Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to welcome a special group to the Capitol this morning. It is the season where so many students come to Washington to see their government in action and to visit the historic sites in Washington. This week the students of St. Joseph's School of the Sacred Heart in Atherton, California, are here. The school is over 100 years old. It was founded by the religious of the Sacred Heart, the beloved religious of the Sacred Heart, and the traditions and their mission of excellence in education and the formation of the character and the spiritual formation of students continues today. How proud I am that they are here; how proud I am of the teachers; how proud I am of the principal of St. Joseph's at Sacred Heart, my daughter, Karen Eshoo. Welcome, students, and enjoy your memorable and historic visit to our Capitol. May what you see and what you experience remain with you for a lifetime.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary American, Eli Segal, who passed away on February 20, 2006 at the age of 63. Eli Segal was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1943. He graduated Brandeis University in 1964 and received a law degree from the University of Michigan in 1967. Mr. Segal began a distinguished political career in 1968 when he joined Senator Eugene McCarthy's presidential campaign. Though Senator McCarthy lost, Mr. Segal was not deterred and served in key positions in several Democratic presidential campaigns, culminating with President Clinton's 1992 campaign, which was Mr. Segal's first campaign victory. Mr. Segal then served as Assistant to the President in the Clinton White House, and within months established the Corporation for National Service, better known now as AmeriCorps. Thanks to his skilled management, the once controversial program has become an acclaimed success, and 400,000 young Americans have been enrolled in the program and helped to improve their communities and their country. Mr. Segal also took an active interest in City Year, another service program he eventually chaired. At the request of Nelson Mandela, he helped launch City Year in South Africa. In 1996, when President Clinton signed welfare reform into law, Mr. Segal took on the challenge of creating opportunities for former welfare recipients who were required to work. He began asking American companies to make commitments to hire former welfare recipients, and his ``welfare-to-work partnership'' grew from five companies to twenty thousand. As he did with AmeriCorps, Mr. Segal left a great legacy in his contribution to the success of welfare reform. Mr. Segal is survived by his wife Phyllis, his son Jonathan and his daughter Mora, two grandchildren, and his brother Alan. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring an outstanding American and an extraordinary public servant, and extending our deepest sympathy to his family. He touched the lives of many Americans and changed our nation for the better.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican Budget Resolution and in favor of the Substitute offered by Representative Spratt. Despite record-breaking deficits and a skyrocketing national debt, the Budget Resolution before us continues the Majority's `spend now/pay later' policy which has gotten us into a historic fiscal mess. Former House Republican Leader Dick Armey accurately described the Republican's fiscal management when he told the Wall Street Journal in 2004, ``I'm sitting here, and I'm upset about the deficit, and I'm upset about spending. There's no way I can pin that on Democrats. Republicans own this town now.'' I think it's important to note that there's always been a choice. Every year for the last 5 years, Democrats have offered alternate plans to balance the budget. Every year we've been defeated by the Majority. Over that time, the Majority's budgets have turned a projected 10- year surplus of $5.6 trillion into a projected 10-year deficit of nearly $4 trillion, posting record annual deficits over that period. The single largest cause of this turnaround has been the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. The tax cuts, by themselves, represent approximately half of the deficits we've accumulated since 2001. What we see again in this year's Republican budget is more of the same. Passage of their budget will increase the deficit by $348 billion in Fiscal Year 2007 and by a total of $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years. Although it never achieves a balanced budget, this Republican plan insists on more tax cuts. That's not the whole story. This budget masks the true cost of the deficit because it continues to spend every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund. Without dipping into the Trust Fund, the Republicans would post a deficit of more than $600 billion in Fiscal Year 2007. The costs of the debt and deficit are huge. In Fiscal Year 2007, the United States will spend $243 billion to cover the interest payments on the national credit card. This represents the fastest-growing part of the budget. The Republican budget also presents the false claim that its spending cuts will reduce the deficit. Over the next 5 years, the proposal cuts $5 billion from mandatory programs (such as Food Stamps and Unemployment Insurance) and $127 billion in domestic discretionary programs, such