Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

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

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2011, surrounded by his family, my friend Ralph Calcaterra of Atherton, California, passed away. He leaves his wife Ferne, two children, Melissa Freeman and Richard Calcaterra, and three grandchildren. For almost forty years, my family was blessed with the friendship of Ralph Calcaterra. He made us laugh across the decades and generations. He rode his bike to our house on Saturdays for almost twenty years-- smiling and calling out, ``anybody home?'' and ``what's going on?'' We learned more about Iron Mountain, Michigan, and Las Vegas, than anybody else in Atherton. We saw how much a man can love his wife, his children, and his grandchildren. We learned the latest prices of real estate in Atherton--including who had bought what, and at what price. Most of all, we saw close up and personal, what loyal friendship was. Ralph embodied it. Today, heaven is a better place. Saints and sinners alike are laughing and learning as we did because Ralph is there. Thank you Ralph, for being our loving, smiling and loyal friend. You enriched our lives just by being wonderful you, and we are already missing you. Happy bike riding across heaven, and know we will love you across eternity. Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in offering our condolences to the family of Ralph Calcaterra, a proud citizen and a true patriot of our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a very important issue which has generated much debate and misinformation in recent weeks. When President Obama articulated his vision for U.S. policy in the Middle East on May 19th at the State Department, he laid out an historic call to support the democratic aspirations of people living under decades of autocracy and tyranny. President Obama also reaffirmed our commitment to finding a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He restated the need for a negotiated settlement, and he opposed the Palestinian attempt to unilaterally seek UN recognition of their statehood. He also called for a resolution of the disputed lands based on the ``1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.'' President Obama's call to use the borders that existed before the Six Day War as a basis for future borders was also made by President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton. This is an almost two-decade old U.S. position. This policy position is well understood as the mainstream position by every diplomat, pundit, and scholar familiar with this issue. The position is shared by Israel's own Defense Minister, and by Israel's former Prime Minister. It is shared by Israel's Opposition Leader, and it is shared by a majority of the Israeli public. The issue of a negotiated peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians is far too important to cede to those who criticize the President for their own political aims. We must emphasize the facts. Support for Israel as a secure Jewish democratic state is a bipartisan priority, and this Administration has done at least as much as any other to expand and improve our security cooperation and diplomatic ties with her. I call on each of my colleagues to refrain from distorting or misrepresenting this issue, and to join together in support of a negotiated settlement that will bring peace and prosperity to a region riddled with conflict for far too long.

Ms. ESHOO

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

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

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill, H.R. 2021, contains a rather extraordinary provision. It says that any appeal of an exploration permit decision can only be heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a fundamental change to longstanding law and precedent governing the venue for judicial review of challenges to EPA action. Over 40 years ago when Congress adopted the Clean Air Act in 1970 and established venue for judicial review, Congress made a very sensible distinction. That distinction was that local and regional EPA actions would be reviewed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Nationally applicable actions would be reviewed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This distinction has worked well for the past 40 years. If a major new industrial source will have significant local air pollution impacts, nearby communities will want to weigh in. Local businesses will want to ensure that a new source doesn't force more stringent cleanup requirements for existing sources. State and local authorities will have views. And the industrial source itself may disagree with EPA's decision. All of these stakeholders may want to appeal EPA's decision. Under the Clean Air Act, they can do so in the nearest court of appeals, without traveling to Washington, D.C. And for permits issued by States or localities, the decision is reviewed by State courts. But this bill creates a new regime for exploration permits. In fact, under this bill, even for an exploration permit issued by a State or local permitting agency, all appeals would have to go to the Federal court here in Washington, D.C. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to criticize centralized government; bash Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C. lawyers. They extol the virtues of local control. They cite the 10th Amendment. But this legislation centralizes control in Washington, D.C. In fact, it's a boon for Washington, D.C. lawyers. This provision makes it far more difficult for regular folks to appeal a decision that can directly affect them. It took one of our Energy and Commerce Committee witnesses from the North Slope of Alaska 16 hours to travel to Washington, D.C., at a cost of at least $1,000 for that ticket. This provision forces State and local authorities to fly to Washington, D.C. to defend a challenged permit decision. That's a huge burden in terms of money, and particularly so in these tough economic times. The premise of this bill is that the oil industry needs faster permit decisions. Moving review from one Federal circuit court to another does not expedite permit decisions, and the committee that I'm a part of received no testimony identifying any actual problems with review in the relevant circuit courts. I encourage Members to support this amendment, which would preserve local control, which would preserve community participation and really speaks to some fiscal common sense. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I was not present during the rollcall vote Nos. 420-459, on June 15-16, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted: on rollcall vote No. 420 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 421 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 422 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 423 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 424 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 425 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 426 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 427 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 428 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 429 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 430 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 431 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 432 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 433 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 434 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 435 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 436 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 437 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 438 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 439 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 440 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 441 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 442 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 443 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 444 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 445 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 446 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 447 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 448 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 449 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 450 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 451 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 452 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 453 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 454 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 455 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 456 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 457 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 458 I would have voted ``yes''; and on rollcall vote No. 459 I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished woman, Doris Moorad Nadder. A lifetime member of Illinois' Carter-Westminster United Presbyterian Church, an extraordinary wife, mother, grandmother, cousin and friend, Doris is beloved for her spirited community involvement. A native of Chicago, Illinois, Doris Nadder attended Lake View High School and later Northwestern Business College and Jones Business School. In 1983, she joined Kraft Foods, and spent the next 15 years contributing her considerable energy and talents to the company, rising to become Account Executive for Major Accounts. In her spare time, she wrote a play about the food service business for which she won a Prestigious Achievement Award. That's just how Doris Nadder sees life . . . a wonderful stage on which so many people interact. Apart from her professional career, Doris Nadder has devoted herself to her church community, serving as an Elder and Financial Secretary. She can always be found mingling with friends in the pews, or leading the Carter-Westminster Exercise Group. She was recently chosen as Carter-Westminster's ``S.Y.S.K.'' (Someone You Should Know), an honor she has earned and richly deserves. Above all, Doris Nadder loves her family. She and her husband Dick were married in 1956, and raised three beautiful children--Claudia, Allison, and James. Her three grandchildren, Colin, Adam, and Jason are the lights of her life, whom she rates as ``Ten Pluses.'' Doris and Dick Nadder are avid readers and world travelers, having visited Spain, Austria, England and France. She has brought new meaning to the word `retired', walking three miles daily, painting beautiful watercolors, practicing her calligraphy, and occasionally even working part-time. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring my very special cousin, Doris Nadder. She enriches the lives of everyone who knows her, and she brings constant joy to her family and wide circle of friends. I'm proud to pay tribute to a woman who lives her faith every day of her life, strengthens each of us with her integrity, and makes her community and our country stronger and better with all she does.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker. I was not present during the rollcall vote No. 417-419, on June 14, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote No. 417 I would have voted, ``yes;'' on rollcall vote No. 418 I would have voted, ``yes;'' on rollcall vote No. 419 I would have voted, ``no.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I was not present during the rollcall vote No. 413-416, on June 13, 2011. On rollcall vote No. 413 I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote No. 414 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 415 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 416 I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. ESHOO

