Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, and to all of the Members of the House, I rise this evening with a sad heart. The first thing I want to say is to offer my special condolences to Annette Lantos, the love of Tom's life, actually as has been said earlier this morning, childhood sweethearts, to his two exceptional daughters, to his son-in-laws, 18 grandchildren and two great grandchildren. I have known Tom Lantos for many decades, long before I came to the House of Representatives. And I remember that November of 1980 where I think he was the only Democrat that won in challenging a Republican. It was a real upset in the 12th Congressional District. And so tonight I am thinking about the people of the 12th Congressional District because they not only handed him a victory, he never forgot it, and he used his public service to fulfill the great responsibility and the charge that they gave to him. Our congressional districts are next door to one another. Tom always said that he stood between the Speaker and myself because his congressional district was between ours. Tom Lantos was truly a gentleman. He was a gentleman with old world manners. He was a scholar. He taught economics. When he spoke, everyone knew he was scholarly, and so the old term ``a scholar and a gentleman'' really belonged to Tom. He was an immigrant, and I think, during these times when immigrants are not fully appreciated, that Tom Lantos should remind us of what comes to this country in terms of immigrants. He came here, as he said, penniless, but he came here and brought his hopes and aspirations. Who would have thought when Tom Lantos came through Customs and the Immigration Service that he would one day come to the House of Representatives and, in the day after he died, that all of these accolades that he so is deserving of would be said about him. A poet wrote, ``And so he passed on, and then all the trumpets sounded on the other side.'' God rest your soul, Tom. Thank you for what you have given to America and thank you for what you did in the House of Representatives. Thank you for what you did for the people of the 12th Congressional District. We are forever grateful.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, today is the second time we are voting to override the President's veto of legislation which provides health care to more low-income, uninsured children under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Last year, 64 percent of the House voted for this legislation--just a handful of votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override. In the Senate, there is a sufficient ``super majority'' to pass this bill. With the economy either in recession or on the threshold of one, the arguments for this bill are even greater than they were when we voted for it last year. Unemployment is edging up. With more Americans out of work there will be an increase in the number of uninsured. For every point that unemployment rises, 1.2 million to 1.5 million Americans lose their health insurance. This legislation increases to 10 million the number of children covered under SCHIP and it addresses almost every major concern that has been raised about the bill. The bill covers only American citizens (not undocumented individuals). The bill will cover only children, not adults. The bill focuses on covering low-income kids and it caps eligibility to families earning less than $51,500. The bill makes certain that coverage under SCHIP will not substitute for coverage by employer-provided and private health insurance. The bill is fully paid for with an increase in the tobacco tax. This step not only balances the books, it saves lives and improves the health of young people. Public health experts (including a panel of the Institute of Medicine) agree that raising tobacco taxes is an effective way to reduce smoking, especially among children, and it's unfortunate that this provision is strongly opposed by the tobacco industry and the President. With economic uncertainty facing millions of Americans at this time, I hope we will finally provide families with more security by overriding the President's veto and enacting this bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act. This has been called the ``Year of the Recall'' because there's been a complete failure by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to keep harmful and sometimes lethal products from getting on the shelves. Red tape, lax enforcement, and a shortage of resources at the CPSC have contributed to the recent recalls. It's not a coincidence that 25.6 million toys were recalled from stores in fiscal year 2007, compared with only 5 million toys in 2006. Things are falling through the cracks at the CPSC, and it's the American consumers, especially children, who are suffering. It's become glaringly obvious that we can't rely on manufacturers to police themselves, we need to give our chief consumer regulatory agency the authority and the resources to get unsafe products off the shelves. This bill is a significant improvement in product safety from the way we're operating now. It provides additional funding to the CPSC and bolsters the commission's ability to test and identify dangerous products. It also authorizes State Attorneys General to bring action on behalf of their residents to enforce federal consumer safety rules. H.R. 4040 reduces lead levels in children's products, but in my view it doesn't go far enough. The amendment I offered in committee would have brought lead levels to 40 parts per million, the standard recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. It's my hope that the CPSC will take seriously its authority to adopt a more protective standard if it makes the determination that it is feasible and protective of human health. I'm proud that my amendment to give the CPSC mandatory recall authority is included in the bill. This is an important tool for the CPSC to wield against the most nefarious companies who resist a recall of their faulty products. I support this bipartisan bill to protect American consumers, especially children, and ask my colleagues to support it as well.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker. I think there is a lack of quality civic dialog taking place in our country today. Our news has become homogenized and formulaic and there is a persistent dumbing down of national issues. The corporatization of media and the massive consolidation of our media outlets have made broadcasters less responsive to their local audiences. This has eroded public discourse in our country, and this has an impact on the health of our democracy. Last month Congress held a joint session to hear French President Nicolas Sarkozy. In his remarks he celebrated the life of the great French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville. In his seminal work Democracy in America, de Tocqueville marveled at the diversity and number of newspapers and journals in America. He believed that there was a symbiotic relationship between a democracy and the media when he said that there ``is a necessary connection between public associations and newspapers: Newspapers make associations, and associations make newspapers.'' A healthy democracy, according to de Tocqueville, needs a strong diverse media. The diversity that de Tocqueville extolled has been in precipitous decline, a fact that has not been lost on the 70 percent of Americans that believe that media consolidation has gone too far. Two major conglomerates control two-thirds of the national radio market. Increasingly, ``local broadcasts'' are voice tracked or recorded remotely and passed off as live local broadcasts. Four out of ten commercial TV stations surveyed in 2003 aired no local public affairs programs; 92 percent of the election coverage aired by the national networks in the 2 weeks before Election Day 2004 was devoted to the Presidential contest, leaving only 8 percent for local elections and referendums. Slightly less than 2 percent of stories were devoted to the U.S. House or Senate races, and an additional 2 percent examined ballot initiatives or referenda. These are but a few startling facts that demonstrate the crisis. The perils of media consolidation are not just theoretical--they've manifested in a failure of broadcasters to serve in the public interest. At 2 a.m. on January 18, 2002, there was a train derailment in Minot, ND. All six commercial radio stations in Minot were owned by the same broadcaster, yet when emergency responders tried to reach somebody at the stations to air emergency warnings and instructions, nobody responded. Clear Channel was voice tracking its broadcast in Minot. Over 240.000 gallons of a hazardous material--anhydrous ammonia--were leaked. One person was killed. 