Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished American, Robert F. Kerley, who died on July 7, 2006. Robert Kerley was born and educated in California. He served his country during World War II as a member of General Mark Clark's staff in Italy. After the war he earned his B.S. Degree at the University of California Berkeley, and then began his quarter century career with the University. He was at Berkeley from 1951 until 1964 when he left to become the Vice President for Business Affairs and Treasurer at the University of Kentucky, and went on to serve as Vice President for Administration and Treasurer at Johns Hopkins. He returned to Berkeley in 1970 and served as Vice Chancellor of Administration until his retirement in 1982. Upon his retirement he received the Berkeley Citation, U.C. Berkeley's highest honor. The California Alumni Association awarded him the Alumni Citation for excellence in service and he was named a Berkeley Fellow in 2003, an honor given to a select group for extraordinary service to the University. Robert Kerley is survived by his beloved wife Betty whom he met at Berkeley and married in 1975 at the Chancellor's residence. He also leaves his children Kathleen James, Maureen Douglas, Barbara Neill, William Kerley and his step-children Katherine Strehl and William Strehl. He also leaves 10 beloved grandchildren . . . Adriana, Allison, Andrew, Brent, Carolyn, Cecily, Christina, Jake, Joseph and Meredith. Robert Kerley was a member of the Board of Regents of John F. Kennedy University, a member and Chair of the National Association of Colleges and Universities, as well as a member of the Council on Higher Education. He was a founding member and Chair of the governing board of the Center for Independent Living in Berkeley, the first group run by and for people with disabilities, and an advisor to Alta Bates Medical Center. It has been a personal privilege to have known Mr. Kerley's step- daughter for many years. Her integrity and commitment to public service are an eloquent statement about her, as well as her father. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this good and great American and in extending our deepest sympathy to his family. Robert Kerley contributed greatly to our community and our country, and in doing so, made us a stronger and better nation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I thank our distinguished member of the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in opposition to the rule and in opposition to the bill, and I want to state very clearly why. I believe that this bill is deeply deficient. And I am very disappointed because I had high hopes for this bill. At one time I was a cosponsor of it, but I removed my name from the bill when I saw what the deficiencies were and that the majority would not address them. My colleague, Mrs. Capps, has just eloquently outlined the deep deficiency relative to privacy. If you ask any American about privacy and if they want it protected in their financial records and their medical records, there will be a resounding yes. This bill has no protection for the American people relative to privacy. The second point, which is really a shame, that an HIT, health information technology bill, does not assure interoperability. My colleague from Florida mentioned this in his statement. There isn't going to be any point, it won't matter if every doctor, every hospital in our country has invested in robust IT technology if they can't communicate with one another. What this bill provides is that down the road, down the road 3 years, 5 years there may be interoperability. Does the majority not understand that in the market in terms of information technology that products change 6 months, 8 months. And so there isn't anything in the bill that assures that interoperability is going to take place. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that was turned down. It ensured that purchasers and vendors in the HIT marketplace will be able to rely on representations about compliance with the interoperability standards adopted under this legislation by creating a voluntary certification process for HIT products. Dr. David Brailer, the first national coordinator for health IT, said last month that if the government does not immediately employ interoperability standards in its purchasing, the adoption of the standards in the marketplace could take 5 to 7 years instead of 1 or 2 to implement. So this is a wonderful vehicle, it sounds terrific, it is all shiny and waxed up. Everyone looks at it and says, doesn't this look terrific? I hate to dampen your spirits, but there isn't any gas in the engine and this dog is not going to hunt. It is an opportunity that has been squandered, and I reluctantly oppose the rule and the bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this Resolution which condemns Hezbollah and Hamas, the terrorist attacks against Israel and the full support of the U.S. for Israel to defend herself and live in peace among her neighbors. As I support this Resolution, I believe it is deficient in not expressing this body's strongest desire for all parties involved in the current conflict to exercise military restraint in order to spare the lives of innocent Israeli and Lebanese civilians. While the Lebanese people have been making laudable strides toward a more positive future and a peaceful coexistence in the region, terrorists have sought continuously to ignite conflict. The Government of Lebanon has paid a price for their stand against Hezbollah and Syria, enduring assassinations, political and social turmoil, and now the wide-scale destruction of civilian lives and critical infrastructure. As a result the people of Lebanon are alongside our friends in Israel in being victimized by Hezbollah and Hamas in the current crisis. Both sides are enduring extraordinary hardship from air and rocket attacks and hundreds of civilians have been killed during the current military campaign. The terrorists have succeeded in creating a humanitarian crisis which the international community, including the United States, has yet to respond to. The escalating conflict is nearing full-scale war and terrorists and their state sponsors are realizing their goal of scuttling the Roadmap to Peace and pushing regional leaders away from the negotiating table. I believe the United States has the responsibility and the power to be the voice of reason and put an end to brinkmanship. The region is desperate for restraint on the part of all parties. The Resolution is silent on this. It should be our goal today to protect the civilian lives and critical infrastructure that have been targeted in the current fighting, and work to bring about restraint to resolve the crisis without further bloodshed. We need a policy in the Middle East that does not begin and end with military force. A political solution must be structured and the U.S. can and should take a decisive role through diplomacy and negotiations to shape a solution to the conflict. It is regrettable that the above is not addressed in House Resolution 921.