Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. ESHOO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes what I believe is an unnecessary provision in the bill that would block the FCC's net neutrality rules until the court took final action to determine their legality. The provision my amendment strikes was written before the court announced its decision. On Tuesday, June 14, the Federal appeals court issued its long- awaited ruling in this case, and the decision could not be clearer. The court fully upheld the FCC's net neutrality rules, and that is why I am offering the amendment. It found that the FCC acted within its authority, acted consistent with Supreme Court precedent, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, and consistent with the Constitution. Every issue raised by opponents in court was rejected, whether it was procedural or substantive. Following this clear and decisive ruling, there is simply no reason for Congress to be blocking the FCC's rules. The courts have spoken, and legal scholars agree. I think the American people also spoke very clearly. Over 4 million offered their comments by filing them at the FCC during the rulemaking process, and the vast majority of them were in support of strong rules. This level of public input broke records at the FCC. The late Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in the 2005 Brand X case reflects the same commonsense view the American people expressed in their public comments. Justice Scalia said: ``After all is said and done, after all the regulatory cant has been translated, and the smoke of agency expertise blown away, it remains perfectly clear that someone who sells cable-modem service is `offering' telecommunications.'' So Congress need not block these rules now in the hopes that an appeal to the Supreme Court will overturn this clear ruling, and that is why I am offering the amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it and strike what now is an unnecessary section from the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman really offers a lack of response to the amendment because the Federal appeals court issued a very broad decision, and it really couldn't be clearer. I understand that this language was written before the court came out with its decision, but now that the court has, I think that this language really doesn't mean anything unless the majority simply wants to leapfrog over the decision, even though they don't like it and have fought it. I just don't think that this belongs in the legislation anymore. It was put in before the court spoke, and I believe that it is appropriate to remove the language now. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. ``Are you serious with your boyfriend? Are you sexually active with him? When did you start dating? Would you ever cheat? Do you have a history of cheating? What do you mean when you said you wanted to reward him? Do you remember what time you woke up? Were you wearing your cardigan? What color was your cardigan? Do you remember any more from that night? No? Okay, well, we'll let Brock fill it in. ``I was pummeled with narrow, pointed questions that dissected my personal life, love life, past life, family life, inane questions, accumulating trivial details to try and find an excuse for this guy who had me half naked before even bothering to ask for my name. After a physical assault, I was assaulted with questions designed to attack me, to say see, her facts don't line up, she's out of her mind, she's practically an alcoholic, she probably wanted to hook up, he's like an athlete right, they were both drunk, whatever, the hospital stuff she remembers is after the fact, why take it into account, Brock has a lot at stake so he's having a really hard time right now. And then it came time for him to testify and I learned what it meant to be revictimized. ``I want to remind you, the night after it happened he said he never planned to take me back to his dorm. He said he didn't know why we were behind a dumpster. He got up to leave because he wasn't feeling well when he was suddenly chased and attacked. Then he learned I could not remember. So one year later, as predicted, a new dialogue emerged. Brock had a strange new story, almost sounded like a poorly written young adult novel with kissing and dancing and hand holding and lovingly tumbling onto the ground, and most importantly in this new story, there was suddenly consent. One year after the incident, he remembered, oh yeah, by the way she actually said yes, to everything, so. ``He said he had asked if I wanted to dance. Apparently I said yes. He'd asked if I wanted to go to his dorm, I said yes. Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don't ask, can I finger you? Usually there's a natural progression of things, unfolding consensually, not a Q and A. But apparently I granted full permission. He's in the clear. Even in his story, I only said a total of three words, yes yes yes, before he had me half naked on the ground.