Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I believe our time has expired?

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairwoman, let me just close out this very important debate, and it is important to have a debate. It's very important to have a debate. In listening to it, I see two things: one, a rearview mirror, looking to the past, people that are sincere, but nonetheless I think are sticking their heads in the sand. When we see whole populations, massive movement of populations, moving across borders because of drought, moving across borders because of disruption, they cause national security issues. We know that. This debate is about the future, and I understand why some have trouble seeing the future and even embracing it, much less harnessing it.

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

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee for yielding. I rise in support of H.R. 2082. First, I want to make a comment about a requirement that is in the bill that has been made fun of, made fun of by our friends on the other side of the aisle, and that is that the bill requires a National Intelligence Estimate on the national security implications of global climate change. I take issue with their diminishment of this issue. The American people are ahead of us on this and so are people in the intelligence community, including three and four star admirals and generals who recently issued a report on the national security impacts of global climate change. I will submit their names for the Record. * General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.) * Admiral Frank ``Skip'' Bowman, USN (Ret.) * Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.) * Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.) * General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.) * Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.) * Admiral Donald L. ``Don'' Pilling, USN (Ret.) * Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.) * Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.) * General Charles F. ``Chuck'' Wald, USAF (Ret.) * General Anthony C. ``Tony'' Zinni, USMC (Ret.) As they noted, the geopolitical effects of global warming are likely to intensify instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world as people fight over access to water and food, creating humanitarian disasters and failed states that facilitate the establishment of terrorist safe havens. The intelligence community agrees, and they are already preparing an assessment on how our enemies could use global climate change to degrade our security interests. This NIE will not divert collection assets from other priorities. That's hogwash. I would also like to note that we have a growing crisis in our overhead architecture. Over the past several years, the intelligence community has chosen to take more risk in its management structures that have failed. The consequences of these failures are extremely serious, threatening our overhead capability and wreaking havoc on the industrial base. Some of these risky decisions were made without the appropriate congressional notification, and now we have to clean up the mess. Finally, last September the President acknowledged that the intelligence community had kept prisoners in undisclosed detention sites and reserved the right to do so in the future. I, as one Member of Congress, strongly object to any policy which does so. Generations of people, Americans, have come to this Nation to escape regimes that make people disappear. We have commitments under the Geneva Conventions, international laws and treaties. If we don't live up to these standards, we weaken protections for U.S. citizens abroad. I think our Nation stands for a higher standard of treatment, and I don't think we should ever engage in such practices. I am proud to support this bill, Madam Chairman. This is the largest single intelligence authorization in the history of our country. And for anyone to say that we are shortchanging the people that are working so hard to protect our national security is simply and plainly wrong.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Baca, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Berman, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Costa, Ms. Susan Davis, Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Mrs. Harman, Mr. Honda, Ms. Barbara Lee, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. McNerney, Mrs. Matsui, Mr. George Miller, Ms. Napolitano, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Linda Sanchez, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Solis, Mr. Stark, Ms. Tauscher, Mr. Mike Thompson, Ms. Maxine Waters, Ms. Watson, Mr. Henry Waxman, Ms. Lynn Woolsey, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to honor our long-time friend and colleague, the Honorable Lou Papan, who passed away at his home on Saturday, April 28, 2007, in Millbrae, California, at the age of 78. He was a distinguished American, a dedicated public servant, a forceful legislator, and a devoted husband, father and grandfather. Lou Papan was born Elias Papandricoupolos in Springfield, Massachusetts, the son of Greek immigrants, John and Flora Papandricoupolos. He earned a Bachelor's Degree in Economics from Syracuse University and studied at Georgetown Law School. He served as a Sergeant in the Army during World War II and as a Lieutenant in the Air Force during the Korean War. After Korea, he joined the F.B.I. and was transferred to San Francisco, where he met the love of his life the late Irene Damis, his wife of 42 years. Irene hailed from Portland, Oregon and studied at Mills College in Oakland. They had three children: John, Gina, and Diane. Gina is a member of the Millbrae City Council, and Diane is a practicing attorney in San Francisco. John passed away from a rare congenital illness at age 21, and in the wake of their profound loss, Lou and Irene founded an extraordinary scholarship and not-for-profit clothing bank to honor John's memory known as John's Closet, which has helped hundreds of low-income late-blooming students. Lou began his political career in 1970 when he was elected to the Daly City Council. He was elected to serve the people of California's 19th Assembly District in 1972. He was appointed Speaker Pro Tempore in 1974, and became Chair of the powerful Rules Committee in 1976. He also chaired the Public Investment and Finance Committee. In his many years in the Assembly, Lou Papan worked on behalf of California's working class, and was a tireless advocate for disabled children. He authored legislation that strengthened child and elder abuse reporting requirements and improved Worker's Compensation benefits. He promoted independent banking institutions and was an early supporter of e-commerce, an environmental champion who helped to purchase land in Pacifica for the State Park System, and protected endangered species on San Bruno Mountain. He improved government accountability by placing legislative records under the State's Open Records Act. Lou retired from the Assembly in 1986 to run for the State Senate. He lost that race but was elected again in 1996 to his former Assembly seat where he served until 2002. In 1997, he received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, given by the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations in recognition of significant contributions made by immigrants to our country. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest sympathy to Mr. Papan's daughters, Diane and Gina, his son-in- law, Dan Latini, and his beautiful granddaughter, Alexa Papan Latini, as we honor the life of this proud American. We take comfort in knowing that he is now reunited with his angels, Irene and John. Lou gave our nation many years of devoted public service and we are better for them.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Education Committee. Madam Speaker, today is a very exciting day. I don't think there is any feeling that beats coming to the floor and knowing that success awaits us and the American people. I think that's the case today as we gather to support the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, known as GINA. Many times over the course of American history in this Chamber, discrimination has been struck down. I believe that is what we are doing here today with this bill. When the sequencing of the Human Genome Project was completed in April of 2003, it was a great, great victory in the scientific community. So many of us understood what the implications were for our constituents, for the people of our Nation, and people in the world. Researchers identified genetic markers for a variety of chronic health conditions. When they did, they threw open the doors to increase the potential for early treatment and prevention of numerous diseases. But there was something that stepped in the way, and that was the threat of discrimination against anyone that subjected themselves to the test, found that they had a gene that wasn't perfect, which I think is the potential of every single one of us, and as a result of that, that their job would be threatened, and that their health care insurance could be dropped. What this bill does today is to throw the doors open with a guarantee by making it illegal for health plans and health insurers to deny coverage to a healthy individual or charge a higher premium based solely on genetic predisposition to a specific disease. I could go on and on about the bill, but the fact of the matter is, it has well over 200 cosponsors. It is a real bipartisan bill. Thank you to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter for her tenacity and her belief in the effort. Twelve years, that is a long time. I would also like to say what a difference a new majority makes, because this bill was really blocked from coming to the floor for full consideration. To Representative Biggert, she has been just as tenacious as Louise Slaughter, to all of my colleagues that have worked on this, to the chairman, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rangel, for making sure that they saw this through and, Ms. Slaughter, of course, she slaughtered us all, I tell you, on this, she made sure, and to the inspirational Dr. Francis Collins, who testified over and over again what the possibilities were that awaited the American people. I pay tribute to all of you. It's a great day here in the House of Representatives.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, today we are living up to the promise we made at the beginning of the new Congress to bring discipline to the federal budget. By passing this Resolution, we will take an important step toward balancing our nation's budget, begin generating a budget surplus by 2012, and provide resources for critical undertakings in our country. It's been a long time since we've talked about budget surpluses. Back in 2001, a $5.6 trillion surplus was projected by 2011. In two short years, that surplus disappeared and instead $2.8 trillion was added to the national debt. It now stands today at more than $8.8 trillion. Today we're turning the corner by upholding the principle of pay-as- you-go. Any new spending has to be offset by cuts to other parts of the budget and new tax cuts must be paid for. This budget addresses several important national priorities: It provides relief to the middle-class from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which is causing an increasing number of Americans to absorb a higher tax burden, as well as imposing an enormous paperwork burden on taxpayers who must determine whether or not they have to pay this tax. In my Congressional District, 11 percent of taxpayers are subject to the AMT. On average, they pay $8,000 in additional taxes each year because of it. This budget allows for the extension of expiring middle- class tax provisions, including the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the 10-percent bracket, and the deduction for state and local sales taxes; it provides up to $50 billion to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover a million more uninsured children in our country. Because we're committed to fiscal responsibility, each of these priorities will be paid for. The budget also provides funding for priorities that have been neglected for too long: it provides $3 billion in additional funding for education, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; it provides funding for the victims and communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina; it provides $5.4 billion for health care for veterans. This Budget Resolution provides funding to carry forward the Innovation Agenda that House Democrats under Speaker Pelosi developed last year, a commitment to keep America #1 competitively by making major investments in education and research, and the Resolution delivers on this commitment: it puts us on the path toward doubling the funding for the National Science Foundation and basic research in the physical sciences; it supports important initiatives to educate 100,000 new scientists, engineers, and mathematicians and to ensure that highly qualified teachers are instructing elementary and secondary school students in science and math. This budget is supported by a wide-array of scientists and innovators, including: American Electronics Association (AeA) American Chemical Society (ACS) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Association of American Universities (AAU) Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) Council on Competitiveness Electronics Industry Association (EIA) Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) Science Coalition Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI) TechNet. Technology CEO Council Mr. Chairman, I know it is not easy to create a budget that satisfies every need, but for the first time in years we have a budget that acknowledges fiscal realities and addresses our national priorities in a balanced and responsible manner. It is a worthy statement of our national values, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, our country has just begun the fifth year of war in Iraq. By overwhelming numbers, the American people want a new direction and I believe this bill contains the policy and the plan to help bring an end to the misguided policies of the Administration. Military leaders, Generals Abizaid, Odom and Powell, as well as former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, have all come forward to observe that the Administration's war-without-end policy is not a strategy for success. Today's legislation directs itself to important change. It sets a new course for ending the war. The bill requires accountability: It puts the Iraqis in charge of Iraq. If they cannot or will not bring their country under control, if conditions continue to worsen and political and military benchmarks are not met, beginning in July 2007 (less