as education, veterans benefits, environmental protection, and scientific health care research, but instead of paying down the debt, these alleged `savings' will partially pay for $228 billion in tax cuts. We've seen this bait-and-switch before. Just two short months ago, the President signed into law the so-called Deficit Reduction Act. The $40 billion in cuts in this legislation came from reductions in student aid programs ($12 billion), Medicaid ($7 billion), and Medicare ($6.4 billion). At nearly the same time, the House passed a tax cut bill at a cost of $56 billion. Provisions in this bill will give anyone who earns $1 million or more a year an average tax break of $32,000. The cuts in services will be painful and unwise. Over the next 5 years, this budget will cut veterans' healthcare services by $6 billion, education by $45.3 billion, healthcare by $18.1 billion, and environmental protection by $25 billion. Once again, these spending reductions will cover only part of the $228 billion in additional tax cuts, guaranteeing deficits for at least the next decade. The net result of this budget are more tax cuts for the wealthy, a reduction in social services for working families, and never-ending debt for future generations. This fiscal policy is not only unsustainable, it's immoral. As in past years, we have a choice. The Substitute offered by Mr. Spratt reduces the deficit year-to-year and reaches a balanced budget by 2012. The Substitute re-establishes pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules so that any new tax cuts and any new spending are paid for by spending cuts or revenue increases. The Substitute also proposes $160.5 billion more than the House Republican budget for key areas, including education, health, veterans, and environmental protection while maintaining funding for defense and providing more funding for key homeland security priorities, such as port security. Within the context of a balanced budget, the Substitute provides funding for tax relief for low and middle income taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and instead support the Democratic alternative that will restore fiscal responsibility and honor the best of who we are as Americans.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, legislation aimed at stopping the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. As a longtime cosponsor of this critical legislation, I'm pleased that this bill has been brought before us today for a vote. With as many as 400,000 killed by the orchestrated violence in Darfur, it's imperative that the U.S. act quickly and decisively to put an end to the crisis. H.R. 3127 goes after the individuals both inside and outside the Sudanese government who are responsible for the ongoing bloodshed by directing the President to seize the assets of and refuse future visas to any individual (or their family members) responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Sudan. It also forbids any U.S. port from accepting any goods or cargo from Sudanese ships should the Sudanese government continue to fail to take steps to resolve the crisis. Furthermore, in order to give military protection for victims on the ground, H.R. 3127 authorizes the President to provide assistance for an expanded peacekeeping force in Sudan; the African Union Mission in Sudan, AMIS, and directs the President to seek NATO reinforcement of AMIS, upon the request of the African Union. Last month I voted for and the House passed the Capuano Amendment to the FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Iraq and Other International Activities, which added $50 million in funding to expand the African Union's peacekeeping operations in Darfur. This critical funding will help the African Union forces provide humanitarian relief and protection until further assistance arrives from the U.S. and the international community. For the past three years I have voted for and cosponsored legislation condemning the atrocities in Darfur and appropriately labeling them ``genocide.'' Both Houses of Congress have concurred with this assessment, but little has been effective in stopping the killings and displacement. We need to do more, and we need to come up with new methods to target those perpetuating the violence. The provisions within the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act will give us a fresh set of tools to apply to the situation and deliver assistance to those who need it. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3127.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill, the largest emergency appropriations measure to ever be considered by the House of Representatives. I do so with great reluctance because there are several positive aspects to the bill, including resources for our dedicated troops. Despite these reservations, I oppose this bill because the Administration and the Majority in Congress have failed to provide adequate oversight and accountability for our operations in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, in four days we will mark the third anniversary of this tragic war, a war that I opposed from the beginning and which has already cost our country over $400 billion. Without a strategy for success or an end in sight, the Congressional Budget Office predicts the price tag for military costs alone will reach $600 billion by the end of this