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4167, Kari's Law Act of 2015. H.R. 4167 addresses a very serious problem. The bill requires Multi- Line Telephone Systems to provide direct dialing to 9-1-1. The bill is named after Kari Hunt who was tragically murdered by her estranged husband in a hotel room while her daughter tried and failed to dial 9- 1-1 because the Multi-Line Telephone System required a prefix to be dialed first. When you dial 9-1-1 from a hotel or office--when seconds matters--you shouldn't have to dial ``9'' or some other prefix to get help. I strongly support the overall goals of this bill. However, location accuracy for Multi-Line Telephone Systems is just as important. First responders have to know exactly where an individual is calling from, especially if the caller is unable to communicate to the dispatcher, or the caller simply doesn't know where they are. If first responders have to spend time searching buildings, going door to door, that can be the difference between life and death. During the subcommittee and full committee markups of H.R. 4167, I offered an amendment to require a location accuracy proceeding at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) within 180 days of enactment of the bill. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues did not agree to accept my amendment, and instead proposed language requiring the FCC to conduct a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to solicit public comment on requiring location accuracy for Multi-Line Telephone Systems. I did not accept this proposal because I do not think an NOI moves the ball forward. That view is shared by the FCC and the public safety community. Ultimately, I withdrew my amendment following a commitment from the Chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, Representative Greg Walden that he would work with me on location accuracy technology. The FCC has studied location accuracy technology for Multi-Line Telephone Systems since 1994, and as recently as 2012 Congress directed the FCC to issue a Public Notice Seeking Comment on the feasibility of Multi-Line Telephone Systems to provide the precise location of a 911 caller. This was included in Section 6504(b) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and was modeled on legislation I introduced with my colleague and fellow co-chair of the NextGen 9-1-1 Caucus, Representative Shimkus, known as the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012. Despite the extensive history surrounding location accuracy, the FCC has failed to take action to require this essential technology in Multi-Line Telephone Systems. To wait any longer for action is simply an excuse and a costly one because lives are at stake. I recently introduced H.R. 5236, the Requesting Emergency Services and Providing Origination Notification Systems Everywhere (RESPONSE) Act, which would require the Federal Communications Commission to complete a proceeding requiring all Multi-Line Telephone Systems to provide first responders with the precise location of a 9-1-1 caller. I'm hopeful my colleagues will work with me to pass this important bill. Although H.R. 4167 does not address the critical issue of location accuracy, it is nonetheless a step in the right direction that will save lives and make real progress. For these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4167.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Elizabeth (Lisa) Joyce Freeman, the Director of the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. Appointed to the position on February 11, 2001, we will celebrate her retirement on June 7, 2016. Lisa is a 1983 graduate of the University of Notre Dame where she earned a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering. She received a master's degree in Business Administration from Louisiana Tech University in 1987, and is a licensed civil engineer in the state of Virginia. She and her husband live in the Willows neighborhood of Menlo Park, California. Lisa Freeman began her VA career in 1983 as a Resident Engineer at the VA Medical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Later positions include Senior Resident Engineer, Shreveport, Louisiana; Project Manager, Southern Region, VA Central Office; Health Systems Specialist, Southern Region Field Support Office, VA Central Office; Health System Administrator Trainee, VA Palo Alto Health Care System; Chief Operating Officer, VA Sierra Pacific Network Office, San Francisco, California; Associate Director, VA Palo Alto Health Care System; and Acting Director, VA Palo Alto Health Care System. In addition to her VA responsibilities, Lisa Freeman is a Fellow in the American College of Health Care Executives and serves as a formal mentor to numerous VA emerging leaders. She is a member of the California Hospital Association's Santa Clara County Section and served on the 2006 Board of Directors for the Hospital Council. In 2005, she received the VA Alumni Association's Honorary Leadership Award. She also received a Presidential Rank Award at the Meritorious Level in 2005 and at the Distinguished Level in 2009 and was named one of the top 100 influential women in Silicon Valley in 2011. She also completed the Brookings Institution Certificate in Public Leadership Program in 2012. When the shocking failures at various VA facilities in the country became public in 2014, there was a beacon of light and excellence at the Palo Alto VA, the institution led by Lisa Freeman. Veterans surveyed about their satisfaction with the Palo Alto VA consistently scored it above the national average and in the top 25 percent in the region for access to outpatient care. This level of excellence is why Lisa Freeman was called on