than four months from today), our troops will begin an immediate redeployment. The bill begins a redeployment: It sets a firm timeline to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and in legally-binding terms declares that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by August 31, 2008, if not sooner. It requires the Iraqis--not our soldiers--to reign in the militias, aggressively pursue the insurgents and provide ``evenhanded security for all Iraqis.'' The bill prohibits the establishment of any permanent military bases. It bans the use of torture. It redirects resources back to the fight against terrorism and Al-Qaeda, and recommits us to creating a stable state in Afghanistan. The bill takes care of our troops. It provides over $3 billion more than the President's request to meet the neglected needs of our returning soldiers and veterans around the country. The following are quotes from respected national leaders: Retired General William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan and member of the National Security Council under President Carter stated recently: ``Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options.'' According to former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski: ``The United States cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. A means must be devised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq and reduce our troop levels, so that we can begin to rebuild our military and reclaim our position of leadership in the world. The bill the House will consider this week does that in an effective and responsible way.'' Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark: ``The conflict must be resolved politically--military efforts alone are insufficient--and this legislation strongly promotes that political solution.'' Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this supplemental legislation. For the first time the debate about Iraq is not ``if' or ``how.'' It is about ``when'' . . . when our troops will come home. It is binding language. It is sensible language. It is language that will change the direction of the war. It is language that will help to heal our wounded troops. It is language that will help heal our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, due to a family obligation, I was unable to vote March 9th of this year. I would like the record to reflect how I would have voted on the following votes. On rollcall vote No. 132 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 133 I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 134 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 135 I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle for being here today to pay tribute to really a great and very good man, Leo McCarthy. I had the pleasure of knowing Leo for many, many, many years. He was not only my mentor; he was my friend. He was dear to my family. But he inspired me in public service. I had the privilege of serving as his chief of staff of his district office, which was in San Francisco, at the time, and I learned so much from him. There are so many times, my colleagues, that the closer we get in terms of view of someone, the less we may like what we see. With Leo McCarthy, the closer I got, the more I saw, the more my respect for him was deepened. He was a man of the fullest integrity. He was an honest man. An honest man. And he made everyone proud of his service to people not only in his beloved city of San Francisco but in the entire State of California. I think he helped to make California more golden of a State. He was a policy wonk. He knew exactly why he had gone into government service. In all of his years serving on the board of supervisors in the city and county of San Francisco to his election to the assembly, the California Assembly, to his elevation as Speaker of the California Assembly, and then the time that he served as Lieutenant Governor, political writers, the people that he served, the counties throughout our State, 58 counties and the people that live in them, knew that Leo McCarthy's word was golden, that he was there to serve them and that that is what motivated him. He was a great family man. All the years that he served in Sacramento, he drove home every single evening to be with his family in San Francisco. It was really the measure of the man. The love of his life was Jackie McCarthy, and he always said that she did the hard work because she was at home raising four extraordinary children: Sharon, Conna, Niall, and Adam. I wish all of my colleagues could have heard these four adults pay tribute to their father at St. Ignatius Church at the magnificent funeral mass that was in celebration of his good life. He was a man filled with faith, and he served at a very early time in the minor seminary. And he said to me one day, Anna, that didn't last too long. And I responded to him, Leo, it lasted a lifetime. Because he blended his faith with the service that he gave to people and he was rooted in it. When he left public life, he went on, and in the latter years of his all too short life, I think, I always wanted Leo to live forever, he founded a center at the University of San Francisco, his alma mater that he loved so much. And during the funeral mass, the Jesuits paid tribute to him. There must have been 30 Jesuits on the alter, the archbishop of San Francisco, the former bishop of Oakland, and the auxiliary bishop, John Westor, all there to pay tribute to Leo McCarthy. That Center for Public Service and the Common Good spoke of Leo's desire to help students get involved in public policy at the State, at the Federal, and the local levels. Leo McCarthy had a singular friend that loved him in unquestioned ways. He was his aid when Leo first went to Sacramento as a member of the State legislature. He then was elected in his own right to the State legislature. He then went on to become the mayor of San Francisco. And that man is Art Agnos. Every single day of Leo's too long illness, which marked all of last year, and at all other times in his life but especially during that difficult time, Art Agnos was by Leo's bedside every day, every night. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by thanking all the members of the committee for passing the resolution. It will mean a great deal to the family. I thank Josh Andrews in my office. I thank all of my colleagues. I know this will mean a great deal to the family. And I say to whomever is listening in, God rest Leo McCarthy's noble soul.