Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time. During the hearing that was before our Subcommittee on Health and Environment, which I am a member of, we had very clear testimony from individuals, one of them, the distinguished Health AIDS Director of the State of New York that said that this funding formula would hurt the State of New York and supported the Senate language and said that it would hurt California as well. Number two, the chart that was just up here and being used I questioned at the committee markup. It was removed because we are changing, shifting gears between title I and other titles, and that does not give a clear picture. Number three, the GAO admitted on the record, admitted on the record that people that live beyond 10 years did not fit within their fiscal year projections. The analysis that they had done, and they had not done an analysis of this impact. I think what has been acknowledged is the following: Is that the funding formula on hold harmless will do harm and that what we really need to have are additional resources in the bill so that we do not pit one American citizen that is HIV or with AIDS against one another. That is what is the ultimate fairness.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of the Ryan White CARE Act because without question it is the most important legislation Congress has ever enacted to provide life-saving and life-enhancing medical care and social services for people living with HIV and AIDS. It was intended as a safety net for people battling HIV and AIDS and these are really the two cornerstones of the CARE Act, reliability and stability. Yet contained in this bill that is on the floor this evening is a provision that I and others believe runs contradictory to that safety net principle. Under existing law, an eligible metropolitan area, we call them EMAs, that is our Federal shorthand, those areas receiving title I funds can lose no more than 5 percent of its funding over a 5-year period. This hold harmless provision was specifically designed to prevent the rapid destabilization of existing systems of care when changes in the title I formula were adopted by Congress in 1996. H.R. 4807 changes this dramatically, allowing an EMA to lose 25 percent of its funding over the same time period. The result will be a rapid decline in availability and quality of care, particularly in EMAs like San Francisco, where the epidemic has hit the hardest. AIDS advocates and EMAs across the country, not just the Bay Area, not just California but the entire country, including the State of New York, have expressed concern that a 25 percent hold harmless could destabilize the systems of care and undermine the very goals of the act. They fear what we already know in our area, that the 25 percent hold harmless could ironically cause great harm. I support the Senate approach of 10 percent over 5 years and I urge my colleagues, that will eventually become conferees, to support the Senate language. We want to move ahead with this bill but we need to stay true of the hallmark of the act.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Bernard Alain Portelli, who today, July 20, 2000, will become a naturalized citizen of the United States of America. Mr. Portelli came to the United States from France in 1984. Prior to coming to the United States, Mr. Portelli established himself among European royalty and within the fashion and entertainment industry as an exemplary businessman and artist. His talent, his hard work and his dedication quickly earned him a similar reputation in Washington, D.C. Based in Georgetown, Mr. Portelli has been featured on numerous television programs around the country and his talents are frequently sought out by the fashion and film industries. Today he is the proprietor of the highly regarded and highly successful OKYO Salon. For over seven years I've been blessed to call him my friend. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Bernard Portelli on this great occasion in his life and the life of our nation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3113, The Unsolicited E-Mail Act. The problem of junk e-mail is reaching epidemic proportions. I've received hundreds of calls and letters from constituents in my congressional district pleading with me to do something about the spam that plagues their computers. In Silicon Valley, where e-mail is often the communication medium of choice, deleting unwanted messages has posed a significant time and financial burden. More importantly, the proliferation of unwanted e-mail messages has raised real privacy concerns. In 1991, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to restrict the use of automated, prerecorded telephone calls and unsolicited commercial faxes on the grounds that they were a nuisance and an invasion of privacy. Shouldn't we provide the same level of protection for e-mail? Unwanted e-mail also poses a significant burden on the Internet infrastructure and on companies providing Internet access services. Unwanted and unwelcome data have flooded ISPs, considerably increasing their costs for network bandwidth, processing e-mail, and staff time. H.R. 3113 offers a balanced and effective approach to the junk e-mail problem by ensuring that providers and consumers control their own mailboxes, and still allowing businesses to market by e-mail to the millions of consumers who desire it. I urge my colleagues to support this thoughtful bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3125, The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, a bill that threatens the continued growth of e-commerce as well as the privacy rights of individuals. The Department of Justice, high-tech companies and socially conservative organizations agree--H.R. 3125 is fatally flawed. By prohibiting some types of gambling and expanding others, H.R. 3125 puts an inappropriate burden on high tech companies and interferes with the civil liberties of Americans. The legislation is rife with loopholes. Betting on horses and dogs is allowed; sports and casino-style games are not. Jai-alai is in, while state lotteries are out. This arbitrary patchwork of exemptions and prohibitions seems to be rooted in the degree of power of a particular interest group rather than sound public policy. H.R. 3125 imposes new and unprecedented regulatory burdens on the Internet that are shortsighted and threaten our civil liberties. The notice and take-down provisions are overbroad, too burdensome for ISPs, and give the government too much power. Finally, the blocking provisions in H.R. 3125 threaten to intrude on individual privacy. This Congress is still in the process of drafting legislation aimed at assuring the privacy of individuals using the Internet. H.R. 3125 would leap over that thoughtful process and attempt to regulate what many Members have vowed to allow--freedom on the Internet. H.R. 3125 puts artificial boundaries on the Internet when the Internet is designed specifically to transcend boundaries. I share my colleagues's desire to protect society from the dangers of abusive gambling which can be a corrosive agent, both culturally and personally. However, H.R. 3125 does not do what it purports to do. If Congress wants to ban gambling on the Internet then it should ban all gambling on the Internet. The piecemeal approach embodied in H.R. 3125 is an exercise in hypocrisy. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3125.