Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

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 yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, in the wake of the horrible tragedy in Arizona, Members of Congress were united in condemning the violence. We expressed our prayers and hopes for the recovery of our colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the others injured in the attack, and we praised the heroic actions of ordinary Americans on that day. But for our words to have meaning, Madam Speaker, we also must act. I'm proud to join Representative Carolyn McCarthy in introducing the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, to eliminate access to clips that enable the kind of shooting spree that took place in Arizona. No one can say that the ability to shoot more than ten times-- without pausing to reload--makes our cities or our citizens any safer. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 addressed this issue, but perversely, by allowing it to expire in 2004, we lost critical ground. The importance of the ban was tangible in each of our communities. When I first came to Congress, East Palo Alto, a city in my district, bore the awful distinction of being the ``Murder Capital of the Country.'' Today, the crime rate has subsided. The ability to take these murderous assault weapons off the street played a major role in that turnaround, and we should not turn back the clock. Madam Speaker, we all honor our Constitution and the Second Amendment. I, however, see no connection between the primitive muskets our Founding Fathers contemplated and the sophisticated, deadly weapons that plague our streets today. The United States continues to have the most per-capita gun deaths of any developed nation. This is not a symbol of our freedom. It's a capacity to kill, and this must not eclipse our capacity to care. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this sensible gun legislation which we are grateful to Representative McCarthy for authoring to better protect our communities.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, the 26th and 27th of February mark the 23rd anniversary of a violent and horrific attack against Azerbaijani citizens of Armenian descent. The 1988 attacks occurred in the town of Sumgait in Soviet Azerbaijan. Dozens of Armenians were killed, and hundreds more were wounded. During the pogrom, Armenian women and children were raped and people were set on fire and beaten to death while police stood by, unwilling or unable to intervene. The violence touched off a broader attack against Azerbaijan's ethnic Armenians, ultimately resulting in a war with Nagorno-Karabakh in which tens of thousands of people were killed. The conflict persists and remains unresolved today, as does the military blockade of the Nagorno- Karabakh Republic. The pogroms precipitated a massive refugee situation displacing hundreds of thousands of people, virtually eliminating Azerbaijan's once-significant Armenian population. Mr. Speaker, as people of conscience, this is a remembrance we must all engage in. For me, it is also a very personal remembrance. My own family members fled the slaughter of the Armenian Genocide under the Ottomans, and when we learned of the massacres against Armenians in 1988, we saw history repeating itself. These vicious acts of murder, targeted at ethnic groups, must be forcefully condemned whenever and wherever we see them. Yet 96 years after the slaughter, Congress has yet to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. Without our recognition and our forceful condemnation, the cycle of violence will continue. Even today, Christians and other minority groups are being driven from Iraq by extremists, and the once large and diverse ethnic mosaic there is all but eradicated. Without our attention and action by the world community, there is no end in sight. Today, Mr. Speaker, let us remember the Armenians who lost their lives in Azerbaijan 23 years ago. And then let us take up the work that our principles demand of us, standing united against ethnic violence, discrimination, extremism and brutality, wherever we find them.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Reclaiming my time, I think that we need to start rethinking some of this. I can't help but think that campaign ads should just be played on the floor, get it out of everybody's system on this czar issue, and move on. But these are individuals that are carrying out their duties in the executive branch. If you want to vote against expanding opportunities for women and minorities in the media, then do an amendment on that. Why saw this guy's head off? Because some talk show host says so? So I think that this is poorly devised, poorly thought out, and does no grace to the House of Representatives.

Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on this amendment that's being offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), and I just want to say at the outset that I don't think any of this is a joke. First of all, czars and czarinas are from Russia. This is the United States of America. And I think that throwing this kind of terminology around is really not befitting of the House and what we do. If we disagree with policy, and we do, we debate that. If in fact there are people that work in the government that are policy advisers and have no legal weight to their position, so be it. Most frankly, every single one of us has them in our offices. Your chiefs of staff, your policy advisers on legislation, they don't carry any legal weight, but they are policy advisers to us. This particular target is to one individual. One individual. This is very unusual where you go after one individual in the middle of a bureaucracy who is the chief diversity officer at the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. This individual is in charge of expanding opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to participate in the communications marketplace. Now, I think one of the things that absolutely goes to the core of democracy is how many voices speak to the many, whether there is media consolidation in this country or not. There's some right-wing radio people that seem to dislike this person. I don't really agree with these right-wing radio talk show hosts, nor do I care to jump into what they dislike about this individual. But to bring something like this to the floor of the House, where an individual is working to expand opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses, an appropriate role, participating in the communications marketplace, I think, is an amendment that is not worthy of the support of Members.

Mr. ESHOO

Mr. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. That's what's in the amendment.

Ms. ESHOO. Yes.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. ESHOO. Vote against this. This is a bad, ill-informed amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendments before us today that would prevent the FCC from moving forward in its efforts to preserve a free and open Internet. Over the past 15 years, the open Internet ecosystem has resulted in more than 3 million new U.S. jobs. In just over 5 years, $250 billion has been invested by the venture capital community in industries reliant on an open Internet. During this time, we've seen innovative companies like Netflix, Skype, Amazon and eBay flourish. These Internet companies have created tens of thousands of jobs and new competition in areas like phone service, video and online shopping, not just in my District, but across the nation. Without some clear rules of the road, large corporations can carve up the Internet into fast and slow lanes, charging a toll for content, and blocking innovators from entering the information superhighway. I believe consumers, not corporations, should be in the driver's seat to pick the content they view, listen and watch over the Internet. The FCC's actions to preserve an open Internet would ensure consumer choice, certainty and greater clarity in a debate that has gone on for almost a decade. The FCC's rules are important for Internet service providers as well as edge and content providers, so they may focus on investment, innovation, and job creation. We must ensure the Internet remains a vital resource to improve the lives of Americans and everyone around the world for generations to come. I stand united with my Democratic colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee, that these amendments represent bad process, they reflect bad policy for our nation and should therefore be rejected. I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments and protect a free and open Internet for generations to come.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I admire the most about our country is our commitment and our love for democracy. We were founded on the ideal that it is the people who choose their government. We believe in the principle of one person, one vote; not $10,000 or $100,000 a vote. We believe in the free exchange of ideas to be able to decide which candidates deserve our votes. But money, and lots of money, heaps of money from undisclosed sources, are having a corrosive influence on our political campaigns. Money distorts the voice of a particular point of view, making that voice seem louder, making it seem more influential, or making it seem more persuasive than it actually is. We don't know who is saying what to whom. Is it Big Oil? Is it polluters? Is it the insurance industry? Is it the tobacco industry? All too often these distorted views come from corporate interests, and they try to undermine the public interest through campaign expenditures. These corporate interests can buy elections by throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into a race for a particular candidate with attack ads against another. Last year, sadly, the Supreme Court overturned landmark law and other centuries-old precedents aimed at limiting the influence of corporations in our elections. Now, today, we have stealth organizations formed for the sole purpose of running attack ads, and the American people don't have a clue who is footing the bills. The American people have a right to know who is trying to influence them, and if corporations want to try to persuade voters about their point