Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jennie Mirza Eshoo who will celebrate her 90th birthday on July 17, 2005. Jennie Eshoo was born Jennie Katherine Mirza in Chicago, Illinois on July 17, 1915, to Agase B. Mirza and Martha Alaverdy Mirza, the first of the couple's seven children. She graduated from Waller High School in Chicago in 1934 and on September 22 of that year she married Paul Eshoo. Jennie and Paul Eshoo moved from Chicago to Turlock, California where they raised four children, Peter, George, Agnes and Alice, on the family farm. They were active in the Assyrian-American community and Paul was a founder of the Turlock Assyrian American Civic Club. Jennie has an abiding love of our country and serves our democracy as a faithful precinct supervisor on the elections board. She is a devoted member of St. John's Presbyterian Church where she's served as Clerk of the Session and Elder for more than 30 years. She is known throughout the community for her generosity and helpfulness to so many, and has volunteered at Emanuel Medical Center in Turlock for over three decades. Jennie is an avid reader whose taste ranges from National Geographic to the latest novels. She loves to travel and relishes visiting in person the sites she has ``visited'' in the Bible and other readings. Jennie conquers crossword puzzles in minutes, entering each solution in ink, never needing an eraser. Jennie Eshoo is the matriarch of a large and loving family. In addition to her four children, she has eight grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. Her grandchildren are Lisa Brown, Lorie Hill, Cherie Thompson, Christine Benjamin Nedved, Michelle Benjamin Eldridge, Annelise Martella, Karen Eshoo and Paul Eshoo. Her great-grandchildren are Amanda and Emily Brown, Madison and Jacob Eldridge, Cory Hill, Katherine and Jacqueline Nedved, and Peter Thompson. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to honor Jennie Mirza Eshoo as she celebrates her 90th birthday. I ask my colleagues to join me, her family and her many friends in saluting her as she celebrates this extraordinary milestone, and we thank her for her lifetime of service to her family, her community and her country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for her leadership, not only on this issue, but on so many others that come before the House Commerce Committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct. It may indeed be our very last chance to get something right in this flawed energy bill, so-called energy bill. According to the independent analysts at the U.S. Energy Information Administration, this bill has virtually no impact on energy production, on consumption, on imports or on prices at the pump. In fact, these independent analysts say that gas prices will increase. So wake up, America. Look what is happening to you under a so-called energy bill. The price that you pay at the pump is going to go up. Is that what we need the Congress for? I do not think so. If the House bill did nothing, that would be one story. But the truth is that the bill imposes huge costs on taxpayers. And that is what we are protesting here on the floor, and why there is this motion to instruct. Probably the worst provision of the bill is the MTBE liability waiver. What is it? It provides a safe place, a safe harbor that prevents refiners and MTBE manufacturers from being held accountable in court for selling a defective product. What this safe harbor does is relieve the industry of any obligation to pay even a portion of the estimated $29 to $85 billion cost of cleaning up drinking water that has been contaminated by the product. So who pays? You pay. Not those that are responsible for it, but you. All under the guise of we want to lower your taxes. Imagine what is going to happen in your local community. Do you think your local government has this money? Mine does not. The Congressional Budget Office calls this an unfunded mandate--you have to do it, but there is no money to do it--on local and State governments, because they have to pay for the clean-ups on their own. This is not just a matter of accounting. It is a matter of public health. Just last week it was reported in a new EPA draft report that MTBE is a likely carcinogen. And when MTBE is found in drinking water, we know we have to clean it up. There is not an option on this. I do not want my kids drinking it. I do not want yours to. Successful lawsuits in California have led to substantial settlements with oil companies. And these settlements have enabled communities to begin cleaning up their drinking water supplies. Now, because communities are winning these suits, the industry wants Congress to let them off the hook. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to do this. If they are losing in court, it is because they have a lousy case. And there is a reason that these settlements are taking place, the industry is responsible for the mess and they have known about the threat for years. So why is a safe harbor being created for the industry? No one outside the industry thinks this is a good idea. In May of this year, the Governor of California wrote to us and said that this provision should be stripped from the bill. I think that my California colleagues should be paying attention to that. Along with the Governor, the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, the Association of California Water Agencies and many others have sent letters voicing their opposition. This is a bad provision. Last Congress the provision sank the bill. And it should have. This year we should strip it from the bill. Vote for the motion to instruct.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, the issue of competition is one that is lived out and dealt with daily in my congressional district, Silicon Valley. As this resolution states, high-tech industries drive economic growth around the world. Every day my constituents tell me that the United States is falling behind our competitors in Europe and Asia. This resolution identifies some of the challenges for U.S. competitiveness. But this is not enough. The resolution is not binding. It does not set into motion any legislative action to address the key issues relative to competition. One of the top issues in Silicon Valley today is stock options. Broad-based employee stock options plans drive innovation and competitiveness. The House overwhelmingly passed legislation I authored with Rep. Baker to protect employee stock options almost a year ago, but the Administration has refused to lift a finger to get this bill through the Senate and to the President's desk. For many, many years the high-tech industry has begged Congress to make the R&D tax credit permanent. It hasn't happened. What has happened is a decline in investment and a diminishment of innovation. The President has said that the U.S. should have universal broadband access by 2007. We've yet to see the Administration's plan for achieving this. Today the United States has fallen to 16th in broadband penetration, down from 4th in 2001. This resolution correctly points to education as a critical issue of competitiveness, but once again this Administration and the congressional majority have underfunded critical education programs. No Child Left Behind is funded $39 billion below its promised level. Pell grants will be eliminated for 90,000 college students, and an additional 1.3 million students will have their scholarships reduced this year. These figures do not meet the standards of a great nation serious about her technological and competitive future. The resolution states that energy is a major problem, yet the Department of Energy's independent analysts have said that the provisions in the House energy bill will have a ``negligible'' impact on prices, production, consumption, and imports of energy. The Administration continues to underfund critical Federal research programs, flat-funding civilian research and development and reducing total Federal research by $400 million. This underfunds our collective future. What is missing in the Congress is the commitment to reshape the critical policies which will renew our Nation's competitiveness in the 21st Century.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on Monday evening, July 11, 2005, due to United Airlines flight 950 experiencing mechanical problems. My plane was forced to return to San Francisco International Airport, requiring me to travel on a later flight. I would like the Record to reflect how I would have voted had I been present: On rollcall vote No. 363 I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall vote No. 364 I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to join my colleague Representative Phil English in introducing important bipartisan legislation, `Kevin's Law': the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act. This bipartisan bill will strengthen the ability of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set and enforce food safety and sanitation standards for meat and poultry. Kevin's Law is named in memory of 2\1/2\-year-old Kevin Kowalcyk, who died so tragically in 2001 after eating a hamburger contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. Kevin's untimely death was agonizing and brutal. No child, no person should experience the pain that Kevin did, and no family should have to bear witness to a loved one suffering in the way that Kevin did. Sadly, Americans are far too vulnerable to fatal foodborne illnesses, especially children and the elderly. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that foodborne diseases cause roughly 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths each year. The tragedy is that many of these illnesses can be prevented with better science standards and enforcement. Congress must do much more to ensure the safety of our nation's food supply. In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences report Scientific Criteria to Ensure Safe Food recommended that Congress give regulatory agencies ``the clear authority to establish and enforce compliance with science- based food safety criteria, including performance standards.'' This legislation is just what the doctor ordered. Kevin's Law addresses these recommendations and will help ensure that the government has the authority it needs to prevent contaminated meat and poultry from entering our food supply by: Requiring the USDA to identify the pathogens that threaten human health (e.g. Salmonella, E. coli 0157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes). Requiring the USDA to establish performance standards to reduce the presence of these pathogens in meat and poultry. Confirming that the USDA has the authority to enforce its own standards by shutting down plants that continually breach basic health standards--authority that some processors have repeatedly challenged in court. Passage of Kevin's Law would put into place major recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Advisory Committee for Microbiological Criteria for Foods, both of which have consistently supported greater federal enforcement of food safety standards. Mr. Speaker, I thank the current 22 co-sponsors of Kevin's Law for their support of this bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to join me in helping to protect millions of other Americans from fatal foodborne illnesses by passing this legislation. Finally, I thank Kevin's family for sharing their tragic story with the world, and especially Kevin's mother, Barbara Kowalcyk, and his grandmother, Pat Buck, for their continued important advocacy on behalf of increased safety standards for meat and poultry.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because it is our only chance to restore the $100 million that have been cut from public broadcasting. Mr. Chairman, the cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in this bill are stunningly shortsighted. At a time when we're all concerned about the lack of decent programming on television and radio, public broadcasting offers consistent quality. Yet the majority is cutting 46 percent from the budget that supports the broadcast of programs like the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and National Public Radio's All Things Considered, as well as documentary programs like The American Experience. The majority also completely eliminates the program that helps fund Sesame Street, Arthur, Between the Lions, and other broadcasts that help prepare children for school. For parents concerned about what their children are exposed to on television, what are the alternatives to PBS's educational shows? In looking at the television section of the Washington Post, here are some of the television section of the Washington Post, here are some of the programs running opposite Sesame Street: Jerry Springer, Divorce Court, Maury, Texas Justice, Judge Hatchett, Judge Joe Brown, Family Feud, Guiding Light and General Hospital. So why does the majority want to cut this funding? They say it's to reduce the deficit. What they are ensuring is a deficit of education, information, and analytical thinking. Does the majority expect the American people to take their argument seriously? Already this year the majority has rammed through a $290 billion tax cut for the country's wealthiest families and an energy bill larded with billions for oil and gas producers. None of these costs are accounted for in their budget. And now we're going to plug the budget deficit by cutting Sesame Street? Mr. Chairman, the argument for these cuts are ridiculous. We should reinstate the budget for public broadcasting. Vote for the Obey amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey Amendment which will ban the U.S. Justice Department from spending taxpayer money to arrest or prosecute medical marijuana patients in the ten states where medical marijuana is legal: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. In 1996, my home-state of California passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, which gave seriously ill Californians the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes. The medical use of the drug must be deemed appropriate and prescribed by a physician. Since then, the U.S. Justice Department has initiated actions against individuals who are following State law and making marijuana available to individuals with a physician's prescription. Federal law enforcement officials should not be deployed to override State law in this regard. Although the Supreme Court recently ruled that Federal drug law supercedes State medical marijuana statutes, there is no reason to imprison patients who are seeking relief from chronic pain or the doctors trying to help them. The use of prescriptive medical marijuana is supported by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Public Health Association. This is a matter of medicine not self indulgence. The use of marijuana for medical treatment should not be criminalized. I urge all my colleagues to support this Amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), our distinguished ranking member, for her exceptional leadership on the committee; certainly to the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Hoekstra) for the tone that he has brought to the committee. I think it is much improved, and I think it is a result of the bipartisanship that we have enjoyed since the chairman has arrived that we see it in this piece of legislation which I am proud to support. I am especially pleased to see the multilevel security clearance legislation introduced in March by committee Democrats, my colleagues that I am so proud of, that is in this bill. This provision will help the intelligence community leverage the cultural and linguistic skills of a broader candidate pool, which is so important to our intelligence community. During the markup of this bill, I offered an amendment requiring inspectors general at the Defense and State Departments, the CIA, and the DNI inspector general to establish telephone hotlines for intelligence professionals to report complaints if they believe policymakers are attempting to unduly or improperly influence them. I think that it is an important effort because there is a question mark in the mind of the American people on this very subject. As a result, the chairman agreed to include language in this bill about the need to ensure ombudsmen in these agencies to fulfill their role to protect analysts and other professionals within the intelligence community. The committee made a commitment to perform effective oversight in this matter; so I withdraw my amendment, and I thank the chairman for that effort. As the ranking member of the Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee, I am concerned that this bill reduces or eliminates funding for several key programs in the administration's request without full justification. Missing is an in-depth consideration of the effect that funding reductions will have on the overall intelligence architecture, the viability of our industrial base, which is essential. Once that disassembles, we cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again, as well as overarching national security requirements. I hope the DNI and the Secretary of Defense will conduct a comprehensive review and explain the strategic linkages between collection requirements, capabilities, and developing programs. This review would better support future funding deliberations and decisions by the committee. It is very important that that be done. In closing, I want to express one of my deep concerns, and I know that it is the concern that many of my colleagues share, and that is the continuing reports of torture and other abuses of detainees. From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay, the mounting revelations have become more than an embarrassment to our country. They are a liability to our deployed servicemembers. If, in fact, the Congress and its committees of jurisdiction fail to fully investigate, I support a special commission to do so. We have to have a full accounting for the American people and have the determination to seek that. So, in closing, I want to thank my colleagues, the chairman, certainly our ranking member, all of my colleagues on the committee, and most especially a superb and dedicated staff. I salute them. I respect them for the work that they have done certainly on both sides of the aisle.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of H. Res. 196, which encourages the importance of sun safety and supports the designation of June 5th to June 11th as Sun Safety Week. Skin cancer is the most commonly occurring cancer in the U.S. and 90 percent of all skin cancers can be attributed to the sun. This year it's estimated that there will be 1.3 million skin cancer cases in the U.S., exceeding the number of breast, lung, prostate and colon cancers combined. More alarming is that 50 percent of lifetime exposure to UV light occurs during childhood and adolescence, and it can take less than 1O minutes for a child's skin to burn. Failing to take appropriate steps such as using sunscreen, wearing protective clothing, and limiting sun exposure can have serious and deadly consequences, especially for children. Practicing sun safe behaviors during childhood is the first step in reducing the chances of getting skin cancer later in life. A new survey released on Monday by the nonprofit Sun Safety Alliance shows a 12-point decline in the percentage of Americans who report using sunscreen when outdoors, from 72 percent to 60 percent. H. Res. 169 recognizes that skin cancer is highly preventable and urges parents to practice good sun safety for their children, which will dramatically reduce its risk. I urge the entire House to vote yes on this important Resolution.