decade. The added costs of long-term healthcare for our veterans, reconstruction assistance, and economic aid will of course raise this figure exponentially, prompting some of our Nation's best economists to predict that the long-term costs of this war will rise as high as two trillion dollars. Meanwhile, the loss of our best and brightest young people can never be measured. Going into war without the approval and support of the international community and without a plan for the post-war occupation period has resulted in a Nation less secure now than at the end of major combat operations. Despite the heroic efforts of our military, and the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into Iraq, it is now on the brink of civil war. We've seen how disastrously this administration's strategy, or lack thereof, has played out in Iraq, and yet we continue to circumvent the normal budget process, putting hundreds of billions of dollars on the national credit card without any plan for success, any plan to begin the process of bringing our troops home, or any plan to turn Iraq over to the Iraqi people. Mr. Chairman, I voted in favor of our last emergency supplemental bill because, among other things, the bill instructed the Department of Defense to provide a detailed report to Congress of its military expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan to finally allow us to track how the Administration was spending the taxpayer's money. Despite this language, the General Accounting Office reported in November numerous problems in DOD's processes for recording and reporting costs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, the GAO found that neither DOD nor Congress can reliably know how much the war is costing, nor the details on how appropriated funds are being spent. The facts are not being made available and Congress is operating and appropriating without them. Congress is not fulfilling its responsibility to act as the steward of the National Treasury. I, along with several colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have cosponsored legislation that would restore oversight and accountability to our budget process. Several of my colleagues have called for hearings and investigations into how funds are being spent in Iraq. These efforts have been met with near-total resistance by the Majority leadership in the House, and by the administration. Time and again we who are elected to keep close watch over spending are being denied the necessary tools to do our jobs. The good in this bill is increased funding to address the crisis in Darfur, our fellow Americans affected by the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina and the language preventing the Dubai Ports deal from moving forward. I've supported these efforts in the past and were these provisions to be considered properly under normal budget procedures, I would support them. Whether or not Members support the war in Iraq, it's becoming clearer day by day that the President's policies are unsustainable. Without a change of direction and a clear plan for success, I cannot in good conscience continue to pass off trillions of dollars to our children and grandchildren to fund this debacle.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary American, Eli Segal, who passed away on February 20, 2006 at the age of 63. Eli Segal was born in Brooklyn, NY, in 1943. He graduated from Brandeis University in 1964 and received a law degree from the University of Michigan in 1967. Mr. Segal began his political involvement in 1968 when he joined Senator Eugene McCarthy's presidential campaign. Even though Senator McCarthy lost, Mr. Segal was not deterred. He went on to serve in key positions on several Democratic presidential campaigns, culminating with the 1992 campaign of President Clinton, which was Eli Segal's first presidential campaign victory. Mr. Segal served as Assistant to the President in the Clinton White House, and within months established the Corporation for National Service, now known as AmeriCorps. Because of his superb skills and management, the once controversial program became an acclaimed success. Four hundred thousand young Americans enrolled in the program and helped to improve their communities and their country. Mr. Segal also took an active interest in City Year, another service program he eventually chaired. At the request of Nelson Mandela, he helped launch City Year in South Africa. When President Clinton signed welfare reforms into law in 1996, Mr. Segal took on the challenge of creating opportunities for former welfare recipients who were now required to work. He began asking American companies to make commitments to hire former welfare recipients, and his ``welfare-to-work partnership'' grew from five companies to 20,000. As he did with AmeriCorps, Mr. Segal left a great legacy with the success of welfare reform. Mr. Segal is survived by his wife Phyllis, his son Jonathan, his daughter Mora, two grandchildren, and his brother Alan. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring an outstanding American and an extraordinary public servant. We extend our deepest sympathy to Eli Segal's family and we pay tribute to a life filled with values and contributions to the country he loved and served so well. He made our Nation stronger and I consider myself blessed to have known him and worked with him.

