Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a very special woman, Edith DiVincino DiFazio, who passed away on Saturday, April 6, 2002. Edith was married to Pasquale (Pat) DiFazio for 53 years and they were the very proud parents of two children, Paul and Linda, and the ever loving grandparents of Michael and Allison Lech. Mr. Speaker, Edith DiFazio was born and raised in New Britain, Connecticut and lived there her entire life. She made an indelible impact on the community she loved so much through her participation in local politics, her support of her husband in his business development, her community activism as well as the countless friendships she made and kept during her ninety years of life in New Britain. Mr. Speaker, Edith was a woman who loved and was loved deeply in return by her family and her friends. She was in many ways a woman who was ahead of her time and she was a role model to everyone who knew her. Edith worked alongside her husband Pat who was the owner and president of Ames Construction Company. Among the Company's many projects are Pulaski Middle School, Chamberlain School, Knapp Village Apartments and Schaller Oldsmobile. With a constant smile and engaging personality, Edith found enjoyment in all aspects of life. She learned the pleasure of raising plants and flowers from working in her father's greenhouse, Davis Florist Company in New Britain. She was a gourmet cook and her Italian cooking was considered to be the gold standard of cuisine and she served her community as a volunteer at the New Britain Memorial Hospital and as a member of the Greater Italian Junior League. Mr. Speaker, if Edith DiFazio were asked what the greatest accomplishments of her life were, she would say her two children Linda and Paul. For almost half a century I have known and been part of the DiFazio family. Edith and Pat DiFazio were two of the most widely respected and loved members of our community. Edith was the core of her home and her family. She was as comfortable with U.S. Senators and Governors as she was with her pals at the senior center. Her dignity, her gracefulness, her kindness and her gentleness were her hallmarks. I have no doubt that as Pat welcomed her to heaven, so too did the angels because they wanted to add to their ranks. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House to join me in expressing our collective sympathy to Edith DiFazio's family and to give thanks for all she did throughout her life to make her community and our country better for human kind.

Mr. ESHOO

Mr. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to May Louie, an extraordinary woman who will celebrate 90 years of life on June 5, 2002. A loving mother, daughter and widow, May Louie is an honorable woman in her own right. She has lived a life filled with values, service, and dedication to her family and to her community. Born on June 5, 1912 in Columbus Ohio, May was the eighth child of ten and the second of two daughters. Driven by famine in China, her father came to the United States in the early 1880s to help build the transcontinental railroad. He met and married May's mother and the two moved to Biloxi, Mississippi and then to Columbus, where they owned and operated a laundry. May was sent to China as a young girl after her mother's tragic death as a result of the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918. She endured harsh living conditions, including a bout of malaria fever before returning to Ohio aboard the USS President McKinley in 1928. Following the death of her father, May provided loving care for many years to her elderly foster parents, Walter and Sadie Hauptfuier in Canton, Ohio. She studied piano, flute and piccolo and became a respected music teacher. May moved to Lakewood, Ohio after her marriage to Toy Louie, the owner of a wholesale Chinese grocery business and noodle factory, and the couple soon began a family of their own. May gave birth to two sons--James and David and she instilled in them a lifelong love of music and the arts. A devoted mother, May Louie was a full-time homemaker and the family's chief money manager. In an effort to bring diversity to television, May encouraged her sons to appear on a live public affairs program produced by a neighbor. While both children participated, David displayed an early and keen interest in the news business, appearing weekly on the show for eight years . . . from five years old to age thirteen. It was this experience that kindled David's interest in pursuing a highly distinguished career in T.V. journalism. Widowed in 1980, May managed on her own for 16 years before moving into David's home in San Mateo, California. She is a proud grandmother of two adult grandchildren--Linda May Louie and Michael Louie, the children of Jim and Vana of Mayfield Heights, Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this great and good woman, May Louie, and in wishing her a very happy, healthy and fulfilling 90th birthday. Her life is instructive to us all and we know we are a better country because of all she's done.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished American and longtime resident of San Mateo County, Clifford Stanfield, who passed away on March 3, 2002, at the age of eighty-four. He leaves his beloved wife Ruth of thirty-one years, his son Raphael and his daughter Sue Spackman, as well as five grandchildren, two brothers and a sister. A graduate of the Illinois Institute of Technology, Clifford Stanfield worked as an architect until his retirement in 1984. A distinguished veteran of the U.S. Navy, he worked as a ship's painter during World War 11, serving on the destroyer-tender USS Dixie in the South Pacific. A native of Iowa, in 1971, Clifford Stanfield moved with his wife Ruth to California's Coastside where he gave generously of his time and talents to the community. An ardent environmentalist, Clifford Stanfield volunteered as a docent with the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve and the Coyote Point Museum. Utilizing his considerable expertise in architecture and construction, Mr. Stanfield volunteered with the occupational therapy department at Mills Hospital, designing objects for patients to use in their therapy. Service was a way of life for Clifford Stanfield. Even on his regular strolls through Half Moon Bay, he was known to pick up trash left in the streets and deliver newspapers to the doorsteps of his neighbors. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this great and good man and offer the condolences of the entire House of Representatives to his family. We are a better community, a better country and a better people because of Clifford Stanfield.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, on February 21, 2002, the world learned of the horrific and senseless murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. An extraordinary American and a courageous and talented journalist, Pearl was killed in the pursuit of truth. Abducted in Karachi, Pakistan, Pearl was investigating potential connections between alleged shoe-bomber Richard Reid and radical fundamentalists in Pakistan. His death represents a tragedy not only for his wife Marianne, now seven months pregnant, and their family, but for all humanity. Daniel Pearl's murder left an indelible mark on the world of journalism. A colleague who had the privilege of knowing Pearl is Don Kazak, a highly respected senior staff writer and former editor of the Palo Alto Weekly. It was at the Weekly that Pearl, then a student at Stanford University, began his career in journalism as an Editorial Intern during the spring of 1984. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit for the Record a tribute to Daniel Pearl written by Don Kazak and published in the Palo Alto Weekly on February 27, 2002. I share it with my colleagues who I'm sure will find it as poignant and instructive as I did. [From the Palo Alto Weekly, Feb. 27, 2002] Our Town: ``Is That Our Danny?'' (By Don Kazak) There is always distance between us and what we read in the newspaper or watch on the evening news. These are usually events happening far away, which don't touch us. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks touched many, and shocked, angered or numbed the nation, but for most there was still a distance. As much as I felt for what happened, it was other people, somewhere else. And then I heard about Wall Street Journal Danny Pearl being captured by a radical Islamist group. He had been a reporter for the Journal for 12 years. It was a big, international news story--but it touched me deeply and personally, along with others at the Weekly and at Stanford University. Pearl was based in Pakistan and had traveled to Karachi, which is kind of the Wild West of Pakistan, to interview radical Islamists. Then there was the photo of him sitting head bowed, hands tied, with a gun to his head. Like many of the rest of rest of us, I have a hard time putting a label on what is right or wrong. Maybe I've covered too many stories for too many years. The Weekly has employed editorial interns for many years. They are basically low-paid college help to get some newspaper experience as part of their education. These have been mostly terrific kids, bright and eager. We've had so many interns over the years that they kind of blur together for me. But I remember Danny, Stanford class of 1985. He had a bright smile and was obviously very talented. He's one of those I distinctly remember, and I recoiled at the image of him with a gun to his head. I was the editor of the Weekly when Pearl was an intern, and when the news broke about his capture Carol Blitzer, an editor then and now, asked me, ``Is that our Danny?'' Carol later received an e-mail from Kathleen Donnelly, a former Weekly reporter and Mercury News writer, now living in Seattle, which confirmed: That is our Danny. He was so good-natured when he was here that it is hard to envision him as a hard-edged hard-news reporter. But that's what he has been and what he has been doing, chasing a difficult story in a dangerous place. Eight journalists have already been killed trying to cover the mess in Afghanistan, because they wanted to ``get the story.'' I have a lavish photo book, ``Requiem,'' about the Vietnam War, the war of my youth, the war I marched against. In it are the photos of photographers who died covering the wars in Southeast Asia, 135 of them. I don't know if I would have had the courage to do what Danny Pearl was doing. But I sense the desire to get the story. He wanted to know--which is what drives all good journalists. He and his wife were expecting their first child when he was kidnapped, adding to the pathos. Now that baby will grow up without ever knowing his or her father. As a reporter, it has been bred deep within me not ever to take sides. I'm just a reporter, trying to make sense of what I see and hear for our readers. But no one can make sense of his death. Now, it turns out he was killed not just because he was an American reporter, but because he was also a Jew. Sometimes I think people who ignore what's going on the world around them have an easier time, because they don't have to feel for what is happening. But some things touch even the people once removed, reading a newspaper or watching the news on TV. This was one of those times. When the World Trade Center towers collapsed, it was a tragedy for thousands of people and their families, friends, co-workers, all of us. There is still one photo which haunts me, taken on the fly by a Magnum photographer who didn't see what he shot until he looked at his film later. In the photo, there are dozens of people outside the windows of the upper floors of one of the World Trade Center towers, fires billowing below them. They were there, looking out of the building, and they all died. That was impersonal, because it was just people in the photo, none of whom I knew. And then there was the photo of Danny Pearl with a gun to his head, killed for trying to get the story.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to congratulate the chairman of our committee for the extraordinary work that has been done on this bill and to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) our ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in support of this motion of the House bill and emphasize the need for conferees to address and quickly resolve their differences on the bioterrorism legislation. We live in unsettling times. Our hope is that we never again experience an act of terrorism, but we have to plan and prepare to respond to further attacks. The conferees face a complex task. The bills passed by the House and Senate cover many subjects including grants to our first responders, regulation of select agents, protection of our food supply, and protection of our water systems. The motion recognizes the need for conferees to coordinate the final legislation with ongoing efforts to support existing plans and programs. Bioterrorist threats and public health emergencies can come in many forms, in many places; and the House bill is sensitive to that fact. We want an aggressive response to this problem. Title I of H.R. 3448 provides a funding structure that focuses resources towards first responders with a minimum of delay and with maximum efficiency. This bill is a down payment, not a full measure of what will be needed for our citizens and our community to prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attacks. Title III of H.R. 3448, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2001 which we overwhelmingly passed on December 11, 2001, establishes important new regulatory authorities for the protection of our Nation's food supply. These new authorities enable the Food and Drug Administration to allocate its limited inspection resources more effectively where they are needed the most, at the ports of entry into the United States. In addition, the bill authorizes the appropriations of new funds for increased inspections of food, the development of rapid testing technologies, and an assessment of threats for the adulteration of food. Along with improving FDA's information management systems as they pertain to imported food, the bill mandates that FDA notify relevant States when it has information indicating that a shipment of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences and requests that such States take appropriate remedial action. Mr. Speaker, this is a motion on which I would expect all of my colleagues would agree. The bill passed the House by a vote of 418 to 2, and I believe my colleagues are unified in their desire to pass this legislation as soon as possible, and I urge them to do that. I would also like to add that, as we have emphasized, a good part of the legislation is built around first responders, that what they will have in their hands, the tools that they will use, represent the best of the biotechnology industry of our country, the technology industry and high technology, both of which find a home in the 14th Congressional District of California. So America's best will be placed in America's best hands as first responders. I am very proud of that, and I know that my colleagues are as well. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for the work that has been done on one of the most important bills that the House of Representatives will pass. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers; and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute today to a distinguished Californian and a great American, John W. Gardner, who died at the age of eighty-nine on February 16, 2002. He leaves his wife of 67 years, Aida, and his two daughters, Stephanie Gardner Trimble and Francesca Gardner. He also leaves two granddaughters, two grandsons, two great-grandchildren and a brother, Louis. John W. Gardner was born in California in 1912. A true American hero, he devoted his life to public service, pioneering the modern movement for citizen activism, campaign finance reform and healthcare for the needy. A 1935 graduate of Stanford University, John Gardner went on to earn a doctorate in psychology from the University of California, Berkeley. He taught psychology at Connecticut College and Mount Holyoke and was later named Haas Centennial Professor of Public Service at Stanford. John Gardner served under six U.S. Presidents including President Lyndon B. Johnson who named him Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. A Republican, Mr. Gardner believed good ideas transcended partisanship, and as Secretary, he initiated and implemented many of the programs in President Johnson's War on Poverty. He developed many of these innovative ideas during his decade as President of the Carnegie Corporation. After leaving government service, Mr. Gardner continued to serve the public. In 1970 he founded Common Cause, a prominent citizens' watchdog organization that remains a powerful political force today. John Gardner was also cofounder of Independent Sector, a philanthropic coalition of over six hundred corporate and nonprofit organizations. Inspired by his commitment to public service, both Stanford and U.C. Berkeley have established a successful public service fellowship in his honor. Modeled after the White House Fellows Program which Gardner designed, the John Gardner Fellowship in Public Service serves as a critical launching pad for graduating seniors looking to pursue a career in public service. When the House passed Campaign Finance Reform in the early hours of February fourteenth, it was John Gardner whom I thought of first because no one did more or spoke more eloquently about the need for this critical reform. Frequently referred to as the ``father of campaign finance reform,'' he was appointed by President Clinton as co- chairman of the Campaign Finance Reform Commission. The American people owe an enormous debt of gratitude to this extraordinary individual for his leadership, his commitment and his vision. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this exceptional man and extend our condolences to his wife and family. We are a better community, a better country and a better people because of John W. Gardner.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his leadership and everyone that I have worked with on this issue for now, I think, at least 3 years. I stand in opposition to the bill and have from the very beginning, and I would like to very quickly go through my top 10 reasons. I think it is bad for the economy. Why? Because it is going to throw people out of work. The proponents say it is going to create jobs. In fact, it is going to shut down the CLECs in this country who are the children that were born out of the telecom act. So it is not going to do what the promise of the bill says. It is going to lose jobs, no net gains. I think it is bad for consumers, and consumer organizations across the board oppose the bill. Why? Because it further enlarges the monopoly that the Bells are right now. If someone has a monopoly in their DNA, this is the bill for them. It is bad for small business because I think the prices without the CLECs, without the CLECs who are competing right now, small business is going to end up paying more. That really is a tax on high-speed access for small businesses. It is bad for broadband because it stifles innovation. When we think of innovation, and the district that I come from is all about that, we do not think of the local Bells as being the fathers or mothers of innovation. It is bad for rural areas and the bill promises to get DSL to the rural areas. It does not, and it will not. The homes that are located 3 miles from a Bell central office would still be dependent upon other broadband providers. It is bad for the States, and 31 State PUCs oppose it. Why? Because the bill takes away the ability from our constituents to protect consumers and oversee quality of service. In California alone the Bells have been fined $350 million for bad service. Under this bill they would not be able to do it. Lastly, the e-rate. If my colleagues voted for the e-rate, it is in trouble. Our schools, our law libraries, it is bad law. The Bells do not need any legislation to offer high-speed Internet services. I compliment the proponents of the bill for their advertising of it because they say it is jobs, it is the economy, it is competition, it is going to take high-speed Internet access to all communities right away. That is great advertising, but my colleagues have to read the print in the bill, and the Bells do not need this in order to bring the competition and the high-speed Internet access that it says only the Bell can do. This enlarges a monopoly that will lumber on, and my colleagues and I are going to have to answer to our constituents on the accountability issue. No PUC, no FCC. I do not think that kind of deregulation in terms of accountability is where we should go. I think to be about the future we have to get rid of the past. This reeks of the past and does not speak well to the future.