of view, then they should stand behind their words. Let voters judge the facts for themselves. Voters are smart. Let them make up their own minds on election day, as long as they have full and accurate information about the interests that are at stake. So my amendment is a commonsense solution to a difficult political problem. It requires that any company that does business with the Federal Government disclose their political contributions. Period. It is simple, it is clear, it is fair, and it is called disclosure. This amendment says if you are a Federal vendor receiving taxpayer dollars, you are required to disclose how much you spend to influence the political system. Why? Because with public funds come public responsibilities. My amendment honors the First Amendment and it places no limitation on political speech. It simply requires transparency. I yield back my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, this is such a fascinating debate that's taking place here on the floor today. I think that anyone that considers themselves connected in the country--and I'm not talking about being connected to wealth but connectivity in terms of communications--I hope you're tuned in, because this is a consideration about preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices. Now I don't know how many of you have spoken to your kids, but I have to tell you, if you've had a conversation with any young person in your family, and I don't remember what the average age is of Congress, but talk to young people in your district. And I want to tell you, they will say, over and over and over and over again, the way they spoke to the FCC, over 2 million people contacting the FCC, over 90 percent of them saying, Leave the Internet alone. Leave it alone. Leave it open. Leave it accessible to everyone. In just over 5 years, $250 billion has been invested by the venture capital community, which makes its home in my congressional district. And I have to tell you, I think if you took this amendment to Silicon Valley, when you go out there--and I know you travel out there--the next time, go there for an Internet 101 series, not for fund-raising, but go listen to people there. That's where the innovators are. And I have the privilege of representing them. They want an open, free, accessible Internet. I think that your disdain for government is spilling over onto the Internet, and I would caution you to pull up the emergency brake on it, because if in fact corporations get their way instead of consumers, and there is any blockage of content or where consumers have to pay more because corporations are in control instead of consumers, there's going to be a revolution in the country. I would not fool around with an open, accessible Internet. You are barking up the wrong tree. You really are. This is a big mistake. So you want to hate the government. You want to try and hurt agencies that carry out what the Congress does. That's where your party is. That's where your disdain lies. But I think this is a march to folly. I don't know if you really fully appreciated the Internet and what it represents and what it has done, not only for the people of our country but for people around the world. You wouldn't go near this. If you suggested to anyone in Tahrir Square in Cairo that you were doing this, I think they'd laugh a lot of people off the floor of the House of Representatives. This is so wrongheaded. And it says to me that you don't get it; that you simply don't get it. Without some clear rules of the road--and believe me, what the FCC did is so light. I thought that they could have done, and should have done, more. Large corporations carve up the Internet into fast and slow lanes charging a toll for content and blocking innovators from entering the information superhighway. You know what? I want to be at your town hall meeting when you have to explain that to your constituents. They will have your heads for that. They will. This will supersede any other issue. So, my friends, anyone that considers themselves in the know in the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, let's not turn the hands of the clock back. Let's be on the side of innovators, who weighed in at the FCC, and I as the ranking member placed all of those letters of support representing hundreds of organizations in our country, all the way from the Catholic Conference of Bishops in our country to TechNet.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to protest the elimination of funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The Republicans are proposing to eliminate CPB's federal funding going forward. Without these funds, local stations would have to reduce or eliminate such valuable public programming as Sesame Street, the NewsHour and NOVA. Every month, more than 170 million Americans experience the benefits of public broadcasting through 368 public television stations and 934 public radio stations, several of which are located in the Bay Area. One example is San Francisco's KQED, which attracts more than 841,000 television viewers each week. Employing 275 full-time staff members and providing locally produced news programming, KQED has an important economic and cultural impact on the Bay Area community. From theater and ballet to music, thoughtful public discourse, science an children's programming, the programming found on public broadcasting has set a world standard. Public broadcasting is the best definition of educational television--it enriches our sense of the world