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

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 397, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about what I think is a very, very important undertaking. It deals with our democratic system and what works against it. My amendment would require that anyone that receives an appropriation, a contract, doing business with the Federal Government produce full disclosure relative to political expenditures. I raised this because I think there is a dark corner of our system that is not being addressed, and it is an issue that is as much about deficit reduction as it is about our democracy. We know that there are political expenditures that are made. Some are disclosed; some aren't. I think it's important to state that I think, I really believe, that this could have been a bipartisan agreement. It's important to remember that our Republican colleagues were for disclosure before they were against it. In 2000, Senator Mitch McConnell asked, ``Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?'' In 2007, on Meet the Press, Speaker John Boehner said, we need ``full disclosure of all the money that we raise and how it's spent. And I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' I agree with what the Speaker said in 2007, but since then our colleagues have changed their minds. Not a single Republican voted for the DISCLOSE Act. And when I offered an amendment similar to this one in February, it wasn't even allowed to be brought up for a vote. Since then, Republicans have gone on high alert at the news that the President is considering an Executive order to create the same kind of disclosure they used to favor. I know that the National Chamber of Commerce has weighed in, and they've raised First Amendment. I'm really interested in this new effort and interest of the National Chamber of Commerce, and I hope they'll come to my office and talk to me about forming a coalition on First Amendment rights. This is not about that. This is not about that, and no one can say that with a straight face. My constituents are very smart; they can think for themselves. But even the smartest people can't make a decision without critical information, and today's broken system leaves millions of Americans in the dark. They don't know who's paying for what; they don't know who is being paid to say what because there is not disclosure at the Federal level. So this levels this out. It very simply says that we're on the side of taxpayers, that we are going to make sure that whether it's procurement or contracts or appropriations, that we want to be on the side of the taxpayer, on the side of the taxpayer having full disclosure so that they not only know who's doing business with the Federal Government, but where these tax dollars are going. There's a requirement at the SEC, Mr. Chairman, where boards of directors, who essentially are the congress of a corporation, must disclose their financial interests. Why? So that shareholders know. Well, guess who the shareholders are in the country? The taxpayers, the citizens. This is in many ways a backdoor earmark, and we need to get rid of it. So I hope that this will be made in order. And I also think that this is a very important effort for full disclosure at the Federal level, whoever does business with the Federal Government, that they disclose. It's a fair requirement, it's a simple requirement, and I think it's something we should all agree on: disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and career of Thomas (Tom) C. Mohr who is the President of Canada College, a distinguished college in the 14th Congressional District of California and my alma mater. President Mohr has served as a teacher, mentor and community leader for the past 47 years, with 42 of those years living in the Bay Area with his beloved wife Sandy. President Mohr holds a Bachelor of Science from St. Louis University and a Master of Arts from the University of San Francisco. A life-long educator, he began teaching at Taylor School in St. Louis, Missouri in 1958, and moved to San Francisco in 1959, where he taught at Riordan High School. He began working as a high school administrator in 1971 when he was appointed Vice Principal of Serramonte High School in the Jefferson Union High School District. During his career he was invited by the Western Association of School Accreditation to serve on more than 30 school accreditations, most of which he chaired, including accreditations of schools in Japan and Egypt. In 1996, President Mohr was named Superintendent of the San Mateo Union High School District. He pushed for the successful passage of a $137.5 million bond to refurbish and modernize the six high schools in the District. He also led the District in a comprehensive planning process. He retired in 2004, and was soon appointed Interim President at Canada College. Canada College, located in Redwood City, opened in 1968 as part of the three-school San Mateo County Community College District. The beautiful campus overlooks Silicon Valley and its talented students have gone on to apply the excellent education they received at Canada to achieve their dreams academically