110 were immediately treated, and more than 1,000 people needed medical care in the months that followed. The consolidation we've witnessed has coincided with the erosion of public interest standards imposed on broadcasters. The idea that broadcasters are public fiduciaries has been lost. I believe relaxed ownership rules and rubber-stamped postcard license renewals have contributed to this degradation. The public interest standard was created out of a compromise between civic groups and broadcasters. Broadcasters wanted editorial control, while civic groups in the 1920s wanted broadcasters to be regulated as common carriers. As a compromise, broadcasters were given editorial control but were also required to serve the ``public interest, convenience and necessity.'' When a broadcaster receives a license they are investing in public responsibility and service. This responsibility should not be reduced to a postcard. Broadcasters must demonstrate that they are meeting the needs of their community. We need to reinvigorate the public interest requirement on broadcasters. I'm introducing legislation today entitled the Broadcast Licensing in the Public Interest Act. This legislation attempts to put new life in the public interest standard. First, the bill reduces a broadcast license term from 8 years to 3. The 3-year term will bring greater oversight and scrutiny to license renewals. Second, the bill requires broadcast licensees to demonstrate that they have made a dedication to the civic affairs of its community and to local news gathering. The bill also mandates that broadcasters air locally produced programming and make a commitment to provide a public presentation of the views of candidates and issues related to local, statewide or national elections. Finally, the bill obligates that broadcasters provide quality educational programming for children. If enacted, this legislation would strengthen the public interest standard and force greater scrutiny on license renewals. I urge members of this House to cosponsor this legislation and revive the public interest standards on broadcasters.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, this is the first forward-looking energy bill to come before Congress in a generation and it is sorely needed because our nation and our planet are at risk because of our dependence on fossil fuel. We are doing nothing less than asserting America's leadership in solving our own and the world's most significant energy and environmental problems. Today, our national security is at risk because the U.S. is increasingly beholden to foreign governments for the energy that fuels our economy, and greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to greater global insecurity due to changes in the climate and their repercussions. Consumers see the effects of dependence in their pocketbooks each time they fill up. Our interests in the Middle East are dictated by our need for oil. Throughout the world we see the environmental impact of the dependence on fossil fuel on our environment ... whether it's an oil spill or more intense hurricanes or droughts. Today we're taking a historic step in changing this dynamic. The auto fuel efficiency provisions in this bill reduce our oil consumption by more than 4 million barrels per day by 2030--more than twice the amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf. The bill will also reduce global warming pollution by the equivalent of 300 coal-fired power plants. By 2030 we will cut emissions by up to 35 percent of what scientific experts say we must achieve to prevent climate catastrophe. Many said it would be impossible to reach agreement on raising fuel economy standards and requirements for renewable energy, but this bill delivers. It raises fuel economy standards for cars and trucks to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 28 million cars, and saving consumers up to $1,000 once it is fully implemented. The bill also requires 15% of the electricity produced in the U.S. to be generated from renewable resources, and it sets goals for the use of renewable fuels--36 million gallons by 2022. These are enormous steps, and combined with provisions on energy efficiency, including a provision I authored on computer data center efficiency, this bill will reshape energy production and consumption. It will foster the development of new energy development that could make the U.S. an exporter of energy technology instead of an importer of oil and gas. This is the bill I've been waiting 15 years to vote for and I'm thrilled the moment has arrived.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr Speaker, I believe this legislation is the most important bill the House takes up this year because it will bring an end to the war in Iraq by bringing our troops home safely, honorably, and responsibly. The bill mandates the start of an ``immediate and orderly'' withdrawal of U.S. armed forces in Iraq within 30 days after enactment. It also requires that the reduction of forces be done in conjunction with comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategies involving Iraq's neighbors. The bill provides $50 billion for the cost of redeployment, not the $196.4 billion the President has requested to keep the war going. H.R. 4156 prohibits the use of torture on any person under U.S. custody. This is absolutely necessary because the Administration continues to defend this technique which is not sanctioned in the U.S. Army Field Manual. The war in Iraq has taken a severe toll on our military. One and one- half million military personnel (or 30 percent of our military) have been deployed to Iraq more than once. Many of our soldiers are redeployed in less than a year. Our troops are exhausted, their equipment is shot and yet the President remains firmly committed to a Korea-like presence in Iraq for years. Our military readiness is severely threatened and our country is less safe today because of the President's ill-conceived and botched-up execution of this war. The legislation recognizes our military readiness is at its lowest point since the Vietnam war and in order to reverse this, it requires that the President certify to Congress 15 days prior to deployment that our armed forces are ``fully mission capable.'' This Administration's sole focus on Iraq has left Afghanistan in an extraordinary state of vulnerability. We have seen the reemergence of the Taliban, soaring drug production, and the increase of attacks on U.S. and NATO forces. By all measures, the country is at risk of slipping away. This is a terrible and dangerous mistake. Although time is short, there is still an opportunity to defeat our enemies in Afghanistan once and for all. The President must acknowledge what's at stake and immediately take action to prevent the country from returning to what it was--a haven for international terrorism. The President's justification for the surge was that ``reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.'' By all accounts, including the August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, NIE, the Iraqi government's political progress is stalled. The NIE stated that the ``Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.'' The NIE goes on to state that ``broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security . . . are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political developments.'' It is clear from this NIE that the Iraqi government has done little if anything to initiate political reconciliation. The American people are demanding a new direction in Iraq. They do not want the President's 10-year war with no end in sight. In fact 68 percent of Americans oppose the war in Iraq and 60 percent support a withdrawal of our troops. I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do so as well. We can begin a new and better chapter for America and the world by changing the policy in Iraq.