and educates us. Over the years, the commercial market strikes another image--reality TV; talking heads shouting past each other; and inane programming. If this is what some viewers want--fine--shouldn't we retain both? We've done much work together to promote and preserve CPB against those who want to cut it out of the modern world of broadcast technology These are tough economic times, but what feeds the soul and informs our national intellect should be considered an important national resource. I urge my colleagues to come together on both sides of the aisle and restore funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Allen R. Hughes, who passed to his eternal life on December 6, 2010 at the age of 101. A caring and committed family man, he blessed us with a century of steadfastness and sweetness. Like the bee colonies Allen kept, the Hughes house was always a hive of activity. Children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, cousins and close friends swarmed around Allen, drawn to his good cheer. Allen was always on the move as well. ``Sitting under a tree was not for him,'' Allen's beloved son Rich noted. Allen loved the outdoors, and spent his time raising Shelties and bees, bird hunting and gardening. He was a devoted and active Mason, a pillar of the Nineveh Lodge in Olney. He enjoyed painting the world around him, even as he energetically took part in it. Allen was blessed with wondrous qualities, with which he blessed us in turn. His selflessness and uproarious sense of humor touched all who met him, and his honesty and incredible work ethic strengthened and sustained his family and community. Few people exercise their hands and their hearts like Allen did. No doubt this was what enabled him to lead such a long, loving and healthy life. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Allen Hughes' full and vigorous life and extending our sincere condolences to his family. He is survived by his wife, Sue Harness Hughes, and her daughters, Jamie and Joyce; his extraordinarily devoted son Rich and Sandy; his grandchildren, Kate, Steve and Kristina; and his great- grandchildren, Lauren, Olivia and Lea. In a century of unprecedented change, Allen was a constant, always there for his family and friends, and the rock of his community. I'm proud to pay tribute to his extraordinary time in this world.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Robert Sargent Shriver, founding Director of the Peace Corps and driving force behind the War on Poverty, who entered eternal life on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, just two days before the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of his brother-in-law, John F. Kennedy. Beloved by all who met him, Sargent Shriver embodied the greatness of his generation, devoting his 95 years to fighting for peace and against poverty. The scion of a prominent Maryland family, Sargent Shriver received his bachelor's and law degrees from Yale before becoming a successful businessman, lawyer, and Newsweek editor. He met Eunice Kennedy and began managing the Merchandise Mart in Chicago, marrying Eunice in 1953. A savvy organizer and staunch civil rights advocate, Sargent Shriver quickly became both an indispensable part of the Kennedy family and an outstanding public servant in his own right. Kennedy called for service and sacrifice; Shriver answered and animated that clarion call. A World War II Navy Lieutenant and Purple Heart recipient, Sargent Shriver understood service in his soul. When Kennedy created the Peace Corps in 1961, he handed Shriver the signing pen and the opportunity to direct a new force for peace and engagement with the world. Sargent Shriver undertook this effort with his typical energy and zeal, working tirelessly to bring a small measure of peace to the world, and a piece of the world to the thousands of young Americans who shouldered backpacks and the responsibilities of global citizenship. My son Paul was one of them, and his Peace Corps service in Nepal lit his life and continues to guide his vision and his values today. ``The Peace Corps door is open to all who are willing to enter,'' Shriver once said. ``All they have to do is volunteer.'' Many who walked through that door began a life dedicated to service, including a number of colleagues in Congress--Senator Christopher Dodd, Congressmen Mike Honda, Sam Farr, John Garamendi, Steve Driehaus, and Thomas Petri. While critics scoffed that Sargent Shriver's fledgling organization wouldn't last five minutes, Shriver used his unparalleled organizational and motivational skills to shepherd and shape it for five years. As we prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps next month, over 200,000 Americans will have dedicated themselves to the education, environmental protection, public health, and economic development of 139 countries around the globe. As committed to progress at home as abroad, Sargent Shriver became the primary architect of President Lyndon B. Johnsons' War on Poverty. As Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, he created much of the framework of our modern social safety net, including Head Start, VISTA, Job Corps, Upward Bound, and Legal Services. For a time, he continued to direct the Peace Corps even while waging the War on Poverty. Twelve-hour days and seven-day work weeks meant little to Shriver when it came to helping people. His biographer Scott Stossel writes that Shriver's colleagues believed he was always ``expanding the Horizons of the Possible,'' in his own life and others. Continuing his illustrious career, Shriver served with distinction as Ambassador to France. In 1972, he was the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee, and he was a presidential candidate in 1976. In more recent years he aided his wife's work on the Special Olympics, and founded the Sargent Shriver Peace Institute, the Shriver Center at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and the Shriver Center on Poverty Law. For his lifetime of leadership and service, President Bill Clinton awarded Sargent Shriver the Presidential Medal of Freedom, joining Eunice who was a previous recipient. They became the only spouses to receive the award separately. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to extend our deepest sympathies to Sargent Shriver's family. He is survived by his five children, California's former First Lady, Maria Shriver; Robert Sargent Shriver III; The Honorable Mark Shriver; Timothy Perry Shriver; Anthony Paul Shriver; and 19 wonderful grandchildren. Accepting the 1972 Vice Presidential nomination, Sargent Shriver invoked the words of the French Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin: One day after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, after all the scientific and technological achievements, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And then, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. With Sargent Shriver's help, America glimpsed the glow from that fire, and in his absence we must strive to discover it once again. I'm honored to pay tribute to one of the most faith-filled, compassionate, humane and effective public servants of our time. The Sargent Shriver legacy is an unparalleled, timeless inspiration to our nation's citizens and citizens of the world.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I thank my colleague for organizing this evening. And I rise to talk to whomever is tuned in this evening to tell some stories. I think stories are really what relate more than anything else to what is going on in the lives of our constituents and the American people. I want to take people back several years. It was 1996. I was a fairly new member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. And after having had meetings in my district with people in the disabled community, I learned something that I didn't know, and I shared it with many other Members of Congress. They were not aware of it. I don't think the general public was aware of it. And it was the following. And that is that buried in the fine print of insurance policies, in this case health insurance policies, was a cap on lifetime limits of benefits. Now, that doesn't sound too menacing to begin with. But just think if any one of us, God forbid, were in a horrible automobile accident. We have seen what has happened to our colleague in Tucson, and the bills that are attendant to that kind of high-end of health care. Certainly people in the disabled community understood this very well. So the more I probed, the more I learned. Meanwhile, the actor, wonderful, optimistic and superb actor, Christopher Reeve, had endured a terrible, terrible accident as an equestrian. I think everyone remembers that; and they remember the courageous battle that he waged, not only for more research to be invested in our country, but the hope that stem cell research held. But he also understood this whole issue of limits in an insurance policy on total benefits that would be paid for by the insurance company. And so it was at that time, 1996, that I introduced legislation to lift the lifetime limit on the caps, on the ceiling in health insurance policies. That effort has been going on since 1996. In 2010, the Democrats saw fit to place that legislation into the health reform bill that has become law. So today, the law of the land right now, January 19, 2011, at 7:10 p.m. eastern standard time, no one has a limit on their benefits in their life insurance policies. So if someone is in a terrible accident, that won't be held against them. If someone has a chronic illness, a chronic illness with cancer, with whatever one might name, that will not be held against them. I tell this story because we have heard some tall tales, some tall tales about what the health care legislation, now the law, contained. More than anything else, what the legislation is about is addressing what happens to people in their day-to-day lives, the stories that our constituents have told us. I want to tell you another story. This is from Elaine from the town of Los Altos, California, in my district. This is what she wrote to me: ``This is the first time I have ever written to any government representative on any topic in my 50 years of existence.'' Elaine was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2006. It's a disease that we are all, all too familiar with. One in eight women will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. Elaine wrote: ``Normally, when I feel that a service provider is price gouging or in any way treating me unfairly, I take my business elsewhere. This is what I did with my auto insurance, and this is how market forces are supposed to work.'' But Elaine couldn't do that because so few insurers would even take her. Most of them would not go near her. The health insurance market, in my view, in so many of my constituents' view, has really failed our country. We believe in markets. We believe in strong markets. We believe in competitive markets, but we don't believe that a