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Despite the recent surge in high corporate profits, middle class families have actually lost ground financially due to the rising costs of education, healthcare, housing and transportation. Unfortunately, under the current system for forming unions, workers are routinely denied the right to determine for themselves whether to organize. Employees oftentimes face coercion, intimidation, and harassment from employers trying to discourage unionization. These tactics discourage workers from bargaining collectively for higher pay, more substantial benefits, and better treatment in the workplace. The benefits of unionization are well known. Workers who belong to a union earn an average of 30 percent more than nonunion workers and are much more likely to have health care and pension benefits. Under this legislation, if a majority of workers in a workplace sign valid cards authorizing a union, then the workers would be able to have a union. This process is already possible; however, current law enables employers to veto the formation of a union without an election administered by the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB. The Employee Free Choice Act also institutes stronger penalties for employers violating the National Labor Relations Act during any period when employees are attempting to organize a union or negotiate a first contract with the employer. In 2005 alone, more than 31,000 workers received backpay because of unlawful employer behavior of this sort. H.R. 800 also provides for up to $20,000 in civil penalties for willful or repeated violations during an organizing or first contract campaign. These penalties provide a serious disincentive for employers engaging in anti-union tactics. The decision to form a union should be in the hands of employees. This legislation provides people with the opportunity to make this decision freely and fairly and to bargain for a better life for themselves and their families. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, the following are the remarks of remembrance given by the Honorable Art Agnos, former Mayor of San Francisco and long time member of the California Legislature on the occasion of the vigil and rosary of his former boss, mentor, and brother-friend, the Honorable Leo T. McCarthy, who passed away on February 5, 2007. I never thought this day would come for me. Over the 40 years I worked for Leo McCarthy, I came to think of him as indestructible . . . as he became my boss . . . my mentor . . . my role model . . . and simply my best friend. For me, Leo was never sick . . . never tired . . . never discouraged . . . and never gave up . . . no matter what confronted him. He just showed up every day ready to tackle every challenge that stood in the way of making life better for the poor, the needy, the worker, the children, the aged and anyone else who might need his help in our society. Leo was one of those rare public officials who got better in every way . . . the closer you got to him. There were no feet of clay here. One of my early remembrances of him is on our first trip to Sacramento together in December of 1968. Leo had just been elected to the assembly and it was my first week on the job as his new assistant. On that day he wanted us to drive together to checkout the new office and meet with the Assembly leader Jess Unruh to discuss his committee assignments. I remember that it was raining hard that day, pouring, and in what was to become our routine for the next 10 years--I was driving and he was teaching, as we talked about the issues of the day and what we might do about them in the year to come. Just as we passed Dixon on Highway 80, the rear tire went flat and I had to pull over. As I came to a stop, Leo said suddenly, ``Wait here, opened the car door in the pouring rain and ran through a hayfield the length of a football stadium to a service station to get help with the flat tire. I stayed in the car warm and dry. He was still soaking wet through his suit when we got to Sacramento. Undaunted, he kept his appointment with Unruh as though nothing had happened. And that's the way it was, every time. He never asked his staff, and there were hundreds of us by the end of his political career, to do anything he wouldn't do. He cared about all of us, our careers--our families, our well being. Every one of his former staff will tell you similar stories about when he would apologize for taking them away from their family when they had to work late on legislative testimony for the next day, or how he would show up at the Operating Engineers at 2 in the morning with food and encouragement as we printed brochures to help elect another candidate who would vote for him to be Speaker in 1974. And what a Speakership that was! The best description I ever heard was from the former Republican Speaker of the Assembly, Bob Monagan from Tracy, California. Bob had left the legislature some years before and was the President of the California Manufacturers Association when he said Leo McCarthy's Speakership would be remembered in the history of the California Legislature as the ``Days of Lancelot.'' You see, Leo was a leader who inspired other politicians-- not with his power or tactics, but with his integrity, his adherence to good principle, and his deep commitment to the common good. In all his years, there were no scandals, no innuendos, no shameful disgrace, and the legislature followed his example in doing the best work it ever did for the people of California. That's not me talking. It is every editorial written in every major newspaper since last Tuesday. Over the last 7 months, I saw a lot of him in the hospital, as did many of you. We talked about his career, successes and failures. We soon ran out of failures, but the successes went on for ever. But I had to bring them up--Coastal preservation, Nursing Home reform, Farm Worker legislation, Subdivision Reform, Mental Health, Child nutrition, Human rights, Legislative Transparency and on and on. But most of all, most of all, as great and prodigious the volume of his work, Leo was proudest of his family. Jackie was the light of his life. She was his love, his energy, his will to live as they raised four magnificent children you will hear from tomorrow morning. And then you will know for yourselves why he always answered the question: ``What was your most important work-- with a resounding, `My family!' '' The things he did to try and make his contribution as a father and a husband are legendary to all of us. You have heard and read the thousands of roundtrips to and from Sacramento by car, greyhound bus, and even airplane. It was all very real because the kids were going to see their father every night no matter what. He always said that Jackie did all the work, but he had to be there for whatever he could do at night. One of my favorite stories starts one morning when I could not drive him and he drove himself down to the greyhound station to catch the 7 a.m. bus to Sacramento. He was late and very much focused on the busy day to come in the Legislature. So he sped into the parking lot, jumped out of the car, tossed the keys and 20 bucks to the man standing by the pay booth while running to catch the bus. That night I got a call from a perplexed Leo asking where his car was because the lot was empty and the attendant was gone. For three days he did not believe me when I tried to tell him that there was no attendant at that lot because it was self pay. We didn't talk about it again for a while because on the fourth day he learned the car had been found intact by the SFPD with an empty gas tank. And the rumor was that some homeless guy was going around town telling about the nice guy who tossed the keys to him with 20 bucks and ran off. The longest trip home for Leo was one he took this past January. He had been in the hospital for 6 consecutive months-- something neither he, his family, or any of us could have imagined when we watched him being wheeled into UC hospital on June 1st of last year--not to mention the countless number of difficult tests in all kinds of machines, hundreds of needle sticks, a combined month and a half in the intensive care unit, dialysis every other day, cups of awful tasting medicinal concoctions, and bravely fight harder than ever before as he became weaker and weaker. But as his body failed, his mind and spirit did not. There were