Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I yield 4 minutes to a highly valued member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

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 gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

Ms. ESHOO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution 37 which, if enacted, would overturn the FCC's open Internet rules, not closed Internet rules. The first thing that I want to say today is that at 2 p.m. today, which is the time right now, we are moving ever closer to the shutdown of our government. I think that this is a very sad day, a day when the rest of the world that always looks to the United States of America to be the best example for what we do, how we do it, what we say, and how we comport ourselves, that there is failure within a few hours, a total collapse of leadership. So while this is taking place, that is the toxic cloud that really hangs over the House. I'm going to use 4 minutes, Mr. Speaker. This resolution isn't about acting in the interest of American innovation, American jobs, American competition or American consumers. Quite simply, this is an ideological assault on a government agency and their ability to provide basic consumer protections. If this were about innovation, jobs, competition for consumers, the majority wouldn't really be offering it, because it disables a free and open Internet, which has brought about greater consumer choice and has ushered in some of the most successful businesses of the past two decades in America, from Google and Facebook to Amazon and EBay. I know because so many of them--and I'm so proud of this--are constituent companies of my distinguished congressional district. These companies and thousands of others like them offer access to news, shopping, video, music, and social networking, and have resulted in more than 3 million new American jobs over the past 15 years. If the majority understood this, they wouldn't be standing in the way of it. In fact, consumers have lined up against what the majority has brought to the floor today. Some of the largest broadband providers in the Nation--AT&T, Comcast and others--have lined up against it. Small businesses have lined up against it. Medium-sized businesses that are in the Internet business have lined up against it. More than 150 organizations, including public interest organizations, civil rights groups, unions, and education advocates have lined up against it. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has lined up against it. The United Church of Christ and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have lined up against it. The Computer and Communications Industry Association has lined up against it. TechNet is against it. These groups overwhelmingly agree that the CRA is not the answer. The chairman said earlier that there are many Members on this side who have enacted--used--the CRA on other pieces of legislation. Yes, we have. We thought it was appropriate to. We're not opposed to the CRA, but we are in terms of using it on this. I really think, at the end of the day, this is ideological. I think, in the Republican DNA, there is total opposition to any Federal agency that is charged with carrying out the protection of consumers and those things that the Congress believes are the best for the American people. So, with all of these businesses and all of these organizations, I think, with all due respect, that you have a very, very weak case. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the very distinguished ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very strong opposition to this bill, H.R. 910. I can't help but think as I listen to what is being said on the other side that they are sitting in a car looking in the rearview mirror, and they think they see the future. There is a reason why people on this side of the aisle are opposed to this bill and call it the dirty air bill, because that's exactly what it is. And so instead of helping to create jobs for the American people, which is their top priority, their very, very top priority, what is the gift of the new majority, dirty air. That's why the American Lung Association is vehemently opposed to this bill. The American Public Health Association is vehemently opposed to this bill. Former senior military officers, environmental organizations, and scientists all strongly oppose the bill. Now, guess who is for it. Guess who is for it, America. Big Oil because it will increase the demand for oil and do nothing to reduce what consumers spend on gasoline. This bill would put an end to future cost savings because both the EPA and States would be prohibited from updating the standards that they have already set. One would think that during this time of rising gas prices and the turmoil in the Middle East, that we would be voting on legislation to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, voting to drive innovation in clean energy industries, and voting to ensure future security and energy independence and leave the next generation of Americans with a healthy world. Instead, we are voting on a bill to gut the Clean Air Act. I think this is all heavy evidence for Members of the House to oppose the dirty air act.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Lois Lees Clumeck, who passed peacefully into eternity at her home in San Mateo, California, on March 21, 2011, at the age of 97 years. She was the pillar of her family . . . a loving wife, mother, grandmother, and great grandmother. Lois Clumeck raised her family to live life to the fullest and help others do the same. Her daughter Jill and son-in-law John Freidenrich took this message to heart, becoming active philanthropists committed to causes in medicine, education, and art. The passion and philanthropy that the Clumeck and Freidenrich families have demonstrated have transformed countless lives and left a legacy of light and love. After Jill was diagnosed with breast cancer, Lois became particularly passionate about aiding women with breast cancer through an organization the family created, Breast Cancer Connections. Just as Breast Cancer Connections provided a support network for families struggling to cope with the disease, Lois was always the support network for her entire extended family, whom she deeply cherished. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Lois Clumeck's children . . . Jack and Gloria Clumeck, and Jill and John Freidenrich; her grandchildren, Linda, Alan, Karen, Danny, Gail, Andrew, Eric, Amy, Cindy, and Adam; and her great grandchildren, Benjamin, Lauren, Evan, Danielle, Jacqueline, Samuel, David, Theodore, Lucille, Beverly, Sylvia, Justin, Jacob, Ross, and Alexa. Lois' devoted daughter Jill once said, ``Find something you're passionate about and give as much as you can to that, and you will feel a richness beyond all riches.'' Lois Clumeck found her passion in people, and her life was rich beyond measure because of it. The memory of her words and deeds are a blessing, and I'm especially grateful to have known such a remarkable woman. She made her community better and strengthened our nation with her love, her generosity, her gentleness and her integrity.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the long and loving life of Oneida ``Mother'' Branch, the heart and soul of the East Palo Alto, California, community, who died in her home on March 22, 2011. For 92 years, Mother Branch put the ``active'' in activist, devoting her life to her family, her church, and her community. Born in New Orleans, Mother Branch moved to East Palo Alto half a century ago to start a church with her late husband, the Reverend James Branch. After helping to start St. John Missionary Baptist Church, Mother Branch taught Sunday school and founded a sewing club, attending services until just a month before she died. Widely known and respected for her prodigious knowledge of church history and her willingness to help others, Mother Branch was a deeply religious woman who was revered by the entire community. But Mother Branch's charity was not confined to church. ``Mother was a little lady with a massive heart,'' Paul Nyberg, Publisher of the Los Altos Town Crier, once said. ``She was an unabashed Christian reaching out to help everyone in need.'' In the 1970's, Mother Branch established the East Palo Alto Community Center to provide food, comfort, and support to those in need. For decades, she dispensed canned food, blankets, and clothing--as well as uproarious stories and sage advice--to the people of East Palo Alto, working especially hard to promote education and the dignity of women. Even while she performed her good works, Mother Branch experienced a series of difficult setbacks. The first Community Center office burned down just before Thanksgiving of 1977, and a flood later destroyed her second office. Mother Branch kept aiding her community, spending what little money she had on temporary storage units and continuing to distribute supplies from her own home--which burned down as well. Motivated by a heroic desire to help, even as a stroke at the age of 86 kept her in the hospital for only two days, she went back to work. ``No one should suffer,'' she would say. A constant whirlwind of wisdom and affection, Mother Branch always seemed younger than her years . . . which was in fact the opposite. Over the course of resolving a mortgage issue in 2007, Mother Branch discovered that she was actually three years older than she'd thought. But the aid she gave was ageless, touching generations of East Palo Alto residents. Over the years, she would proudly observe, ``I have seen people stand on their own feet.'' This was perhaps her greatest quality, her ability to strengthen and sustain the lives of those around her. She lived her faith daily, and recognized the godliness in every human being. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Mother Branch's children: Erwin Babney, Whitney Babney, and Nate Branch, her grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, as well as all the residents of East Palo Alto. Mother Branch was deeply rooted in her community, nourishing everyone she met with her light, love, and laughter. I'm proud to have known such a caring and extraordinary matriarch and distinguished citizen of our community and our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Ed Markey, whom I think possesses the broadest and the deepest knowledge about telecommunications in the Congress.