and professionally across the Bay Area and beyond. President Mohr is recognized as the critical leader in the growth of this unique college, including the re-establishment of strong connections with local high schools to make Canada College a destination for graduating seniors, increasing enrollment by nearly 1,000 students. A tireless leader and innovator in education, President Mohr helped reorganize the entire planning structure at the College and guided it and the San Mateo County Community College District through an exhaustive strategic planning process where the College had its accreditation renewed and is now viewed as a state leader in the accreditation process. President Mohr also developed his vision for Canada with an Honors Transfer Program at the College designed to support highly motivated students as they pursue their educational goals for graduation and transfer, increasing by five times the number of students transferring to UC schools. In the Honors Program, students are able to find the additional resources they need among their peers and excellent faculty to take their academic achievements to the next level. During his tenure at Canada College, President Mohr made it a priority to create a center for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning, attracting more than $3 million in Federal grants to support this mission, and adding more than 1,000 students majoring in STEM-related fields. A practical leader, President Mohr understood the importance of linking career opportunities to education and he created pipelines for ESL students to connect their language education to growing career fields. Understanding that education doesn't stop with an Associate's Degree, he made it a priority to develop additional opportunities for students through the Canada College University Center, including bachelor degree programs in art, psychology, human services, and business administration. The important link between prepared students and student success was a priority for President Mohr, leading him to create the Center for Teacher Efficacy at the Canada College University Center which provides professional development opportunities for high school teachers on the Peninsula. Throughout his distinguished career, President Mohr has connected the College to the community, serving as Vice Chairman on the Redwood City San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce, serving on the Board for the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula, serving on the Board of the Redwood City Police Activities League, and serving through numerous civic groups. Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in offering our warmest congratulations to President Tom Mohr on his retirement and to celebrate his extraordinary career and legacy he created, helping countless students to achieve their dreams and potential. He has led with conviction, inspired through example and taught with joy, transforming each life he touched. He has renewed our community and strengthened our country, proving that one person can indeed make noble and lasting contributions. How blessed I am to know President Mohr, how deeply grateful I am to him, and how grateful our nation is to him for lifting up generations of students who today are major contributors to the good and the greatness of our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and a particular effort to benefit the Asian Pacific American (APA) community, the Hep B Free Campaign. This is a month to acknowledge and celebrate the APA community's vital economic, cultural, academic, and political contributions to our diverse and dynamic country. I'm proud to join more than 150,000 of my APA constituents in California's 14th Congressional District, whose work enriches our lives every day. As we acknowledge the extraordinary impact of the APA community, this is also a time to address a more sobering impact on the APA community, the grave health threat of Hepatitis B. Hepatitis B is the greatest cause of liver cancer in the world, resulting in up to 80 percent of all liver cancer, three hundred and fifty to four hundred million people in the world are chronically infected with Hepatitis B, which takes a life every 30 seconds. Most of them are Asian. One in ten foreign-born Asian Americans are chronically infected with Hepatitis B, 100 times the infection rate of the general population. Without treatment, 1 in 4 will die from liver cancer or liver failure, often in their prime adult years. In California alone, liver cancer is among the leading causes of cancer deaths among Laotians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, and Filipinos. Nearly 10 percent of the Asian population in my District is chronically infected, and nearly half have not been vaccinated to protect them from infection. Given the gravity of this health challenge, I'm proud to recognize the outstanding work of the Hep B Free Campaign which promotes public and provider awareness, including programs for screening, vaccination, and linkage to follow-up treatment. Hep B Free was originally started by Asian Week Foundation, a community-based non-profit that celebrates the diversity of Asian Pacific America through identity assemblage, with special expertise in bringing together the multiplicity of groups and personality that make up our community; Stanford University's Asian Liver Center, the only non-profit organization in the country addressing this pressing public health disparity; and the San Francisco Department of Public Health because they recognized the egregious health disparity experienced by APA in terms of Hepatitis B. I'm proud this campaign began in San Francisco, continued