several times when he was asked, ``Do you want to go on?'' And every time--every time--his answer was the same. ``Yes! I have things to do.'' He was planning family vacations next year with Jackie. He was advising Kevin about jobs after Law School. He was listening carefully to Courtney's added responsibilities at work, talking to Niall about a big case, he was thinking about Adam's new environmental business deals--he absorbed all of Conna's scholastic and athletic news about her children--he listened intently as Sharon discussed the latest events at St. Stephens--he studied writeups about outstanding college football players and discussed them with Dale so he could make the best choices for his famous annual top 10 NFL Draft choices list he published to family and selected friends, and occasionally to Bill Walsh at the 49ers. He did all this from a hospital bed he was too weak to get out of, all the while monitoring and mentoring by phone and in person, one more politician--the future Speaker of the House of Representatives. He loved the phone calls and visits from Nancy and her right arm and another former McCarthy staffer, Representative Anna Eshoo. Every week they were in town--they were at the hospital checking up and giving Leo updates and details on the key races--information the Republicans would have paid dearly for. And when he was too sick to talk, Nancy and Anna would call me for a report. Nancy got the short report because she was in an airport somewhere--and Anna got the long report because she had time to sort out the information in between our tears. On election night last November, Leo was in intensive care again and unable to take Nancy's call to tell him of the democrats' victory. Several days later he was back in his room and we were watching a live CNN report showing Nancy and President Bush on the Speaker Elect's historic first visit to the Oval Office. As the news report ended, shortly thereafter, the phone in the room rang, and it was Nancy herself calling to check up on him and give him a report on her meeting with George Bush. I think he was prouder of Nancy's Speakership victory more than his own. Yes, Leo never gave up. He said once to Mary Leslie, another terrific staffer during the Senate Campaigns that ``Defeat will show you another way to make a difference.'' That was Leo McCarthy. So when he left elective office, he committed himself to his successful business interests to secure his family's future because his political interests sure never did. And succeed he did--fulfilling a goal to fund a family foundation for poor children as well as begin the Leo T. McCarthy Institute for Public Service and the Common Good. Today--on the campus of this great University, thanks to the support and encouragement of Father President Steve Privett, the leadership of Board President Joe Cotchett, and the day to day guidance of Dr. Patrick Murphy, the ideals, values, integrity, and lessons of Leo's life are blended with academics and real time internships in a spectacular opportunity for students. In the years to come--more of the people who shared Leo's commitment and vision will have a chance to share their remembrances and lessons with USF students, and in so doing perpetuate the meaning of a life so well lived. It was a blessing for me to have been so close to Leo McCarthy and his family.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me, the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Madam Speaker, it has been a long and painful 4-year journey for the people of our country since this administration acted preemptively and unilaterally to invade and occupy Iraq, policies which I believe then and I still believe today would not and could not stand because they simply are not in our national character. We were told Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. None were found. We were told there was yellow cake. It was a falsehood. We were told that there were trailers containing the evidence of deadly chemicals. We were told the mission was accomplished. We endured national and international shame when the horrific pictures depicting Abu Ghraib appeared. We learned that our troops were not sufficiently equipped. We mourned with our constituents as the death toll of American troops mounted and continued to mount. Just think, 137 casualties in November of 2004, then the deadliest month overall. Today, over 3,000 precious U.S. lives have been lost, with thousands maimed and injured and God knows how many innocent Iraqi lives lost. We witnessed the world community's total support on 9/11, and we have witnessed the diminishment of America's credibility around the world because of the Iraq war. We have heard the President and the Vice President talk about victory and insurgency in its last throes. We have learned of manipulated intelligence and endured a no- oversight Congress. Preemptive war, unilateralism, invasion, occupation, no post-war plan, an insurgency born of our blunders, and arrogance instead of reality. Meanwhile, military experts, Generals Abizaid, Odom, Powell, and distinguished civilian leaders have called for change, a new strategy, and the urgency of diplomatic and political engagement, all to no avail. One of the central findings of the recent NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, highlighted the lack of effective Iraqi leadership as a main component driving sectarian and communal violence. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, appointed by the President, reported the utter urgency of action by the administration. Retired General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan and member of the National Security Council under President Carter, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post on February 11. I would ask that it be made part of the Record [From the Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2007] Victory Is Not an Option The Mission Can't Be Accomplished--It's Time for a New Strategy (By William E. Odom) The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro- American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat. Its gloomy implications--hedged, as intelligence agencies prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact-- put the intelligence community and the American public on the same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the war soon. Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush, wringing hands and debating ``nonbinding resolutions'' that oppose the president's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. For the moment, the collision of the public's clarity of mind, the president's relentless pursuit of defeat and Congress's anxiety has paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two more years of chasing the mirage of democracy in Iraq and possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is not inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the game of ``who gets the blame'' could begin to alter American strategy in ways that will vastly improve the prospects of a more stable Middle East. No task is more important to the well-being of the United States. We face great peril in that troubled region, and improving our prospects will be difficult. First of all, it will require, from Congress at least, public acknowledgment that the president's policy is based on illusions, not realities. There never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing, but two truths ought to put the matter beyond question: First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly ``constitutional''-- meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq. Strangely, American political scientists whose business it is to know these things have been irresponsibly quiet. In the lead-up to the March 2003 invasion, neoconservative agitators shouted insults at anyone who dared to mention the many findings of academic research on how democracies evolve. They also ignored our own struggles over two centuries to create the democracy Americans enjoy today. Somehow Iraqis are now expected to create a constitutional order in a country with no conditions favoring it. This is not to say that Arabs cannot become liberal democrats. When they immigrate to the United States, many do so quickly. But it is to say that Arab countries, as well as a large majority of all countries, find creating a stable constitutional democracy beyond their capacities. Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its senior members and their families live within the heavily guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and military command. As Congress awakens to these realities--and a few members have bravely pointed them out--will it act on them? Not necessarily. Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths that are invoked to try to sell the president's new war aims. Let us consider the most pernicious of them. (1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess--the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a ``failed state,'' or some other horror. But this ``aftermath'' is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists. (2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power--groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran. Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran's ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and have more lasting consequences. (3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al- Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al- Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now. (4) We must continue to fight in order to ``support the troops. ``This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops? During their first tours, most may well have favored ``staying the course''--whatever that meant to them--but now in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing their minds. We see evidence of that in the many news stories about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home. Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to reporters on the ground. But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing the war is the implication that the troops are somehow responsible for deciding to continue the president's course. That political and moral responsibility belongs to the president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S. Truman make it clear that ``the buck stops'' in the Oval Office? If the president keeps dodging it, where does it stop? With Congress? Embracing the four myths gives Congress excuses not to exercise its power of the purse to end the war and open the way for a strategy that might actually bear fruit. The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to collaborate with us in Iraq and the region. Second, we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East. Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening ``regime change,'' using the hysterical rhetoric of the ``global war on terrorism''--all undermine the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East. Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our military operations so they enhance rather than undermine stability. We can write off the war as a ``tactical draw'' and make ``regional stability'' our measure of ``victory.'' That single step would dramatically realign the opposing forces in the region, where most states want stability. Even many in the angry mobs of young Arabs shouting profanities against the United States want predictable order, albeit on better social and economic terms than they now have. Realigning our diplomacy and military capabilities to achieve order will hugely reduce the numbers of our enemies and gain us new and important allies. This cannot happen, however, until our forces are moving out of Iraq. Why should Iran negotiate to relieve our pain as long as we are increasing its influence in Iraq and beyond? Withdrawal will awaken most leaders in the region to their own need for U.S.- led diplomacy to stabilize their neighborhood. If Bush truly wanted to rescue something of his historical legacy, he would seize the initiative to implement this kind of strategy. He would eventually be held up as a leader capable of reversing direction by turning an imminent, tragic defeat into strategic recovery. If he stays on his present course, he will leave Congress the opportunity to earn the credit for such a turnaround. It is already too late to wait for some presidential candidate for 2008 to retrieve the situation. If Congress cannot act, it, too, will live in infamy. He identified the shortcomings of the administration's Iraq policy and presented some of the clearest and most prescient thinking on the issue to date. He places in stark relief what many of our colleagues refuse to accept, that the preemptive, unilateral course set by the President is not a strategy for success in Iraq. He says: ``The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain. ``Second,'' he says, ``we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East. ``Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening `regime change,' using the hysterical rhetoric of the `global war on terrorism' all undermine the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East. ``Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our military operations so they enhance rather than undermine stability.'' So many experts, so many respected leaders, so many voices of patriots, and their critical analysis ignored. Madam Speaker, in the preamble to our Constitution, three magnificent words lead the document: ``We, the people.'' The people of our Nation made the clearest and most important solemn judgment on Iraq in last November's election. They said, in overwhelming numbers, to change the direction of this war, to de-escalate, not escalate. That is exactly what this debate is about. We pay tribute to and support our troops who honor our country with their service. We say, as the American people have said, enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver). (Mr. CLEAVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be brief. I appreciate what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying. I think it needs to be very, very clear to all the Members of the House who are going to cast a vote on this to understand what the underlying bill seeks to do. It is an infrastructure bill. It is not a combustion bill. It is an infrastructure bill, and that is why I have offered the amendment to the amendment. It deals with infrastructure. It directs the EPA to minimize. We all want VOCs minimized. It is the way biofuels are going to become effective in our country, and how they are stored and how they are handled is going to give rise to what we are all seeking. This is a bipartisan effort, and I do not think anyone should get confused about what we are voting on. I wish that as we did our outreach to Mr. Burgess that they would have been part of the same effort. So we are all for biofuels. We want to make them effective and, again, remember that this is an infrastructure bill. It is not a combustion-type bill. So I thank the gentleman for giving me time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, first, I strongly support the use of biofuels to diversify our fuel supply and to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. ESHOO. It is at the desk.