|
MOUNT MADONNA SCHOOL
Interview with Zoe Lofgren
Congresswoman, 16th District California
May 17, 2000
Alicia Weston-Miles: Can you tell us a little
bit about what propelled you into a life of public
service?
Cong. Lofgren: It evolved. There is no one time in my life
where I said, "I have decided to do this," but as a
child, my mother was very involved in politics. She
was never elected to anything, but we walked precincts,
and we argued about politics at dinner. I thought everyone
did that, actually. It wasn't until later that I got
a heads-up on what's happening. After I graduated from
college, I came out to Washington, not planning a career
or anything, but thinking I could do something that
would be useful, and make a difference. My predecessor
in office, Don Edwards, gave me a job, and so I ended
up working for him for a really long time. Then I went
to law school, and practiced law for a little while.
I was actually approached by teachers to run for the
community college board, because they were upset at
the way the money was being spent, and they were right.
So that really was the first thing I ever ran for, and
the rest kind of unfolded.
Katie Fayram: Women of today have many conflicting
responsibilities, the most obvious being a mother
and also having a career. How did you balance the
roles of being a mother and a political activist?
Cong. Lofgren: I had both
of my children when I was serving on the board of supervisors,
and one of the good things about serving in local office
is that with the exception of the board meeting itself,
you have a lot of unscheduled time. There's a lot of
work to do, but you also have a lot of flexibility as
to when you do that work. So I could, and did, go home
with piles of paper and I could work over the weekend.
My kids had their own playmates, so they didn't need
their mother to be a playmate, but they did need their
mom to be around. It was fourteen years that I was on
the board of supervisors, and that was most of the time
that they were growing up. Congress is harder, because
the commute between San Jose and Washington is long,
and there's no flexibility; I have to be here when Congress
is in session. The key is to know when to say no, and
when to say yes, and what your priorities are. For example,
tomorrow night is the awards banquet for my daughter
who is graduating from high school next month and she's
going to get a bunch of awards. I'm going to be there!
I might miss a vote, but most of these votes are not
decided by one vote, so it probably won't change the
outcome. I think my constituents knew what they were
getting when they voted for me. They were getting a
mother, and sometimes things like this happen. I'm going
to be at my daughter's graduation. There's just no way
I'm going to miss it. It's on a Thursday, so it's possible
I may leave on that day. Not that I'd do that very often,
but sometimes that has to happen. The other thing is
the schedule of the House is different than people expect.
For most of the year, there are votes at six o'clock
on Tuesday, and then you're through on Thursday; it's
called the Tuesday-Thursday Club. You work like a maniac
when we're here, but what that really means is that
I probably spend more time in California than I do in
Washington, which is helpful. You need to pace yourself
because you could be out every single night with events,
but then you wouldn't have a life, and your children
wouldn't have a parent. So you have to say no. What
I learned years ago was never to make up a phony excuse.
I could say I have another conflict, but forget that.
I tell people, I have to go home to my children, and
if people can't accept that, there's something wrong
with them. So, I think the logistics of this job are
different, but really it's no different than other kinds
of work where mothers and fathers need to be able to
put their kids first. Sometimes kids have to accommodate
what their parents need to do, too. It's a give and
take.
Mira Vissell: Do you have a response to yesterday's
Supreme Court ruling on the Violence Against Women
Act?
Cong. Lofgren: I have not read the decision yet. I have voted
for the Violence Against Women Act, and I support it,
but as a matter of legal reasoning I'm not prepared
to analyze it yet because I haven't had a chance to
read the decision.
Kyle Felder: In talking with Undersecretary
of State Thomas Pickering and Theresa Loar, who is
the Director of the President's Interagency Council
of Women yesterday, I got the impression that the
State Department runs on a very tight budget. What
do you think of the argument that increased funding
for the State Department ultimately saves us more
money, by decreasing the funds that are required for
military purposes? Take, for example, the recent Plan
Columbia.