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 4391, the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act. This legislation simplifies and modernizes a confusing web of contradictory tax codes involving wireless communications primarily by giving a common locus for taxation purposes. It is the result of the outstanding work by state and local government representatives, in conjunction with members of the telecommunications industry. It will reform confusing tax laws involving the state and local taxation of wireless phone services. While I regret that the Commerce Committee did not have a more active role in this floor discussion, I am pleased that this legislation creates a uniform procedure for deciding where wireless services occur for purposes of taxation. The representatives from state and local governments along with members of the telecommunications industry should be complimented for the work they have done in helping to develop this legislation. They were faced with many of the same issues that confronted the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce--numerous conflicting tax jurisdictions, strong industry interests, state and local revenue needs. Yet, after two years of extensive discussions and negotiations, these groups were able to come together and resolve the problem-- whereas the ACEC failed to reach a similar consensus on Internet taxation. Mr. Speaker, I hope the various groups who seek to solve the Internet tax issues will see that good legislation that solves complicated fiscal issues can be accomplished with hard work and good faith efforts. The legislation before us today shows that a solution is possible which is acceptable to both members of the industry and taxing authorities--and which benefits the consumer. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on this legislation and I hope it will serve as a model for addressing similar issues in the future.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the House Committee on Commerce for yielding me the time. I want to underscore something today that I think at the base of all of this is enormously sad; and that is, for the people that are tuned in and listening, this indeed is the House of Representatives, the Congress of the United States of America, the freest nation in the world. At the heart of our democracy is debate. And yet, the majority of this House will not and did not allow one side to bring their idea to the floor of the house. What are they afraid of? I can debate their idea. I do not support many parts of their plan. That is my prerogative on behalf of the people that I represent. I do not think insurance companies should be subsidized in order to bring about a Medicare drug prescription coverage for our seniors. But I think the saddest part of this today is that they are afraid of our idea. Why be afraid of what this side could bring to the floor of the House? In addition, I want to correct the Record. Democrats did do something. They established Medicare for the people of our great Nation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), for yielding me this time. For any of the viewers that are tuned in and listening to this debate, maybe we should pull back and clear the air for a moment and explain to them what this is about, kind of in an unedited way. This is an amendment that is directed at removing from the books an agreement that Smith & Wesson, gun manufacturer in the United States of America, in my view, stepped up to home plate and struck an agreement, struck an agreement. Now, any major business, corporation in this country, I do not think, steps up to home plate to put themselves out of business. So, number one, this does not hurt their business, but what it is directed toward is protecting children. I think that is very smart of Smith & Wesson because it is a very effective marketing tool. Now, this marketing tool of this amendment now comes along and cloaks itself in the Constitution that no Federal agency should be able to enter into an agreement such as this; and so, therefore, constitutionally we need this amendment to undo this agreement. I think that that is hogwash, I have to say. All of the mothers and fathers that came to Washington, D.C., to march, what were they saying? They were saying that in this country we have had enough. We do not want to bury our own children. Guns are dangerous; and in the hands of little ones, fatalities happen over and over and over again. So let us not dress ourselves up in a constitutional issue here. Let us not try to make ourselves look good. I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is a bad one. It is not what the American people want, and people should vote it down. Announcement by the Chairman

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, members of the American Leadership Forum have come to Washington, DC this week to hold what they call a ``gathering.'' ALF's senior fellows have come from around the nation to meet and reflect on the idea of civic engagement, develop projects to increase civic involvement and to announce the recipient of a prestigious award being given for the first time. The award is called the Jing Lyman Civic Leadership Award. It is named after Jing Lyman, one of the most outstanding individuals I've ever had the privilege to know. She is a national treasure and one of America's great women. Her contributions to our nation and its communities are numerous. Of particular note are her activities that reflect the values of the American Leadership Forum for which Jing has served as National Board Chair. In several organizations, Jing's role was creator and leader. She was the founder and board president of the National Organization for Women's Enterprise, Inc. She was a founding member and chair of the Women and Foundations organization. She was a founding member and executive committee member of the Stanford Midpeninsula Urban Coalition, and she was a founding member and the first director of the Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing. Mr. Speaker, the recipient of the American Leadership Forum's first Jing Lyman Award will be selected based on his or her substantial accomplishments in innovative community building and for building bridges beyond his or her own sphere or influence. Throughout her life, Jing Lyman has developed groundbreaking organizations in her community to connect women to the opportunities our society offers, and she has continually expanded her sphere of influence beyond Stanford University in order to build housing for the poor and disadvantaged throughout the community. While working on these civic activities Jing Lyman has been an active member of the Stanford University community. She has been a steady and devoted partner to Stanford University's President Emeritus Richard Lyman. Together they have been an inspiration to thousands of Stanford students. They are my close friends and my frequent advisors. Another great American woman, Eleanor Roosevelt, wrote, ``Friends, you and me. You brought another friend. And then there were three. We started our group, our circle of friends. And like that circle, there is no beginning or end.'' Jing Lyman's achievements have reflected this simple dynamic. She has not only accomplished a great deal, but she has gained innumerable friends and admirers along the way. The projects and organizations she has founded and advanced, will live long beyond ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and our colleagues to join me in extending our congratulations to Jing Lyman on the occasion of this inaugural award, and to convey the gratitude of the American people and their Congress for the extraordinary and lasting contributions she has made to our Nation.