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which expands funding for embryonic stem cell research. As an advocate of stem cell research, I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation because I believe that this critical research can lead to cures for Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, paralysis caused by spinal cord injury, and other serious health problems. Over 3,000 people die every day in the United States from diseases that may some day be treatable as a result of stem cell research. Now is the time for Congress and the Administration to recognize that the current policy does not work. In 2001, President Bush crafted a policy to allow limited federal support for some embryonic stem cell research. Four years later, however, it's clear that his policy has hindered progress. Today, of the 78 stem cells lines approved for federal research, only 22 are available to researchers. These 22 lines are not only contaminated but were also developed with outdated techniques. Under H.R. 810, embryonic stem cell lines will be eligible only if embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need. Today, there are thousands of surplus embryos from fertility treatments that will never be used and will likely be discarded. We should allow parents to donate these embryos for use in federally-funded stem cell research. This November, my home-state of California approved a $3 billion ballot initiative supported by Governor Schwarzenegger to fund embryonic stem-cell experiments. It is the largest state-supported scientific research program. This initiative puts California at the forefront of the field and exceeds all current stem cell projects in the United States. However, with the Federal Government on the sidelines, scientists are still reluctant to pursue stem cell research and the private sector is unwilling to invest in the field. We are losing ground to the rest of the world. As the Washington Post reported last Friday (May 20, 2005), South Korea is leapfrogging ahead of us and is developing techniques proving that stem cell research is robust. Now, the public, researchers and industry are looking to Congress for leadership. Stem cell research should not be about politics. It should be about science, medicine and hope. We have an opportunity to help end the suffering of millions of people with chronic or terminal diseases, and we should seize it. Stem cell research is not only critical to saving lives but it also stimulates our Nation's economy. Stem cell research is the next ``big thing'' in biotechnology after the human genome project. Long-term economic growth depends on productivity, productivity depends on technology, and technology ultimately depends on basic science, which is why any policy restricting federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research threatens the long-term health and vitality of the U.S. economy. Biotechnology is at a stage of development similar to where information technology was in the late 1980s--ready to explode. For our leadership in science and technological leadership, where innovative leading-edge research is carried out matters a great deal, but under the current policy we're leaving the field even before the game has begun. Now the President has said he will veto this bill. He may succeed in stifling stem cell research in our country, but he will not stop scientific progress. It will occur elsewhere. If the U.S. fails to embrace stem cell research, we will only slow progress in treating disease and cede our leading role as a technological leader. The Federal Government should be in the business of encouraging and assisting research that can help save the lives of its citizens. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 accelerates scientific progress toward cures and treatments for a wide range of diseases while simultaneously instituting stronger ethical requirements on stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research. I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which will expand funding for embryonic stem cell research, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of it. What I would like to say today is the following: Scientists have informed us, the professional scientists in our country, not political scientists, but scientists, and what they have told us from their considerable work and research is that this issue represents hope. It represents hope for the cure of diseases that plague so many of our people, from juvenile diabetes all the way to the other part of life, which is Alzheimer's, and so many diseases in between. This Congress and previous Congresses have seen fit to double the funding of the National Institutes of Health. I have always called them the National Institutes of Hope. We are now on the threshold, we are now on the threshold of debating an issue that can bring hope to our people. It is up to us to have an ethical standard in this debate. That is why no human cloning is a part of the bill that I support. Why? Because no one supports that. The American people are decent and they want an ethical standard, but they also want their Nation's leaders to continue to give hope to them, hope for the cure of these diseases that cause so much human suffering. We have a responsibility in terms of our compassion, in terms of the instruction that our Nation's scientists have given to us. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is an ethical bill, and it is a bill that is all about hope. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which will expand funding for embryonic stem cell research, and I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of it. Under this bill embryonic stem cell lines will be eligible for Federal funding only if the embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need. Today, there are thousands of surplus embryos from fertility treatments that will never be used and will likely be discarded. We should allow parents who choose to donate these embryos for use in federally-funded stem cell research to do so. My home-state of California recently approved a $3 billion ballot initiative to fund embryonic stem-cell experiments. It is the largest State-supported scientific research program in the country. This initiative places California at the forefront of the field and exceeds all current stem-cell projects in the United States. But without additional Federal funding, our scientific leadership is being transferred overseas. Where the leading-edge research is carried out matters a great deal. Any policy restricting Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research threatens the long-term vitality of the U.S. economy, and most importantly denies millions of Americans hope. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 810.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today joining my many colleagues in celebrating and observing Mayas Asian Pacific American Heritage month. Nearly 17 percent of my constituents in California's 14th Congressional District self-identify as being of Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander descent and it's an honor to join them in a celebration of their heritage and culture. Since the early 1800's, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans have played a crucial role in the development of our Nation. From the building of the transcontinental railroads, to the heroic contributions during the Civil War, to the sacrifices made by those wrongfully imprisoned in internment camps during World War II, Asian Americans have made lasting contributions to all facets of American society. I have a great appreciation for the broad ethnic mosaic which makes our country great, and it's especially important this month that we recognize and pay tribute to the contributions of the Asian and Pacific Islander American community to our country. I'm proud to work with my colleagues to address issues of special concern to the Asian and Pacific Islander American community: protecting Social Security, ensuring equal access to healthcare, providing for a quality education, and safeguarding civil rights. These are the principles that reflect this year's theme of ``Liberty and Freedom for All.'' I want to particularly pay tribute to three fallen heroes in the Asian and Pacific Islander American community this year: my dear friend and colleague Representative Bob Matsui, Dr. John B. Tsu, and Fred Korematsu. These extraordinary men stood for equality, justice, and freedom for all Americans and I join my colleagues in remembering their unparalleled legacies. It would be impossible to name every single extraordinary Asian American in California's 14th Congressional District, but I do want to recognize some of the outstanding community leaders, elected officials and activists I'm proud to call my constituents and friends: Alice Bulos, State Chair of the Filipino Caucus; Yamei Lee, leader and activist within the Taiwanese Community; Karyl Matsumoto, member of the South San Francisco City Council; the late Cpl. Burnrok Lee, a Sunnyvale resident who lost his life serving our country in Iraq; the late Iris Chang, author of ``The Rape of Nanking''; Jessica Yu, Academy Award winner for the documentary film ``Breathing Lessons''; Margaret Abe-Koga, former member of the Santa Clara County Board of Education; Paul Fong, professor of political science at Evergreen Valley College and a local business owner; Randy Okamura, SBC's director of Regulatory and