by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to lead the effort to reform the Southwest VA system in Arizona to correct widespread failures in service to veterans, including hidden wait lists. During Lisa Freeman's tenure as Director of the Palo Alto VA she has managed 3 inpatient clinics, 7 outpatient clinics, 800 beds including 3 nursing homes and a 100 bed homeless shelter. A Fisher House, a Defenders Lodge and a new Mental Health building were built and dedicated under her leadership, and funds were secured for a second Fisher House to be built on the premises. Lisa Freeman's duties included overseeing one of the most complex health care systems in the country with an annual budget of over $1 billion, a capital portfolio of $2.6 billion and more than 7,000 staff and volunteers. She was also responsible for initiating and maintaining a cooperative relationship with the Stanford University School of Medicine, other local health care systems and the neighboring VA Health Care Systems. Lisa was instrumental in the creation of a new rehabilitation facility set to open in late 2016, and the joint VA/DoD facility opening in Monterey in late 2016. She also implemented a system improvement model that utilizes LEAN principles to improve the manner in which the Palo Alto VA cares for its veterans. Lisa Freeman has served our nation's veterans with extraordinary professionalism and with the care and compassion they've earned and deserve. She is a gifted leader who has led the VA Palo Alto Health Care System with great distinction. I'm very proud to have worked with her and like all those who have had the good fortune to know her, I will miss her wise counsel, her effectiveness and her love for country and those she served. Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in honoring Lisa Freeman's great work and in thanking her for her extraordinary service to our nation's veterans.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of William V. Campbell, who was born August 31, 1940, in Homestead, Pennsylvania, and passed away on April 18, 2016, in Palo Alto, California, at the age of 75. Bill Campbell is survived by his wife Eileen Bocci Campbell, his children Jim and Maggie, and his three step-children, Kevin, Matthew and Kate Bocci. Bill Campbell attended Columbia University where he played football and was named to the All-Ivy team. He graduated in 1962 and in 1964 he earned a Master's Degree in Education, also from Columbia. After serving as an Assistant Coach at Boston College, he became Coach of Columbia's football team, a position he held from 1974 to 1979. He entered the business world when he joined J. Walter Thompson, went on to work at Kodak, and became Apple's VP of Marketing and headed its Claris software division. Bill Campbell was CEO of GO Corporation, a company he sold to AT&T in 1993, and was CEO of Intuit from 1994 to 1998. He retired as Board Chair of Intuit in 2016. The chorus of praise for Bill Campbell is intense and varied, and comes from a broad spectrum of people across Silicon Valley who benefited from his extraordinary generosity of his time and considerable talents. He was a generous benefactor to his home town, to Columbia University, to Boston College and to many other schools and charitable organizations. He has been called ``the most important executive you've never heard of'', energetic and vibrant, a great sports and executive coach, a proponent of creative talent, a geek and a nerd whisperer. He was a devout Catholic and a staunch advocate for the rights of women and the LGBT community. He was humble and profane, adored children, and made everyone who knew him feel like he was their best friend. Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in extending our most sincere condolences to Bill Campbell's wife and family. A giant has been taken from our midst but we are a better and stronger nation because he walked among us.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting discussion on the floor this morning. For people who are tuned in, I think that I want to stay away from Federal talk, telecommunications talk, governmentese. What this debate is all about is the Internet. There is a clear difference between how the Democrats view the Internet and how to protect its openness and its accessibility, and that rests in net neutrality--not a very sexy term. What it means is that no ISP can get in the way of the consumer. All you have to do is look in your purse or in your pocket. What you take out and the content that you view and whatever the Internet carries, no company can get in the way of that-- to chop it up, to slow it down, to speed it up, to charge more. Now, our Republican colleagues have fought mightily, and I salute them with their mightily launched campaign in that they don't believe in that, and that is really what is underneath this. They talk about Federal bureaucracies. They don't like that. They talk about bureaucrats. They don't like them. They talk about the President. They don't like him. What is at the heart of all of this is that we believe in that open, accessible Internet. We do not believe that the executive branch--in this case, the FCC--should be able to regulate broadband rates. We have said so. We have said so time and again. The gentleman from North Dakota objected to my amendment. He said that it was an oxymoron. Our amendment