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Mr. Speaker, this legislation very importantly covers espionage, terrorism, sabotage and all threats to our national security. That sentence alone frames what this issue is about and the seriousness of it. The other part of it that fills out the frame is that it restores the FISA Court. It restores the FISA Court to its prominence, and, by doing so, it restores a legal framework for surveillance that must be conducted to protect our national security. This legislation provides every meaningful tool of the legislation that was passed last August. But, unlike that bill, it protects the rights of the American people. The legislation is true to its name. It restores the role for all three branches of our government by reestablishing the checks and the balances that have protected our security, as well as our rights as Americans. This is what the American people not only expect, it is what they have become accustomed to, and they like it. This legal framework for the NSA surveillance is absolutely essential. When no Americans are involved, no judicial oversight is required. When an American communication may be intercepted, the court must approve the procedures for handling it. Finally, when an American is targeted, the court must be asked for an order. The American people know all too well that this administration is now considered the most secretive in the history of our country. It has operated with unchecked power and without judicial or congressional oversight. We now know that the President went around the courts to conduct a program of warrantless surveillance of calls to Americans. We now know that the FBI abused the authorities granted under the PATRIOT Act improperly using National Security Letters to American businesses, including medical, financial and library records, instead of seeking a warrant from the court. In hundreds of signing statements, the President has quietly claimed he had the authority to set aside statutes passed by Congress. Mr. Speaker, I think enough is enough. This bill says that the executive is not the imperial branch of government. It restores the fundamental balance struck by our Framers, to secure our Nation and to protect the rights of all Americans. Preserving that balance makes our Nation stronger, and this is at the core of the legislation before us. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I've been working on 911 issues for over a decade. We've come a long way during this time, and this bill is another step toward full interoperability. It is essential for our constituents to have access to emergency services whether they're using a mobile phone or using a VOIP service. Confidence that our network will be able to access emergency services when they are needed is fundamental. My thanks to Representative Gordon and the Energy and Commerce Committee for their work on this 911 legislation which I'm a cosponsor of. The bill places a duty on VOIP services to provide 911 for their customers. This gives customers a guarantee that they will have emergency services when they need it. Importantly, this legislation requires that carriers allow VOIP providers to interconnect with their facilities. In return, carriers will be compensated at the same rate that wireless carries pay to interconnect. This interconnection mandate is necessary so that consumers will have timely access to 911 services. This legislation will connect the 98 million Americans that live in areas where VOIP providers do not yet have access to the 911 network and are unable to receive reliable VOIP 911 services. My colleague Mr. Shimkus and I are co-chairs of the E-911 Caucus and I thank him for his terrific work on this issue. We've worked closely together and passed legislation to provide federal grants to enhance our emergency communications system. So far no funding has been appropriated for this purpose but we were successful in passing an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations that added $5 million for this grant program. The funding ``plants the seed'' for advanced E-911 equipment so necessary in our communities. This is a good bill and I strongly support it and urge Members to vote for it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA. I was an original cosponsor of this bill when it was first introduced in 1994 and have supported it ever since. This legislation is a long time in coming. For years we've had workplace protections in place for race, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability, but nothing to cover sexual orientation. Surprisingly, in 2007, it's still legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation in 30 different States. ENDA will extend Federal employment discrimination protections to include sexual orientation for all workers. This bill will not impose new costs and obligations on employers. ENDA will not require employers to give benefits to partners of gay, lesbian, or bisexual employees, although I believe they should. ENDA will not set ``quotas'' for hiring or provide special rights to a unique class of citizens. ENDA will simply end one of the last areas of legal discrimination against Americans in the workplace today. As introduced in the 110th Congress, this bill originally included protections for transgendered Americans in their jobs. While the bill that comes to the Floor today does not include this provision, it is something I strongly support and will continue to advocate for. I take pride in being a citizen of a country that promotes tolerance and equality . . . but we must ensure these founding principles extend to all American citizens. I believe ENDA is the next step for us to take on the journey toward full equality for all Americans.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the amended legislation that's before us. Two weeks ago when the House brought legislation to the floor on Internet taxation, I was only one of two that opposed it. Now, I opposed it not because I opposed extending the moratorium. Quite to the contrary. I offered legislation with Mr. Goodlatte that would have made Internet taxation, a ban on it, permanent. We introduced legislation that enjoyed over 240 bipartisan cosponsors. That legislation was not considered by the Judiciary Committee or the House. The bill also contained a loophole that could have opened up the possibility of new taxes on the Internet services such as e-mail and music downloading. I knew we could do better and today we are. The Senate-amended legislation will establish the longest term for the Internet tax moratorium since it was first created in 1998. The Congress acted on that again in 2001 and 2004, and today's moratorium is the longest that will be adopted. So I think it's cause for celebration. The legislation will guarantee that new barriers created by taxation of Internet access and e-commerce will not emerge when the current moratorium ends, which is just, as the chairwoman said, 36 hours away. So we're coming in right under the wire. I think that this is very important policy for our country. Very importantly, this is going to continue to spur innovation, and it will advance our goal of broadband for everyone in the United States. I'm very, very pleased at the Senate action, under the leadership of really the father of this effort, Senator Ron Wyden, new father of twins, a son and a daughter, many congratulations to him. I urge all of my colleagues. This should be a 100 percent vote in the House for a 7- year moratorium, and I thank the leadership for bringing it to the floor and the chairwoman for her leadership on this as well.