Related Links • Profile: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) • Rep. Lofgren's official site • Campaign 2000 • Live: "Free Media" • Who do you want to talk to? E-mail us

Tuesday, December 14, 1999

Technology policy is one of the hottest topics in politics, back at the forefront with the recent White House focus on the "digital divide" separating those who have access to computer technology and the Internet and those who do not. It will likely be a key component in the debate over education on the agenda of the 2nd session of the 106th Congress.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) has long been active on technology issues, opposing the 1996 Communications Decency Act and encouraging software that allows parents to block material they find offensive from children's Web browsing. Lofgren was live online to talk about technology, education and the Democratic congressional agenda on "Free Media" on Tuesday, Dec. 14. The transcript follows:

Free Media: Good afternoon, Rep. Lofgren, and welcome. Can you give us your thoughts on the recent "Digital Divide" conference at the White House?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren: I did not attend the conference, but the issue of the Digital Divide is one that concerns me greatly, and has been a major focus of the technology advisory group that [House Minority Leader] Dick Gephardt has asked Rep. Anna Eshoo and I to chair in the House.

A major focus has to be technology in schools. The divide, for the most part, cuts along economic lines. And for children in low-income families who don't have access to technology at home, the gap needs to be made up at school. That's why we've made such efforts to first establish and then defend the e-race, and why the president, supported by many of us in the House, placed such emphasis on technology as well as training for teachers in the federal education budget. But the whole answer won't be government programs. As the cost of technology comes down, technology will become more accessible to less affluent families.

Alexandria, Va.: Can you respond to the Clinton administration's decision Monday to delay for one month release of its encryption regulations?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren: This is good news for those seeking to put encryption exports on a rational basis. I've spoken to the president, John Podesta and numerous others working on this prior to Monday, and have since Monday have talked to people closely involved with the decision to delay. The reason is to accommodate and to make the regulations reflect the criticisms directed by myself and many others, both in industry and Congress.

I believe that the ISP/Telecom issue is on its way to being fixed, along with the definition of "retail" and several other items.

Jacksonville, FL: What do you think of AT&T's entry into the cable business?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren: I think competition is good. The initial surveys I've seen seem to indicate that when AT&T/cable provides cable modems in a community, it seems to spur the phone company (baby Bell) to finally provide DSL service. Now, we have the possibility of satellite service looming. I'm convinced none of these technologies would have been deployed as quickly without the competition they faced among each other.

Free Media: As a Silicon Valley representative, has the Internet stock boom affected your fund-raising?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren: Some. I think elected officials tend to do their fund-raising in their local community, and when their local community is Silicon Valley, that's going to be reflected.

Free Media: More from Rep. Lofgren: There is a mix of the famous who contribute. But also, for example, people in my neighborhood -- a normal, middle-class neighborhood in San Jose who work for high-tech companies and no longer have to take a cash advance on their credit card to contribute to my campaign.

Washington, D.C.: Will there be federal broadband legislation this year? Will it pre-empt the states' rights?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren: I don't know, but I hope not. I don't think there's any compelling need for the Congress to weigh in on regulating this at this time, and it's not clear that we'll ever have to regulate it. Some argued that the telecom deregulation act should be repealed in some portion to benefit baby Bells and disadvantage AT&T and their cable modems. Whatever one thought about that, AT&T just this month agreed to open up their cable system to competition. So all of the rationales advanced to me appear no longer to exist.

I think AT&T did it to take the steam out of the congressional proposals. The argument that was being made was that it was an anti-trust violation. But you can't have an anti-trust violation when you have under 10 percent of the market. It was a smart move on their part, because now everybody can pay attention to competing and technology instead of committee hearings and legislation.

Free Media: In a discussion last week, Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.) talked about he opposed the Microsoft ruling. Do you care to comment?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren: Number one, I think members of Congress ought to be circumspect in critiquing the third branch of government, the judiciary, when the judiciary discharges their duty in a case properly before them. Mr. Armey read the newspapers just like I did. Neither one of us heard all the evidence, read all the briefs, evaluated the witnesses. I think we ought to have some faith in the judicial process.

Alexandria, Virginia: Does the encryption regulation delay indicate to you that it's time to stand behind H.R. 850, the SAFE Act, and work for passage of that bill, or is the administration simply getting ready to, despite its willingness to work with industry, put out another version of draft language that's only going to annoy the high-tech industry further?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren: Obviously, we need to see the final draft. But I'm encouraged that they are trying to get this right, and may in fact get it right. I am one of the two principal co-authors of the SAFE Act. I wouldn't have spent the last several years of my life working on that bill if I didn't believe in it. But I also realize that if we can resolve this with the administration, it's a smart thing to do and the easiest way to get to where the country needs to be on encryption. Finally, the House won't even be in session for some months, and if my optimism proves misplaced, we always have the opportunity to work on moving our bill.

Crofton, MD: I agree that the divide is primarily along economic lines. But isn't culture also an important aspect? How many of the families who give economics as a reason for not purchasing a computer-ISP package own TVs, VCRs, stereos, etc.? I do volunteer tutoring and find that many of the low income families I work with prefer to spend their limited funds on entertainment over education.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren: I think the understanding of parents about the importance of technology is obviously an important component of what their children have available to them. Not only is there a divide that is economic, there is also a geographic divide. Here in Silicon Valley, increasingly, less affluent families are stretching to bring technology into their homes. It reminds me of when I was a child and my parents stretched to buy an encyclopedia book a week at the supermarket because it was important for my future. So we not only need to provide technology in schools which helps parents to understand the importance. Technology companies might want to consider how best to tap the market of working people with kids with advertising and payment structures.

McLean, Va.: Rep. Lofgren,

Will you sign on to the bipartisan letter being circulated by Rep. Conyers' & Rep. Campbell's offices calling on President Clinton to de-link economic sanctions on Iraq from military ones?

If not, how do you justify continuing to use food & medicine as weapons? How can we justify starving hundreds-of-thousands of children to death for "peace?"

Rep. Zoe Lofgren: I have signed on to a bill that would preclude the use of food and medicine as part of an economic sanction for any country, for any reason.

Erhart, Md.: Rep. Lofgren,
Myself and my friend Byron have been running a gay themed adult website for the past 18 months. My site admittedly is rather taboo. I receive letters contantly from Christian groups and lawyers demanding that I shut the site down. Do these groups have a right to harrass me just because they object to my gay lifestyle?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren: Assuming that your site is sufficiently tame to be protected by the First Amendment, you have a right under the First Amendment to post it and they have a right under the First Amendment to complain about it.

Free Media: That was our last question today for Rep. Zoe Lofgren. Thanks to Rep. Lofgren and to everyone who joined us.

Tune in this afternoon to talk about last night's GOP presidential debate with NBC's Lisa Myers on "Free Media" at 3:30 p.m. EST.

   |       |