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished colleague who has worked so hard to bring this legislation forward. Today, I think, is really a sad day in our country with the President announcing the veto, the only veto that he has used in his entire Presidency, to strike down what I believe is very sound legislation. I think he has placed the dogmatic views of some of his supporters ahead of sound science, ahead of public health, ahead of research, and ahead of our country's best interest. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Why? Because there are millions of Americans that are afflicted with so many diseases. I believe that this legislation not only gives them hope, it spells out, as a national policy, that we can indeed merge ethics, morality, and sound public policy to address what ails them. We have all had constituents come to us, parents of children with juvenile diabetes, pleading that the research be able to go forward. I have always thought that America was the best idea that has ever been born. Today, I think that light of what America represents not only to her own people, but to be the hope and the beacon of light for people around the world, has been diminished by this veto. I believe that this legislation needs to move on. It should be the public policy and the guidepost in terms of ethics and morality for our country, which is the responsibility of the Congress to set forward, should move forward, and it will when the House of Representatives overrides the President's dubious veto. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the President has placed the dogmatic views of some of his supporters ahead of sound science, ahead of public health, and ahead of our country's best interests. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will not merely advance medical science. It will almost certainly save many thousands of lives and provide hope to millions of Americans afflicted with terrible, debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, strokes, heart disease, diabetes, burns and arthritis. I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I'm deeply saddened that the President has seen fit to use the first veto of his presidency on this crucial legislation. H.R. 810 will bring embryonic stem cell research under the National Institutes of Health, ensuring rigorous controls and ethical guidelines on this research that only the NIH can implement. Congress has a moral imperative to frame these issues and establish a national policy that integrates the best of science and the highest ethical standards. Without this legislation, much of the critical funding for stem-cell research will be available only from the States, from private sources, or from foreign governments who are investing billions in this field. If we don't override the President's veto, stem cell research will be curtailed in the United States, but it will not end. Researchers and doctors in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Israel, China, Australia, South Korea, the Czech Republic, and elsewhere are moving full speed ahead on this vital research and will continue to do so. If the President's veto of this bill is successful, he will only succeed in preventing life-saving cures from reaching American patients sooner, and prevent the establishment of national standards for this research. Mr. Speaker, science and ethics can and indeed should be joined, and this legislation sets out a comprehensive national policy for this vital research. The President's veto represents an exercise of political science over real science, and must not be allowed to stand. Vote to override this veto.

Mr. ESHOO

Mr. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 3504 because I think it is essential to have the strictest of guidelines that reflect our Nation's values regarding the creation and responsible treatment of human embryos. Having said this, if we pass this bill without also enacting legislation to allow for federally funded and regulated stem cell research, we are saying ``no'' to the potential of life saving treatments for millions of Americans who suffer from diseases for which there are currently limited or no treatment options. Later this week, the House will likely vote on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, a bill which puts into place critical federal support for embryonic research under the strictest ethical requirements, and I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. Under H.R. 810 embryonic stem cell lines will be eligible for research funding only if embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for fertility treatment purposes, are in excess of clinical need, and are donated for the purpose of research. H.R. 810 will bring embryonic stem cell research under the National Institutes of Health, ensuring rigorous controls and ethical guidelines on this research that only NIH can impose. We have a moral imperative to ensure that this research is conducted in adherence to sound medical, ethical, and moral guidelines. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will advance medical science and will almost certainly save lives and provide hope to millions of Americans afflicted with suffering from diseases and injuries, including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and spinal injuries. Without federal funding and standards, scientific progress will move overseas and Americans' access to the most important medical innovations will be limited. I join Dr. Frist, the Senate Republican leader, in support of this bill, as well the governor of California, Governor Schwarzenegger, who has asked the President to withhold his veto. The Federal Government has a key role to lead, to encourage and to assist in the cutting-edge research which can and will save the lives of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 810 and support stem cell research, and I implore the President to reconsider his pledge to veto this crucial legislation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, which reauthorizes the Voting Rights Act (VRA) for an additional 25 years. Congress first passed the VRA in 1965 to dismantle ``Jim Crow'' and to respond to widespread disenfranchisement of minorities. Since then the VRA has been reauthorized numerous times and expanded to address other issues that impact voting access and fair representation, including