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I think what is important to understand in this debate is that there are significant technical obstacles that have to be addressed before biofuels can be widely deployed. Many Members this morning during this important debate have spoken about the importance of biofuels. This amendment to the amendment actually kind of drills down, as it were, into the specifics and I think strengthens a very good bill. The bill before us recognizes the specific infrastructure challenges that we are already facing in implementing the Renewable Fuels Standards program which was enacted in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. It anticipates the challenge of the more widespread use of biofuels, which I think most of us are for, by authorizing the EPA to initiate a research and development project to make biofuels more compatible with the existing petroleum storage and distribution system. If there is not distribution in this system, it simply is not going to work. Now, the reason I am offering this perfecting amendment to Mr. Burgess' amendment, along with my colleague Mr. Cardoza, simply requires the EPA, as part of this R&D program, to consider strategies to minimize emissions. I want to repeat this, because these are the two operative words, to minimize emissions that may be released when biofuels are blended, stored, and transported. We all understand that pollutants contained in gasoline and other motor fuels are released into the atmosphere as a result of combustion, and I think Mr. Burgess speaks to this, but his amendment is more about combustion. This is about emissions also occurring as the result of evaporation while fuel is held in storage tanks or transferred on and off tanker trucks. In the case of gasoline containing ethanol, evaporative emissions of certain substances, specifically VOCs, can be greater than they would be from conventional gasoline. In certain regions trying to comply with the Clean Air Act, and I think Mr. Burgess, certainly Mr. Cardoza and others are driven by understanding that where they have ground-level ozone, these emissions could be problematic, in fact, increased. A September 2005 report by the Bureau of Air Management for the State of Wisconsin estimated that evaporative emissions of VOCs of gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol, E-10, held in the fuel distribution system will be 15 percent higher than conventional gas. In my view, it makes important sense for EPA to not only examine strategies that will reduce these emissions as part of this R&D program, but that it instructs them to do that. I want to thank Chairman Gordon for his support of this effort, and I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) who is also a part of this amendment.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent John A. Hooper who passed away on January 17, 2007, at the Sequoias Portola Valley, California, at the age of 89. He was an extraordinary Californian and a public servant who devoted much of his career to serving his country. Mr. Hooper was born in San Francisco in 1917, graduating from Thacher School in 1934 and from Stanford University in 1938 where he earned a bachelor's degree in political science. He earned a law degree from Harvard Law School and served as a captain in the U.S. Army from 1942 to 1946. He married Trish Lowrey, the great love of his life, in 1943 and they had four children during their enduring marriage of 63 years. Mr. Hooper was a distinguished attorney with the law firm of Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro and practiced tax law for 10 years until he was asked by President Eisenhower to represent the U.S. Department of Defense in NATO. He also served under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson as Minister to the U.S. Mission to NATO. He was based in Paris with his wife and four children until 1967 and was honored with the Pentagon's Meritorious Civilian Service Award for his great work. His son, John C. Hooper, said: ``All of Europe was emerging from World War II, and the United States was helping Europe to get back on its feet; that was a real high point of my parents' lives.'' Upon their return to the United States, John, Trish and their family moved to the land his grandfather purchased, Mountain Home Ranch in Woodside where they lived until moving to the Sequoias. He devoted himself to working with charitable and community organizations, serving as president of Planned Parenthood of Northern California, as president of the Auxiliary of the University of California Hospital, and as president of the Board of Delegates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. He was a member of the Woodside Planning Commission for 7 years and served as its chair from 1979 to 1980. He was a member of the Pacific Union Club and president of the Cypress Lawn Cemetery Association. I had the privilege of knowing John Hooper. He was an elegant, intelligent gentleman who was respected by his entire community. I benefited from his wise counsel and our country is better because of his patriotism and service. John Hooper was a national treasure and that's why Madam Speaker I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest sympathy to Trish Hooper and their children, John C. Hooper of Point Arena, Margo H. Blair of Chicago, Lawrence Hooper of Twisp, WA, and Helen McCloskey of Rumsey, CA.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as we consider this important legislation to highlight several matters of critical importance within the funding allocations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. Over past years several of my colleagues and I have worked hard to ensure that NASA fulfills its commitment to its science mission, as well as its commitment to the excellent men and women who daily carry out NASA's cutting-edge missions. In particular, I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to my constituents at NASA Ames Research Center, one of the world's premier research facilities located in my district in California's Silicon Valley. As we pass this continuing resolution, which we are forced to do by the inaction of the previous majority leadership, it is important that NASA recognize and adhere to the clear intent expressed by both the House and Senate under H.R. 5672, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007, and the accompanying committee reports--House Report 109-520 and Senate Report 109-280. I would like to highlight some important points from these bills. Within the House-passed version of H.R. 5672, Congress included the following points: Recognizing the disproportionate reduction proposed by NASA to its research and analysis budget, a recommended $50 million increase was included. Following NASA's misguided attempt to discontinue funding the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, SOFIA project, the House concluded that should NASA's internal review of the program result in a recommended continuation of