Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Member, the chairman of the House Science and Space Committee. Mr. Speaker, Americans of my generation and my parents' generation as well have always accepted it as an article of faith that the United States of America would lead the world in innovation, in ingenuity, and in invention. And, no matter what the challenge would be, that we as a Nation would rise to that test, we would meet the competition, and we would come out on top. It was true in the 1930s, when President Roosevelt responded to the concerns of scientists in our country about the Nazi government and what they might develop with the Manhattan Project. It was true in 1961, when America awoke to the fact that a Soviet cosmonaut had been launched into space, and President Kennedy responded by saying as a Nation we have to commit ourselves to achieving the goal that, before the decade was out, that we would land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth. And we did when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in 1969 and took a giant leap for mankind. We know that there is a gathering storm when it comes to innovation and competition for our country, and that is what this legislation directs itself to. We have to perform. We have to produce more scientists, more mathematicians, educate our children, invest in science, and research. That is what this bill is about. I have an optimistic view of America. I don't share the somewhat depressed view that the distinguished minority leader offered. We can, we have in the past, we will in the future. This legislation today helps to lay the groundwork for our sure economic footing so that the 21st century is an American century.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to provide minimum ``dwell-time'' for our troops who have served in Iraq. Madam Chairwoman, I opposed the war in Iraq from the outset and will continue to do so. In 4 years, the war has done great damage to our global prestige, our national morale, and our national security. More than anything, it has damaged our military and their families. It is Congress's duty to ensure that our troops are treated with respect and that they have resources for the missions they perform. Equally important, it is Congress's job to ensure our troops have the rest and training they need. With this bill, we will do right by our military personnel and their families by ensuring they have adequate time at home between deployments. The Defense Department has established a goal to provide active duty service personnel with 2 years at home between each year they are deployed, and 5 years at home for every year of deployment for reserves. Regrettably that goal has not been achieved. In fact, the policy has been waived by the Defense Department for those serving in Iraq. In the last 4 years our troops and reserves have shouldered the burden of multiple deployments overseas with professionalism and courage. The strain on them and their families grows with each day they are away from home, yet tours of duty have been extended time and again. Just this past April, Secretary Gates announced that tours of duty for the Army would be increased from 12 months to 15 months. The strain is not only being felt by our troops and their families, it's also affected the Armed Forces, particularly the Army, in meet recruiting and retention goals. With this bill, we call for time between deployments for active-duty personnel in Iraq to equal to or exceed the length of their most recent deployment. For National Guard and Reserve units and members, the bill calls for time between deployments of at least three times longer than the length of their most recent deployment. This may seem like a small step, but for our troops it's essential. I urge my colleague to vote yes on this bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, we rise today with great sorrow to honor the life of Joseph Nicholas Espinoza of Sacramento, California, who died in a tragic accident on July 23, 2007. Joseph Espinoza was known to his family and friends as Joey. At a family dinner on May 25th, he celebrated his 21st birthday. He was 'best friend' to his brother John, his sister Marina, his cousins Sean, Connor and Michael, and his girlfriend Gina. He admired his father, confided in his mother and always sought their loving advice. He was a musician and an athlete, and was gifted in math and science, and his goal was to become an architect. Joey was loved and always will be by his childhood friends and their families. His family knew that he was honest and earnest, that he had great energy and a tender and generous heart. He was open and trusting and was the keeper of the secrets of many who counted on his encouragement and courage. Joey is survived by his parents Kate and John Espinoza of Sacramento, his brother John, and his sisters Marina, Kelly Rose, Jeannie and Mendi. He leaves his loving grandmothers Rose King and Rose Espinoza and he is mourned by his many aunts, uncles and cousins of his parents' families. Madam Speaker, we hope this tribute to Joey will be a source of comfort to his family. We have known and treasured his grandmother, Rose King, for almost 40 years and we share her immeasurable grief. She has been the great anchor of her family and she has contributed mightily to the well being of Californians through her dedicated public service spanning many decades. Our Nation has lost a precious citizen and we ask today that the entire House of Representatives join us in honoring the life of Joseph Nicholas Espinoza and extend to his grieving family our deepest sympathy.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Speaker, today is one of the most exciting days since I've come to the Congress, having been elected first in 1992. I think today is a day of history, a day of history for the children of our country, because the fact is that there are nearly 9 million American children without guaranteed access to health care in our Nation today. I think that is a national shame. Today, we correct that. We build on a successful bipartisan program of Republican and Democratic Governors, of leaders in the Congress past, of a program that has worked. It has not been riddled by fraud, and what we do today very simply is add 5 million American children in the rolls of health care. It is private insurance for almost all of the States. We also strengthen Medicare. I would suggest that my friends on this side of the aisle are on the wrong side of history.