in San Mateo County and has now launched its campaign in Santa Clara County with the additional support of Asian Americans for Community Involvement and the Santa Clara County Public Health Department. I look forward to supporting Hep B Free as they expand their efforts to the rest of the country. As Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, Majority Whip of the California Assembly and Honorary Chairperson of the Hep B Free Campaign, said, ``We can set a model for the nation and be an inspiration to efforts around the globe in eradicating Hep B.'' We celebrate APA Heritage Month just a month after the death of Dr. Baruch Blumberg, a brilliant and compassionate scientist whose discovery of the Hepatitis B virus and creation of the vaccine won him a Nobel Prize and the gratitude of all whose lives are affected by the disease. The Hep B vaccine is known as the first anti-cancer vaccine because it is so effective at preventing Hep B infection and the liver cancer that could develop. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and the Hep B Free Campaign's extraordinary efforts to ensure that the millions of Asian Pacific Americans who strengthen our Nation can live long and healthy lives.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 40th Anniversary of Reverend Paul R. Vassar's ordination to the priesthood. For four decades, Father Vassar has served the people of his parishes with good words and good works, and on June 11, 2011, St. Leander Parish is celebrating this wonderful milestone in their Pastor's life. A native of Oakland, Father Vassar graduated from Bishop O'Dowd High School, studied philosophy at St. John's College in Camarillo, and graduated from St. Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park, California. He was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Floyd Begin in 1971. Since that time, Father Vassar has served as an Associate Pastor at the Oakland parish of St. Leo, and as Pastor of St. Benedict's in 1977. After studying at Howard University, he was appointed Pastor of St. Columba Parish in Oakland, where he ministered for 13 years. After a decade as Diocesan Vicar General, Father Vassar became Pastor of St. Leander Parish in 2004. At St. Leander, Father Vassar's energy and enthusiasm constantly shine through. He visits students in their classrooms regularly at the Parish school, delighting in their growth and activity. Dedicated to learning and listening, Father Vassar learned Spanish to better communicate with his diverse parish. Under his guidance and exceptional leadership, one of the oldest parishes of the Diocese of Oakland has flourished. Father Vassar has served on the Board of Directors of Catholic Charities of the East Bay, and he and several of his priest friends formed a support group to share the challenges and joys of their callings. It is a special personal privilege for me to honor Father Paul on the 40th Anniversary of his ordination. We have been friends since his days at St. Patrick's Seminary and he has been part of my family since then, from the births of my children, to officiating at the wedding of my daughter, to celebrating the Funeral Masses for my parents when each entered into eternity. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Father Vassar's four decades of faithful service to the Bay Area Catholic community. When he joined St. Leander, he commented on how excited he was to return to parish work. ``I get to walk with people where God is working with them,'' he said. For 40 phenomenal years, Father Vassar has done just that. I'm proud to know him, to be his friend, and to pay tribute to this good, holy and happy man who has strengthened our community, deepened our faith, and made our country a better place.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. First of all, to imply that taxpayers fund abortions today is a lie. No, not one penny can be spent on abortions because of the Hyde Amendment which passed on September 30, 1976. What this bill does is to play reproductive roulette with the Tax Code. Under H.R. 3, if someone buys private insurance that includes coverage for abortions, they will be taxed. If someone buys private insurance, using your own money, obviously, that doesn't include coverage for abortions, then they can deduct the cost of the health plan from their taxes. This would turn our tax collection agency into a health care policing agency. I support a woman's right to opt for or against abortion. The decision is private. It's a matter of faith. It's a matter of conscience, and our Constitution recognizes this. Make no mistake, this is an attack on women's health and it's a giant step back for the equality we've worked so hard to achieve. This is wrong, this is dangerous, and the House should oppose it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary contributions of John Kelly, an outstanding humanitarian and former Executive Director of Samaritan House in San Mateo, California. Samaritan House is honoring John Kelly at its May 7th Gala for a lifetime dedicated to helping the least among us. John Kelly grew up in the community he watches over. A San Francisco native, he earned a Master's Degree in Theology from the University of Notre Dame and a Master's Degree in Psychology from Berkeley's Graduate Theological Union. He spent 25 years as a Catholic priest and nearly two decades teaching at Serra and Menlo Atherton High Schools. In 1985, Samaritan House hired John Kelly to unite a San Mateo City Information and Referral Agency for low-income residents, with a free meal program. Under John Kelly's fifteen years of unparalleled leadership, Samaritan House expanded to include many new programs and