codified. No one else codified. We offered codification in the law that not only this FCC Commission but all future Commissions--all future Chairmen--could not exact rate regulation. I don't know what needs to be done in order to get to ``yes'' around here, and it is curious to me that all of the speakers on the other side never referenced what we put on the table--that there is agreement. Really, this bill goes beyond that, and that is what we object to. There is not one consumer organization in our country that supports what the majority is doing. We stand with consumers. They need a cop on the beat--we don't need the rate regulation of broadband by the FCC--just the way other agencies are supposed to look after the best interests of the American people. In fact, in the Communications Act, the public interest is stated over 100 times. We believe in that. The majority has gone too far with this bill. It can hurt small businesses, and it will hurt consumers. That is where we draw the line. Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2666. It goes too far. We were willing to meet and join hands and have something sail through the House--and I think it would have in the other body as well--and that is that there be no rate regulation of broadband Internet. I don't know. Maybe the majority was shocked that we agreed with their talking point. We are serious about it. We offered a solution to it that was rejected not once but twice. Very disappointing. For all of these reasons and with what my colleagues stated on this side in the magnificent statements that they made, I urge the House to reject this legislation because it goes well beyond its stated intent. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would note that the FCC chairman is not a Member of Congress. It is only Congress that can write a statute. The amendment that I offered codified--codified--that there would be no rate regulation of the Internet. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth). He is an outstanding member of the committee.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2666, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating a bill that the majority has titled the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act. It sounds terrific. On the surface, this bill appears to do what Democrats and Republicans both support. We both support this. What we support is very clear: preventing the FCC from setting the monthly rate that customers pay for Internet access service. But in reality, this bill is about undermining the FCC's authority to protect consumers and ensure a free and open Internet for all. I listened very carefully to the chairman, whom I respect, who is my friend, talking about innovation, talking about the effect that that has on so much that we do. I represent the innovation capital of our country and the world, Silicon Valley, so I think that I understand something about innovation and the ingredients that make it work. As the ranking member of the subcommittee, I have made it very clear that I do not support setting rates for customers to pay on Internet access, nor do any of my Democratic colleagues on the committee. In fact--and the chairman left this out. The chairman left this out. In fact, during the subcommittee and full committee markup of this bill, I offered an airtight, one-page amendment, right here--right here, one-page amendment--to codify that the FCC will permanently forbear from setting the rates that customers pay for Internet access. It is airtight. It is as clear as a bell, but it was rejected twice. Now, why would the majority reject exactly what they say they are seeking? It is a good question. It is a rhetorical question, but it should be raised. I think it is because this bill is about more than the FCC setting the rates that customers pay for Internet access. The FCC is the cop on the beat in the communications marketplace. That means the FCC has the responsibility to keep watch over the companies that provide our cell phone, cable, and Internet services to ensure that everyone is treated fairly. I think, in the absence of the following, not one consumer organization in the country supports the bill that is on the floor because it is overly broad. The definition of rate regulation in this bill leaves the door open for courts to strike down the FCC's authority to protect consumers and act in the public interest if they interpret any of its actions as impacting broadband Internet rates. That is what this bill does. That is what we object to. We do not object to, essentially, what the title of the bill is, No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access. These protections include prohibiting Internet service providers, ISPs, from capping the amount of data that customers can use; outlawing pay-for-privacy agreements where consumers have to pay fees to avoid having their data collected and sold to third parties; enforcing net neutrality rules against blocking Web sites; and reviewing mergers that increase consolidation and limit choice in the broadband Internet market. As I said a moment ago, it is no wonder this bill is opposed by over 70 public interest groups, including the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the Consumer Federation of America, and the National Consumer Law Center. And the White House has said that it will veto the bill. We could have come here with a very simple bill that essentially is what my amendment stated: no rate regulation. That is what the majority says that they are for, except the bill goes way beyond that. I want to make it clear to my colleagues and to the American people that may be tuned in to this debate: This bill, in its broadness, is an attack on consumers and an attack on the FCC's net neutrality rules. Now, that is not a surprise because the majority has never supported that. And that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2666. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record three letters from consumer organizations. I reserve the balance of my time. April 12, 2016. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives. Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: We understand that floor consideration of H.R. 2666, the ``No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act,'' is expected following a meeting of the House Committee on Rules this week. The undersigned groups strongly urge you and your colleagues to vote against H.R. 2666, because it would block the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from fulfilling its essential consumer-protection responsibilities. This would be disastrous for all of the people and businesses in America that use the Internet. Simply, H.R. 2666 would prevent the FCC from doing its job to protect the American people. H.R. 2666's overly broad definitions and undefined language would create extreme regulatory uncertainty. It would hamstring the FCC's ability to carry out its congressionally- mandated responsibilities. The impacts of this legislation are wide-ranging and difficult to fully enumerate, given the broad definitions of ``rates'' and ``regulation'' in the bill, which conflict with legal precedent. Yet several harmful impacts are readily apparent. First, it is clear that the bill is yet another attempt to undermine the FCC's Open Internet Order and the principles of net neutrality. The Order ``expressly eschew[ed] the future use of prescriptive, industry-wide rate regulation'' and the FCC forbore from the legal authorities that enable it to set rates. Although the FCC is not setting rates, stripping away its authority to review monopoly charges and other unjust and unreasonable business practices would harm everyone. It would especially harm the families and small businesses that rely on an affordable and open Internet to find jobs, do schoolwork, or reach consumers to compete in the 21st century global marketplace. This legislation threatens the FCC's ability to enforce merger conditions that provide low-cost broadband to disadvantaged communities, harming low-income Americans who already have limited broadband access, and further widening the digital divide. It would give a free ride to companies currently imposing punitive data caps and introducing zero-rating schemes, which the FCC has rightly questioned and continues to investigate. And despite the bill's imprecise references to interconnection and paid prioritization, it would leave open the very real possibility that these companies may try to extort and extract additional payments from websites and applications to reach their customers--even though the ability to download and upload the content of their choosing is exactly what broadband customers pay for. By using the term interconnection in an undefined manner, H.R. 2666 also creates significant uncertainty about what, if anything, the FCC can do to protect the public from interconnection-related harms. Congestion at interconnection points--locations where the Internet's backbone infrastructure connects to last-mile providers such as Comcast and AT&T--has hurt consumers and online businesses in recent years, and this bill would leave the public vulnerable to those harms. Lastly, the legislation would undermine the FCC's efforts to protect consumer privacy, including oversight of so-called ``pay-for-privacy'' plans that require customers to pay significant additional fees to their broadband provider to avoid having their online data collected and sold to third parties. In sum, the broad definition of ``regulation'' in H.R. 2666 would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the FCC to review and then prohibit even clearly anti-competitive and anti-consumer actions by broadband companies. Under the bill, broadband providers could characterize any and every rule or determination the FCC makes as a ``rate regulation'' if it prevents these ISPs from charging abusive penalties or tolls. Over four million Americans called for the FCC to protect an open Internet. It is time for members of Congress to stop sneak attacks that would allow big cable companies to break net neutrality rules without consequences. We strongly believe that the limited and inadequate exemptions in the current bill are neither credible nor sufficient. These limited exceptions for a small number of regulatory issues are not enough, as they simply create opportunities for companies to circumvent them. Congress has made the FCC the guardian of the public interest. The Commission must be able to protect America's Internet users from unreasonable business practices. It is unfortunate that the Energy & Commerce Committee Majority twice rejected proposed compromises that would have been harmonious with the FCC's decision not to