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this children's health insurance bill, and I'm proud to be a cosponsor of it. This bill is the result of a great deal of work to meet concerns of colleagues in the minority. We want them to join us in voting for it in order to override a presidential veto and finally enroll 10 million children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The bill makes it legislatively clear that no adults will be covered--only children are. The bill makes it legislatively clear that non-citizens will not be covered. The bill makes it legislatively clear that only low-income children will be covered. The bill makes it legislatively clear that no one earning $83,000 a year will receive coverage under this bill. While we've addressed every significant objection to this bill, we have not compromised on the number of children covered. Our goal has been to cover ten million low-income, uninsured children and we do. Virtually everyone with a stake in public health and healthcare is calling for this bill to be passed. There are 270 groups supporting this bill: 43 Republican and Democratic governors; the American Medical Association; AARP; America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP); the Healthcare Leadership Council; and Catholic Charities, among others. This is an extraordinary investment in our children and our collective future. I urge every Member of the House to vote for it, and when we do it, it will be a major victory for the little ones in our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary member of my congressional staff for over 14 years, Anne Ream. Anne was born Anne Margaret Kelleher on January 23, 1943, in Winthrop, Massachusetts, to William Joseph Kelleher and Elizabeth Tyrrell, affectionately known as Betty. Anne graduated from Albertus Magnus College in 1964 with a B.A. in Economics and a minor in political science. She then went on to work as a securities research analyst at several stock brokerage firms in New York City and San Francisco between 1964 and 1969; as a portfolio analyst at Wells Fargo Bank between 1969 and 1971, and as a research assistant at Dataquest, Inc. between 1975-1979. On August 10, 1968, she married the love of her life, Christopher Ream, and they had two beautiful children; Jason born in 1971 and Anita born in 1974. While raising her two young children, she attended the Santa Clara University School of Law, received her Juris Doctor degree in 1983, and was admitted to the California Bar the same year. Anne practiced law at the firm of Auchincloss and Marblestone in Redwood City between 1984 and 1989. Anne is respected throughout our community as a real leader, volunteering with many organizations and serving as president of the Community Breast Health Project, board member of the Girls Club in East Palo Alto, executive vice president of the Palo Alto Foundation for Education, chair of the Resource Committee for Families in Transition, board chair of the Rachel Austin Foundation, board member and event co- chair for the Association for Senior Day Health, and board member of the Associates of the Institute for Research on Women and Gender. Anne is the proud and loving grandmother of Hollister and Jessica Ream, and just welcomed her newest granddaughter, Chloe Pollert. Since my first day as a Member of Congress in January 1993 until July 2007, Anne Ream has worked effectively to serve the people of the 14th Congressional District, first as a field representative and then as my deputy district chief of staff in our Palo Alto District Office. She applied her years of experience and expertise to bring community leaders together on critical healthcare, women's and senior issues. She assisted hundreds of constituents and resolved complex problems with federal agencies, including Medicare, immigration, Social Security, disability and housing. Her compassion for constituents, especially for the disenfranchised, knew no bounds and she set a standard of excellence in everything she did. Her strong presence in our office will always be missed, as well as her rich sense of humor, her meticulous attention to detail and her endless reserve of knowledge. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the work of Anne Ream as she begins the next exciting chapter of her life. She has served the people of California's 14th Congressional District with grace and distinction and in doing so, she strengthened our community and made our country better. How proud I am of all she accomplished and how grateful I am to have her as my friend.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this effort to override the President's veto of H.R. 976, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization bill. Virtually everyone with a stake in public health and health care is calling for this bill to be passed. There are 270 groups supporting this bill: 43 Republican and Democratic governors, including Governor Schwarzenegger, the American Medical Association, AARP, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the Healthcare Leadership Council, and Catholic Charities, among others. There are at least 10 million reasons to insure the children of our Nation because 10 million children don't have healthcare coverage today. The bill provides dental care, mental health benefits, and other medically necessary benefits that are part of the program. The bill provides coverage to expectant mothers. The bill allows States to provide assistance for CHIP-eligible kids to secure private insurance through a parent's employer-sponsored coverage. The bill is fully funded by a 61-cent per pack increase in the tax on cigarettes. The opponents of this bill are hiding behind the thinnest arguments. They say there are only 500,000 uninsured kids who are eligible for CHIP that we need to enroll. This is incorrect. According to the Urban Institute, there are more than 6.6 million low-income children who qualify for CHIP but are yet to be enrolled. This bill provides States with the resources and incentives to ensure these kids get the coverage they're eligible for. The President says the program will cover children in families with incomes of up to $83,000 a year. Senator Grassley, the Ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, disputes this charge, saying ``the president has been served wrong information about what our bill will do.'' In fact, the bill provides incentives for States to enroll children below 200% of poverty and any State that chooses to provide more generous coverage must get approval from the Administration. Opponents assert that the bill increases taxes on ``working people.'' The truth is it increases taxes on smokers. Not only does this help pay for the program, but according to the Institute of Medicine, by increasing the tobacco tax, there will be a decrease in tobacco use, particularly among young people. Opponents assert the bill will cover adults not children. Although the program has been used to cover adults in the past, this practice will be phased out over the next two years. Opponents assert that the bill gives coverage to undocumented aliens. There is nothing in the bill that would provide such coverage. In fact, the bill says, ``nothing in this act allows federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents.'' The moment has arrived for the House of Representatives to override the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program, and when we do, we will stand next to the children and on the side of a brighter future for them and our entire country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about and address what we accomplished at the beginning of this year in the 110th Congress. At that time in January, we came together on a bipartisan basis and a bicameral basis, with Mr. Goodlatte