Mrs. ESHOO

Mrs. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Stanford University and Stanford Linear Accelerator on the dedication of the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology on March 17, 2006. The institute is dedicated to advancing the understanding of the cosmos in its search for ``dark matter'' and ``dark energy,'' which compose an estimated 96 percent of the universe. This was all made possible by Fred Kavli, a world renowned physicist, through his extraordinary generosity and vision. The following are his inspirational remarks at the dedication of the institute which bears his name. It is a special pleasure to be here today for the dedication of this beautiful building in the service of science. First I want to remember and pay tribute to Leland Stanford and his wife, Jane, who laid the physical and spiritual foundation for this great university, and who in their foresight provided the ample land on which this building stands today. We owe our gratitude to the many people who have been instrumental in making the Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Cosmology and the building come about, and give special recognition to President Hennessy, Provost Etchemendy, and the Department of Energy, represented by Robin Staffin. We appreciate the capable work of Roger Blandford, Jonathan Dorfan, and Steven Kahn, who are the prime engines in this effort, and we recognize Steven Chu for his contribution in starting the Institute. We truly have a great building on a wonderful site, and I want to recognize the architectural firm of EHHD for a beautiful and functional design. The building will be an important focal point for the activity of the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology. It is especially important since the Institute is a joint effort of Stanford and SLAC, and the new building will help to integrate the scientific effort of the two institutions, and will be a common meeting ground for participants from each as well as for visitors from many other institutions. The prominent location is symbolic of the central role it will play in this function. But the building cannot fulfill its function without content, and we are especially thankful to Pierre Schwob who donated the computer center, and Pehong Chen who donated the Chair for the director of the Kavli Institute. The Kavli Foundation supports basic science because we believe in its long-range benefit to humanity. We are looking for benefits which may lie far into the future, benefits that may be hard to predict, but as we look at the past, the benefits of science have been proven over time. The fruits of research are not always immediate and are often not predictable. Often the benefits are the result of unpredictable outcomes of an exploration that was initially motivated purely by intellectual curiosity. Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Dirac were not motivated by practical applications when they and their colleagues developed the quantum theory of matter, and yet, their research led to, among other results, an understanding of electronic conduction in solid state materials, which led to the invention of the transistor, which made possible the development of integrated circuits, computers, the internet, and the IT world in which we live today. I believe there is a strong relationship between the level of a nation's science and its technological and industrial leadership in today's high-tech world. For many years, Bell Laboratories was the strongest and best scientific research institution in the world. The research from Bell Labs was freely publicized throughout the world, but who was to take primary advantage of it to build a high technology industry? It was the home country, the United States of America. It is not just a matter of knowing the theory, it is the foundation that is built step by step by scientists, the engineers, the technicians, the suppliers, the scientific infrastructure, and it is the whole underlying knowledge base that transfers pure science into industrial benefits. I believe that without the Bell Labs, the U.S. would not be the strong world leader we are today in high technology. Similarly, the Silicon Valley would not be among the very top world technological centers without Stanford and SLAC. It is well known and widely accepted that investments in research yield enormous benefits to society through improved standard of living, better health, and stronger national security. I believe that basic science is the primary driver for human progress and increased knowledge about the human being, nature, and the universe. It is for these reasons that we must be willing to make investments with a long horizon, and it is important that our leaders in government duly recognize the importance of our scientific standing in providing a superior standard of living. Sacrifices that we make today will build our future of tomorrow. The benefits of basic science can be hard to predict, but based upon the past, the future will be more spectacular than we can ever imagine. And to the scientists I want to say, I envy you out there looking back to the beginning of time, playing among the galaxies. You guys are really good packing 100 billion galaxies with a hundred billion stars each in the space of a subatomic particle, but when you tell me there are 11 dimensions, I like to remind you of Paul Dirac's statement that said ``physical laws should have mathematical beauty and simplicity.'' Today we are grateful to have this beautiful facility with an outstanding team of scientists backed up by two great institutions. I am confident that you will make new discoveries and advance our understanding of the cosmos. Let us dedicate this house of science to take us on a ride among the stars to answer some of our most fundamental questions. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a remarkable scientific endeavor, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at SLAC, and to extend to its creator, Fred Kavli, our gratitude for his leadership, his vision and his generosity.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of John F. Kennedy's book ``Profiles in Courage.'' Last Thursday, one of our colleagues was chosen as the recipient for this year, the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's book ``Profiles in Courage,'' as the Profile of Courage in the year 2006. Our distinguished colleague, Congressman John Murtha, is the recipient in 2006. We want to pay tribute to Congressman John Murtha as the recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage Award recipient. Congratulations, Jack. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished American, Allen R. Hughes, who will celebrate his 97th birthday on September 24, 2006. Allen Hughes was born in Martinsburg, Missouri. His mother Ethel had a wonderful sense of humor and he loved her very deeply. His father William was a street car operator who purchased a 144 acre farm in Fulton, Missouri, which his boys affectionately named ``Hughes' Rock Farm'' because it appeared to be the main crop. Allen had three sisters and four brothers and the family was of modest means. Allen Hughes married Florence Mertz in 1930. They were married for 59 years until Florence's death and they had one child Richard, born in 1937. Allen Hughes is a 32nd degree Mason and has been a Scottish Rite member since 1936, over 69 years. He still goes to Lodge and actively participates in the Masonic Order. Mr. Hughes is a registered Democrat who has been known to occasionally stray from his party. The first time he voted was in the Presidential election of 1932. He cast his vote for FDR all four times and has never missed voting in a Presidential or off-year election since. Mr. Hughes has the highest regard for President Harry S. Truman and a profound respect for the Office of President regardless of who occupies it. His son Richard knows this first hand and has the scars to prove that if you can't say something respectful about the President, you shouldn't say anything at all. A true patriot, he takes the privilege of voting very seriously. Allen Hughes began his career with the Endicott Johnson Shoe Company and worked as a night supervisor for Bi-State Transit in St. Louis, Missouri for 28 years. He retired in 1971 and now lives with his second wife, Sue Harness, on her farm close to Troy, Missouri. Allen Hughes' son Richard speaks eloquently about his father; ``What I love about my father is his humor, his work ethic (I think he missed less than three weeks of work due to sickness in 46 years), his honesty (his word is his bond), his generosity and his willingness to help others less fortunate than himself, his patriotism . . . he votes, informs himself and loves this country.'' Richard tells me, ``If I could go to the `Father Store' and pick any father, I would pick Allen R. Hughes.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a national treasure and an exemplary American. As Allen Hughes celebrates his 97th birthday, we extend to him our best wishes as well as our gratitude for all he's done for our country. He is a true patriot, a loving husband and the best father in the world to his great son Richard. Because of solid citizens like Allen Hughes, our democracy is strong and our country is decent.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. So maximum is 120 days?

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding some time to me. I have a question to ask of my friend from California: What is the time frame when you say expeditious action on the part of the FDA? What does that constitute? Is it 100 days? Is it 180 days? Is it 30? The connotation is that it is going to be swift. If this passes, if the legislation actually moves, what are we looking at relative to the direction of this amendment?

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

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I am really pleased to cosponsor this amendment. I think it is a very important one, and I think it is important also for people that are listening in across the country who support this amendment. Every leading environmental organization in the country supports this amendment, and consumer groups support this amendment. I think it is important for people across the country to know who is for the bill, and it will say something about the effort that is here on the floor today. The feed industry is for the bill. The frozen food people are for the bill. The Plastics Council is for the bill. Soft drink people, food processors, food additives. The food additives people are for the bill. Doesn't that say something about what is going into our food and lessens the standards in our country for what we consume? That just gives you, excuse the expression, a taste of who is for the bill. Now, this amendment allows States to retain and establish their own food safety warnings or standards to protect consumers in four key areas. It is against the risk of birth defects, it is against reproductive health problems, cancer and allergic reactions. Those are four major areas that every single person in this country cares about because they are so serious. Without this amendment, States are going to have to come to the Federal Government and say, mother, may I? My friends, nothing is broken. Nothing is broken. Were it not for these special interests that have lobbied so hard for this, which is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. today, we would not have to be on the floor fighting to protect what local governments and State governments have, the laws they have placed on the books. Now, here is an example. Here is an example of what we have in California. This is the warning. This is the warning that is in the grocery stores and the appropriate places for pregnant women and others to warn them: ``Pregnant and nursing women, women who may become pregnant, and young children should not eat the following fish,'' and it names them. You know what is going to happen when this thing becomes law? It is going to be buried on a Web site at the FDA. Who the heck is going to go on a Web site at the FDA to read the fine print to find out if they have a warning? That warning is not enforceable. That is why we are offering this amendment in the most key health areas. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to add one more comment to this: Whose constituent has come up to them and said, ``Get rid of these good laws in our respective States and local governments''? Not one of my constituents has. This march to folly, and that is why attorneys general across the United States are opposed to it, it is why food and agriculture heads from States are opposed to it. This is not about consumers, this is about special interests.

Ms. ESHOO. But without any specificity?

Ms. ESHOO. And what does your amendment do?

Ms. ESHOO. But that is your amendment, not the underlying bill.

Ms. ESHOO. But they have up to 4 months?