Constituency Relations for California; Michael Chang, former city of Cupertino councilmember; Dean Chu, mayor of the city of Sunnyvale; Otto Lee, city of Sunnyvale councilmember; Homer Tong, chemistry teacher at De Anza College and member of the Fremont Union High School District Board of Trustees; Pearl Cheng, former president and current member of the Cupertino Union School District Board of Trustees; Joyce Iwasaki, Director of Community Affairs for Sugimura & Associates Architects, founder of the Ed Iwasaki Memorial Fund Scholarship Project and the Midori Kai Professional Women's Group; Patrick Kwok, mayor of the city of Cupertino; Kris Wang, city of Cupertino councilmember; Arthur Fong, recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from Avenidas who has endowed scholarships at Stanford and UC Berkeley and has also focused on philanthropic support for health care and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation; Yoriko Kishimoto, city of Palo Alto councilmember; Aileen Kao, city of Saratoga councilmember; Jerry Yang, CEO of Yahoo, Inc.; Kathryn Ho, member of the Fremont Union High School District Board of Trustees; Mark Shu, vice president of Hambrecht & Quist Asia; Talin Shu, president of Hambrecht & Quist Asia; T.N. Ho, member of the Santa Clara County Board of Education; Ben Liao, member of the Cupertino Union School District Board of Trustees; Hsing Kung, President and CEO of Pine Photonics Communications; Ken Fong, CEO of CloneTech; David Mineta, member of the Jefferson Union High School District Board of Trustees and associate director of Asian American Recovery Services for San Mateo County; Karen Leong Clancy, member of the Belmont-Redwood Shores School District Board of Trustees; Judge Erica R. Yew, Santa Clara County Superior Court; Margaret M. Abe, community leader and activist and 2004 recipient of the Norman Y. Mineta Lifetime Achievement Award; Cynthia Chang, member of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District Board of Trustees; Yoshihiro Uchida, president of Uchida Enterprises, Inc. and community leader; Nancy Hatamiya, chief of staff to Assemblymember Pedro Naba with over 15 years of public service; Lon Hatamiya, secretary of the California Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency; Alfred Chuang, founder, president and CEO of BEA Systems; Emily Cheng, first female Chinese American mayor of a city in the Bay Area, Los Altos Hills; and Art Takahara, former mayor and councilmember of the city of Mountain View and CEO of De Anza Manufacturing Services.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Moore's Law, a prediction by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore about integrated circuits that has driven the pace of innovation, helped make America the world's technological leader, as well as helping to launch what is now the Silicon Valley. In April of 1965, Gordon Moore, then an engineer with Fairchild Semiconductor, predicted that computer chips would double in power approximately every 18 months while staying at the same cost. Forty years later, Moore's Law has maintained its pace. Today we enjoy technological innovation that even the most enterprising minds could not have imagined four decades ago: Computers once the size of a refrigerator now fit on our laps or in the palm of our hands, and a talking doll enjoyed by kids around the world packs four times as much processing power as an Apollo moon lander. Along with these extraordinary advances in processing power, the technological innovation driven by Moore's Law has led to advances in virtually every industry and almost every aspect of our lives. Doctors can access the Internet in the examining room or diagnose a patient remotely, while having access to the latest updates on chemical reactions, alternatives, and availability of prescriptions. On-the-go parents can carry games and other digital entertainment for their young children on the road while simultaneously checking in on their teenagers whereabouts and well-being. Most importantly, the drive toward maintaining Moore's law has kept the U.S. technology industry at the forefront of innovation, growing quality, high-paying jobs and contributing to our Nation's economic stability. The premise of Moore's Law dictates that computing power improves essentially for free, bringing increases in productivity unprecedented since the Industrial Revolution and acting as a powerful deflationary force in the world's macro-economy. As a result, consumers get more for less. Businesses can continually improve their operations, service and productivity at a cost advantage. In Silicon Valley, which I'm proud to represent, we're proud to be a major driver in the technology industry to keep pace with Moore's Law. The small and large businesses which are part of our local technology industry have led to economic growth and development. Intel Corporation, leading the charge, has become a major local contributor to our economy and is an example of the impact that U.S. technological leadership has at a regional, national, and international level. On April 19, 1965, the day which Gordon Moore's article first appeared, he certainly could not have predicted the powerful and dramatic influence his postulation would have on our world. Beyond sharing a wonderful prediction, Gordon Moore has distinguished himself as a major philanthropist, donating $7 billion to various environmental, scientific and San Francisco Bay Area causes. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Gordon Moore for his vision in establishing Moore's Law, for his unique leadership, his integrity, and his incomparable contributions to make our nation great. How proud I am to be Gordon Moore's Representative in Congress. He has our collective gratitude for his contributions to our Nation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Congregation Beth Am as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. Since its founding in 1955, this Reform Jewish Synagogue has been a leader in social action and community welfare in the Bay Area, and has embodied the Jewish community's longstanding involvement in religious and public life. Since its beginnings with 100 families represented at its first meeting, the congregation has grown to nearly 1,400 families from the mid-Peninsula area who gather at Beth Am to worship, to study, to lead and to strengthen both the Jewish community and the Bay Area community as a whole. When Congregation Beth Am was founded, the population of the San Francisco Peninsula was booming. Beth Am filled a need for a new Reform Synagogue and it grew accordingly after its establishment. The first formal meeting, which was held in March of 1955, was attended by 300 people representing 100 families. A year later, the congregation grew to 250 families. Registration at the religious school, which also opened in March of 1955, jumped from 100 children at its founding to 340 children only 2 years later. Beth Am first met in the First Methodist Church and Unitarian Church for Shabbat and High Holy Day services. Today, members congregate in a beautiful synagogue in Los Altos Hills. As Beth Am's congregation has grown, so has its involvement with the communities on the Peninsula. Members have volunteered their time and resources to a variety of causes throughout the area, including the Ecumenical Hunger Program, the Urban Ministry of Palo Alto, and Opportunities Industrialization Center West. The congregation's Social Action Committee notes that ``We, as Jews, are commanded to pursue Justice, and to participate in Tikkun Olam, or Repairing the World.'' The congregation's website has a ``Tikkunometer'' that counts the number of hours the congregation has pledged to community service. Fueled by this sense of responsibility to the community and dedication to service, Congregation Beth Am has improved our community and the lives of those around them. None of this would be possible without the outstanding leadership that Congregation Beth Am has been blessed with since its founding 50 years ago. Rabbi Irving A. Mandel was Beth Am's first Rabbi. He was followed by Rabbi Sidney Akselrad in 1962, who for 24 years imbued Beth Am with a social-action consciousness by participating in a variety of interfaith endeavors, spreading understanding of Jewish heritage, and fighting to break down racial barriers in the United States. Rabbi Akselrad served as President of the Northern California Board of Rabbis, the Western Association of Reform Rabbis, and the Palo Alto Ministerial Association. When he became Rabbi Emeritus in 1987, Rabbi Richard A. Block took on his role as Senior Rabbi. For 12 years, Rabbi Block led the congregation, initiating a process of educational innovation he dubbed ``life-long learning,'' which inspired a national partnership, the ``Experiment in Congregational Education.'' His successor, Rabbi Janet Ross Marder, has been leading Beth Am since she became Senior Rabbi in 1999. She served as the first woman President of the Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis, and the first woman President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. She's married to Rabbi Sheldon Marder of the Jewish Home in San Francisco, and together they are raising 2 daughters, Betsy and Rachel. Mr. Speaker, I'm exceedingly proud to honor Congregation Beth Am as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. For a half century it's been a center of worship and service and it has truly lived up to its name, Beth Am, which translates from Hebrew to ``House of the People.'' Beth Am is a source of pride to everyone in our Congressional District and will continue to be a pillar of our community for decades to come.