market should be part of crushing human beings in terms of the rules that they write. Elaine saw her rates increase by 94 percent over a 13-month period. Let me repeat this: Elaine saw her rates increase by 94 percent over a 13-month period. What Member of Congress can endure this? And I have to say that those that have fought the hardest against this bill, now the law, are taking their health care coverage from the government as a government employee. Now, I am proud to be part of my government. I will never run away from that. I am proud of what I do. I am proud of my profession. I always want to be uplifting to it. But I don't think that there is room for hypocrisy in this. These are great needs. Yes, Members of Congress have insurance coverage. And the way that we designed the bill was so that the American people could get what we have, to get what we have. Look and listen to what Elaine is saying. Elaine's gross income increased only 4 percent as her insurance rates increased by 94 percent over a 13-month period. I don't think that this is sustainable, not for any working person in this country, not for any community and certainly not for our Nation and our national economy. Health care represents a major sector of our national economy, and if we don't do something, as we did, about the rising, spiraling costs and the effect that it has on families and individuals, it will really tear them apart and bring them to their knees financially. So I am very proud of the vote that I cast on behalf of my constituents. Was the bill complicated? Absolutely. For those that say it was a long bill, they have voted for plenty of trade bills around here, and the trade bills are 4,000 pages. I wonder if they have read that. But this one, this one lands in the middle of a family so that they don't have the panic at night or the cap on the benefits if they are in a terrible accident, like Christopher Reeve, God rest his soul, or Elaine, in my district, that told her story to me. Elaine's health is not a commodity that can be bought or sold on the open market. She doesn't have the option to go without health insurance if prices get too high. For Elaine, this is an issue of life or death. So today I found it to be a rather sad day that any Member of Congress would stand on this floor and, with a sense of glee, say we are going to repeal the progress that America made. For the first time in the history of our country, the Congress passed comprehensive health reform for every single American. That, to me, is a great source of pride. I think it is to Elaine; and I think if Christopher Reeve were here, he would say ``bravo'' as well. So thank you to my colleague, Mr. Welch, to all of my colleagues that care so much about this that have worked so hard on it and will work to defend this. This is for the American people. I think that they deserve to be rewarded. They work hard; they play by the rules. No one should be crushed by unfair rules.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I think is really an unwise, unwarranted, and unfair effort to repeal the historic health care law which has brought much-needed insurance reforms to the American people. For the first time in our Nation's history, Congress passed legislation to ensure that every American has a comprehensive health insurance plan just as Members of Congress have. We've reduced the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years and $1.2 trillion over 20. I want to tell an important story which I think underscores why repeal is wrong. Ronit Bryant in my district was battling stage four breast cancer-- that's the worst--when her HMO decided to stop paying for her treatment. In the middle of her treacherous ordeal through a mastectomy, chemotherapy, a bone marrow transplant, and radiation, she was also battling her insurance company in Federal court where she had to listen to lawyers argue over whether her life was worth saving or not. A woman of less strength would never have made it through this. I am proud to say that Ronit made a full recovery. She watched her children grow, and she went on to become the mayor of one of the major cities in my district, Mountain View, California. So a 50 percent discount on prescription drugs for seniors makes sense. Prohibiting rescissions--what was done to Ronit, eliminating that makes sense. Allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance policy until the age of 26 makes sense. Thirty-five percent tax credits for small businesses make sense. What the Republicans are doing today does not make sense. It's wrong for America; it's bad for Americans, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this. How proud I am to have voted as a Californian for the Americans that went and took care and did their job.