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairwoman DeLauro for her excellent work on this bill and to address a specific issue that is of growing importance to my constituents. This March, the light brown apple moth (LBAM), an exotic pest native to Australia, was discovered in California. The moth has been damaging to growers in Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties in my district. In Santa Cruz County, nearly 6,000 moths have now been detected. This pest can affect a wide variety of plants, flowers, fruits and vegetables, and virtually any crop with a leaf is a potential host. In order to halt the spread of this pest, USDA has imposed a quarantine in California counties where the moth has been found. Growers in these counties must subject their operations to a visual inspection to demonstrate that their facilities are not infested before they can be cleared to ship produce. For growers within 1.5 miles of a confirmed discovery of the moth, each shipment must be cleared by an inspection. Canada and Mexico have also placed restrictions on the import of California products. The quarantine and restrictions are a burden on growers in my district as well as on State and county agriculture officials, but it is a burden they recognize is necessary to prevent the further spread of the light brown apple moth. What is critical is adequate Federal support and funding for the eradication and inspection effort. The USDA provided $5 million for this effort at the outset and they are seeking an additional $12.5 million through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The request has been pending with OMB for several weeks now and it needs to be approved. Even if the funding is released, it may only carry operations through the end of the year. In the coming years, it may take several million dollars more to ensure the job is complete. This was a relatively late breaking issue to be addressed in this appropriations bill, and I commend Chairwoman DeLauro for recognizing how serious it is and for including report language that calls on the USDA to secure all funds needed from the Commodity Credit Corporation to eradicate the light brown apple moth. In the Senate, $1 million is included within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) specifically for this purpose. As we move forward with this bill and subsequent legislation to deal with agriculture disasters, I look forward to working with the Chairwoman and my colleague, Mr. Farr, to build on what is already in the House and Senate bills in order to ensure that sufficient funding is provided and that it is made available in a timely fashion. Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report. This week marks 3 years since the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, issued a comprehensive set of bipartisan recommendations to Congress to address the shortcomings in our Nation's intelligence infrastructure that led to the tragic attacks of 9/11. While Congress acted on some of the recommendations, many of the Commission's most important recommendations sat on a shelf for two-and- a-half years, until the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress. We acted quickly to pass legislation to: Ensure homeland security grants are targeted for states and high-risk urban areas based on risk of terrorism; Improve interoperability of first-responder communications at local, State, and Federal levels; Provide over $4 billion over 4 years for rail, transit, and bus security grants; Mandate screening of all maritime cargo within five years and all airline cargo within 3 years; and Provide sunshine on the activities of the Intelligence Community by requiring the President to publicly disclose the total budget for the intelligence community. Now that the Senate has also acted and we have the Conference Report before us, I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and send it to the President's desk for his signature. These are not partisan issues. Assessing blame for past failures will not help us protect our future. However, refusing to recognize these failures and not take the critical steps to ensure that they don't ever occur again is not acceptable. The American people owe a great deal to the work of the 9/11 Commission and the inspired leadership of the families of 9/11 victims, without whom the original legislation would not have become law. These reforms are long overdue and we should not waste another day in enacting them into law.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation which sets into law two very important and straightforward policies: (1) Congress shall provide no funding to support a permanent military presence in Iraq; and (2) Congress will not support any policy to exercise U.S. control of Iraq's oil reserves. These policies are important because they deliver a clear message to the Iraqi people that the U.S. presence is not open-ended, and that the resources of Iraq belong to the Iraqi people. Today, fully 80 percent of Iraqis believe the U.S. intends to remain indefinitely in their country. This fuels insurgent attacks against our troops and discourages Iraqi security forces from taking control of their communities. Terrorists use the claim that the U.S. ``occupation'' is a ploy to steal the region's oil, and with it its economic future. This bill helps to eliminate the deep suspicions which exist and they take an important step forward to change the direction of the Iraq war. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that Mr. Shimkus and I are offering will provide $5 million for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) with the intent of allowing them to issue grants to upgrade Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), otherwise known as 9-1-1 call centers. Call centers across our country today need to enhance their 9-1-1 technology in order to actually locate where a mobile phone caller in crisis is. Annually, over 200 million 9-1-1 calls are made, and increasingly those calls are made from mobile phones. According to CTIA, the wireless industry association, more than 10 percent of households now rely on wireless phones as their only telephone service. No wonder it's surprising to many Americans to learn that a 9-1-1 call center may not have enhanced technology to trace an emergency call from a mobile phone in order to dispatch help to exactly where it is needed. Imagine calling 9-1-1 from your mobile phone at the scene of a car accident or a crime and being told the operator has no idea where you are. Millions of Americans face this risk every day. While coverage in many areas is improving, there are significant gaps in the public safety system, particularly in small, rural, and poor communities where federal assistance could be most meaningful. In 26 states, more than 20 percent of counties have not deployed the latest 9-1-1 technology. In 15 states, well over half the counties haven't deployed this technology. In West Virginia (Chairman Mollohan's home state), nearly one third of the population doesn't have enhanced 9-1-1 coverage. In Ohio, half the state's population lacks this coverage, and in Mississippi, two-thirds. In 2004, Congress and the President attempted to address this problem by enacting the ENHANCE 9-1-1 Act. The law that Mr. Shimkus and I authored created a grant program to pay 50 percent of the cost for upgrading 9-1-1 call centers and ensure the most precise location (within 300 meters in most cases) of an emergency call from a mobile phone. The program was authorized to provide up to $1.25 billion in grants over 5 years. Regrettably, 3 years later Congress has yet to fund the program. In fact, the NTIA and National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA), the agencies with responsibility for this program, haven't even established regulations for awarding grants. With only 2 years left in the authorization, it's time to get the program underway. The modest amount of funding in our amendment will provide grants to approximately 54 smaller counties to upgrade their wireless E9-1-1 capabilities or up to 17 grants to counties with populations over 100,000. This public safety funding is offset by reducing funds from the Justice Department's General Administration. Our Amendment has been endorsed by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials and the National Emergency Number Association and I urge my colleagues to join me and Representative Shimkus in voting for it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, first all my thanks to Representative George Miller for his leadership and vision for sponsoring this legislation which I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of. The legislation authorizes a total of seven new projects, including two in my district: the Mountain View Moffett Area Recycled Water Distribution Project and the Redwood City Recycled Water Project. Since the 1990's a partnership of 17 local Bay Area governments, water, and wastewater agencies, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Department of Water Resources have worked to maximize water recycling around the Bay under the auspices of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP). They have been found by the Bureau of Reclamation to be feasible or close to achieving feasibility, and they're now ready to move into construction with significant local funding commitments consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI water recycling program. Under the bill, the federal government may provide up to 25% of the cost of the planning, designing, and building each project, and the local sponsors will be responsible for securing at least 75 percent. Despite the significant investments that communities have already made to these projects, they have not been able to secure federal funds because of a lack of investment by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Title XVI program and because of a lack of a specific Congressional authorization for these projects. This legislation addresses the question of authorization so that the funding may follow. There's a clear federal interest in these water recycling projects since other federal water projects already contribute significant portions of the water supply to communities throughout the Bay Area. Taken together, the projects authorized in H.R. 1526 will conserve 5,000 acre-feet of potable water per year in the near-term (the first five years of operation) and more than 9,000 acre-feet per year over the long term (10 to 15 years). This represents 9,000 acre-feet which will not have to be extracted from the San Francisco Bay Delta, the Hetch Hechy system, and other sensitive areas. Mr. Speaker, in coming years water supplies in California are going to be stretched and stressed by population growth, environmental stress, and supply reductions in water caused by the loss of snow pack due to global warming. If we're going to meet the challenge and relieve the stress on the existing system, we're going to need projects like these. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1526.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I do.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman, Mr. Obey, in a colloquy regarding strengthening of the Children's Graduate Medical Education Program, as well as enhancing Federal support for health information technology. parliamentary inquiry

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

Ms. ESHOO. I am sorry, I didn't hear.

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the chairman. I also want to raise the issue about my strong support for increased funding for Health Information Technology, often referred to as Health IT. The adoption, I believe, of electronic health record systems I think will have a profound effect on the health care delivery in our country. I believe it will enhance patient safety, reduce medical errors, and improve the quality of care. For several years, the administration and the Congress have not committed enough funds to make this promise a reality in our country. I recognize the continued commitment to HIT that is in this year's Labor- HHS bill, $61 million, and I think we need to make a greater investment to make this a reality because it not only needs to be launched effectively, because we have to have interoperability, and without it we really won't have a Health IT system. So I want to thank the committee, most especially the chairman, for weeding through what is really a difficult bill to put together because we are constrained moneywise. But if there is any opportunity at conference, I want to urge optimizing that possibility.