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Capps amendment. And it really is a mystery to me why we are even where we are right now. I think that, collectively, the House of Representatives should remember that this very provision took down the entire energy bill in the last Congress. That is how important this provision is. Now we have this debate about whether polluters should pay. I do not care what district anyone represents in this country. No constituent is going to stand up and say, Put the tax burden on us and allow the industry to get away with it. That is what this amendment is about. That is why we should all vote for the Capps amendment. The base bill contains a provision that creates a safe harbor. What does that mean? It lets the industry off the hook. It relieves the industry of any obligation to pay even a portion of the estimated $29 billion of cost of cleaning up drinking water that has been contaminated by this product. We know the product has contaminated groundwater. Now we are sending the bill to local governments. The National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, attorneys general from across the United States have weighed in. This is not just simply a matter of who pays. It is also a matter of public health. I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass). Of course it is a matter of public health. Why do we need a task force to try and figure this out? Let us make the bill right. Let us not stand on the wrong leg and try and defend something that is indefensible. This is an unfunded mandate. The CBO has weighed in and said that. The Congress has responded to unfunded mandates by having rule XVIII in the House rules. So I ask my colleagues on a bipartisan basis, let us do the right thing. Let us pass the Capps amendment. Mr. Chairman, the base bill contains a provision that creates a ``safe harbor'' preventing defective product claims against the producers of gasoline that contains MTBE. What this ``safe harbor'' does is relieve industry of any obligation to pay even a portion of the estimated $29 billion cost of cleaning up drinking water that's been contaminated by its product. Instead, the burden of MTBE clean up will fall entirely on States and localities. It's an unfunded mandate and a tax on the American people. In California, successful lawsuits have led to substantial settlements with oil companies, and these settlements have enabled some communities to begin cleaning up their drinking water supplies. Now, because communities are winning these suits, industry wants Congress to let it off the hook. But this isn't simply a matter of who pays; it's also a matter of public health. MTBE is a potential carcinogen. It's been detected in groundwater in all 50 States. When MTBE is in drinking water, we need to clean it up. In response to the public health threat, 42 States have established action levels, cleanup levels, or drinking water standards for MTBE; 19 States have imposed full or partial bans on MTBE in gasoline. In justifying the ``safe harbor,'' some will claim that Congress established a mandate to use MTBE when it passed the Clean Air Act's 2 percent oxygenate requirement in the early 1990s. That's not true. First, the industry didn't have to use MTBE to meet the oxygenate requirement; it had alternatives such as ethanol and other petroleum- based products. Second, the industry lobbied Congress to ensure that MTBE could be used to meet the oxygenate requirement. Third, at the time Congress was debating the oxygenate requirement, some producers already knew MTBE was likely to seep into groundwater at faster rates and persist at greater levels than other gasoline components. In fact, in the South Lake Tahoe lawsuit, ARCO admitted that it withheld information about groundwater contamination from Congress. Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about clean hands here. There's a reason the refiners and the MTBE producers are losing in court; there's a reason they're settling claims. They're responsible for the mess. Why are we creating a safe harbor for them? Nobody outside of the industry thinks this provision is a good idea. In 2003, 14 attorneys general, including the attorneys general of California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin wrote in opposition to providing a safe harbor for MTBE. In April of this year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the Association of California Water Agencies and other sent letters voicing their opposition. This is a bad provision and we should strip it from the bill. Vote for this amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, in a cautionary letter to the President last month, a group of defense experts including conservatives Robert McFarlane, Frank Gaffney, and Boyden Gray said the following: ``With only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves but 25 percent of current world consumption, the United States cannot eliminate its need for imports through increased domestic production alone.'' Our dependence on foreign oil is putting our country in a perilous situation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it will move us away from that perilous addiction to foreign oil and increase efficiency where we use the most oil, and that is the automobile industry.

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I want to speak to one aspect of this very important consumer protection amendment, and that is what the amendment is: it protects consumers. The issue I want to talk about is refund authority. Can there be any doubt today that Western consumers were gouged as a result of energy market manipulation in 2000 and 2001? Can there be any doubt that refunds are owed? So when a Member rises on the floor and talks about retroactive and it is not fair to have something retroactive, we have to have the arm of the law reach back so consumers are refunded the dollars that they were ripped off. Madam Chairman, 5 years after the crisis in California, no refunds have been ordered because for 5 years the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has insisted it does not have the authority to order the retroactive refunds that will fully compensate consumers. FERC knows the evidence, and here it is: one, Enron memos reveal that the energy trading company implemented elaborate market manipulation strategies to drive up prices. The Enron memos gave these ploys names like Fat Boy, Death Star, and Get Shorty. Number two, audio tapes of Enron energy traders surfaced that confirmed the existence of secret deals with power producers that deliberately drove up prices by ordering power plants shut down. Number three, transcripts of Reliant Energy traders from 2000 revealed that Reliant power plant operators deliberately kept power offline in order to increase energy prices at the height of the crisis. Four, on March 3, 2003, a coalition of California governmental entities and public utilities presented the FERC with more than 1,000 pages of evidence documenting a ``pervasive pattern of market manipulation that resulted in disastrous effects on prices and reliability.'' And in March 2003, the FERC confirmed that significant power manipulation had taken place in the West. This amendment gives the FERC broad authority to order retroactive refunds for market-based rates that are not just and reasonable. For California, billions are at stake. I urge a vote for this amendment. Last fall Governor Schwarzenegger said, ``Californians deserve refunds to fairly compensate them for the excessively high prices they paid during the energy crisis.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this rule. The State of California sends $50 billion more to the Federal Government while getting nothing in return for that $50 billion. With this bill, Californians are being asked to sacrifice even more while getting nothing in return. Here are some examples: according to the Department of Energy, the bill will raise gasoline prices by 8 cents a gallon. I think that that is an outrage. The bill's MTBE liability waiver will let refiners off the hook for cleaning up drinking water that has been contaminated by their product. Local governments are going to have to pay the entire cost. And the CBO has said this is an unfunded mandate. The bill will undermine the ability of States to ensure that liquefied natural gas terminals are sited and operate safely. The bill will undermine States' appeals rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The bill paves the way for building energy facilities on the outer continental shelf, including areas subject to gas and oil drilling. In listening to State leaders about this bill, I could not find anyone, from the Governor on down, who has said that this is a wonderful bill and it should be supported and passed. Instead, I have heard many concerns, from the Lieutenant Governor, from members of the Governor's cabinet, the attorney general, the coastal commission, the Public Utilities Commission, local governments, and water utilities. Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record a packet of letters from the coastal commission, the California PUC, the lieutenant governor, and the California Ocean Protection Council. Under this rule, I do not think we even have the opportunity to debate and vote on the most important amendments dealing with them. I ask my colleagues, particularly my California colleagues, to join me in voting against the rule and the underlying bill. The letters previously referred to are as follows: House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 19, 2005. Re House Consideration of Comprehensive Energy Legislation. Hon. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, State Capitol Building, Sacramento, California. Dear Governor Schwarzenegger, On April 13th, our committees (the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Resources) completed work on elements of a comprehensive energy bill that will come before the full House of Representatives as soon as April 20th. After participating in the debate and reviewing the products that emerged from our respective committees, we foresee serious dangers for the State of California if this legislation is enacted. While the delegation has received your letter supporting the removal of the participant funding section from the electricity title of the bill, we have not heard from you about other provisions that will more directly and immediately affect California. As we and other members of the delegation determine how to best represent the interests of our State, we believe it's important to understand your views on some of the key provisions before us as well as your overall position on the legislation. Most of the elements of the legislation are not new. They were part of the conference report on H.R. 6, which was considered by the House and Senate in 2003. Among the few new provisions are those that would further disadvantage our State. We've described below some of the provisions that we consider most troubling for California. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facility Siting (new provisions) The bill will hand over exclusive jurisdiction for the siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), preventing the states from having a role in approving the location of LNG terminals and the conditions under which these terminals must operate. In addition, states will have to seek FERC permission before conducting safety inspections, and they will be barred from taking any independent enforcement action against LNG terminal operators for safety violations. Finally, for the next six years, LNG terminal operators will be allowed to withhold underutilized capacity from other LNG suppliers. In other words, LNG terminal operators can legally exercise market power to drive up the cost of natural gas. When the El Paso Corporation and its independent affiliates allegedly conspired to withhold natural gas pipeline capacity in order to inflate the costs of natural gas and electricity in California in 2000 and 2001, the State sought relief from FERC and the courts. E1 Paso eventually agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement to partially compensate California consumers for its anticompetitive actions. Under this bill, it would become legal for an LNG terminal operator to engage in similar anticompetitive behavior. For these reasons, the provision is unanimously opposed by the California Public Utilities Commission, which, as you know, is fighting FERC in the courts for jurisdiction over an LNG terminal in the heart of the Port of Long Beach. This provision is also opposed by the California Ocean Protection Council, which includes two members of your cabinet, and the California Coastal Commission. Erosion of States' Rights Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (provisions from H.R. 6) The bill weakens California's rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act to object to a FERC-approved coastal pipeline or energy facility project when the project is inconsistent with the State's federally-approved coastal management program. Currently when there is a disagreement about a project, the Secretary of Commerce, through an administrative appeals process, determines whether and under what conditions the project can go forward. States can present new evidence supporting their arguments to the Secretary. Under this bill, states will not be allowed to present new evidence to the Secretary, and the Secretary will not be allowed to seek out evidence on his or her own. The Secretary will only be allowed to rely on the record compiled by FERC. Furthermore, the bill imposes an expedited timeline for appeals, which may not allow a full review of the facts. The California Coastal Commission and the California Ocean Protection Council oppose this provision. Energy Related Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) (provisions from H.R. 6) The bill will give the Department of Interior permitting authority for ``alternative'' energy projects, such as wind projects, situated on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). It also grants the Department of Interior authority to permit other types of energy facilities, including facilities to ``support the exploration, development, production, transportation, or storage of oil, natural gas, or other minerals.'' These facilities could be permitted within coastal areas currently subject to congressional moratoria on oil and gas leasing. (Again, both the California Coastal Commission and the California Ocean Protection Council have indicated that they oppose this provision.) Ethanol Mandate (provision from H.R. 6) The Clean Air Act's two percent oxygenate requirement forces refiners selling gasoline in California to blend more ethanol into their fuel than is needed for air quality purposes. Instead of improving air quality, the unnecessary use of ethanol is increasing pollution in parts of the State, according to a preliminary report from the California Air Resources Board. The oxygenate requirement is also adding to the cost of fuel. Last year, you asked the U.S. EPA to waive the oxygenate requirement, and last week, 50 members of the California congressional delegation reiterated support for your request in a letter to Acting EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. Under the energy bill coming before the House, however, California refiners will have to blend even more ethanol into their gasoline or pay (in the form of credit purchases) not to use it. Two years ago, a Department of Energy analysis of this provision indicated that it could add more than 8 cents to the cost of a gallon of gasoline. In a time of skyrocketing gas prices, this new mandate amounts to hidden tax on California motorists, which will subsidize a single industry located largely in the Midwest. While some have argued that the ethanol mandate will be a boon to California agriculture, we see no evidence to support this argument. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the ethanol mandate will greatly expand production of corn-based ethanol, but only 0.2% of the nation's corn is produced in California. More important, EIA projects that the ethanol mandate will result in no increase in the production of cellulosic ethanol (ethanol made from agricultural and forestry residues and other resources), which is the primary type of ethanol that can be produced in California. MTBE Liability Waiver and Transition Fund (provisions from H.R. 6) The bill provides liability protection for the producers of the gasoline additive MTBE, hampering the efforts of local governments, water utilities, and others to hold producers and oil companies responsible for the costs of cleaning drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE. In California, South Lake Tahoe and Santa Monica have been able to reach settlements with the industry for the cleanup of their drinking water after successfully arguing that the industry sold a defective product. If the liability protection in the bill is enacted, then MTBE will be deemed a safe product and the industry will be relieved from virtually any obligation to pay cleanup costs. In June 2003, fourteen state attorneys general wrote in opposition to this provision, and the provision has been opposed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and the Association of California Water Agencies, among others. Refinery Revitalization (new provisions) This bill includes language which will require the Secretary of Energy to designate ``refinery revitalization zones'' in areas that have experienced mass layoffs or contain an idle refinery and have an unemployment rate that exceeds the national average by 10 percent. In areas that meet these criteria, the Secretary of Energy is given authority to site a new refinery within six months of receiving a petition for approval. The criteria outlined in the language would result in much of California being designated a ``refinery revitalization zone,'' from Imperial to East Los Angeles and north of San Jose. In fact, more than half of California's 53 congressional districts would be subject to these provisions. This language erodes the state, air board and communities permitting and enforcement authority for these refineries by granting sweeping new authority to the Department of Energy. The Department is empowered to coordinate and set binding deadlines for all federal authorizations and environmental reviews, including those currently conducted by air quality management districts. The Department of Energy, however, is not trained and experienced in issuing air permits and is not familiar with the various rules implemented by local agencies as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) required by the Clean Air Act. For these reasons, the South Coast Air Quality Management District has expressed serious reservations about this provision. Preempting California Appliance Efficiency Standards (new provision) An amendment added to the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee will preempt California's new efficiency standards for ceiling fans, pending the implementation of a federal standard. The U.S. Department of Energy has been notoriously slow in propounding efficiency standards, falling years behind statutory deadlines for setting or updating efficiency standards for other appliances, such as air conditioners. Preempting California and forcing it to wait indefinitely for a federal standard runs completely against the State's effort to reduce electricity demand. Indeed, the ceiling fan standard is part