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Goodwin Steinberg, a renowned architect and an active and affectionate community builder, who died on December 14, 2010. For half a century, Goody Steinberg designed and developed spaces for professional, civic and sacred uses. He was a giant who will be missed by his family, his friends, and everyone who was touched by his wise, wonderful and gentle ways. As his grandchildren remembered their grandfather at his memorial service at Temple Beth Am--the magnificent structure he designed which is now home to some 1,600 families--their heartfelt words, and the very woodwork, paid eloquent tribute to this extraordinarily talented, creative, and caring community member. One after another, they spoke of how valued he made them feel, and how they knew that they were cherished. This love for family was the essence of Goody Steinberg, and we all benefited from it. The projects that Goody designed are now iconic symbols of Silicon Valley and its development from the fruit-growing Valley of the Hearts Delight into the equally fruitful birthplace of ideas and innovation that it is today. Beth Am, designed so that his daughter could attend a religious school to learn Jewish traditions, is a much loved ``house of the people,'' the Hebrew translation of its name. Indeed, everywhere people gathered, Goody transformed into a house of the people. In his nearly half-century career as an architect, he designed the restoration of the Santa Clara County Courthouse, the Tech Museum of Innovation and the Del Monte Hotel in Monterey. The campus of Stanford University and the entire San Francisco Peninsula bear the indelible mark of his warm and welcoming designs, infused with light, love and laughter. Goody served his community well, and glowed with justifiable pride in the community involvement and contributions of his family, proud of their generosity and accomplishments. His wife Geraldine served with distinction on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in the 1970s, and nothing made Goody happier than the day his son Robert joined the family business, Steinberg Architects, now an international architectural firm with offices as far afield as Shanghai. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Goodwin Steinberg's exemplary life and his multitude of accomplishments. I ask also that the entire House of Representatives extend its most sincere condolences to his wife of 66 years, Geraldine; his children Robert (and Alice Erber) of Palo Alto, Thomas (and Shaindel) of New York and Jerusalem, and Joan Laurence of Tsfat, Israel; his 11 grandchildren, and his late grandson Jacob Erber Steinberg; three great grandchildren; and sisters, Sylvia and Darlene. On entering a synagogue, Jews begin the Ma Tovu, a prayer of awe and reverence for their sacred spaces, with the words, ``How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel!'' As Beth Am congregants enter the sanctuary he designed, they will forever be reminded of Goody Steinberg and the goodly tents he established everywhere he went. He built this city on rock and soul, from the ground up, and his family and his designs stand as magnificent memorials to Goody Steinberg's extraordinary creativity and humanity. America has been bettered in so many ways because of him.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply disappointed in the recently negotiated tax deal by the White House. While one can find items that are politically and practically attractive, in its totality, it borrows just shy of $1 trillion to pay for, amongst other items, expiring tax breaks for the top 2 percent of our country. My fear is that the 2001- 2003 Bush tax cuts will become permanent, and our fiscal future will dim as America struggles with the largest transfer of wealth and debt creation in its history. We should, instead, be investing in capital formation, technological innovation, job creation, and education. These are the real building blocks for a strong future for all Americans. I'm also deeply, deeply concerned about borrowing from the general fund to cover Social Security payroll taxes. This is the first time in the history of Social Security that the firewall between the general fund and Social Security is being taken down. This is dangerous. It's a bad precedent and one I believe we will all regret.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I have opposed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy since its inception in 1993. I voted to repeal it earlier this year, and I hope to finally dispose of it with today's vote. This harmful policy is an affront to the principles of our Nation and a hindrance to our national security. For nearly two decades it has prevented qualified men and women from openly serving their country. The recently released Pentagon report makes clear that our men and women in uniform, along with the vast majority of Americans, recognize this policy as being discriminatory and want to see an end to the law. Since the enactment of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, our Armed Forces have discharged nearly 14,000 troops because of their sexual orientation, including hundreds of Arabic and Farsi interpreters. These are critical positions requiring specialized skills and we are turning qualified people away in a time of severe troop shortages. The Army and Marine Corps have been forced to reduce standards of eligibility just to reach minimum recruitment levels for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This includes issuing `moral waivers' to people with felony convictions. Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform work side-by-side with openly gay soldiers from thirteen coalition partners, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, as well as U.S. officers and agents in the CIA, NSA, and FBI. We have the most modern military on earth, with the exception of this harmful, discriminatory, and unnecessary policy. I'm proud to have cosponsored the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and I look forward to its passage in the Senate. The bill will repeal the law, bring our military up to date and the law in-line with the principles of our country, and address this civil rights issue once and for all.