set broadband rates, while ensuring the Commission still had the ability to protect consumers. Instead, this bill is little more than a wolf in sheep's clothing that would reduce the FCC's oversight abilities and strip away communications rights for hundreds of millions of Americans. We respectfully urge you to vote against this bill to show your support for America's consumers and businesses that need the free and open Internet. Sincerely, 18MillionRising.org, Alternate ROOTS, Arts & Democracy, Center for Media Justice (CMJ), Center for Rural Strategies, Cogent Communications, Inc., Color Of Change, Common Cause, Common Frequency, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Watchdog, Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Engine, Faithful Internet, Families for Freedom, Fight for the Future, Free Press Action Fund, FREE! Families Rally for Emancipation and Empowerment. Future of Music Coalition, Generation Justice, Global Action Project (GAP.), Greenlining Institute, Human Rights Defense Center, Instituto de Educacion Popular del Sur de California (IDEPSCA), Line Break Media, Martinez Street Women's Center, Media Action Center, Media Mobilizing Project, National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low- income clients, National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), New America's Open Technology Institute, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Open Access Connections, People's Press Project, PhillyCAM, Progressive Technology Project, Prometheus Radio Project, Public Knowledge. School for Designing a Society, St. Paul Neighborhood Network (SPNN), TURN, United Church of Christ, OC Inc., Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, Voices for Racial Justice, Women Action Media, Working Films, Working Narratives, Writers Guild of America, West.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a wonderful and important member of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), an important member of the committee.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, Andy Grove (nee Andras Istvan, Grof) was born September 2, 1936, in Budapest, Hungary, and died on March 16, 2016, at the age of 79. After enduring Nazi occupation and Soviet abuse, he immigrated to the United States in 1956. He earned a degree in chemical engineering at City College of New York (CCNY) and his Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1958, Andy Grove married Eva Kastan, a fellow Hungarian refugee. They have two daughters, Karen and Robie, whom Andy adored and was fiercely protective of their privacy. He also leaves eight grandchildren who brought him great joy. Andy Grove's first job after graduating from the University of California, Berkeley, was as a researcher at Fairchild Semiconductor. When Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce founded Intel Corporation, Andy joined them. Together, they became a storied team at Intel, playing a pivotal role in the creation of the personal computer and the growth of Silicon Valley. Andy served as Intel's President beginning in 1979, became CEO in 1987, and was Board Chair from 1997 to 2005. Andy Grove was a visionary corporate leader. He was a believer in open communication and took on none of the trappings of power. He was an advocate for jobs for Americans and helped transform Intel Corporation into the world's largest manufacturer of semiconductors. Andy Grove wrote or co-authored seven books and gave generously of his time, resources and considerable talents to many charitable causes, especially the advancement in research for Parkinson's Disease and to the Grove School of Engineering at CCNY. He received many honors, including honorary degrees from CCNY, Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Harvard University. He was named the ``Most Influential Business Person of the Last 25 Years'' by the Wharton School, and was Time Magazine's 1997 Man of the Year. He was a longtime member of the International Rescue Committee's Board of Directors, and was honored by the IRC in 2010 as one of ten distinguished refugees. When Andy Grove received the Churchill Club Legendary Leader Award in 2015, he struggled onto the stage, took the microphone and urged the audience to help refugees. ``I made it, let's help in a little way to help them make it.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in honoring the extraordinary life of Andrew S. Grove and in extending our most sincere condolences to his wife, Eva, to his children, grandchildren, and all who knew and loved him. It was said of him, ``He merits a place alongside the great business leaders of the 20th century.'' Our country embraced a young refugee and immigrant, and in return Andy Grove lifted up our entire nation with his vision, extraordinary intellect and unmatched leadership. How privileged I am to have known him and represented him in Congress. How blessed our country has been to have him as a prized and cherished citizen.