Cong. Lofgren: Actually, I think that we have underfunded
the State Department to a dangerous level. If you take
a look at security in some of our embassies it's just
shameful. However we do live in an area where there
are budgetary limits if you want to buy down the national
debt, which we do. I think that every agency wants more
money, and it's the nature of bureaucratic agencies
to want more. You can't always provide funding to the
level that people request. I do think that in addition
to State Department official functions, there are international
efforts that do make for a more peaceful world, including
foreign aid and especially international economic development
efforts that empower women. If you focus in on women,
the implications actually are very different than you'd
think. When birthrates fall, which leads to political
stability, literacy rates rise. It's very interesting,
and it's something that we don't do enough of.
Alison Alderdice: So Kyle just mentioned in
the end of his question Plan Columbia, which is something
that we recently learned a little bit about in school.
Cong. Lofgren:
I voted against that, which you probably know.
Alison Alderdice: Right. Congresswoman McKinney,
Congressman Farr, and Congresswoman Lee, have all
written letters trying to raise awareness about the
plight of the Uwa people, and their fight to preserve
their ancestral land in Columbia. Are you aware of
their plight?
Cong. Lofgren: No, actually I don't know anything about it.
But now that you've raised it, I'll have my staff find
some information for me, and learn more about it.
Mr. Mailliard: Congressman Farr is circulating
a letter in the Congress, in fact I think it's just
started in.
Cong. Lofgren: I haven't seen it yet, but you know, Sam served
in Columbia in the Peace Corps, and has a long history
with that country and various peoples there. I'll look
out for the letter.
Mr. Mailliard: It's basically oil versus ancestral
rights, and we don't have all the information. Basically,
we've heard one side, which is the side of the people
who are trying to help preserve the indigenous people
there.
Laura Johnston: Vartan Gregorian, the president
of Brown University, said that because teachers don't
have that which society considers important in terms
of wealth and status, the teaching profession is looked
down upon by our country.
What
do you think the nation should do to raise the status
of teachers? Cong. Lofgren: Well I think a lot
of things, including pay. It's a profession that is
underpaid. Also, I'm not sure how to say it, but being
a teacher is a very isolating and disempowering experience.
You wouldn't have another kind of profession micro-managed
by Sacramento minute by minute on what to teach, or
the kind of rule-making that's placed down through bureaucracies.
I think that makes it less attractive to people. However,
obviuosly, everyone wants accountability, so you've
got to move from process accountability to outcome accountability.
That will take a while to do because change is hard
to make, but change in education is even harder to make
than anywhere else.
Laura Johnson: Benjamin Franklin once said,
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." To what
extent can we or should we consider laws to limit
some freedoms for the sake of public safety? Take,
for example, the dispute over gun control.
Cong. Lofgren: I think the rhetoric around gun control has
been somewhat displaced. The Second Amendment does not
grant the unfettered individual right to own any weapon
they want. The people who say that it does, may believe
that, but they are, as a matter of law and constitutional
law, incorrect. As with any right that we have in this
society, there are no rights that are limitless. The
First Amendment also has limits; we call it libel. There's
limits to everything. I find it very frustrating
because so much of this is being funded by the gun manufacturers,
and they are misleading people. I heard over the weekend
that at the Million Mom March, which I participated
in Oakland with my kids, people were saying, "If there's
any kind of gun safety measures, then I won't be able
to have a gun." What they're saying is they're a felon.
What we're talking about is prohibiting people with
felony records from buying guns, and people who are
mentally ill from acquiring weapons. I don't think this
is a unreasonable thing, and if you are sane, an adult,
without a felony record, you're not going to be prohibited
from acquiring a weapon. Now some people think we ought
to go farther than we are, and we will have that discussion
at some point, but there are parts of my district where
you couldn't really live there if you didn't have access
to weapons. For example, up in the Mount Hamilton range,
there's wild boar, there's snakes. There are ranchers
out there, and it would be crazy for them to go out
and work their cattle without a shotgun. It would be
hazardous, and I don't have any problem with that.
Dante Branciforte: Yesterday we also spoke
to a member of the White House Council on Environmental
Quality. We were surprised to discover that the entire
staff consisted of only twenty people, and they have
to respond to an overwhelming amount of activities.
This raises the question of whether you think we're
placing enough resources toward solving environmental
problems.
Cong. Lofgren:
I think that we could put a greater emphasis there,
although I'm not sure that the Council is necessarily
where I'd put extra money. They perform a useful role,
but you need to understand, and I'm sure you do, that
it's not just them. There's the EPA and whole big chunks
of government, also within other agencies including
Agriculture, and Energy, and others, that have pieces
of the responsibility of protecting the environment.