Ms. ESHOO. I will be as brief as possible so that we can get back to what was being debated. I want to thank Mr. Obey for including $307 million for the Children's Graduate Medical Education Program. While this amount is less than the $330 million authorized by Congress last year, it is obviously a good improvement over the levels proposed by the President, which is $110 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is $200 million. The reason I wanted to have the colloquy is to go on record, urge the chairman to do everything he can to not only maintain the House's funding level when the bill goes to conference, and perhaps even be able to do more. I think that we all have a healthy understanding of what the Children's Hospitals GME represents. It has been an outstanding success. It is important to note that Children's Hospitals receive 80 percent of what other teaching hospitals receive on average from Medicare's Graduate Medical Education Program. In recent years, Children's Hospitals have been able to sustain and improve their training programs so that the shortages of pediatric specialists in our country can be addressed. The program has also indirectly strengthened Children's Hospitals as premier pediatric centers of excellence. They are the safety net for low-income children in their communities and they are the centers of pediatric research as well. So I want to thank the chairman for everything he has done to fully fund the program this year, and I would be happy to yield to him.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Barton's amendment. I believe that it will perpetuate a system of winners and losers in the allocation of Federal resources for AIDS. When Congress reauthorized the Ryan White AIDS program last year, we included language to allow the historic epicenters of the disease to continue providing care to those in need. The language was specifically intended to protect against drastic cuts that would destabilize the existing infrastructure for HIV/AIDS care. Now, my friend from Texas has been absolutely consistent, and so have I. He's always been opposed to what I've just described, and I have supported it. So it's gone back and forth. But we've both been consistent in terms of our positions. I obviously respectfully disagree with his amendment, because I think it's important to understand, number one, A, that you have to protect the infrastructure. This isn't simply, when we say the care of people, you have to have infrastructure for it. And I think, underlying the gentleman's amendment is the notion that dead people are being funded, and that simply is not the case. We are both on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We've debated it there, and that's why I'm bringing some of the flavor of what we've debated there. Over 20,000 people have died from AIDS in San Francisco's EMA. That's the eligible metropolitan area. Now, the gentleman from California that spoke just a few moments ago talked about his time on the Board of Supervisors. That's where I came from in San Mateo County. And San Mateo and the City and County of San Francisco have been partners in this. And it's what has really held up and helped to build the infrastructure to take very good care of people. We take it seriously. Every dollar in this, every dollar in this has an effect on human beings. So this is not some tidy formula that somehow is not going to affect the infrastructure. So that's another reason why I oppose this. San Francisco's award for fiscal 2007 was cut by 31.4 percent, or $8.6 million. Now, in Federal money, $8.6 million, unfortunately, is not considered serious money. This is devastating in this EMA. I know of what I speak. I've been there on the ground. I see where the dollars go and what people get. Now, several other jurisdictions also have received larger than anticipated cuts. So I don't believe that the HRSA properly interpreted these provisions and that this bill, very importantly, corrects that error. The stop loss language does not prevent cuts. Instead, it reduces losses to levels that can be reasonably absorbed in one fiscal year. And that's really a very important operational phrase, ``reasonably absorbed in one fiscal year.'' Any Member of Congress want to take a 31.4 cut in what their income is to help them take care of what they have to take care of their responsibilities and obligations? It's absurd. It's absurd. So that's why we are rising in opposition to the amendment. So the language caps losses for the EMAs at 8.4 percent. And I think that this represents the 5 percent hold-harmless loss that was agreed to in last year's reauthorization. I think the Barton amendment would prevent us from responding to the real needs of people that suffer from HIV and AIDS, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

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

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the very good work that he has done, all the members of the committee, because I know that you have to make difficult choices. I am pleased to speak on the floor today about this investment in new technologies. As so many Members of the House know, I have the privilege of representing a congressional district that is the home of innovation and technology, high technology, biotechnology in our Nation. So perhaps the gentleman from Texas should come to visit because he would quickly come to respect what our country has come to rely on as well as our national economy. I believe that this is a small but very important investment, and it will make vehicles more fuel efficient. I think this is not only a value of the people of my congressional district but of the entire Nation. Our country today is paying too high a price for not being fuel efficient, not being energy efficient; and to add insult to injury, we are depending upon our opponents and in some cases our enemies to supply us. That is a policy that I believe is on its head, and so I was pleased to request of the committee that we make an investment in this technology. Now, what does it do? It develops a new type of cost-effective, energy-efficient fuel cell for