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Allan E. Nader, who died peacefully at his home in Northbrook, Illinois, on February 16, 2016, at the age of 78. Allan was the younger of two sons of Olga and Joshua Nader. He attended Lake View High School and was a graduate of the Illinois Institute of Technology. He received a Master's Degree in Science from Western Michigan University, and a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from Purdue. After receiving his Doctorate, Allan began his career as a research scientist at DuPont, a post he held for 28 years. He then worked with his brother, Albert, at Questar and taught chemistry at Triton College and Northwestern University. He was part of INVO-Innovations and New Ventures at Northwestern, where he received the Office of Research Star Award in 2014 and the Outstanding Employee of the Year Award in 2015. Allan Nader was a man of deep and abiding faith and was deeply devoted to his church and his family. He was an unwavering believer in education and mentored many young people. He was a dear friend to many, and I will always be grateful to count myself among them. Allan Nader leaves his wife, Helen, the great love of his life for over 50 years, his daughter Cara, who was the joy of his life, and Cara's husband George, who became a true son to him. The prophet Micah wrote: ``What is good has been explained to you; this is what Yahweh asks of you: Only this, to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with your God.'' This is how Allan Nader lived his life. Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in honoring the life of a great and good man, Allan E. Nader, and in extending our condolences to his wife, his entire family and his many friends. Our country is stronger and better because of his integrity, patriotism, brilliance, mentoring and faith. His was a life well lived and stands as a source of inspiration to countless individuals who were blessed to have known him.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 4596, the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act. There has been a lot said about it, and anyone who tunes in, it is not as complicated as it sounds. We know what the Internet represents. We know we want to expand broadband in our country. We know especially in the rural areas of our country that broadband and all that it represents has not reached everyone, and there are many small businesses that are working hard to bring broadband into the areas where people do not have access. We also have some critical protections for the consumers of broadband, and we wanted to make sure that we could protect the consumer but also not burden the small businesses, and that is what this legislation represents. I am pleased that the bill includes the 5-year sunset provision, which is going to provide the FCC more time to study whether or not the exemption should be made permanent and how a small ISP should be defined. So, long story short, I think that this is a good bill. It represents a bipartisan effort, and I hope it works out the way the promises are being made about it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the San Mateo County Transit District, known locally as SamTrans, and congratulate its Board and everyone at the agency. SamTrans has provided important bus service throughout San Mateo County since it carried its first passengers on July 1, 1976. SamTrans was formed through the consolidation of 11 separate city bus systems into a single countywide service. Since its beginning, SamTrans has provided bus service to several heavily populated employment centers on the San Francisco Peninsula. SamTrans also provides critical service to the rural coast of San Mateo County which is home to agricultural workers and many other residents who are dependent on the SamTrans bus system to get to work, school, and medical appointments. SamTrans is also a leader in providing paratransit service for passengers with mobility impairments. In 1977, more than a decade before passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, SamTrans launched the Redi-Wheels program to provide on-demand, free transit service for passengers with disabilities. This innovative program now provides more than 1,000 trips per day. In 1988, SamTrans was named the managing agency of a half-cent sales tax measure approved by San Mateo County voters for transportation projects. This sales tax was renewed in 2004 and will be in effect through 2033. Three years later, SamTrans joined with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to purchase the Caltrain right-of-way from San Francisco to San Jose and ensure that this regional commuter rail remained in service. SamTrans now serves as the managing agency for Caltrain which is the spine of our transit system on the Peninsula and serves over 55,000 passengers on an average weekday. Today, SamTrans has a fleet of nearly 300 buses providing service to over 13 million riders per year. SamTrans operates on over 75 routes throughout San Mateo County, with service extended into parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto, and the District has continually improved and upgraded its service over the years to better align with demand. My own experience with SamTrans dates back to my service on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors from 1982 to 1992. Throughout my tenure on the Board and in Congress, I'm proud to have worked closely with SamTrans to ensure residents of San Mateo County have access to safe, efficient transportation options that reduce congestion and improve mobility on the Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House to join me in honoring SamTrans for 40 years of superb service to the people of San Mateo County.