the program, NASA should accordingly reallocate funds to SOFIA. Building on the priorities expressed by the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee subsequently included the following high- priority points: In addressing NASA's management of the SOFIA project, Senate Appropriators stated: ``The budget request eliminates funding for the SOFIA mission in fiscal year 2007. Since the budget was released, NASA has completed a review of its decision and has concluded that there are no scientific or technical reasons for canceling the mission . . . This calls into question the credibility of the science directorate in making budget decisions and determining scientific priorities. ``The Committee expects NASA to come up with a plan to fund the SOFIA mission in 2007 from within available funds through a reprogramming request subject to section 505 of this act. In determining the funding strategy for this program, the Committee directs NASA to follow the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences Decadal survey in Astronomy and Astrophysics when setting mission and budget priorities. Missions that are ranked higher in the surveys should be given priority over missions that are ranked lower in priority with launch dates.'' To ensure the protection of NASA's critical workforce, the current moratorium on involuntary reductions in force, RIF, was extended from its current expiration date of March 2007 until the end of fiscal year 2008. These provisions are unequivocal and must be honored by NASA as such. In particular, given Congress's stated and clear questioning of NASA's guidance of the SOFIA project to date, NASA should refrain from making significant changes to SOFIA without Congress first having the opportunity to review their proposals. Additionally, it is critical that the existing prohibition on the transfer of funds between major accounts is observed consistent with the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. The reprogramming of funds across accounts has in the past been used to change funding allocations within NASA in ways that counter the legislative intent of Congress. Mr. Speaker, NASA and its institutional capabilities are a critical component of our Nation's high-technology research and development infrastructure and must be protected for the sake of our future innovative capability. Ensuring these provisions passed by the Congress are honored as part of this fiscal year 2007 funding process will ensure NASA's continued excellence.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I am proud to introduce the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007. This legislation completes the work begun by Congress in 1998, by permanently banning discriminatory or duplicative state or local taxes on Internet access and e-commerce. When Congress first instituted a temporary moratorium in 1998, the goal was to promote the growth of online commerce and encourage universal access. This policy has been a resounding success, fostering growth in productivity and innovation and widening public access to information. A 2006 report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project demonstrated that 73 percent of those polled were Internet users, up from 66 percent in a similar 2005 survey. While Americans use the Internet for a myriad of reasons, e-commerce has particularly flourished and continues to grow at an exceptional rate. In 2006 alone, online retail exceeded $100 billion, increasing 24 percent over 2005. Despite the successes we have seen, there is still much work to be done. Internet usage still lags behind in rural and lower income areas and the United States has fallen from 4th to 16th in broadband penetration worldwide since 2001. In order to reverse this trend, we need to ensure that access costs are kept to a minimum. Prohibiting unnecessary access taxes will help accomplish this goal. We also need to allow unfettered access to the products and new services that are only available through the Internet and prevent multiple layers of state and local taxes. Otherwise, we will open the door to a myriad of barriers to Internet commerce that will drive consumers from a web-based marketplace and stifle innovation. Congress twice passed extensions to the moratorium in 2001 and again in 2004. Unfortunately, in November of this year the most recent extension will expire. Should Congress fail to renew this moratorium the continued growth and progress in Internet access and e-commerce will be endangered. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my efforts to make this moratorium permanent and finally assure consumers that their Internet access and e-commerce will remain unhindered by discriminatory and duplicative taxes.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Audrey C. Rust, who is celebrating her 20th anniversary of leadership at the Peninsula Open Space Trust, POST. Ms. Rust is a graduate of the University of Connecticut, and prior to joining the Peninsula Open Space Trust as its executive director in 1987, served as the director of development and membership for the Sierra Club. She also directed West Coast capital giving programs for Yale University and served in a variety of development capacities for Stanford University. She has also served as a member of the board of directors of the Land Trust Alliance and the League of Conservation Voters in Washington, DC. Under her leadership, POST has worked effectively through public- private partnerships to acquire and protect over 50,000 acres of land on the San Francisco peninsula. These lands have become parts of the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, California State Parks, county and city parks, regional open space preserves and private farmland. Ms. Rust's vision helped bring POST to the national stage and on multiple occasions Congress has voted to support her efforts by providing funds for public land purchases and the adoption of POST lands into national areas of conservation. I am particularly proud of our work together on the acquisition of the Phleger estate, now part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and Bair Island, now part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Ms. Rust's work on land conservation is nationally recognized. She has received the League of California Voters Environmental Leadership Award, the Times Mirror-Chevron National Conservationist of the Year Award; the Cynthia Pratt Laughlin Medal, the Garden Club of America's top environmental honor, and the Jacqueline Kennedy Award from John F. Kennedy University. There are few who embody the commitment to conservation and our collective future as Ms. Rust does. In POST's most recent Annual Report, Ms. Rust wrote: Open space defines our sense of place on the Peninsula, and it is worth saving, because it is where we as humans touch mysteries that last long after we are gone. It is the best gift we can pass down to those who follow us, because it connects us to our past and our future, allowing us to share a communal memory of what it's like to live in this extraordinary place. By setting aside land for permanent protection, we declare to the future, ``This is what we value; this is what we deem precious.'' Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Audrey Rust whose 20 years at POST have benefitted millions of Americans and millions more to come. She is an exceptional leader, a powerful voice for conservation, and a great American.