congressional districting, language requirements and election monitoring. In 41 years since the enactment of the original VRA, enormous gains have been made in ensuring the voting rights of minorities. However, our country still struggles to live up to the principles of equality and fair representation, and the legacy of racial bias still haunts the electoral process in some areas. Among the provisions reauthorized by H.R. 9 is Section 5 which requires jurisdictions covered under this section to have any changes to their election procedure pre-approved by the Justice Department or a U.S. District Court. This provision is vital to ensure that local jurisdictions do not employ tactics that discourage minority voting. Because of what is at stake, I believe it's vital that we reauthorize the VRA and do so by an overwhelming majority. I strongly support the legislation before us, but I would be remiss not to take this opportunity to address the challenges we still face with respect to our elections. The 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections demonstrated the work that needs to be done to ensure that the will of the people is accurately reflected at the polls. After the 2000 election, Congress acted in a bipartisan manner to pass the Help America Vote Act which, among other things, required the replacement of outdated punchcard and lever-machine voting systems. While many counties have upgraded to electronic voting machines, we cannot fully guarantee their accuracy until every electronic voting machine is equipped with a voter-verifiable paper ballot so that voters can verify their votes prior to casting their ballots and a recount can be ordered if necessary. Legislation to enact these steps has been introduced in the form of H.R. 550, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, and is supported by over 190 bipartisan cosponsors. After we vote to pass the reauthorization of VRA, we should turn our attention to passing H.R. 550 so we can provide full confidence, fairness and transparency in our election process. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9 and to do everything possible to make sure every vote is counted and that every vote counts in our electoral system.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Rogers from the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the work he has done on this bill. I am proud to be the Democratic lead on it. I think it is a very important step for the Congress to take. Obviously, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it. The bill, as you have heard, directs the EPA to study the energy efficiency of computer servers and data centers within our government, the United States Government, as well as the private sector. Data centers are facilities that house large amounts of electronic equipment, primarily computer servers that handle data for large and complex operations which continue to grow daily in our country. These facilities can occupy an entire room, an entire floor, or an entire building. According to industry estimates, the average annual electricity cost of running a single data center is about $6 million a year, and the cumulative energy costs for these centers is about $3.3 billion a year. So the energy demands of these operations are going to continue to grow. They are going to continue to expand as the market for servers is expected to expand by about 50 percent over the next 5 years. And of course the by-word of this Congress and I think future Congresses is going to be energy conservation, energy conservation, energy conservation. The EPA, high-technology companies, and nongovernmental organizations have discussed how to measure efficiency of these data centers with an eye toward providing an Energy Star rating for the most efficient technology. It has worked with other industries. It really has been a motivator. Anyone who goes out to buy appliances for their home, you look for the energy-efficient label, and that has done much to conserve in our country. I think the study that this bill calls for will advance this, as well as helping consumers, businesses, and the government to identify the most efficient technology to meet their needs. The bill, H.R. 5646, has the support of high-technology companies, of environmental groups, of energy companies, including the Alliance to Save Energy, the AEA, TechNet, SIA, EIA, and the ITIC. I want to thank Mr. Rogers for accepting the changes that we suggested to the bill as reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee. I think the changes are going to ensure that the EPA will continue to seek input not only from industry stakeholders, but from environmental groups and outside efficiency experts. We have also taken steps to ensure that the EPA examines the features and the capabilities of computer data centers in its report, and that the EPA has adequate time to prepare this study. I thank Mr. Rogers for working so hard to make sure this comes to the floor. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. This is a good bill. It is an important step.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest opposition possible to this legislation which will erase 25 years of critical environmental protection. Only a month ago, the House rejected an attempt to lift the ban on coastal drilling, and yet today we are being told that the solution to our addiction to oil is more oil; that the oil companies who are reaping record profits need more relief from Federal regulation, and that more of our public lands need to be sacrificed for their bottom lines. This bill should be entitled Nothing is Sacred Any More. This is an outrage. The wheels have come off here. This bill not only hurts us in terms of the fiscal condition of the country; it gives the wrong message. It sends a terrible message to people in States that have spoken out over and over and over again. Their voices will be ignored. The vote will be ignored. The Republican Governor of California is vehemently opposed to this. This is an insult to local governments, to State governments, and to anyone that wants to land on the side of the future for our country and not the past.