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2271. This bill makes a few cosmetic changes, but the changes do little to address the serious civil liberties concerns that I and countless Americans have raised during the debate over the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. For example, nothing has been done to integrate needed checks and balances into the National Security Letter (NSL) process. NSLs are requests for financial, telecommunications, credit, and other business records issued directly by government agencies in national security investigations without the approval of a judge. Before the PATRIOT Act, the FBI and other issuing agencies could issue an NSL only if there was some nexus to an agent of a foreign power or terrorist. Post-PATRIOT Act, the government only has to show the request is relevant to an investigation. The lowering of this standard has resulted in an all- time high number of NSLs issued. Passage of this legislation will do nothing to change this disturbing trend or enhance congressional or judicial oversight over NSLs. This bill also fails to address issues related to the President's National Security Agency (NSA) domestic surveillance program. I strongly believe this program must be subject to statutory restrictions, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Congress should not stand by in silence and allow this controversial program to continue unchecked. Unfortunately, in spite of having adequate time to engage in constructive discussions to fix the PATRIOT Act reauthorization Conference Report, the sponsors of S. 2271 chose again to exclude Democrats from negotiations. Instead, they've offered a bill that makes only a few superficial changes to the Conference Report, and because this bill is being considered under suspension of the rules, we don't have an opportunity to offer meaningful amendments that could greatly improve the PATRIOT Act and ensure the protection of privacy and civil liberties as well as our national security. I oppose this bill and find it regrettable that an important opportunity to initiate real reforms to this legislation has been squandered.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), my distinguished colleague, for not only his eloquence on this bill but all the work that he has done on public health issues and health in general for the people of our country. I rise to oppose this bill, and I do because I believe it is an assault on public health and consumer protection. It is no wonder there has never been a hearing on this bill in the last 8 years. So this is not about theater. This is not, as the gentleman who introduced the bill said a few moments ago, about theater and deception. This is a very, very serious debate, and it is a debate that should have been taking place in a public hearing, in a hearing of our committee; and it has not. I think that that in and of itself is an assault on the American people. It is disrespectful. The bill will preempt any State or local food safety law that is not identical to a Federal law, and we do not have those Federal laws. So it will absolutely leave a void. Is the majority saying here that they are set to put into place, if this bill passes, God forbid, that they are going to place on the Federal books, 200 Federal laws in a nanosecond? I do not think so. Under this bill, the FDA will have to approve any food safety law that is at variance with Federal policy, and according to the CBO, the bill will preempt an estimated 200 State and local laws dealing with food safety. Absolutely, preempt them, right away, 200 State and local laws. It is going to cost the FDA $100 million over the next 5 years to process petitions from States seeking to retain these laws. There is simply no credible public health justification for the extraordinary steps that this bill takes. The attorney general of California has weighed in against the bill. I insert this memorandum to the California delegation as part of the Record at this point.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. G. Scott Hubbard, who recently stepped down as Director of NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California to become the Carl Sagan Chair for Study of Life in the Universe at the SETI Institute. Mr. Hubbard began his career at NASA Ames Research Center in 1987, becoming Center Director in 2002. I have had the pleasure of working closely with Mr. Hubbard on many issues since he assumed the Directorship. He has been an invaluable public servant, guiding NASA Ames through difficult times and inspiring confidence throughout the organization. I'm proud of our work together on many of the new endeavors at NASA Ames, as well as the work to ensure the long-term future of NASA Ames and Moffett Federal Airfield. Mr. Hubbard has always been a thorough professional . . . responsive, efficient and effective. NASA Ames Research Center is in the heart of Silicon Valley and has played a crucial role in Silicon Valley's success. Director Hubbard demonstrated an unparalleled ability to use NASA Ames' unique position in the high-end research and development community to forge groundbreaking public-private R&D collaborations. Under his leadership, NASA Ames successfully partnered with Silicon Graphics and Intel Corporation to develop the fastest operational supercomputer in the world, and created the Center for Nanotechnology to lead federal research in this revolutionary technology. Mr. Hubbard was integral to the creation of the NASA Ames Research Park, a world-class R&D and education campus with industry, universities and non-profits all taking part. Today, more than thirty small R&D companies and fourteen universities are on-site. Because of his tireless efforts, high-technology giant Google will soon be adding a new state- of-the-art facility to the Research Park. Under Mr. Hubbard's