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and I'm proud to be a cosponsor of it. The Cyber Security Research and Development Act is aimed at the important need of increasing attention and funding for cybersecurity. I salute my colleague Mr. Boehlert for recognizing this need to move this legislation to the floor of the House. The bill authorizes over 800 million dollars for research and grant programs through the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This means that the extraordinary scientists and researchers at research facilities like NASA Ames can continue to find innovative ways to address the many security challenges facing our nation. NASA Ames provides research leadership and world-class capability in the fields of supercomputing and networking, high-assurance software development, and verification and validation. They have developed an unmatched expertise in areas critical to the security of our networks and infrastructures. As we know all too well, terrorists can strike in unthinkable ways. To minimize the impact terrorist attacks may have on our ability to communicate and exchange valuable information, we must begin to correct the deficiencies in current U.S. computer and network defenses. Only then will we ensure that the United States is better prepared to prevent and combat terrorist attacks on private and government computers. It is my hope that the Cyber Security Research and Development Act is the beginning of a long-term investment in establishing a strong national information assurance program. It has my strong support and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, the financial rewards from international trade are enormous. I know this firsthand because my Congressional district is part of the largest exporting region in our country. Trade provides enormous benefits to our economy so it is appropriate for us to dedicate a small fraction of these rewards to workers who are displaced because of trade. Forty years ago Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) was created for U.S. workers who lost their jobs because of foreign competition. The program has suffered from a number of significant problems including inadequate funding for training, lack of health care coverage, and the existence of a separate program under NAFTA which has created confusion and inconsistencies in the program. TAA also does not currently cover farmers, suppliers, and downstream producers who face similar pressure from international competition. Representative Ken Bentsen and I have introduced the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, H.R. 3670 to remedy these and other problems with the program. The bill harmonizes NAFTA-TAA and TAA, broadens eligibility for downstream producers, suppliers, farmers, fishermen, truckers, and taconite producers, expands income support from 52 weeks to 78 weeks and increases funding for training and TAA for firms. For the first time a healthcare benefit for displaced workers is provided and the bill establishes an Office of Community Assistance to provide technical assistance to trade impacted communities. It is critical that we bring Trade Adjustment Assistance policies into the 21st century so that our policies actually meet the needs of our workforce. H.R. 3670 does exactly this. It reforms a 40-year-old program by embracing its original intent and combines it with the needs of a 21st century world and workforce.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to salute the authors of this bill for their courage, for their vision, and for their tenacity. Today is the day in this House of Representatives. I think that the eyes of the Nation are really on us. They want to see if we are going to step over the line and say that we are going to do something for democracy. This is about democracy, and it is about respecting the voice of the people. Every election both parties try to get people to go out and vote. We try to inspire them with our ideas for a better future, not only for themselves and our country but for our world. And fewer and fewer and fewer people are going out to vote. Why? Because they think their voice does not count. Today's newspaper says that the voices in the Republican caucus that vote for the real Shays-Meehan bill are going to be punished. We cannot tolerate this. This is not good for democracy. Have the courage to vote for the best in America, for our system that is the bright shining light of the world. Vote for the only real meaningful campaign finance reform bill, Shays-Meehan, McCain-Feingold. Send it to the President. We will be ahead, America. And we will be judged for it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, it is really a privilege and a joy to be on the floor this evening and rise to honor our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Nancy Pelosi). I want to make my remarks tonight really in the form of a story. I do not have any notes in front of me, but I would like to hearken back to over 25 years ago. So that is more than a quarter of a century, which certainly says something about my age, but that is how long I have known Nancy Pelosi. Neither one of us were in elected public service at the time, but she was very well known throughout the State of California for the work that she was doing in her beloved adopted city of San Francisco, having been brought to San Francisco by a great San Franciscan, Paul Pelosi. And out of that marriage, that wonderful, wonderful marriage, have come five magnificent children. First, let me say something about Paul. We all love him and respect him. He is one of the most gentle individuals, who always has a smile on his face and has done so much for so many of us. It is his singular joy to welcome us to his home to do for each one of us over the years. So this is a great party celebrated around the two of them and not just Nancy. Five children: Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul, Jr., and Alexandra. Two magnificent sons-in-law, Jeff Prowda and Michael Kenneally; and five extraordinary grandchildren, Alexander, Liam, Madeleine, Sean, and Ryan. So you can see that there is both the Gaelic and the garlic that has been blended in this magnificent family. Nancy Pelosi is recognized a leader not only in her own community but throughout the State of California. She has been a leader in the Democratic Party, and that came to her from her magnificent mother and father, whom I think tonight and tomorrow and all days are watching Nancy and guiding her from heaven. Her father served in this House of Representatives. He served as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, as his daughter does today. And her mother was a champion for housing, for the underemployed, for the unemployed, for those that did not have a voice in our society. Her father went on to become Mayor of Baltimore. Her brother, Tommy, has served as Mayor of Baltimore. So as we Californians like to say, Nancy Pelosi was born and bred for public service and understanding what the best of it represents. Her devotion, her family's devotion to a party to give birth to ideas and to bring people forward for the best of our Nation is the tradition not only of the D'alesandro family, but the Pelosi family as well. Mr. Speaker, tonight we rise to pay tribute to her. Not only on the occasion of becoming elected whip, but how proud we are as Californians that we have helped to bring forward this woman for this post. She has always, always been respected by everyone here on both sides of the aisle. The gentlewoman always has a friend in her voice. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) does not make enemies. Why? Because she knows what is at stake, and what is at stake is the business, the blessed and very precious business of our Nation and a better world. We are so proud that this woman has created another first. We saw her do it in California, and we see her do it here all over again. Whether Members supported her in the race for whip, all of that has really gone away. Tomorrow we present our gift as a caucus to the Nation, and how proud we are that she is yet another first. I think that we have helped to create and present as a party not only a gift to the House of Representatives, to the Congress, but to our Nation, because that is why we are here. I think Americans will come to know her and respect her as we do for what she believes in, for the faith that shapes all that she believes in, because she is a deeply spiritual and faith- filled woman. Mr. Speaker, the commute across the country every week is not the easiest, but I could not wait to get up this morning to make that flight across the country and join my colleagues and so many other Californians who have flown across the country, who have come here to witness the swearing in and the celebration of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) becoming the whip of the Democrats and a gift to the Nation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I thank our ranking member and everyone that is a part of this tribute to Catholic schools and the education, the superb education that they provide for students across our country. This Congress is devoted to education and to improvement in our public education system. This is something that is a value of the American people; and they want it implemented in classrooms across the country, so I am proud to have been part of the effort to improve public education. In our country, we also have other institutions of learning. Certainly, Catholic schools have given their best and produced students for the betterment of our Nation. I am a product of a Catholic education, and I am proud of that. I know that my teachers, along with my parents, helped shape me to be who and what I am today. I am very proud of my children being graduates of Catholic schools. My daughter Karen today is the head of the middle school, St. Joseph's, in Atherton, California. Her husband, Jim, my wonderful son-in-law, is part of a high school faculty at Convent of the Sacred Heart. So I want to pay tribute to all of the lay people that are part of Catholic education across our Nation, and to the great orders, the sisters. I am a product of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, and my children, of the Religious of the Sacred Heart. To the brothers, to the priests, to the nuns that have made Catholic education what everyone in this country has come to believe it represents, our thanks. They have contributed mightily to the betterment of our Nation and have deepened our spirituality and shaped citizens for decade after decade after decade. I am very proud that the House of Representatives has chosen for the third year in a row to make this a tradition in the House where we pay tribute to Catholic schools and all that they have done. I thank everyone that is part of this effort.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which I'm proud to sponsor with Mr. Greenwood of Pennsylvania. This bill is the conferenced version of legislation that passed the House a month ago on the suspension calendar 338-86. Importantly the bill we will vote on today and send to the President closes the ``Glucophage loophole'' which allowed one company to get an additional 3 years of marketing exclusivity. This bill ensures that no company will be able to take advantage of the exclusivity granted by this very important legislation. This legislation extends the pediatric exclusivity provision, one of the most successful programs created by Congress to inspire medical therapeutic advances for children. Prior to its enactment, 80 percent of all medications had never been tested for use by children, even though most are widely used by pediatricians to treat them. Many of these drugs carried disclaimers stating that they were not approved for children. Pediatricians cut pills in half or even in fourths for children. Throughout this period, we were basically experimenting on children, forcing doctors to rely on anecdotal information or guesswork. This was not acceptable for our nation's children. In 1997 the Congress passed the pediatric exclusivity provision as part of the FDA Modernization Act, which Congressman Barton and I sponsored. This provision has made a dramatic change in the way pediatricians are practicing and administering medicine to children. Now, pediatricians have the necessary dosage guidance on drug labels to administer drugs safely to children. But there are many more drugs that can and should be used in the pediatric population. This bill ensures that those drugs will also be studied and information on safe use will be provided to pediatricians. Because previous attempts to address drug studies for children had failed, this provision was given a four-year lifespan. It expires January 1, 2002, which is why we're here today. The pediatric exclusivity provision provides pharmaceutical companies with an incentive to study drugs for children . . . six months of additional market exclusivity. This incentive has made a dramatic difference. Since the law has been in place, the FDA has received close to 250 proposed pediatric study requests from pharmaceutical companies and has issued nearly 200 requests to conduct over 400 pediatric studies. By comparison, in the seven years prior to enactment of this provision, only 11 studies were completed. The FDA has granted market exclusivity extensions for 33 products. 20 products include new labeling information for pediatricians and parents. What this means is that doctors are now making better-informed decisions when administering medicine to children. During our Committee deliberations a number of proposals by my colleagues Representatives Pallone and DeGette were adopted and are part of the underlying bill we will vote on today. The bill before us also makes some significant improvements to the original pediatric exclusivity provisions by creating an off-patent drug fund within NIH and setting up a public-private foundation to support the research necessary for these important drugs. The bill also addresses some concerns that were raised by both the FDA and GAO with regard to labeling. Our bill enhances the labeling process and provides the FDA Commissioner the authority to misbrand a drug if companies drag their heels. 