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a distinguished American, Roger S. Meier, who died on June 5, 2006 at the age of 80. Mr. Meier, a fourth-generation Oregonian who lived most of his life in Portland, was a descendant of the founders of the Meier & Frank Company. He graduated from Yale University and married Laura Schwartz of New York City in 1952. He worked at Meier & Frank as a director and vice president until the store was sold to the May Company in 1965. Mr. Meier was the president and chief executive officer of AMCO, Inc., a privately owned investment company for more than 30 years. The Governor of Oregon appointed him to the Public Employees' Retirement Board in 1970, and he also served through appointment on the Oregon Investment Council from 1973 to 1986 as chairman. The Oregonian observed that unpaid public service has rarely, if ever, generated such a profound financial benefit for Oregonians. Mr. Meier served with distinction as chairman of the board of trustees for the Portland Art Museum, and as director of Pacific Western Bank, Pac West Bancorp, NI Industries, Fred Meyer, Inc., Key Bank of Oregon, Red Lion Inns, Key Trust Company of the Northwest and The Acorn Family of Funds. Mr. Meier also gave generously of his time and talents through his service on the boards of the Catlin Gabel School, University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, the Oregon Historical Society and the Legacy Health Systems Retirement Trust. Mr. Meier is survived by his wife, Laura, his daughters, Alix Goodman and Jill Garvey, his sons-in-law, Tom Goodman and Tony Garvey, and four grandchildren--Laura and Caroline Garvey, and Andrew and Reed Goodman. He is also survived by his nieces and their spouses, Lynn Meier Novelli and Michael Novelli, Mary Meier Ryan and Dan Ryan, and Muffie Meier; and his grand-nephews Alexander Mansfield Novelli and J. Allen Meier Ryan. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our sympathy to the entire Meier family. Roger Meier was a national treasure who loved his community and his country and served them exceedingly well. He will always be missed and never be forgotten.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Dr. Walter Meyerhof who died on May 27, 2006, at the age of 84 of complications from Parkinson's disease. Walter E. Meyerhof was Professor Emeritus of Physics at Stanford University. He was born in Kiel, Germany, in 1922, the same year that his father, Otto Meyerhof, won a Nobel Prize in Medicine. His mother, Hedwig Schallenberg, was a painter. Dr. Meyerhof's parents were Jewish but raised their three children as Lutherans in an attempt to protect them from burgeoning Nazism. Despite this ruse, the family suffered from anti-Semitism and was ultimately helped to flee Vichy France by ``the American Schindler'', Varian Fry. Fry, a non-Jew who went to France to operate a rescue network, saved at least 2,000 people. In 1992, Meyerhof established and directed a foundation to honor the memory of Varian Fry. His film about Fry was narrated by Meryl Streep and distributed to more than 35,000 schools. Dr. Meyerhof earned his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. At age 24 he married Miriam Rubin, who had worked at a child-care center directed by Anna Freud. In 1949 he began his distinguished 43-year career as a Professor of Physics at Stanford University. Dr. Meyerhof was instrumental in the construction of the Stanford Linear Accelerator. He was awarded the Lloyd Dinkelspiel Teaching Award, the Tenured Faculty Development Award and was given an Honorary Doctorate by the University of Frankfort in 1980. He was named U.S. Senior Scientist by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in 1980-1981. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our sympathy to Mrs. Meyerhof and the entire Meyerhof family. Dr. Walter Meyerhof was a national treasure, who loved his community and his country and served them exceedingly well. He will always be missed and never forgotten.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 4157, the Health Information Technology Promotion Act.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and Congressman Murtha. We salute you for your extraordinary leadership. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the majority has brought a resolution before the House. It is a resolution. It is a nonbinding resolution. For those that are listening in, it just means that we are going to talk. There is not any action that will come out of it. Let us think about the context, the broader context of where we are today, June 15, 2006. Across this magnificent country, almost two- thirds of the American people, it matters not where they live, what their economic background is, what their political affiliation is, have now lost faith in the President's war in Iraq. They have also lost faith in the President. He had high ratings. He is now down to about 33 percent. And it is about this issue of war in Iraq. Why? Why? Because what was advanced? We had to go in because there was an eminent threat. If we did not get them, they were going to get us. Except that premise, the President even acknowledged, did not turn out to be so. We all honor and support our troops. None of us will stipulate to anything less. We all honor the tradition that they have set. We all stipulate to that. We know that there are terrorists in this world. And we will pursue them in the pursuit of the protection of our Nation. But there is a difference between Iraq and the war on terrorism. And some people in the Congress, unlike people in the country, do not want to acknowledge that. So where are we today? Our intelligence agency demoralized, intelligence manipulated, the American people ashamed of what we are doing instead of being proud. It is too bad, my friends, that the term ``cut and run'' is ever used against a man that has served so honorably and has the medals to show them. I submit that it is the Congress that has cut and run on accountability, on not doing oversight, on not watching where the money is going. Potable water has not been improved in Iraq. Even retired generals, for the first time in my life of 63 years have I ever heard retired generals that have spoken out and said this is not a policy, stay the course is not a policy. Yes, we need a debate. We need a debate about alternatives. About alternatives. This is a regrettable instrument that you have brought to the floor today. I think two-thirds of the American people understand it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment is similar to H.R. 5114, the Tax Return Choice Act, which I'm a sponsor of and which enjoys over 100 bipartisan cosponsors. This amendment should not be controversial, and I also think it should have the strong support of the Ways & Means Committee. This amendment simply prevents the IRS from creating its own electronic tax preparation and filing service, or a ``Return-Free'' tax system, without first coming to Congress and the Ways & Means Committee to present and explain their plans in public and receive congressional authorization for their program. Rather than infringing on the Committee's jurisdiction--as the Chairman has indicated--this amendment protects the Committee's oversight authority. Our income tax system is highly