as well as, I think, the Father of the Internet tax moratorium effort, Senator Ron Wyden. What we did was to launch an effort that would be bipartisan and that would capture the position that the House of Representatives has always taken, and that is that there would be a permanent moratorium on access taxes on the Internet. Now, what do ``access taxes'' mean? The term is thrown around. I really think that there are some that don't even understand what that means. Just think of the following: Every time you walk into a public library, how would you like to have to pay an access fee? Well, it's the same thing that would apply to the Internet. Every time you click on, you would be taxed. Mr. Speaker, I think there are hundreds of reasons why we stand in opposition to that. I think it's why when I was in the minority, I was always an original lead on the legislation, and now, as the majority, I am the lead on this bill. It is why we have attracted over 240 cosponsors to the legislation. It is not what the House Judiciary, unfortunately, passed out. I don't think it is good public policy. Why do I say that? I don't say that simply because I feel like coming to the floor to say it. This is about commerce in our country. We want to broaden broadband in our country. I think that a permanent ban really speaks to that, a permanent moratorium. I also think that it demonstrates our commitment to the entire Internet community, that access to the Internet will remain tax free. We also want to ensure that e-commerce will remain free of discriminatory taxes. Instead, the legislation is before us today on a suspension and I can't offer an amendment, because if I was able to offer an amendment, it would be permanent. We all know that. So I am very disappointed with what the Judiciary Committee came out with. I think that the best public policy is a permanent moratorium. I think it would serve the best interest of the people of our country, not just the Internet community, but all the people of our country. I also understand that some unions have a problem with permanence. Of all groups, they should be, in my view, protecting their workers who earn less and not have to pay an access fee. So I regret that the House position today has really been diminished, because I don't think this is the fullness of what we can do. I think we can do much better. I really don't know the reason for a 4-year moratorium, why we have fallen back to that position. But I want to make very clear that very few bills have attracted 240-plus bipartisan cosponsors. I think that is the most eloquent statement about making the moratorium permanent. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that the gentleman has yielded to me, as well as Mr. Watts for seeking to give me more time. I hope that in the not-too-distant future that ``permanent'' will be the full position of the House of Representatives, the Congress of the United States, and that we put this behind us so that the country can move forward with a public policy that is going to serve everyone so much better than what is at hand.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, we live in the Information Age, but health care, one of the most information-intensive segments of our economy remains mired in a pen-and-paper past. We can buy airline tickets online, we can check our bank accounts from anywhere in the world, and we send pictures of new babies and grandchildren to friends and family via e-mail or instant messages. The health care industry, however, remains dangerously disconnected. Patients' medical histories are largely disaggregated among the various physicians who have treated them, and are often inaccessible to a new doctor or even to the patients themselves. Such an inefficient health care information system creates unnecessary risks and costs. It's time to look at health care in a new way, focusing on overall health and not simply disease. We need to move toward a model of integrated care by providing ways for a patient's physicians to coordinate their care, and promote the modernization of our nation's health care system. Health information technology (HIT) promises to revolutionize the health care delivery system and have a powerful effect on enhancing patient safety, reducing medical errors, improving the quality of care, and reducing health care costs. The deployment of HIT and the adoption of important patient tools such as electronic health records (EHRs) have been slow and have not kept pace with the advances of technology in nearly every other aspect of our lives. To accelerate the adoption of HIT and create market conditions and incentives which will encourage investment in this critical technology, I'm introducing today the Promotion of Health Information Technology Act. This legislation builds on the excellent work of Senators Kennedy and Enzi and will promote HIT in the federal government and throughout the health care sector. Any meaningful HIT legislation must establish a process for the rapid formulation and implementation of standards to facilitate the exchange of interoperable health data and create incentives to ensure that these technologies are actually adopted. The Promotion of Health Information Technology Act establishes a streamlined process for the adoption of HIT interoperability standards and requires the federal government to abide by the standards it sets. The legislation establishes a permanent position within HHS with broad responsibility to facilitate the exchange of interoperable health information and coordination of the government's own health IT activities and procurement. It also creates a permanent public-private advisory body to recommend or endorse appropriate HIT interoperability standards with definitive timeframes for adoption and updates. Broadly accepted interoperability standards are vital to the development of IT systems that can communicate and share information. Under my legislation all federal HIT procurement must comply with the standards endorsed by the interoperability standards body. In addition, all agencies that collect health data electronically for purposes of quality reporting, health surveillance and other purposes must comply with endorsed standards. For HIT to gain a foothold in the health care marketplace, it is essential for the federal government to utilize its purchasing power in healthcare to ensure the United States is rapidly adopting these innovative technologies. The Promotion of Health Information Technology Act also provides important protections for patients and their sensitive medical information. The bill establishes an ongoing system for certification of Electronic Health Records products by third-party entities and guarantees that individuals will have the right to inspect and obtain a copy of their EHRs and amend any inaccurate or fraudulent information. It also clarifies that operators of health information electronic databases like Google Health, Revolution Health, and WebMD are deemed to be covered entities under HIPAA. The use of non-identifiable health data for public health and research purposes is permitted with appropriate patient approval. The bill establishes a process for the development of reports by ``Health Quality Organizations'' on federal healthcare data to advance healthcare research, enhance consumer education and awareness, and provide the public with reports on national, regional, and provider- and supplier-specific performance. Finally, to provide resources for the adoption of HIT nationwide the Promotion of Health Information Technology Act authorizes funding for grant programs to assist state and local governments adopt HIT and promote adoption within their states. It also establishes a grant program for regional health information exchanges and a competitive grant program for private sector healthcare providers, with a preference for providers that use the ``Medical Home'' patient care model, which allows patients to have a single point of care and a medical provider to coordinate care