automobiles. Now, fuel cells, we know that they can dramatically improve mileage per gallon, but the downside is that they require platinum, and platinum is expensive and it is in short supply. But it is needed because it is the catalyst for these fuel cells. This particular investment actually will go a long way to dramatically increase the surface area of the platinum in a fuel cell. In other words, it will bring down the price. In fact, this project that I have requested funding for promises to produce a one-third cut in the overall cost of the fuel cell. Now, we are respected around the world for the investments that we have made collectively, public and private, in new technologies. It seems to me that this is cutting edge, that it is smart, and that it is wise. I would like to make two broader observations. Number one, when I listen to the gentleman from Texas, he registers the complaints from his constituents. You know what? You don't have a corner on the market of constituents that care about how we spend money. Of course these things should be scrutinized. I welcome it. But when there is an overall public good here where all of the American people win, not just my constituents from the 14th District in California or the gentleman's district in Texas but all Americans, that is a good investment. Number two, my constituents pay taxes, just like yours. And guess what? Californians don't get back everything that they send here. So are some things appropriate, good investments? We have to scrutinize that. But mine pay a fair share just as everyone else's do. As a matter of fact, California sends more than it gets back, which includes my constituents. And I would like to add a final point, and my mother used to say this, and now her words, I think, are truer than ever: ``There are some that know the cost of everything but value nothing.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to introduce a resolution to establish a National 9-1-1 Education Month. Forty years ago President Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Justice recommended that a single, nationwide telephone number be established for reporting emergencies--9-1-1. Since then, 9-1-1 has been used by millions of people across the country to quickly and efficiently contact their local fire and police departments, as well as report emergencies in their communities. Over 200 million emergency calls are made each year through 6,000 9-1-1 public safety answering points serving more than 3,000 counties. As the connection between the eyes and ears of the public and the emergency response system in the U.S., 9-1-1 answering points are often the first to know of emergencies caused by natural disasters to national security threats, making 9-1-1 a vital homeland security asset. Educating people of all ages and backgrounds about 9-1-1 is crucial to the effectiveness of our emergency response system. It is especially important for vulnerable populations . . . children, the deaf and hard of hearing, and those with limited English skills . . . to understand and feel comfortable with using 9-1-1. A National 9-1-1 Education Month will encourage the development of public awareness events, advertising to the public, targeted outreach to schools, and training activities for parents and teachers. The deaf and hard of hearing are increasingly using text, video and instant messaging to access 9-1-1 operators. With such an effective and comprehensive emergency network, everyone deserves to learn how to access it. As co-chairs of the E9-1-1 Caucus, Mr. Shimkus and I understand the importance of the 9-1-1 emergency network to the public safety and security of our country and this resolution will help to ensure that all Americans can access these critical services in an emergency. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a National 9-1-1 Education Month.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H.R. 2900, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. An extraordinary amount of time was put into negotiating this bill and the fact that it's coming to the floor without contention is a testament to the leadership of our Committee and Subcommittee Chairmen, Ranking Member, and Majority and Minority staffs. The bill is important for ensuring the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and medical devices available to the American public. It includes necessary funding for vital FDA functions, such as drug and device review and approval, and also enhances post-market surveillance activities for these products. I want to focus my remarks on the sections of the bill that renew the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), and the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA). I championed the original enactments of these successful programs which have helped to increase the number of drugs tested and labeled for use in children, and I'm proud these programs will be renewed and further improved under this bill. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, only about 25% of drugs administered to children have been appropriately tested 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 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. I've worked with stakeholders on all sides of this issue to update BPCA and PREA to increase the amount and quality of pediatric information available to doctors, parents, and researchers. I've also enhanced labeling and post-market safety requirements. The bill also makes permanent the FDA's authority to require pediatric studies of drugs, which is consistent with its permanent authority to require studies of adult formulations. Together, these changes will help to generate important new information about the safety and efficacy of drugs prescribed to children. A coalition of children's groups has endorsed H.R. 2900. The bill was unanimously passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee before the July 4th Recess and I urge my colleagues to support it. In closing I want to thank the staff members who have worked exceedingly hard to bring this bill to the Floor today: John Ford, Bobby Clark, Pete Goodloe and Jack