complicated and burdensome for taxpayers and Congress should work to streamline and simplify the tax code. The solution to these problems is not to empower the IRS to assume an intrusive and complicated role as income tax preparer. This amendment simply ensures that if the IRS seeks to assume such a role, it must do so with the prior authorization of Congress. A Return- Free tax system would represent a tremendous change in our system of tax collection. Under such a system, the IRS would present taxpayers with a bill which they would have to either challenge or pay. I don't believe the IRS should be in the business of preparing tax returns, and I'm convinced that such a system has dangerous and unavoidable conflicts of interest with the IRS taking control of tax preparation, auditing, and enforcement. For the first time in the history of our income tax system, the principle of voluntary compliance by U.S. taxpayers would be turned on its head and the federal government would be charged with assessing taxes directly. This structure poses serious implications for taxpayers' rights, privacy and security. Some disagree and think the IRS should be in the business of tax preparation. I think it's inappropriate for this system to be implemented without action by Congress. I don't . . . and I think it is essential that Congress establish the rules if there is to be such a system. There are too many questions and concerns about a Return-Free system to allow it to move forward without the scrutiny and approval of Congress. This amendment makes certain that the appropriate deliberation takes place.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues Mr. Honda and Mr. Farr today to honor a distinguished American, Judge Leonard Perry Edwards II, who is retiring after nearly 25 years as a Judge of the Santa Clara County, California, Superior Court, and who served as Supervising Judge of the Juvenile Dependency Court from 1993 to 2005. Judge Edwards' excellence in public service mirrors that of his father, Congressman Don Edwards. He was born in Michigan, earned his B.A. from Wesleyan University and his J.D. from the University of Chicago. Before becoming a Judge he registered black voters in Mississippi during the Civil Rights movement, served in the Peace Corps in Malaysia, taught law in Norway, served as a Public Defender and practiced law. In 1981, he was appointed Superior Court Judge of the Santa Clara County Court by Governor Jerry Brown. Judge Edwards founded Child Advocates of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, Kids in Common, Juvenile Court Judges of California, Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council, the Greenbook Project and the Forensic Human Services Certificate Program. He has held office in more than 25 professional organizations, and most recently served as President of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. He has received more than 40 national, state and local awards for his excellence and service, including the William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence, given by the National Center for State Courts. He has published more than 40 articles and written two books, one with his wife, Inger J. Sagatun-Edwards. Judge Edwards has lectured in 43 states and eight foreign countries. His next career will be as a consultant for California's judicial system which will enable him to teach his innovative methods to judges around the State. Judge Edwards has earned the esteem of his colleagues and the admiration of the families to whom he has devoted his career. Because of his tenacity, his creativity, his compassion and his belief in others, thousands of families are now rehabilitated and functioning well. It is a special privilege for us to honor Judge Leonard Edwards and his extraordinary career, and we are proud to call him our friend. Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in honoring this great American who exemplifies the best in citizenship and whose career in jurisprudence sets the gold standard for our country. As Judge Leonard Edwards retires, he has the gratitude and respect of the entire House of Representatives. He has made our community and our country stronger and better through his leadership and public service.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished ranking member of the Telecommunications Committee in the House. And everyone knows that when he speaks about anything that is related to telecommunications, he knows of what he speaks. And that is why this amendment that bears his name, and I am proud to have my name as a part of this amendment as well, why it is so important. Now, for people that are listening in to us this evening, what is this debate about? What does the term ``net neutrality'' mean? I think the better way to describe this is what does the Internet look like today? How does it function? What does it represent? What are the opportunities? Who takes advantage of these opportunities? Is anyone discriminated against when they go to use the Internet? Whether it is a small Web company, whether it is an individual user, whether it is a university, a library, a school, seniors in the senior center, those that are at home, those of us in Congress, our staff, it is not discriminatory. It is open. Everyone has equal access to it. So what is this debate about? The telephone companies, and let's face it, if they really were in charge of the future, they would have allowed cell phones, and they didn't. I mean, these people are really part of the past, I am sorry to say. So what this is is a profound change to the Internet. What will the change be? The telephone companies have come to the Congress and said, change the rules. Rewrite the rules. We want to be able to offer our own tier, our own speed and charge for it. I think that this is flawed, deeply flawed. And I think if we move in this direction, we will be moving away from the future. This debate is really all about the future, the future of the Internet and what we want it to look like. Our Republican friends have done some real heavy lifting here. Some Democrats too, but I will tell you something. I take my hat off to the Republicans. They have done everything for the telephone companies, everything, at a cost to what is one of the greatest sources of pride of America, a free and open Internet that is accessible to everyone. It has worked. We are the envy of the world as a result of it. We should not tamper with it. Vote for net neutrality.