitutional democracy. The President of the United States had a sexual affair. That was wrong. Then, like many others who misbehave sexually, he tried to hide the affair. That was wrong too. But then the greater wrong occurred. The majority decided to give into the worst within themselves, their abiding hatred of this President. The majority has decided to discard our history, to damage our Constitution and to threaten our future to get the President, all the while pompously pronouncing they are doing the opposite. When the Founders wrote our Constitution, they provided for the rare remedy of impeachment that the Legislative Branch could utilize if the elected President should engage in conduct that would threaten our constitutional government. Only once in our 211 years has Congress voted to impeach a president, and, in that era of 1868, it was also radical Republicans who misused the tool of impeachment. Much of the country is watching what we do here with anger, sorrow, fear and disbelief. I share with my constituents the feeling of unreality about these proceedings. The country is waiting for grownups to walk into this Chamber and stop this madness, but, alas, those Republicans with the maturity and judgment to ask that censure be utilized as an alternative, such as former President Ford and former Senator Dole, have been ignored by the majority in this House. The outcome appears clear: The Republicans will vote to impeach the President, whom they could not defeat at the polls, for reasons that do not add up to treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. As a consequence, the Senate and the Supreme Court will be tied up for most of next year. The President will not be able to resign, no matter how you may urge it, because to do so would further destroy the precedents that have protected our country for over two centuries. This is not fair to the President, but that should not be our main concern. It is not fair to the minority in this House, but that is not the main problem either. This is unfair to the American people. By these actions, you would undo the free election that expressed the will of the American people in 1996. In so doing, you will damage the faith the American people have in this institution and in the American democracy. You will set the dangerous precedent that the certainty of presidential terms, which has so benefitted our wonderful America, will be replaced by the partisan use of impeachment. Future presidents will face election, then litigation, then impeachment. The power of President will diminish in the face of the Congress, a phenomena much feared by the Founding Fathers. Our constituency in this matter includes not just the voters of today, but the future grandchildren of my own children. We have an obligation to generations not yet born to preserve and protect our wonderful system of government. In that obligation you fail your country today. Some in the majority have told me they are entitled to their opinion about whether or not the President's misconduct meets the constitutional standard. Some Americans believe aliens will arrive in spacecraft, but it does not make it so. You say the President's deception about sex has destroyed our system of government. Some of you have actually convinced yourselves that is true. The capacity for self-deception is an amazing phenomena, but the public can see clearly what you are doing here today. You say that the President's dishonesty about sex has destroyed our constitutional form of government, but the people do not agree. They think that it is you who threaten our country by this cynical and political distortion of impeachment. As is generally the case, the American people have it right. It is not too late to listen to them. You would honor your own oath of office by doing so.