tenure, NASA Ames established the University Affiliated Research Center with the University of California, which remains the largest R&D partnership ever developed by NASA in our nation. Beyond his work as Director of NASA Ames, Mr. Hubbard has been a highly respected member of NASA and our country's academic community. He attended Vanderbilt University where he studied physics and astronomy. In 1974 at Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Mr. Hubbard co-developed a new radiation detection technology which is now incorporated in the Mars Odyssey Mission. In March 2000, he served at NASA headquarters as the first Mars Program Director and successfully restructured the entire Mars program in the wake of mission failures. Prior to his appointment as NASA Ames Center Director, he was Deputy Director for Research at NASA Ames. In 2003, he served as the sole NASA representative on the Columbia Accident Investigation Board which established the definitive physical cause of the loss of the Columbia. Director Hubbard has also been the NASA Ames Associate Director for Astrobiology and Space Research, the first director of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, and NASA's mission manager for Lunar Prospector. Director Hubbard is also credited with conceiving the Mars Pathfinder Mission. He recently accepted a visiting scholar appointment in the Electrical Engineering Department of Stanford University, underscoring the deep respect that Mr. Hubbard has earned in the academic community. At Stanford, Mr. Hubbard's research plans will focus on nanotechnology, biotechnology and information technology areas, as well as studying the emergence of the entrepreneurial space industry. Time and again, Scott Hubbard has proven his commitment to NASA and our nation's space exploration endeavors. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest gratitude to him for his superb public service. He has served our country exceedingly well, and because he has, we honor him for his work and wish him well in his new position as the Carl Sagan Chair at the SETI Institute.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Norman J. Pera of Saugatuck, Michigan, who died on January 1, 2006, at the age of 83. Norman J. Pera was born in Gary, Indiana, where he graduated from Horace Mann High School in 1939. He served honorably from 1942 to 1946 in the U.S. Navy, including active duty in the Pacific Theater during Word War II. Upon completing military service, he attended the Rose Hulman Institute of Technology in Terre Haute, Indiana, and graduated in 1948 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. He worked for Inland Steel of East Chicago, Indiana, and retired in 1982 as the Assistant Superintendent of the Mechanical Department. Mr. Pera moved to Saugatuck in 1989 and became an active volunteer for many local organizations, giving generously of his time and his many talents. He is survived by his wife Patricia, the great love of his life for 57 years, their 5 outstanding sons, David, Timothy, Mark, Thomas, and John; his daughters-in-law Ruth, Kathleen, Leslie and Catherine; his nephew and niece Anthony and Mary Ester Merza, and his 11 beautiful grandchildren. Norman Pera was a principled and decent man who loved his family, his faith, his community and his country very deeply. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of my dear cousin Norman and extend to his beloved family our deepest sympathy. America has lost a magnificent citizen.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Natalie Teresa Lanam, a distinguished and beloved resident of San Mateo County, CA, who died on December 8, 2005, after a long battle with cancer. Natalie Lanam was a native of San Francisco's Mission District and her Mexican heritage was a source of great pride to her. She was a faith-filled woman who was respected throughout our community for her decades of volunteerism and for the professionalism she brought to every effort she was associated with. Natalie Lanam was an effective fund-raiser for the causes she held dear. She volunteered for local schools and Easter Seals, and she was best known for her commitment to providing legal services for anyone who needed them, regardless of their ability to pay. For more than 15 years she volunteered for the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and her efforts were honored by the society when they named their building the Natalie Lanam Criminal Justice Center. Natalie Lanam is survived by her husband of 55 years, the Honorable Bill Lanam who served with distinction on the Superior Court in San Mateo County and who was first elected as a result of Natalie's superb organizing efforts. Natalie and Bill's family of 4 daughters, 2 sons, 17 grandchildren and 3 great grandchildren are a testament to the values of Natalie Lanam and her special gifts to the world God has called her from. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a remarkable woman for her lifetime of devotion to her family, her faith, her community and her country and extending our deepest condolences to Judge Lanam and the entire Lanam family.