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Telecommunications Subcommittee for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to start out by saying, here we are again. I remember being a conferee on the 1996 telecommunications bill. It does not seem like it was a decade ago, but it was. That bill, if my colleagues will recall, was designed to create telephone competition for the Baby Bells. But instead, it resulted in the babies eating the mother. There is something monopolistic in the air here. And if any Member of the House is trying to make up their minds about what to do with this bill, I want to tell you something, if you like monopolies, you will love this bill because they are at it again. In 1996, they signed onto and said these are the rules that we are going to play by. Local competition, boy, that went out the window. Then they came on again and wanted something else. Now the telephone companies want to go for the golden goose of the American economy, and that is the Internet. What should be built into this bill is net neutrality. But I want to say a few other things about the bill. It is flawed in other ways. It really turns local control on its head. Local governments across the country have weighed in. Mayors have said these are not good rules for us. I came from local government. I have a deep regard for it. We can do much better by the cities and mayors in our communities. We can do much better about the rules in terms of build-out in our country. We should not in the 21st century be drawing lines around who is in and who is out. That is not where America is at its strongest and its best. This is a flawed bill, and we have to remember, all of us, that the Internet has been the key driver of the American economy. And to have the telecoms come after it and reconfigure it, reshape it to their liking, is something that is an echo of the past, their past behavior. We should not allow that. So I am urging my colleagues in this general debate to reconsider what it is you are considering because this is not the best legislation for the people of our country. We can do much, much better. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a distinguished American, Roger S. Meier, who died on June 5, 2006, at the age of 80. Mr. Meier, a fourth-generation Oregonian who lived most of his life in Portland, was a descendant of the founders of the Meier & Frank Company. He graduated from Yale University and married Laura Schwartz of New York City in 1952. He worked at Meier & Frank as a Director and Vice-President until the store was sold to the May Company in 1965. Mr. Meier was the President and Chief Executive Officer of AMCO, Inc., a privately owned investment company for more than 30 years. The Governor of Oregon appointed him to the Public Employees' Retirement Board in 1970, and he also served through appointment on the Oregon Investment Council from 1973 to 1986 as Chairman. The Oregonian observed that unpaid public service has rarely, if ever, generated such a profound financial benefit for Oregonians. Mr. Meier served with distinction as Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Portland Art Museum, and as Director of Pacific Western Bank, PacWest Bancorp, NI Industries, Fred Meyer, Inc., Key Bank of Oregon, Red Lion Inns, Key Trust Company of the Northwest, and The Acorn Family of Funds. Mr. Meier also gave generously of his time and talents through his service on the boards of the Catlin Gabel School, University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, the Oregon Historical Society and the Legacy Health Systems Retirement Trust. Mr. Meier is survived by his wife, Laura; his daughters, Alix Goodman and Jill Garvey; his sons-in-law, Tom Goodman and Tony Garvey; and four grandchildren, Laura and Caroline Garvey, and Andrew and Reid Goodman. He is also survived by his nieces Muffie Meier, Mary Meier Ryan and Lynn Novelli, and his grand-nephew J. Allen Meier Ryan. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our sympathy to the entire Meier family. Roger Meier was a national treasure, who loved his community and his country and served them exceedingly well. He will always be missed and never forgotten.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, due to reasons beyond my control, I was unable to cast votes on rollcall votes 211 through 222 on the evening of May 25th of this year. I would like the record to reflect how I would have voted on the following rollcall votes. On rollcall vote No. 211, I would have voted ``yes''; On rollcall vote No. 212, I would have voted ``no''; On rollcall vote No. 213, I would have voted ``yes''; On rollcall vote No. 214, I would have voted ``yes''; On rollcall vote No. 215, I would have voted ``yes''; On rollcall vote No. 216, I would have voted ``yes''; On rollcall vote No. 217, I would have voted ``yes''; On rollcall vote No. 218, I would have voted ``yes''; On rollcall vote No. 219, I would have voted ``yes''; On rollcall vote No. 220, I would have voted ``yes''; On rollcall vote No. 221, I would have voted ``yes''; On rollcall vote No. 222, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee. My colleagues, this debate today and this rule on the bill is a debate about the past or a pathway to the future. This bill, I can't believe it, that in the 21st century we are going to divide up the country on access to the haves and the have-nots. All we have to do is to look at the history of cable, of the cable industry in our country. They invested billions and billions of dollars to build out everywhere, and the American people won, as did the cable industry. And I applaud that. So what does this bill do? It says, under the new rules, you build out, but you don't have to build out everywhere. You don't have to build out everywhere. We know what will happen as a result of that. And you know what is in the bill? If you live in a neighborhood where you are not going to have access to this, guess what you can do, Mr. and Mrs. America? You, on your own, can go to the FCC. Is that a joke or what? Although, it is more than a joke, it is an insult, and it is not the way to go. Ever since I have come to the Congress, I have worked to expand and protect the Internet. So where are we going with this bill? The big telcos are coming in and saying, we have a better idea. On the information superhighway, we are going to have a toll road and we are going to charge and charge mightily on that. Well, you know what, Members of Congress? We all have cable in our districts. We all have telephone companies in our districts. But you know what, there are tens of millions of Internet users. So what this bill represents, unfortunately, is the reverse gear. That is not what America is about. America is the best idea that was ever born, and the Internet has been the imprimatur for hands off, for democratizing information; that everyone gets to use it, small businesses, entrepreneurs, individuals, families, teachers, schools, whomever you are, wherever you are, whatever color you are, and regardless of how much money you have. This bill will damage that. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. This bill should not see daylight. We can do better than this.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, once again, we have before us legislation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling. My question is: What problem are we trying to solve? If this is an attempt to lower gas prices, then this bill won't do the job. According to a July 2005 report of the non-partisan Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy, Arctic oil will reduce the price of a gallon of gas by less than a penny. If this is an attempt to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, then this bill is not the solution. Whether we drill in the Arctic or not, U.S. dependence on foreign oil is projected to grow. The simple fact is that the U.S. has less than 3 percent of the world's oil reserves yet our country is responsible for 25 percent of the world's annual petroleum consumption. This bill will rip apart a 1.5-million-acre wildlife refuge for a 6 month supply of oil. The proponents claim that the drilling will be limited to a mere 2,000 acre area. As a point of comparison, the 100-mile-long, 12-lane New Jersey turnpike covers 1,800 acres. That limitation applies only to where the drilling will occur, not to supporting infrastructure, including roads. In addition, no requirement exists for the 2,000 acres to be contiguous. Drilling stations can be spread throughout the refuge, dotting the landscape. Mr. Speaker, we have other choices. Choices that will preserve sensitive wilderness areas, reduce air pollution, and end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. We should be improving the fuel economy of cars and trucks, which stands at the same level today as it was 20 years ago. We have the technology today to raise the standard for automobiles by 10 percent over the next decade, saving 1.1 million barrels of oil per day and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 85 million metric tons a year. House Democrats developed an Innovation Agenda, which was introduced last November. In it, we proposed cutting petroleum-based fuels by rapidly expanding production and distribution of synthetic and bio- based fuels such as ethanol derived from cellulosic sources, and by deploying new engine technologies for fuel-flexible, hybrid, plug-in hybrid and biodiesel vehicles. This is not far-off technology. It is at hand, and if we promote it now, we can end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil in a decade and we can do it without drilling in the Arctic or other sensitive areas. These are the steps we should be taking, not the destructive policies which this bill represents. I urge my colleagues to reject the bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor St. Joseph's School of the Sacred Heart, on the occasion of the celebration of its centennial on May 20, 2006. Emilie Blain Donohoe, an alumna of Sacred Heart in St. Louis, strongly believed in the educational mission of the Religious of the Sacred Heart. In 1904, she made an offer to them to fund a new school if they would agree to run it. In 1906, St. Joseph's School in Atherton, California opened its doors to 74 students. Then and now the school is guided by the spirit of the foundress of the Religious of the Sacred Heart, St. Madeleine Sophie Barat, who said, ``Let us respect childhood; let us honor the soul of that small creature of God.'' It was her vision of teaching children of all social levels that inspired Emilie Blain Donohoe to fund a tuition-free school. One hundred years later, St. Joseph's School of the Sacred Heart is considered the ``gold standard'' in K through 8 education. It is led by capable leaders and a faculty headed by Cee Salberg, Principal of the Preschool and Kindergarten, and Karen Eshoo, Principal of grades 1 through 8. Karen is my daughter and a graduate of St. Joseph's (Class of 1983) and Sacred Heart Preparatory (Class of 1987) and as such; exemplifies the best of a Sacred Heart education. The enrollment today is 520 children from Preschool through 8th grade. St. Joseph's has undergone many changes in 100 years but its mission remains the same: the development of the whole child spiritually, intellectually, emotionally and physically. A St. Joseph's education represents the finest in academics . . . serious in principles, and rich in the spirit of life and love. The five Goals of the Sacred Heart Network inform everything that is done at St. Joseph's. They guide the community in a genuinely integrated approach to learning which is spiritually nurturing, academically challenging, and produces students who are committed to social justice in a spirit of Christian community. St. Joseph's students are continually challenged to support each other, while at the same time achieving their own personal goals. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring an extraordinary school, St. Joseph's of the Sacred Heart, as it celebrates one hundred years of educating our children. I pay tribute to the Religious of the Sacred Heart for their inspired work of educating generations of children and my congratulations to the entire Sacred Heart community of students, teachers, staff, alumni, parents and donors who have all helped to shape responsible citizens of our country. May the next century be marked by the excellence and achievements of the first 100 years at St. Joseph's School of the Sacred Heart.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment to retain the moratoria on drilling in protected offshore areas of the United States. If we don't approve this amendment, we will undo a 25-year legacy of protecting the coast of my State of California and other States from the damage that can be done by drilling. Three Presidents . . . George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, have supported the drilling moratoria in sensitive coastal areas of the United States. The Governor of the State of California has written to Members of the California delegation to express his support of the moratorium and he opposes the language in this bill. He wrote: ``[T]he bill's provisions would allow drilling to begin just three miles from our coast. Rather than watching the sun set on the western horizon each day, millions of Californians and visitors will now see grotesque oil platforms in plain sight. I urge the Delegation to oppose these provisions and work to defeat them during the House debate. California's beautiful coastline is an integral part of our culture, our heritage, and our economy. Putting it at risk would be an absolute travesty.'' The argument we're hearing is that we need to develop domestic natural gas supplies to bring down prices and avoid dependence on foreign sources of energy. This argument is a masquerade. It's well known that there cannot be selective drilling for natural gas. Drilling is drilling, and where gas is found, oil is also found. Last fall, the Director of the Mineral Management Service, Johnnie Burton, said so. He said: Natural gas seldom comes totally by itself. It has some liquids with it. Sometimes it is oil, sometimes it is very refined oil . . . So lifting the moratorium on gas drilling will also effectively lift the ban on oil drilling. Mr. Chairman, if we're concerned about prices and security, we need to begin requiring the use of renewable fuels and improving the fuel economy of our automobiles. We shouldn't tear our oceans apart and ruin our coastlines.