help many more people in need, including a 90-bed shelter, free medical clinic, food pantry, clothes closet, and holiday assistance. They offer classes in learning English, household budgeting, nutrition, and parenting skills. Today, more than 3,000 volunteers help Samaritan House provide more than 12,000 San Mateo County residents with free food, clothing, and counseling. Primarily relying on private donations, Samaritan House proudly models its services on the idea of ``Neighbor Helping Neighbor.'' John Kelly is one of the best neighbors in the Bay Area. His public spiritedness truly encompasses the entire community. Since 1991, John Kelly has volunteered several days a week at San Quentin State Prison, where he teaches self-help courses, and offers spiritual guidance and discussion. ``I relish seeing so many men turn their lives around,'' he always says. John Kelly also serves on the boards of several civic organizations, and I'm proud to sit alongside him as a member of the advisory board of the Service League of San Mateo County. In recognition of his outstanding commitment to his community, John Kelly received the Bay Area's 2005 Jefferson Award for Public Service. The term ``Good Samaritan'' is used so often that we occasionally forget what was so extraordinary about the story, where one man recognized a kinship, a common humanity, and stopped to help a person in need. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest passes by the hapless victim. For John Kelly, the seminary strengthened his desire to help. It is his calling, and he has immeasurably transformed the lives of so many. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life's work of John Kelly and the Samaritan House. He has said, ``The most important thing you can do is help another human being.'' In this sense, John's entire life has been filled with doing important things. He has spent his life recognizing and resolving the problems of poverty, and I'm honored to recognize him in turn in Congress.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1217, a bill to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Prevention works. It's the best way to keep costs down and keep people healthy. For decades our healthcare system has been designed to treat patients once they're sick. This is inefficient and costly. The Prevention and Public Health Fund included in healthcare reform is finally starting to change this backward system and invest efforts to keep people healthy. The Fund is important because it offers flexibility--grants are awarded to states, communities, and local public health groups to implement local prevention programs that work for the local community. Any person in this chamber who is concerned about the rising cost of healthcare in our country should be embracing the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Study after study has proven that prevention saves money. This legislation willfully ignores this fact and instead, favors an ``every man for himself'' approach. Is it any wonder why we spend more on healthcare than any country in the world with lackluster results? Other nations are out-investing us in prevention, public health infrastructure, and primary care. Smart healthcare saves money. Unfortunately, we're also considering several bills this week to eliminate healthcare and none of them are wise. Efforts to chip away at the first meaningful health reform our country has ever seen are shortsighted and foolish . . . even worse is to take away basic preventive health services that women already have. Ninety seven percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides have nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with family planning, diabetes care, vaccines, physicals, and, for men, testicular cancer screenings. Eliminating funding for the preventive services of Planned Parenthood will increase the number of abortions in our country and reverse the positive results of mammograms and cervical care. I urge my colleagues to vote against these efforts.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Ms. ESHOO. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just in a calm voice respond to my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte. And he is a good friend. This is not necessary. If there were a case to be made, other than those that have come to the floor today, it would have been made in testimony by the people that are the very stakeholders in all of these businesses. And that's why I started out today by saying I don't believe the Republicans have a case, a leg to stand on, because all of the companies--small, medium, and large--even the largest broadband providers in the country, consumer advocates, religious organizations, it is the broadest and deepest coalition I have seen in recent history of the committee, they are all opposed to what you are doing. So you are having a wonderful conversation with yourselves, but, most frankly, it is not doing anything for anyone else. This is about protecting consumers, and there have been cases, case after case at the FCC where abuses were committed in terms of blocking, and many other things. So this side is for protecting and understands what an open and free Internet is. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the full committee.

Ms. ESHOO. I would just like to add to the debate that the number of Democrats that signed the letter that Mr. Stearns just referenced, that was in opposition to operating under Title II. The FCC listened, and they went and placed this set of rules under Title I. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), another very distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).