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. The PATRIOT Act provided new authorities, but it also modified long- standing laws. One such change was the lowering of the standard for issuing government requests for financial, telecommunications credit, and other business records. These requests commonly referred to as National Security Letters or NSLs are issued directly by the government agencies in national security investigations without the approval of a judge. Before the PATRIOT Act, the FBI and other issuing agencies had to show there was some nexus to an agent of a foreign power or terrorist. Post-PATRIOT Act, the government only has to show the request is relevant to an investigation. The lowering of this standard has resulted in an all time high in the number of NSLs issued. A recent Washington Post article alleged that over 30,000 National Security Letters have been issued by the FBI to businesses and private institutions across the Nation. Even more disturbing, the article alleged that records collected pursuant to NSLs are retained for an indefinite period of time, even when they are not of interest to investigators, and shared with other Federal agencies and the private sector. As a citizen, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. As a Member of Congress, I am disappointed that we have missed a critical opportunity to get the NSL standard right. We have also missed the opportunity to ensure that NSL recipients have an opportunity to seek meaningful judicial review of the nondisclosure or gag requirements that accompany NSLs and further tailor the statutory framework to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are better protected. I will vote against the conference report. I think the precious balance of civil liberties and security are damaged here.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Joint Resolution introduced by Representative John Murtha. This Resolution should be brought to the floor because the time has come for a change in our Iraq policy. I believe our military has done its job. They were sent to Iraq to depose a tyrant and free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. They accomplished what can be described as one of the most successful and well-executed military campaigns in history, defeating the Iraqi army in a matter of days and going on to hunt down and capture Saddam Hussein. The issue before us is not ``surrender'' or ``cut and run''. Our troops have accomplished their mission. What they're now having to battle is an insurgency comprised largely of Iraqis who they were sent to liberate. According to our top military leadership, fewer than 7% of the insurgents in Iraq are foreign militants and the primary target of the insurgents are U.S. troops. The violence is taking its toll on the Iraqi people, the vast majority of whom want a stable, secure Iraq free from foreign occupation. A recent poll taken in Iraq indicated that 80% of Iraqis want the American military to leave, and most chilling, 45% believe attacks against U.S. forces are justified. The daily toll inflicted on our military and our national purse (close to $1 billion per day now), is simply unsustainable. Congressman Murtha has proposed a plan calling for the redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, the creation of a quick-reaction force in the region and an ``over-the-horizon'' presence of Marines, and the pursuit of security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy. Congressman Murtha based his sober and professional judgment on the following: The U.S. and coalition troops have accomplished all they can in Iraq and the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress for the establishment of a stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy. American troops have become the primary targets of attacks in Iraq, which is significantly impeding progress. Continued military action is not in the best interest of the United States, the Iraqi people, or the Persian Gulf region. As Commander of Iraqi forces, General George Casey stated in a September 2005 hearing, ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.'' The cost of the war to our country, and the burden on the troops to whom Congressman Murtha has dedicated his life, is skyrocketing. Congressman Murtha knows of what he speaks. He is a 37-year veteran of the Marine Corps, a Colonel, the first Vietnam War veteran elected to this body and an unimpeachable, first-hand authority on the needs of our military. Congressman Murtha is one of the most decorated veterans in the Congress. No one has taken care of our troops on a more consistent basis since coming to the Congress than Jack Murtha. Previous Presidents know this, this President knows it, present and former members of Congress know it, and most importantly, our troops know it. Congressman Murtha has been standing side-by-side with our troops throughout the Iraq war, from his presence in Kuwait just days before the start of the war, to his ongoing weekly visits to wounded troops at Bethesda Naval Medical Center and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, to his regular travel to the region to be with our troops. Each and every step of the way Jack Murtha has made sure that our troops have what they need, that their families are cared for, and that our country honors their service as deeply as he does. In one case, when a mother told him that bureaucratic red tape would prevent her son, a young man severely wounded in service to his country from receiving a Purple Heart, Jack Murtha said that if her son didn't get a Purple Heart, he would give him one of his. This is Jack Murtha. After great personal reflection on the war and its effects and constant consultation with the military leadership, Congressman Murtha has done what members of this body are charged to do: He spoke truth to power. He announced it was ``time for a change in direction'' in Iraq. He did not call for an immediate withdrawal. He has not called for surrender and he has not called for retreat. Whether Members agree with Congressman Murtha's judgment on the individual details of his proposal, it's become clear that our current policy in Iraq is unsustainable. It's time to tell the Iraqis that the training wheels have to come off . . . it's time for the Iraqis to take charge of Iraq. Today the American people are ahead of us, with some 65% saying it's time for a change. It's time to begin the overdue debate on how and when we bring our troops home. Congressman Murtha has set forth a pragmatic and clear proposal. I'm proud to support it.