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bernard L. Schwartz, a distinguished American who retired in March 2006 as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Loral Space and Communications, Inc., posts he has held since the company was founded in 1996. He served in the same posts at the predecessor company, Loral Corporation, since 1972. Loral Space and Communications designs and manufactures large, geostationary telecommunications satellites, and through its Skynet subsidiary provides a wide range of satellite services. Under Mr. Schwartz's wise leadership, Loral Space and Communications has played a central role in the development of the satellite industry and a central role in satellite services for our nation. Bernard Schwartz is a legend on Wall Street and in the defense industry. He is highly regarded for his work in the fields of economic growth, industrial policy, technology and national security. He gives generously of his time, his talents and resources to many organizations to further examine these topics. Among his extraordinary contributions are the endowment of academic chairs for the study of economic policy and international affairs at New School University and Johns Hopkins University, as well as establishing a fellowship program in public policy at the New America Foundation. He is a Trustee of New York University Hospitals Center where he established the Neurointerventional Radiology Center, and he funded a distinguished chair in urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. He established chairs at the Brookings Institution and at Tel Aviv University and founded a Communication Institute at Baruch College where he serves as a Trustee. Mr. Schwartz serves on the Board of the New York Historical Society, and as Vice-Chair of the New York Film Society. He is also a Trustee of Third Way and the Democratic Leadership Council. Mr. Schwartz, a graduate of City College of New York, was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Science by his alma mater. He and his wife live in New York City and have two daughters, three granddaughters and one grandson. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Bernard Schwartz for his extraordinary leadership and countless contributions to our nation's economy and its well-being. He has taken his citizenship seriously and given back to the country he loves so much. We salute him for his leadership of Loral Space and Communications, which serves the interests of our country and for his continuing patriotism which makes him a national treasure.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 102, I inadvertently cast a ``yea'' vote when I intended to cast a ``nay'' vote.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides the brave men and women of our intelligence community with the tools they need to conduct their constant silent struggle to guarantee our national security. They deserve it. They place their lives on the line every day, and they should have these resources provided to them. What I am deeply disappointed about in this bill is that we are not using this opportunity to crack down on the administration's reckless and unlawful abuses in the field of intelligence gathering. For the first time in our Nation's history, we are living under an administration that asserts it has the right, without statutory or judicial review, to eavesdrop on the electronic communications of American citizens. The NSA wiretapping program, revealed last December and acknowledged by the President himself, represents for the first time ever the completely warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens, an unheard of breach of our rights guaranteed under the Constitution. We have learned from news reports that the Counter-Intelligence Field Activity, CIFA, part of the Department of Defense, has illegally collected and retained information on Americans, including several in my district in California. Worse, they did this on the basis of protected first amendment activity, notably the exercise of free speech about military recruiting at the University of California at Santa Cruz. When I learned of this, I was able to investigate and learn that the reports had been improperly entered into and retained in a Department of Defense database. I objected, and the DOD has promised in writing to correct the situation and issue guidance to employees to prevent future abuses. I am pleased with their attention to the problem, and I hope that we have turned the corner with CIFA. This has not been the case with the President's NSA wiretapping program. Not only does the program fall outside the statutory guidelines of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but the President continues, in my view, to violate the law by failing to brief the full Intelligence Committee about the program. Our Nation was founded on the premise of three coequal branches of government, providing checks and balances on the abuse of power by any one body. Yet this administration continues to act without regard for congressional or judicial guidelines. This is not only un-American, it is dangerous, and we have a responsibility to put an end to it. I offered an amendment to this bill in committee which sought only to determine the cost of the President's program. It was a reasonable and measured attempt at meaningful oversight. It didn't seek operational details or names of targets, but just the most basic oversight questions, what is in the budget. It was defeated. When the vote is cast on this, Members are voting in the dark. I offered another amendment last night which was rejected by the Rules Committee. That was even more benign. It simply expressed the sense of Congress that all electronic surveillance must comply with the Constitution and FISA. This bill has shortcomings, Mr. Chairman, and I regret that it does because I think that it is not good for our country.