28 National Children's health advocacy groups support this bill's passage . . . among them are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, and the National Association of Children's Hospitals. They're requesting that Congress not delay in passing this legislation. Our colleagues in the Senate have acted . . . last week, the Senate unanimously passed the same bill sponsored by Senators Dodd and DeWine. As I said during the initial House consideration of this bill, many of my colleagues have concerns, valid concerns with the cost of drugs. I continue to share these concerns, and I shall continue to work for a legislative solution to provide prescription drug coverage for our seniors. This bill should not have to bear the burden of what Congress has failed to address. The FDA, the GAO, and one of the largest groups of children's health advocacy groups say this is the best way to provide safe and effective drugs for children. The benefits of this program are clear and bear repeating--in the seven years prior to enactment of this provision only 11 studies on drugs for children were completed; since its enactment four years ago the FDA has received close to 250 proposed pediatric studies. Since September 11th the entire Congress has legitimately been addressing national security concerns. Today, we can ensure the health security of our children by passing this bill overwhelming and sending it to the President for his signature.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I have but a few brief moments to come to the microphone today, not to urge Members one way or the other on the issue that is before us, but to state why, with really a heavy heart, why I am not supporting the first trade issue since I have come to the Congress since 1992. In my congressional district, which is the home to Silicon Valley, we have scores of unemployed workers. They are part of that two-thirds of the American work force that are not eligible for unemployment benefits because they are contract workers. I know what the new economy produced. I have faith in the industrial leaders in my congressional district and other places. I believe they will help restore the economic well-being of our country. But we in the Congress have an obligation to stand next to those workers in my district and across the country that are part of the economic collateral of 9-11 and before that. That is why I rise. I asked for a vote on an economic package that would deal with them first, and on the heels of that, support trade assistance. So it is with a great deal of regret that I state that I cannot and will not vote for the bill because of it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee for his leadership on this, and I am proud to be the Democratic sponsor with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. This legislation extents the pediatric exclusivity provision, which is one of the most successful programs created by Congress to inspire medical therapeutic advances for children. Prior to its enactment, 80 percent of all medications had never been tested for use by children, even though most were widely used by pediatricians to treat them. Many of these drugs carry disclaimers stating that they were not approved for children, and pediatricians were literally cutting pills in half and thirds and in quarters, guessing, and essentially experimenting on children as they used anecdotal information or guesswork to use the medications for them. Obviously, this was not acceptable for our Nation's children. In 1997, the Congress passed a pediatric exclusivity provision as part of the FDA Modernization Act, which I sponsored with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) at the time. This provision has made a dramatic change in the way pediatricians are practicing and administering medicine to children. Now they have the necessary dosage guidance on drug labels to administer drugs safely to children, but there are many more drugs that can and should be used in the pediatric population. This bill ensures that those drugs will also be studied and that information on safe use will be provided to pediatricians. Because previous attempts for drug studies for children had actually failed, this provision was given a 4-year life span. It expires in January of 2002. That is why we are here today. The incentive that was granted to drug companies to study drugs for children was to give them 6 months of additional market exclusivity. Some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle do not think that that is right. Actually, the proof is in the pudding because it has worked. Since the law has been in place, the FDA has received close to 250 proposed pediatric study requests from pharmaceutical companies and has issued nearly 200 requests to conduct over 400 pediatric studies. If this were a business, we would have to say it was good because this never happened before. Yes, there is a carrot that has been taken a bite out of. I think that some of my colleagues do not think that this is good enough. By comparison, in the 7 years prior to enactment of this provision, only 11 studies were completed. The FDA has granted market exclusivity extensions for 33 products; 20 of them include new labeling information for pediatrics and parents. So I think that better informed decisions are being made and children are being taken better care of. During our committee deliberations, a number of proposals by my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is here, and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) were adopted and are part of the underlying bill. The bill before us also makes some significant improvements, improvements that we thought needed to be made over what we have learned over the last 4 years by creating an off-patent drug fund within NIH and setting up a public-private foundation to support the research necessary for these important drugs. The bill also addresses some concerns that were raised by both the FDA and the GAO with regard to labeling. The bill enhances the labeling process and provides the FDA commissioner the authority to misbrand a drug if drug companies actually drag their heels and do not do what we are looking for. Twenty-eight national children's health advocacy groups support this bill's passage. Among them are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, and the National Association of Children's Hospitals. This bill deserves to be passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives. We should follow in the other body's footsteps, which passed this, by the way, on a unanimous consent. So I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for their leadership. It has been a pleasure working with my colleagues.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Joe Zucca, a distinguished constituent of the 14th Congressional District of California, who is being honored on November 6, 2001, by the Sacred Heart Schools of Atherton, California, with the 2001 St. Madeleine Sophie Barat Award. Joe Zucca has given generously of his time and talents to educating children for fifty years. A science teacher at Carlmont High for many years, he came out of retirement in 1981 to become a member of the faculty of St. Joseph's School. Joe Zucca has left a lasting impression upon generations of students including my daughter Karen, now Academic Dean at St. Joseph's, and my son, Paul. The founder of Zucca's Institute, a five day trip to Yosemite National Park for eighth graders, Joe Zucca created the program to give students the opportunity to learn more about the biology and geology of the park. Joe Zucca has also worked tirelessly to educate members of our community on the ecological richness of our surroundings. The publisher of An Encyclopedia of Plants and Animals on the Sacred Heart Campus, he is currently developing the Butterfly and Hummingbird Garden on the St. Joseph campus. In addition to his extraordinary contributions in the field of education, Joe Zucca has also served as an active participant in local government. A former Mayor of Belmont, he has also served as a Trustee for the Belmont Elementary School District. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor Joe Zucca as he receives the 2001 St. Madeleine Sophie Barat Award. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting him and thanking him for his extraordinary service to our community. We are indeed a better community, a better county and a better country because of him.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Donna Gilboa, a distinguished citizen and a resident of San Mateo County, who is being honored on November 6, 2001, by the Sacred Heart Schools of Atherton, California, with the 2001 St. Madeleine Sophie Barat Award. A graduate in history from Ohio State and Columbia Universities, Donna Gilboa went on to teach at various educational institutions, including a private school in Detroit, Michigan, Portland Community College, and Portland University in Oregon. She became a member of the faculty of Sacred Heart Preparatory in 1975. For twenty-five years, Donna Gilboa served as Chair of the Social Sciences Department at Sacred Heart, instilling in her students a love and a deep appreciation of history. Donna Gilboa is best known at Sacred Heart for her legendary World Civilization course. Delivered with uncompromising detail and a witty sense of humor, her lectures never fail to inspire. My daughter Karen, now Academic Dean at St. Joseph's School, credits Donna Gilboa with instilling in her a lasting love of history, leading her to ultimately choose education as a career. Karen considers herself exceptionally fortunate to teach with her today. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor Donna Gilboa as she receives the 2001 St. Madeleine Sophie Barat Award. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her and thanking her for her extraordinary service to our community. We are indeed a better community, a better county, and a better country because of her.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lorraine C. Horn, a distinguished citizen and resident of San Mateo County, who is being honored on November 6, 2001, by the Sacred Heart Schools of Atherton, California, with the 2001 St. Madeleine Sophie Barat Award. An alumna of Sacred Heart School, Atherton, and San Francisco State University, Lorraine Horn served as Chair of the Board of Trustees of Sacred Heart School, Atherton from 1987 until 1991. In 1998, she gave generously of her time and talents to the Sacred Heart community as Chair of the yearlong centennial celebration of the School's founding. Lorraine is an active and vital participant in numerous community service projects, including the Peninsula Bridge Program, Families in Transition and the Peninsula Auxiliary of the Medical Mission Sisters. Lorraine Horn is passionately committed to education. She is the devoted mother of three and the doting grandmother of two. Lorraine and her husband Albert have earned well-deserved reputations as outstanding volunteers and philanthropists within our community. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor Lorraine C. Horn as she receives the 2001 St. Madeleine Sophie Barat Award. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her and thanking her for her extraordinary service to our community and our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sister Nancy Morris, RSCJ, a distinguished citizen and a resident of San Mateo County, who is being honored on November 6, 2001 by the Sacred Heart Schools of Atherton, California, with the 2001 St. Madeleine Sophie Barat Award. Sister Nancy Morris, RSCJ was born and raised in Piedmont, California and is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley. She entered religious life and the Society of the Sacred Heart in 1951. She began her illustrious career in school administration in 1961 when she became Principal at Sacred Heart Broadway in San Francisco. Five years later she was named head of the San Diego College for Women which is now the University of San Diego. In 1971, Sister Morris became the Director of Schools in Atherton, a position she held with distinction for eighteen years. During her tenure, the boarding school was closed, and in 1984 Sacred Heart Preparatory admitted boys for the first time in its history. She continues to be an active, vital member of the Sacred Heart community, preserving its history and traditions for today's students and their families. She is widely revered as a woman of uncompromising integrity who has the highest standards for anyone who works with children, including herself. Her understanding of the spirit of St. Madeleine Sophie Barat is unmatched and her knowledge of the history of Sacred Heart Schools Atherton is unequaled. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor Sister Nancy Morris as she receives the 2001 St. Madeleine Sophie Barat Award. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her and thanking her for her extraordinary service to our community which has strengthened our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida for the work that he has done on this and how he is handling it, which is always, his work always bears the mark of excellence. Mr. Speaker, I have long thought that our Nation's airports are part of our Nation's security. That was debated in the Congress for many years. September 11 changed that attitude in the country. I do not think there is a citizen in our Nation today that would question that our national airports are and should be part of our national security. That is why I rise in support of the Oberstar-Lipinski-DeFazio bill. Now, the Senate passed it 100 to nothing. For those that say this is partisan, it does not have to be. The Senate showed the way. They very seldom do. We know that our firefighters are part of public service. We do not go to the ABC Corporation to hire them. We do not hire our police officers that way. Today, we need Federal standards, Federal training, baggage checks; and our Nation's airports must, indeed, be part of our national security. We need to pass the bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1552, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, which extends the moratorium on Internet taxation. The current moratorium expires on October 21. As we now know the Internet has had a global economic impact on the way business is transacted and some of the rapid expansion of the Internet is due to the fact that it has remained free from restrictive taxes. There is growing concern, however, that as e-commerce continues to flourish, states and localities are losing more and more of their sales tax revenue because we lack a uniform system of collecting sales taxes on Internet purchases. Collecting these taxes is further complicated by the diverse and extensive web of taxing authorities throughout the country. We need a nondiscriminatory tax system dealing with these complexities which will be fair to the states, and that at the same time continue to foster the expansion of e-commerce. The development of such a plan requires a thoughtful, careful, and innovative approach among participants at both the state and federal levels. Extending the ban on Internet taxes for two years will give all involved entities more time to assess the impact of e-commerce on state revenues and to develop an equitable system of taxation and collection. By doing so, we can continue to reap the benefits e-commerce has to offer, while not sacrificing important and necessary revenue to states and localities.