Maniko of the Energy and Commerce Committee Majority staff, Ryan Long and John Little of the Minority staff, and Jennifer Nieto from my office. I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2900 and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, the following remarks were delivered by Peter Kovler, Chairman of the Board of the Center for National Policy in Washington, DC, on June 19, 2007, on the occasion of Speaker Nancy Pelosi being the recipient of the Center's prestigious Edmund Muskie Award. In the entire history of the United States, I believe there have been three powerful Speakers of the House during moments of war. Henry Clay in the nineteenth century, Sam Rayburn during World War II and now Nancy Pelosi during our simultaneous wars on terror and the war in Iraq. But there is one stark difference between Speaker Pelosi and Speakers Clay and Rayburn; and that is she has an opposing view to the contemporaneous President of the United States on how those wars should be run; and her courage and her steadfastness in those views arguably make her the single most significant Speaker in our Nation's history. How did Nancy Pelosi get to this point; and how this nation is so fortunate to have her; and how an award named for Ed Muskie is so appropriate are a few of the points I would quickly like to address. In my view Nancy Pelosi has come to be our most important foreign policy Speaker in part because of how she served in the House before her rise to this position. As a 10 year member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, she was its longest continuous serving member. The experience and knowledge gained there has made her able to deal with these issues in a sophisticated way, rather than just guessing or speculating at what might be important. No wonder she had the knowledge and skepticism that comes with knowledge to oppose initially the Iraq invasion and occupation, even when that kind of vote was so difficult in those political and cultural circumstances. And no wonder she knew so much about terrorism issues that she would have the confidence to make implementation of the 9/ 11 Commission recommendations her very first piece of legislation in her first five months. How fortunate are we to have her as the Speaker of the House is one way to pose a question, but a second way is to ask what it would be like if we had a speaker who had no background in foreign policy analysis or in intelligence analysis and not even any curiosity about the subject. I think the answer is obvious, and we would have a House of Representatives that was at best disinterested, but most likely passive in the face of the Executive Branch and passive in the face of an American public that is crying out for better alternatives. Finally, I would like to address why the Muskie Award is especially appropriate for Speaker Pelosi. For those of us in this room of a certain age, we know that Ed Muskie's public life was inextricably tied to the Vietnam War. He wrestled with that as the vice presidential candidate in 1968. It happened again in his seeking the presidential nomination in 1972. And though not getting wide public notice, he did so again in the 1980s when as chairman of this organization he ran numerous meetings on Vietnam policy, led a delegation to Hanoi and, though still controversial, advocated a new policy towards that country that included their recognition. I bring this up because the Vietnam War has played such an enormous part in our thinking on the Iraq War. For better or worse, it is the single most significant historical parallel we use in trying to come to grips with the Iraq War. And I believe that I can say with enormous confidence that Ed, first a believer in the Vietnam mission and then a skeptic about the choices we made, would have been so very proud to have Speaker Pelosi as the recipient of an award named after him. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you this year's winner of the Center For National Policy's Edmund Muskie Award, Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker. I was not present during rollcall votes Nos. 444-447 on June 7, 2007, and rollcall votes Nos. 492-498 on June 14, 2007. On rollcall vote No. 444 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 445 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 446 I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 447 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 492 I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 493 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 494 I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 495 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 496 I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 497 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 498 I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, as I said when I was speaking a little bit ago, and I am going to make some comments about this amendment, I want to set something else down which I think is really important, and that is, that it's not debatable that this is the largest single intelligence authorization in the history of our country. Now, we are hearing a lot from the other side, hearing a lot from the other side, not enough money, not enough money, not enough money. When did you make any amendments to increase anything in this authorization, with the exception of an earmark with three States specified? That's what you offered, and that's the only thing that you offered. So I think it's important for the people of our country to know what's going on. Now, on this amendment that Mr. Hoekstra offers, this is not a study of climate change. This is a directive to the intelligence community to assess the impacts of climate change; and most frankly, I would go with the former Army chief of staff, Retired General Gordon Sullivan, who said the national security consequences of global climate change should be fully integrated into the national security and national defense strategies, including a National Intelligence Estimate. Climate change is a national security issue. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).