of a California Energy Commission demand reduction package that will reduce peak power demand by 1,000 megawatts within 10 years, saving consumers $75 a year in energy costs and conserving as much power as can be generated by three large power plants. Hydroelectric Dam Relicensing (provisions from H.R. 6) The bill restructures the hydroelectric relicensing process to give special preference to dam operators. Other parties with legitimate interests in relicensing, including states, tribes, conservationists, farmers, and fishermen, would not be afforded the same opportunities. Under current law, federal resource agencies can impose conditions on a hydroelectric license for the protection of natural resources and wildlife. Under the bill a dam operator, and only a dam operator, will be entitled to a trial-type hearing before a resource agency to dispute the evidence that the agency uses to justify placing conditions on a license. The bill also requires resource agencies to accept alternative license conditions proposed by a dam operator. Otherwise, the agencies must meet nearly impossible standards to justify a decision to deny the alternative. River resources belong to more than dam operators. With licenses that last for up to 50 years, relicensing is one of the few chances to make sure that resources are adequately protected for all stakeholders. In California, there are more than 300 federally-regulated hydroelectric dams; over 200 will undergo relicensing in the next 10 to 15 years. Denying all stakeholders equal footing in the process is fundamentally unfair and is a recipe for protracted litigation. Conclusion We believe there are many other aspects of the legislation which will have a negative impact on our State, but these provisions clearly run contrary to the interests of California, and we believe they will undermine the policies and positions the State is pursuing under your Administration. Before the delegation votes on this legislation, Members should have the benefit of your views on these provisions and the bill as a whole. This legislation is too important a matter for the nation's largest state to be silent on. Although time is short, the issues we've outlined have been in the public domain for the past several months, going back to November 2003 in most cases. Therefore, we ask for your input before the House votes on this legislation this week. Thank you for timely consideration of this important request. Sincerely, Anna G. Eshoo, Committee on Energy and Commerce. Henry A. Waxman, Committee on Energy and Commerce. Lois Capps, Committee on Energy and Commerce. Grace F. Napolitano, Committee on Resources. George Miller, Committee on Resources. Hilda L. Solis, Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 787 and to say a few words for our late colleague, the Honorable Robert T. Matsui. When Bob passed away on January 1, 2005, we lost a friend, his constituents lost their most ardent supporter and America, as a whole, lost a dedicated statesman. Bob was well respected on both sides of the aisle. A brilliant man and an honest and fair politician, his leadership on the House Ways and Means Committee and his expertise and knowledge of Social Security will be sorely missed in the House for many years to come. Naming the federal courthouse in Sacramento is a fitting tribute for a man who did so much for that city. A member of the Sacramento City Council, Vice-Mayor and eventual Representative of the city in Congress, Bob served the city of Sacramento in every capacity he could. In Congress, Bob's efforts in securing funding for Sacramento were crucial in the revitalization of that city. Among the projects he was responsible for were the expansion of the city's light rail public transit system, and the courthouse that will soon bear his name. Both projects were crucial in creating new jobs and opportunities for the people of Sacramento. His passing is a great loss for all of us and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work in getting this legislation before the House so quickly, so that we can honor a man we all loved and respected. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to join my colleague Representative Deborah Pryce in introducing the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act (SELHA). This legislation establishes a grant program that would be administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for services related to housing for people who have experienced chronic homelessness and who also have disabling health conditions such as mental illness. The Department of Health and Human Services currently operates grant programs for homeless individuals but none of them are specifically focused on services such as mental health services, substance abuse treatment, health education, money management, parental skills training, and general health care, coordinated with permanent supportive housing. Chronically homeless individuals need more than housing. In order to truly help, the federal government needs to provide grants that will enable communities to coordinate and deliver health care-related services to these individuals. Without these services, it will continue to be very hard to end the root causes of chronic homelessness. SELHA specifically: Establishes a grant program for services in supportive housing within the Department of Health and Human Services (RRS) and administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); Defines ``chronically homeless'' as an individual or family who is currently homeless, has been homeless continuously for at least one year or has been homeless on at least four separate occasions in the last three years, and has a head of household with a disabling condition. Make states, cities, public, or nonprofit entities eligible to apply for the grants. Gives priority to applicants that target funds to individuals or families that are homeless for longer than one year, frequently use the ER, or interact regularly with law enforcement. Funds services including mental health services, substance abuse treatment, referrals for primary health care and dental services, health education, money management, and parental skills training. Requires initial grant awardees to provide $1 for every $3 of federal money. Requires renewal grant awardees to provide $1 for every $1 of federal money. Permits 20 percent of the grant awardees' matching funds to come from other federal grants such as the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant. This provision will encourage collaboration with existing programs and access for homeless people to existing mainstream health and human services systems, while assisting the grant awardees in achieving their match. Establishes initial grant terms of 3-5 years and renewal grant terms of up to 5 years. (To encourage long-term program success and stability for permanent supportive housing projects and formerly homeless tenants, renewal grant awardees only compete against each other and have priority status for additional funding.) Chronic homelessness is a dreadful but solvable problem. In my District, the most recent one-day survey (February 27, 2004) in Santa Clara County identified over 7,000 homeless individuals, with over 1,000 defined as chronic. In San Mateo County, over 1,730 individuals are homeless, with approximately 650 defined as chronic. Chronic homelessness is very costly to emergency rooms, psychiatric hospitals, VA hospitals and the criminal justice system. This legislation will provide more resources to reduce these costly expenditures, while simultaneously permitting individuals with complex health needs to be housed and begin their journey to a productive life. I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, the proposed reductions in Medicaid under this Budget Resolution plan are unacceptable. For 40 years Medicaid has always been a crucial support system for low-income individuals. Medicaid has made health care available to millions of Americans who have no other access to health care. The Budget Resolution will require $14-$20 billion in cuts from the program over the next five years and it will almost certainly lead to changes to state funding rules, administrative payment cuts, and prescription drug payment changes. This comes at a time when poverty is up, wages are down, and the number of uninsured Americans is at a record in our nation's history. The Medicaid program serves nearly 50 million Americans. As people lost jobs and income during the recent economic downturn, Medicaid enrollment increased by nearly one-third. The decreasing number of those who receive health care benefits through employment adds additional burdens to the Medicaid system. States and local governments rely on federal assistance to help provide a safety-net to these individuals. Any cuts to the Medicaid program will shift the burden entirely onto state and local governments that are already straining to meet increasing demands on the program and severe budget pressures of their own. In many states, Medicaid costs exceed education costs. In California, our Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, matches every dollar of federal funding with a dollar in state funding. This shared commitment is critical since the state receives $20 billion in federal funding. Reducing federal Medicaid funding to states at a time of rising health care costs, increased numbers of uninsured, and states' increasing difficulties in paying their share of Medicaid costs, is bound to force states to reduce coverage and increase the numbers of uninsured. Uninsured patients without access to care will instead seek treatment in emergency rooms, further burdening an already overtaxed system. The Medicaid program is not only critical for low-income individuals, but it's also fundamental to the operation of California's safety-net hospitals. The President's budget calls for eliminating the use of intergovernmental transfers for hospital funding. This means there will be at least $11.9 billion in direct cuts to safety-net providers nationwide. Many states rely on IGTs to fund their Medicaid budgets. The low-income and uninsured rely on these hospitals to receive access to needed health care services. Without the continuation of federal Medicaid funds targeted to safety net hospitals, millions of Californians will not have access to necessary health care services. This budget resolution advances this march to folly for so many Americans and that's why 242 national groups and 785 state groups, including the National Governors Association and the National Association of Counties oppose changes in Medicaid. We have an obligation to care for the less fortunate, and the Congress should not be cutting critical health care and other services from those in need. Rather, we should maintain our partnership with the states to ensure that Medicaid benefits remain available for the most vulnerable in our society. I urge all my colleagues in the House to oppose the Budget Resolution.