If I had to choose targets for additional resources,
it would be in research, and especially research about
transportation. It's very clear now, and even though
the oil companies are trying to say it's not true--that
we have a major climate change event underway that has
been stimulated through the use of fossil fuels. We're
close, but we're not there yet, on technology that would
allow the use of vehicles that don't pollute to the
extent of the current ones. There are many issues; clean
air, clean water, but the mega-issue for the environment
worldwide, is climate change, and we need to do something
about that, like, yesterday. I'm going to have to
scoot in about four minutes.
Katie Fayram: Hillary Clinton said that our
global future depends on the willingness of every
nation to invest in its people, especially women and
children. We asked Theresa Loar yesterday if she thought
we as a nation are investing enough in our women and
children, and she came down squarely for increased
funding in education. Where else do you think we need
to be increasing our investment?
Cong. Lofgren: Well, I think maternal health and child health.
We have huge numbers of children in this country that
have no access to healthcare, and they aren't immunized. That
doesn't make any sense at all. We have not done nearly
what we need to do in terms of prenatal care, and other
maternal healthcare issues. I don't disagree with the
First Lady on education. If we were to double what we're
spending on education, we wouldn't be sorry in the end;
it would pay off.
Josh Lewis: We know that you've sponsored
legislation in terms of this so-called digital divide.
Is there more that we should do to make computer technology
available to low income segments of society?
Cong. Lofgren: I'm sure there is. We're working to try and
get some computers in our district. As a matter of fact,
there's a group that started in East Palo Alto called
Plugged In, that the President visited. I was there
last month. We're working with them to see if we can't
open the same type of thing in East San Jose. It's not
just computers, but how to use computers, and how to
move into a high-paying job that utilizes technology.
The answer isn't all just what the government's going
to do. The digital divide will also begin to be closed
because of cost reductions in the private sector. The
private sector is doing a lot to sell cheaper models.
The price of computers has come way down, and every
time it comes down, it's more accessible to wider range
of people, and that's a good thing. The digital divide
is an important issue, but it's not as important as
the education divide. If you have access to a computer,
and you can surf the web, that's really important, but
if you can't read, that's still a disaster. So we need
to do both of those things.
Laura Johnson: Martha Nussbaum said "There's
a real danger that we're becoming a nation of narrowly
technical thinkers. We're losing a sense of the richness
and the multi-facetedness of the good life." Do you
believe there's a danger that as technology progresses,
our past culture and our sense of community may be
forgotten or lost?
Cong. Lofgren:
Well, I suppose that is a possible outcome, but there's
a completely other possible outcome, which is that the
use of technology can translate into a richer appreciation
of our history. We're digitizing the Library of Congress,
so instead of having to come to Washington DC to see
these great documents, you could see them online. The
Vatican is putting everything online, and it's not the
same as being in the room with the painting, but for
some people who would never get to go to the museum
at all, it's an opportunity to see the art. So, yes,
technology is going to change our community profoundly,
but it can also be a terrific force for growth and good.
Mira Vissell: Drawing on your experience,
what is the most important advice you have for our
generation?
Cong. Lofgren: The most important advice I have is to prepare
yourself for the future through good education. You're
going to have such a great future, if all goes well. You
will have all kinds of possibilities that I didn't have,
but in order to take advantage of them, you really need
to have a good education. Also think big, and be willing
to experiment and try things out. You're going to have
dozens of different careers and jobs, unlike my generation,
that tended to think well, we'll do one thing for the
rest of our lives. The jobs you'll have, we haven't
even thought of yet. Be prepared to figure it out, and
don't be afraid to fail, because failure's just a learning
experience. Never forget what's really important, which
are your families.
|
Congresswoman
Zoe Lofgren represents California's 16th District,
wholly within Santa Clara County. Born in 1947 to
a truck driver and a secretary, Lofgren attended public
schools in Santa Clara County before enrolling at
Stanford University. Following graduation in 1970,
she served on the staff of her predecessor in Congress,
Don Edwards, and worked on such issues as impeachment,
the Equal Rights Amendment, and the creation of the
National Wildlife Refuge in the South San Francisco
Bay.