Ms. ESHOO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in fierce opposition to this bill which is going to adversely affect more than 34 million National Public Radio listeners through 900 local stations across our entire country. My Republican colleagues have declared an emergency to rush this bill to the floor without any hearings whatsoever to examine the proposal. I think that's a bad way to do business. We have many emergencies to deal with in our country, but attacking and crippling NPR is hardly an emergency. And it does it in a very sneaky back-door way. What the bill does is it cuts off the use of all Federal funding to NPR by preventing any grants to it. It prevents any support to NPR by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and it prevents support to NPR programming from public radio stations across the country. In other words, it cripples it, it hobbles it, which is really what the majority is seeking to do. This proposal is not going to do anything about reducing the deficit. The CBO has weighed in. It doesn't cut any Federal spending. In fact, the bill doesn't produce one penny in savings. What's very clear is what it does do, and it's really purposeful. And that is to hobble NPR, threatening 9,000 jobs at stations across the country. Why? I think the motivations behind this effort are quite clear: They are rooted in an ideological view about what NPR broadcasts, and it capitalizes on recent headlines involving Ron Schiller and Juan Williams. This attack on NPR strikes at the core of a wide array of NPR programming that Americans enjoy every single day, all week long across the country, from ``The Diane Rehm Show'' to ``Morning Edition'' and two of my favorites, ``Car Talk'' and ``World of Opera.'' I acknowledge that our Nation faces threats, but ``Car Talk'' is hardly one of them, and neither is ``Diane Rehm.'' Silencing what some disagree with--make no mistake about it--is a threat to our democracy. A great democracy does not silence voices. We want many voices to the many. NPR programming reaches more than 900 independently owned and operated stations across the country, from San Francisco's KQED, the most listened to public radio station in the country with more than 740,000 listeners each week, to small rural stations like that of the chairman of the subcommittee, KCUW in Pendleton, Oregon. These stations provide an important public service to the local community, and people trust it, and they enjoy it. They want it. They like it. This is national programming with local listenership. And NPR's listenership has increased, unlike other stations, by 72 percent over the last 10 years. A recent national survey found--and that's why I think this is an ill-begotten proposal by the majority. You say you listen to the American people. I think you have to take the plugs out of your ears. A recent national survey found that almost 70 percent of all voters across the entire political spectrum oppose terminating the funding for public broadcasting, including 56 percent of Republicans in the country. So I think it's time to stand up for NPR. I think that this is a phony emergency measure, and I don't think NPR deserves to be treated this way. I urge my colleagues to vote to preserve really what I think is a national treasure. It provides in very tough times very clear and important news and information to instruct our country and listeners in local communities around our Nation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield my remaining 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time we have remaining.

Ms. ESHOO. I yield 1 minute to the brilliant, brilliant gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Ms. ESHOO. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is the chairman of the House Caucus on Public Broadcasting.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the dean of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ESHOO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to a highly respected member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Mike Doyle. And Happy St. Patrick's Day.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who is one of the great advocates of public broadcasting in the Congress.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin, a highly valued member of the committee.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have left on each side?

Ms. ESHOO. At this time I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman, the great Irishman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).