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Temple Beth Jacob as it celebrates the 75th anniversary of its founding. As the oldest congregation on the San Francisco Peninsula, Temple Beth Jacob stands as a testament to the long tradition of involvement of the Jewish community in the religious and public life in the Bay Area. Founded in 1930, Temple Beth Jacob was the first Jewish religious institution created between the cities of San Francisco and San Jose. Its membership today is burgeoning with a vibrant congregation of more than 450 families from throughout the Peninsula to worship, to learn, and to strengthen both the Jewish community and the Bay Area community as a whole. The congregation is led by Rabbi Nathaniel Ezray, who is now in his tenth year as the head of this congregation. Over the years, he's demonstrated a sincere commitment to translating the lessons of faith into actions that will benefit the community. In a 1995 interview, he said, ``What's compelling for me is the social justice of Judaism. I want our congregation to respond together to domestic violence, AIDS, black-Jewish relations. My passion is teaching, but the pulpit allows me the opportunity to teach in many different ways and to create meaning and relevance.'' He lives with his wife, Mimi, and their daughter, Emily, and son, Ethan, in Redwood City. In the decades before Rabbi Ezray began at the synagogue, Rabbi H. David Teitelbaum led the congregation at Temple Beth Jacob for 38 years. Under his leadership, the congregation grew from only 100 active families to its present size of nearly four times that number. A longtime advocate for civil rights, Rabbi Teitelbaum traveled to Selma, Alabama in the 1960's to march with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., believing that the history of persecution of the Jewish people creates in them a special obligation to protect the human rights of all. He continues to serve as a beacon for the community and his former congregation in his current role as Executive Director of the Board of Rabbis of Northern California. Temple Beth Jacob has a long tradition of coordinating with other religious institutions in the Bay Area to provide vital services to the community at large. In addition to providing a school and a pre-school to the community, Temple Beth Jacob's efforts have helped to house the homeless through the Interfaith Homeless Network and feed the hungry through the Urban Ministry's ``Breaking Bread'' program. They are annual cosponsors of the Martin Luther King observance in Redwood City, and have hosted the event over the years. All told, Temple Beth Jacob is a model of dedicated community action. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to honor Temple Beth Jacob as it celebrates its 75th anniversary. After three quarters of a century, Temple Beth Jacob remains a source of pride for the Peninsula, and promises to be a center of our community for decades to come.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a distinguished American, Dr. June Ritchie Chambers, who died on January 24, 2005, at the age of eighty. June Ritchie was born in Parkersburg, West Virginia, and graduated from West Virginia University. She attended its School of Medicine before transferring to the Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio. She completed residencies in Internal Medicine and Psychiatry at Charleston Area Medical Center Memorial Hospital, practicing Psychiatry at Shawnee Hills and working as an Internal Medicine specialist as well. June Ritchie Chambers was married to her husband John T. ``Jack'' Chambers, also a Charleston physician, for 57 years. In 2002, together with their son and wife, John and Elaine Chambers, my constituents, they donated $1.5 million to their alma mater, West Virginia University, establishing a program to train students in electronic business techniques. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deep sympathy to the family of June Ritchie Chambers and to honor her lifetime of remarkable accomplishments and service to her community and her country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor a distinguished American and community leader, Mary Lou Zoglin who passed away last week. Mary Lou Zoglin was committed to serving her community whether it was with non-profits or through community service. She was the executive director of Healthy Ventures, a consortium of schools and other agencies dedicated to the well-being of children. She later served on the California Community Colleges Board of Governors and the Foothill- De Anza Community College Board. In the early 1990s, Mary Lou turned her public service to the City of Mountain View where she joined the city's Planning Commission. In 1996, she was elected to the Mountain View city Council where she served for 8 years, and one term as Mayor. During her tenure with the City Council, Mary Lou Zoglin focused her public service on ensuring that the community has a continuum of human services from the time children are in preschool to high school and then into adulthood. She worked tirelessly to see that all members of the community are served by the city, not just those who are the most vocal or economically advantaged. She was instrumental in the construction of San Antonio Place, an affordable housing project in Mountain View which broke ground last year. She also fought for the creation of child-care centers, for improvements to city parks and for resources for youth, including after school programs. Beyond her dedication to public service, Mrs. Zoglin was committed to her family and an avid student of foreign languages and cultures. She earned her college degree from Radcliffe College where she studied Romance languages and later won a Fulbright scholarship to study in Brussels, Belgium. Upon her return, she met her husband in the early 1950s while they were both in New York. They moved to Los Altos in 1956 where they began their family. Her children, John, Katie and Bill, were raised in this close-knit community and she recently became a proud grandmother of twin grandchildren. Despite her 5-year battle with cancer and her small frame, Mary Lou Zoglin was frequently described as a ``powerhouse'' and a ``dynamo.'' She found true joy in working with people in the community and making their dreams a reality. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this good and great woman for her lifetime of remarkable achievements and in extending to her family our deepest sympathy. Our community and our country have lost a true friend and an extraordinary leader.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 1134, a bill to exempt FEMA's mitigation grants from federal income taxes, as was Congress's original intent. I commend my colleagues for their swift, bipartisan action in addressing this issue. These mitigation grants were created to give citizens a proactive way to prepare for future disasters, thereby minimizing the damage they cause. These grants have proved to be extremely successful, saving millions of dollars in post-disaster funding as well as lives lost to natural disasters. Despite this success, the IRS ruled in June of 2004, that these grants should be included in grant recipients' gross income and be subject to federal income taxes. Taxing this assistance effectively removes the incentive for citizens to participate. Not only was this decision contrary to the intent of these grant programs, but the delay in notifying affected taxpayers has caused considerable alarm. I met personally with IRS Commissioner Everson to urge him to provide temporary relief while Congress worked toward a legislative solution, but without a reversal of the IRS ruling, it is essential that the House pass this bill today. In Felton Grove, one of the affected areas of my Congressional District, there are 30 families, many of them low-income, who are facing an enormous and unexpected tax burden this year. Many of these constituents earn between $30,000 and $40,000 a year. With grant averages from $40,000 to $160,000, if this determination is allowed to stand, some of my constituents' annual gross incomes will grow from $40,000 to $200,000. For these unfortunate constituents, nearly all of their annual income will have to be paid to the IRS, and many will face financial ruin. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents who are living in fear of the upcoming April 15th tax filing deadline, I urge my colleagues in the House to vote for this legislation so that it can become law.