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, and everyone that is here tonight to raise the flag during October, which is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in our Nation. It is a very important time for everyone in the country, and I thank our colleague for just talking about yesteryear when breast cancer, 2 words, really were not uttered. It was a source of embarrassment, it was a secret, it was something that was just between a woman and her physician, and that has changed, and it has changed enormously. Today, in the year 2001, while we do not know or have not found a cure for breast cancer, much has been done in order to make progress to reach that goal. That is why I think October is especially important. Today, October 24, is the first anniversary to the day that a bill was signed into law that so many of us were a part of. Now, one might think that legislation that was written some time ago to address underinsured and uninsured women relative to treatment would be an absolutely simple idea that would flow through the Congress. Well, while we had more than a majority of Members that had signed on to the bill, there were still enough Members in the Congress to play havoc with it and to play politics. But a year ago today, that bill that I referred to, and my colleagues that are here right now were the stalwarts that helped raise this up and make it a law, the breast and cervical cancer bill was signed into law. Now, what was that bill all about and what has happened in a year's time? I think it is unprecedented. First of all, we have constituents that came to us that were able to take advantage of a program that a much earlier Congress, and I believe the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) was a part of at that time, where women could apply through a program of the Centers for Disease Control, the CDC, they could go locally and be able to get the tests that would tell them what shape they were in, essentially. It is a very good law and there were many women who applied for that and were able to use it. However, the Congress had not taken the necessary steps that once any of those women were detected to have breast cancer, that they could then seek treatment. So we essentially said, we will help you find out, but when you find out that you are victimized by this disease and also by a lack of insurance coverage, by the way, in this country, that you were on your own. There was story after story that came to us, because we had hearings on this, and the legislation was written. Today, because of the law that was signed into law, the bill that was signed into law, there are now I believe 33 States that have taken up the call to use the funding that we fought so darn hard for in this bill. We had to have money in the bill to encourage States to place monies next to Federal dollars in order to carry out the treatment of these underinsured and uninsured women. Now, who are these women? They are the women that we meet in the coffee shop that wait on us, the waitresses, the older women that went into the workforce later on in their lives, but spent most of their lives raising their children. Sometimes their husbands left them. They had absolutely no insurance coverage whatsoever. So I think that the Congress did a very, very good thing a year ago today. I know it was a great day of victory. What I want to bring into focus this evening is how important women and their families are across the country, because were it not for the advocates that constantly came to the Hill, that sent their e-mails to Members and to key Members of Congress to make this happen, all under the umbrella, really, and the organizing genius of the National Breast Cancer Coalition in our country. They came to Washington over and over again. Their stories inspired us. By the time this bill was signed into law a year ago today, there were women that had come to the Hill that did not enjoy the news because they had lost their lives to breast cancer. So I want to salute the National Breast Cancer Coalition in our country for the work that they did to help make this possible. I would like to read into the Record the States that are now participating in this program, and they are in alphabetical order. I think it is a real honor. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington State, West Virginia, and Wyoming. So if anyone in the Congress wonders whether we can make a difference, whether when we raise our voices to change a system, to add on to it, to pay attention to our constituents and their stories, we can indeed make a difference in our time, we can do something noble that is going to enhance the lives of American families. So thank you to those families, thank you to the advocates, thank you to the women of the Congress. Mr. Speaker, when we run for office, we are so often asked, especially as women, do you think that we should vote for you just because you are a woman? My response during my campaign was, no, that is not enough. But understand that when women go to the Congress, they take their life experiences to that public table. We know we have very complicated bodies. We know that mammography and its standards needed to be raised. It was the women in the Congress that did that. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place into the Record my thanks to a very courageous man in the Congress and that is our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). He has been really the guardian angel of and created the funds through the Department of Defense, $175 million, that is directed toward the research for breast cancer, and he is recognized across our Nation and our Women's Caucus for the work that he does really very quietly year in and year out. So we pay tribute to him. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the women that are tuned in this evening and might be listening to us that we hope that we have made you proud of not only the Women's Caucus, but the women that have come to the Congress. I want to salute my colleagues, past and present, upon whose shoulders we stand. I see the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is here who, before I came to the Congress, was doing this work. I want to thank my colleagues that are the cochairs of the Women's Caucus. It is a very important vehicle. I know, as Auntie Mame says, that we have miles to go and places to see, but we will continue that fight. We will not rest until we find the cure for this disease that has victimized too many.