through the use of HIT. The legislation also provides incentives for utilizing broadband to deliver HIT in underserved areas and funding of academic curricula to train qualified Health IT professionals. Madam Speaker, the power of HIT to transform American health care is clear, but without aggressive action by the Congress to promote and adopt HIT, we will not see the benefits of these innovative technologies for years to come. The Promotion of Health Information Technology Act will ensure that the federal government foster the development and implementation of advanced Health IT networks and technologies in our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee for his devotion to this issue during his entire career in the Congress. I don't think that this is a complicated question that is here before us today. I think that it is very clear. It is very clear in terms of the values of the American people. Why wouldn't a Congress, any Congress, offer health insurance for its most vulnerable citizens, the little ones, of our country? That is what is on the floor today. That is what is on the floor. They are smart, and they are grinning. Grinning. But do you know what? There are going to be the votes for this bill, and the bill is going to pass. And imagine the person that stands at the doctor's door and not allow children to go through: the President of the United States. This is a bipartisan effort. The people of our country want us to come together for the families of this country, for the betterment of our country, to make an investment. Yes, through taxing tobacco. I would rather tax tobacco and protect the children of our country than to blow $10 billion a month in Iraq. I am proud of the Democrats. I am proud of the Republicans that support it. We should pass this and say a prayer that the President will come out of his cloud and sign the bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3580, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act. This bill will make an enormous difference in the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices used to treat adults and children. I'm pleased that the bill adopts much of my legislation (H.R. 2589, Improving Pharmaceuticals for Children Act) to renew the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA). Together, BPCA and PREA represent two halves of a comprehensive effort to make sure that prescription drugs are appropriately tested and labeled for children. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, about 25 percent of drugs administered to children have been appropriately tested and labeled for use in kids. Pediatricians often have to prescribe drugs for ``off-label'' use, because the drug has not been studied in appropriate FDA-approved pediatric clinical trials. Children are not small adults; they have specific medical needs that have to be considered when drugs are used. Children have died or suffered serious side effects after taking drugs that were shown safe for use in adults but had different results in children. The bill helps improve drug safety for children in two ways. First, under BPCA, the bill provides an incentive, an extra 6 months of marketing exclusivity, for a drug if the innovator company agrees to undertake comprehensive pediatric studies requested by the FDA. Second, under PREA, FDA is granted authority to require studies when there is a demonstrated need and drug companies are required to submit a pediatric assessment each time they apply to market a new drug or change an existing drug's indication. I'm pleased this bill continues the BPCA incentive without the so- called ``blockbuster provision'' adopted by the Senate. The Senate's proposal would have reduced the incentive for drugs with annual sales of $1 billion, and, I believe the Senate language had the potential to kill ``the goose that laid the golden egg.'' The 6-month incentive has worked. According to GAO, 81 percent of the time FDA has offered this incentive for a drug, drug companies have accepted, undertaking studies that have generated pediatric data that would otherwise not have been available. Scaling back the incentive for ``blockbusters'' would risk that proven record of success. That is a gamble on the health of children, and I'm pleased it's not in the bill. In all negotiations there is give and take. There are items I supported that didn't make it into this package, including the permanent extension of PREA which I championed as part of my legislation and the original House bill. I hope we'll have a chance to revisit the issue in the next reauthorization, if not sooner. On balance, this bill will make a huge improvement in the safety of drugs and devices. We should pass it and send it to the President today. I want to commend Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton and the professional staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, especially John Ford and Virgil Miller, as well as Jennifer Nieto Carey formerly of my staff, who worked extensively on this bill.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee as well as all of my colleagues that have worked so hard to bring this bill forward. So I rise, obviously, in support of it because I think the bill is going to make an enormous difference in the safety and the effectiveness of drugs and medical devices used to treat adults and children. I think the bill also strengthens the FDA. I think the American people want the FDA to be an agency that is strong in its protection of consumers around the country. We know that there have been shortcomings that have had terrible effects on many families in our country. So, I think this bill is a victory in that arena. I am also pleased that the bill adopts much of my legislation relative to children and pharmaceutical drugs for children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has instructed us that only about 25 percent of drugs administered to children have been appropriately tested and labeled for use in kids. Pediatricians often had to prescribe adult pharmaceuticals for children by telling parents, ``cut the pill in half, cut it in thirds, cut it in quarters.'' We understood that we had to do better. By every measurement, the reauthorization of this legislation, previous legislation, was supported because it was very, very successful. We know that children are not small adults, and the legislation recognizes that. We have reauthorized, and we are doing the right thing. I am pleased that the blockbuster provision is not a part of this legislation. The other body supported that. I didn't. This bill doesn't. In all negotiations, there is always give-and-take. There are items I supported that didn't make it into the package, including the permanent extension of the Pediatric Research Equity Act, which I championed, obviously, as part of my legislation in the original House bill. I hope that we can get to this at some point. I am sorry it is not in this bill. Overall, I want to thank all of my colleagues that made this possible and that we are here today; certainly, Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, most especially the professional staff, because they do so much work, no one more than John Ford of our staff, and Virgil Miller. I would like to also thank Jennifer Nieto Carey, formerly of my staff, who worked so hard and extensively to help bring us to this point. So this is a good bill. I think the whole House should support it. I think it is a tribute to the substance of it, that it is coming up under suspension. I salute everyone that made the effort a winning one. Most importantly, I think the bill is a winner for the people of our country, both children and adults.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I was not present during rollcall votes Nos. 865-866 on September 10, 2007. I would like the Record to reflect how I would have voted: On rollcall vote No. 865 I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 866 I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation which I am proud to cosponsor, and I congratulate Chairman Berman for his exceptional leadership and on this complex issue. I am proud to represent Silicon Valley, which is known worldwide for the innovation and developing technologies that continue to change and improve our lives. Nowhere in America--nowhere in the world--are ideas, invention, and intellectual property more important. Patents and IP are the cornerstone of the Information Economy, and it is essential that the United States patent system continue to foster the ideas and innovation which fuel our economy and keep America competitive. The patent system, unfortunately, has been subject to abuse, and unscrupulous opportunists have exploited the rights granted to legitimate patent holders to target innovative companies and file groundless lawsuits based on dubious patents. The rapid pace of innovation and increasingly complex patent filings have strained the Patent and Trademark Office and patent claims of questionable validity have been granted. Loopholes and shortcomings in the disposition of patent cases also allow baseless claims of infringement to create unnecessary litigation and extort nuisance settlements, sapping billions from economic growth, and creating a drag on real innovation. Technology companies have become particularly enticing targets for this litigation because of the broad importance of patents to technology products. Just a single piece of high-tech equipment can contain hundreds of patents, and any one of them can now be used to sue for the value of the entire product. One company in Silicon Valley--Cisco Systems--spent $45 million this year to defend patent infringement cases. It is time to implement reforms to the patent system and ensure that we reward truly novel ideas and cutting edge innovation, not successful litigation strategies. This bipartisan legislation enjoys broad support throughout the technology industry, major universities including the University of California, as well as major consumer groups such as Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and U.S. PIRG. I urge my colleagues to support this bill which will restore balance to our patent system.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this energy package because the energy policies we adopt over the next 5 years will determine the future of life on our planet. For too long, our energy policies have moved us in the wrong direction. Although we briefly made some progress in the mid-1980s because of increases in fuel economy standards, overall oil consumption has increased by nearly 4 million barrels per day since the mid-1970s. In that time, oil imports have also increased from approximately 40 percent to 60 percent. That dependence is putting our economic leadership and national security in peril according to top business leaders and national security experts. The threat of global climate change has also grown and threatens to fundamentally change the global landscape. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has given us a clear picture of the role that human activities, particularly our energy consumption, play in global warming, and it has projected severe impacts for our planet and our way of life. Dr. James Hansen, NASA's renowned climate expert, now warns that we have less than a decade to start making significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if we're going to avert the most severe impacts of global climate change. Top businesses, including the Big Three U.S. automakers, have also agreed that we must reduce greenhouse emissions in the U.S. by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050. Just as important, there are 2 billion people living in the developing world, including China and India, who do not have access to reliable sources of energy. They are striving to secure reliable energy and to achieve the prosperity we enjoy. These factors represent both a challenge and an opportunity for our country and the world. Silicon Valley, which is in my Congressional district, has reinvented itself time and again to anticipate the next economic challenge and opportunity. Today, the Valley is focused on energy, investing billions in new technologies and start-ups. It's time for Congress to recognize and respond to these facts by taking a new approach on energy policy, and that is what this bill does. Instead of addressing issues of supply and demand and promoting dinosaur-age technology, we are fixed on achieving two goals: becoming energy independent and addressing the threat of global warming. This legislation is not the end of our efforts; it is the first step in meeting these goals. It is signal legislation. The bill cuts $16 billion in incentives for the oil and gas industry and invests it in renewable energy and efficiency. This includes eliminating the so-called Hummer tax loophole which gives a $25,000 tax deduction for the purchase of SUVs weighing more than 6,000 pounds. I introduced the first legislation in the House to close this loophole in 2003. By taking this step alone, we will save nearly $800 million that will be invested in consumer tax incentives to promote solar energy and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The bill also raises 43 efficiency standards for appliances and buildings. Once fully implemented, the bill will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10 billion tons. That is more than the emissions of all the cars on the road today. Included in this effort is a provision I proposed to improve the efficiency of computer data centers--the facilities that are the backbone of our information economy. I believe we can and should do more. First, we should do as California and many other States have done: Adopt a national renewable electricity standard (RES) and I will vote for the RES amendment that will require 15 percent of our electricity to come from renewable resources. Second, we need to address the fuel economy of our automobile fleet. Although this is not part of our debate today, I look forward to addressing it as we take up additional energy legislation in the fall. Madam Speaker, we have a long way to go toward fully addressing global warming and energy independence. This energy package represents an important first step and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. In listening to my colleague from California, he talked about technology, and I think I know something about it. I represent the place, Silicon Valley, which is the home of innovation and technology for our Nation and the world, but this isn't just a matter of how. This is a matter of who, of who. Now, for the American people that are tuned in, what is this debate about? We all know that there are sworn enemies of our country. There are those that would do us harm and do us in, and every President of the United States deserves the best intelligence. We take an oath to protect our country and also to protect our Constitution. So where's the dispute here? The dispute is that this bill allows the Attorney General, without any legal framework, when someone from outside the country calls, our government can monitor you, and we are saying that this is an abrogation of rights that we have. This side, what we have fought for all along is to protect our country, protect our Constitution and have a legal framework. This is the administration that had to acknowledge that they were operating outside the law. This is the Attorney General that has disgraced himself, his office and the department with how he has conducted himself. Most frankly, this should not be a matter of trust of individuals. This should be a matter of legal framework, a matter of law, and this bill does not accomplish it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to honor a distinguished American, a trusted friend and constituent, Melvin B. Lane, who passed away on July 28, 2007 at the age of 85. Mel Lane was born in 1922 in Des Moines, Iowa, and moved to San Francisco in 1928 with his family when his father purchased Sunset Magazine, a travel magazine. He graduated from Palo Alto High School and Pomona College and earned his Bachelor's Degree from Stanford University. He married the love of his life, Joan Fletcher Lane, and they had two beautiful daughters, Whitney and Julie. Mel returned home after serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II and began working for Lane Publishing Co. and Sunset Magazine and Books. He and his brother, Ambassador L.W. ``Bill'' Lane, ran Lane Publishing for nearly 40 years, during which they helped make Sunset a national leader in advertising and transformed the book division into a major enterprise with hundreds of successful titles. In 1965, Mel was drawn into environmental politics when then-Governor Pat Brown appointed him to the post of Chairman of the newly- established San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, a partnership of industry, government and the environmental community. Under Mel's strong leadership, the Commission established and implemented a plan to govern use of San Francisco Bay, which supports one of the Nation's busiest ports as well as a wide variety of fish and wildlife. His success on the Commission led to his appointment by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1972 as the first Chairman of the California Coastal Commission. The San Francisco Bay Plan and the California Coastal Plan, both of which were developed under Mel's leadership, still serve to this day as the blueprint for coastal protection around the world. Throughout his tenure on the Commission, Mel was an extraordinary advocate for environmental protection, always arguing that it was crucial to a healthy economy. After retiring from the Commission in 1977, Mel continued his conservation work with the Peninsula Open Space Trust, the World Wildlife Fund, and he helped to establish the California Environmental Trust. He also served as a Trustee at Stanford University from 1981 to 1991, where he created an environmental institute and led efforts to establish a long-range land-use plan on campus in addition to rebuilding Stanford Memorial Church after the Loma Prieta earthquake. He also chaired the Sierra Club's National Advisory Committee, the California Fund for the Environment and the Conservation Foundation. In 1998, he was named Conservationist of the Year by the California League of Conservation Voters. Mel was well-known amongst his friends and colleagues for his loyalty, his reliability and his quiet strength which he brought to everything he did. He was a man of great integrity and everyone who knew him came away a better person. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a national treasure and an exemplary American who changed the way we think about conservation. Mel Lane was a beloved husband, devoted father and trusted friend. He loved his community and his country, served both with distinction, making our Nation a better place for generations to come.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I thank our distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. I have listened very, very intently to the discussion on the floor this evening, as well as the news programs that have covered the debate about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as well as participated in the many, many hearings and discussions at the House Intelligence Committee as a member of that committee and feel very privileged to have done so. I can't help but think of those whose shoulders we stand on, our predecessors in the House of Representatives in the Congress of over 200 years. Would any of them, would any of them for a moment accuse another Member of not wanting to fully protect the Nation that we are sworn to protect and the Constitution that we are sworn to uphold? That's what this debate is about. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was born in 1978. And the reason our predecessors, Republicans and Democrats, set down this law was because of the abuses of those high in our government at that time, Richard Nixon. And Republicans and Democrats in the Congress as well as Republican and Democratic Presidents have honored the law, but they have also seen fit to change it, from 1978 on, to fit the needs of this great Nation. And so to talk about blood on someone's hands, that there are some that do not love and want to protect this country does not deserve to be debated or even stated in this House. We all take the same oath. We all take the same oath. And when we take that oath, we say ``to defend the Constitution of the United States.'' That is the steel of our Nation. The flag that is behind us is the heart of our Nation, but the Constitution is the soul of our Nation. And so, in all of this we say ``rule of law.'' This is not to cheapen FISA. This is not, as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, making fun of attorneys and saying we're sending it off to people that are going to quibble. We are talking about the rule of law. The Democratic leadership last night gave the principles to the DNI, Director of National Intelligence, last night. Something happened after that, and it's not satisfactory. But we will not turn over to an Attorney General who has misled the Congress, who has now made a hospital visit famous, who came to the Hill and lobbied for torture, we are not going to give over what we believe should dictate all of this, and that is the rule of law.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kingston Amendment which would strike language from the bill to implement a fundamental change to the FDA's drug safety laws by allowing the commercial re- importation of prescription drugs. The bill is a vast expansion of current policy. Besides allowing individuals to bring drugs across the border for their personal use, the bill would allow pharmacists and wholesalers to re-import prescription drugs for sale in the U.S. Let me address the myth that allowing prescription drug reimportation will dramatically reduce drug costs for Americans. This has never been proven and according to a 2004 report by the Department of Health and Human Services, estimated savings to individuals would be less than 1 percent. I'm concerned about taking serious risks to patient health for little or no gain. It's important to remember why prescription drug re-importation was banned in the first place. Nearly 20 years ago, Congressman John Dingell introduced and passed the Prescription Drug Marketing Act. He did so on the heels of a multi-year investigation by the Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee. The Subcommittee's investigation uncovered a string of abuses that were harming patients, including widespread importation of counterfeit drugs, drugs that had been tampered with and drugs that were incorrectly dosed or wrongly labeled. It showed that wholesalers who brought drugs back into the U.S. had no idea where the drugs originated, who they were buying them from and whether they were stored properly. These problems have only worsened in the years that have followed. In 2003 the FDA and Customs Service found that 88 percent of imported medicines entering the U.S. were unapproved or otherwise illegal. Mr. Chairman, the FDA is already a beleaguered and underfunded agency, a fact which was borne out by the recent incidents involving the importation of dangerous food and drug products from abroad, including tainted dog food and toothpaste, and Congress continues to struggle to find revenue for this vital agency. To require the FDA to take on the additional mandate of policing imported drugs will only place additional burdens on an already strapped agency. I understand the concern of many of my colleagues about the cost of prescription drugs, particularly for elderly Americans, and I believe there are ways to address these issues without endangering public health. We cannot and should not jeopardize the safety of our rug supply on the unproven mechanism of re-importation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting YES on the Kingston Amendment.