Mr. ESHOO

Mr. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to bring to the attention of my colleagues an honor recently bestowed upon one of my most distinguished constituents, Dr. Richard Goode, M.D. Dr. Goode was recently presented with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Alumni Association of the University of California at Santa Barbara for his contributions to improved hearing. Dr. Goode graduated from UCSB with his B.A. degree in 1958. As an undergraduate, he was elected President of the Associated Students, and was presented with the ``Honor Copy'' of the yearbook ``La Cumbre'' at his commencement ceremonies. The leadership skills he developed during his years at UCSB clearly set the stage for his subsequent successes in the medical profession. Dr. Goode is a highly regarded professor and physician in our community. He has served on the surgery faculty of Stanford University School's of Medicine for over thirty years and has led the Division of Otolaryngology at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Healthcare System. He has served as President of the American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, and of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Notwithstanding all these wonderful achievements, it is his work in developing hearing technologies that has brought him the greatest recognition. Dr. Goode has developed many devices that are used regularly by ear, nose, and throat specialists, most notably the Goode T-Tube. He has had a successful business career founding two companies which manufacture high-tech hearing devices. Public service is an important component of Dr. Goode's career. He's a member of the Food and Drug Administration's Ear, Nose, and Throat Medical Device Panel and he serves with distinction on the National Institutes of Health Communicative Disorders Review Committee. Mr. Speaker, representing my constituent Dr. Richard Goode is one of the great privileges of serving in the House of Representatives. I'm proud to bring his accomplishments and recognition as recipient of the UCSB Alumni Association Lifetime Achievement Award to the attention of my colleagues and ask that the entire House join me in honoring him today.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of one of the legendary figures in the world of golf, Robert Trent Jones, Sr. When Trent Jones died last week at the age of 93, he was regarded as the greatest golf course designer in history and the patriarch of the first family of golf. His accomplishments in golf course construction and design are stunning in both their scope and beauty. He created more than 350 courses and remodeled more than 150 others. In a profession where designing a half-dozen well-regarded courses is an achievement, 79 of Trent Jones's courses were used for national championships including the U.S. Open. Every continent in the world hosts one of his courses, and he was fond of saying, ``The sun never sets on a Robert Trent Jones golf course.'' The U.S. Open was played so many times on a Robert Trent Jones, Sr. course he became inextricably linked to this premier golf event. He was known as the ``Open Doctor'' because he frequently was called to change a course in anticipation of it hosting the world's top golfers at the Open. And while the ``Open Doctor'' was a name he was pleased to be called in public, he was just as proud of the names he was called by golfers, privately muttered under their breath as they finished a round on one of his courses. Trent Jones believed a golfer needed to attack a course--and the course should attack back. His courses were beautiful to look at, but a challenge to play. He believed par meant par. To break par one should be an extraordinary golfer. Golf is a game where stories and legends have a particular importance. Trent Jones enjoyed the stories professional golfers told about his courses and the challenge they presented. The great Ben Hogan called one of his courses a ``monster'' and at a reception for Hogan's U.S. Open victory Mr. Hogan told Mr. Jones's wife, Ione, ``If your husband had to play this course for a living, he'd be on the breadline.'' Twenty years later at another U.S. Open a professional golfer said the course was too difficult. When the pro was asked what the course was missing he said, ``Eighty acres of corn and a few cows.'' In a now legendary story, at the 1954 U.S. Open, golfers were complaining that a hole Trent Jones had redesigned for the tournament was too difficult. Jones, himself an outstanding golfer, played the hole prior to the tournament with the club pro, the tournament chair and another golfer. Other Open golfers gathered around the tee in eager anticipation of tee shots going into a huge water hazard Jones had placed in front of the green. After the first three golfers teed off and made it to the green, Mr. Jones swung a 4-iron and promptly made a hole in one. Turning to the golfers around him he said, ``Gentlemen, the hole is fair. Eminently fair.'' Mr. Speaker, in addition to all of these achievements, Robert Trent Jones, Sr. was the head of perhaps golfing's greatest dynasty. His two sons, Robert Trent Jones, Jr. and Rees Jones are also world famous golf course designers and are icons in the golfing world. Robert Trent Jones, Sr. died last week on the eve of the 100th U.S. Open at Pebble Beach in California. The tournament, won by Tiger Woods, was one of the most memorable played and signaled the arrival of an outstanding champion. One legend departing and one just arriving. Trent Jones would have understood the beauty and harmony of that. He knew that was what the game of golf was about. He knew that was what life was about. And if you ever walk one of his courses, you will see that his work reflected those truths. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my House colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Robert Trent Jones, Sr. and express our condolences to his two sons, Bobby and Rees and their families. Robert Trent Jones, Jr. and his wife, Clairbome, are distinguished members of my Congressional District and I consider them to be a part of my family as well.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Markey amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. The bill we are voting on today is quite simply an overreaction. The FCC attempted to clarify a rule. It then made a controversial decision and subsequently withdrew it, as they should have. Today, my Republican friends at the behest of conservative religious groups are seeking to make sure that the FCC can never again venture into this area. They are seeking to use the power of the Congress to write a statute that fences the FCC off from this area. Now, some may think this is the way that the Congress should spend its time. I think the FCC acknowledged that it made the mistake that it did; but it is overreaction, because the bill goes even beyond overreaction. The bill is showpiece legislation for religious groups in my view. It is unnecessary. It is very, very poorly drafted, and it creates a bad precedent; but these are not criteria which exclude us from considering it. It goes beyond that. The bill contains a very dangerous constitutional flaw. It opens the door for religions to qualify for a free noncommercial educational license provided at taxpayer expense. We should strike that portion of the bill, by at least passing this amendment. Without this amendment, in my view, the legislation makes clear that the majority intends to change the fundamental nature of public broadcasting in America. No longer will anyone have to prove their educational mission to obtain an educational noncommercial television license. That standard will be changed. It will be relaxed to require only that a religious purpose exists. And how will the FCC define that religious purpose? It cannot; because the Government really has no business defining it. Therefore, anyone calling itself a religion can qualify; anyone including cults and charlatans that have called themselves prophets and even some that spread hate in our country, people like David Koresh, and Jim Jones others. I do not think the Congress wants that. I do not think the country wants that. Mr. Speaker, without this amendment, the bill will present the FCC with the choice of choosing between religious groups. On its face it presents an unconstitutional predicament for the FCC. In practice, it will allow potentially anyone to qualify for this free license. I appreciate the intent of those that support this bill. Many Members on the Committee on Commerce expressed what I think were somewhat sincere views. Protecting religious expression is not only a worthwhile objective for this Congress, it is our duty. Remember the oath that we all took, when we were sworn in. Mr. Speaker, we should pass this amendment, if we do not, we will be passing legislation that will be overturned as unconstitutional. And more importantly, if we do not, we are providing television time and taxpayer money to underwrite religion. This is a slippery slope of government sponsorship of religion itself. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this amendment. It makes sense. It is good for the country. We do not need to be taking up the time of the Court to strike down the unconstitutional work of the Congress.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very important conference report that is before us today. As so many of my colleagues have mentioned, we have moved into a new era, from pen and quill, from wax, from all kinds of imprints that would conclude a contractual agreement between parties. Back in 1996, I believe I was the first to establish a virtual district office, where constituents could go on-line to fill out the government forms. But I very quickly realized that they could not sign off on these forms. So it was in that Congress that I brought to my colleagues the whole issue of digital signatures. The government now, because of the legislation that I had introduced in the last Congress, and it became law, now allows for digital signatures. But today, this legislation, very importantly, recognizes that electronic commerce is here, here to stay, and that we, too, have to extend across the States to businesses and to individuals the allowance of what we now call a digital signature. I am very proud of the work that we did that is reflected in the legislation that I introduced, and building on it, of course, what our chairman and so many others have done. Two very important aspects of this legislation are that the financial services community is included in this and, very importantly, that there are consumer protections. Our chairman accepted the work that some of us did. There was a very important amendment that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), myself, and others introduced. That strengthened the backbone of this bill. It has made it better for the consumer. It has made it better for our Nation. I salute him for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I thank those that have worked as conferees and have held onto this. And I think that as we embark upon this Internet revolution, this new economy, that there are more challenges upon us. And I think the first, and one of the major steps, is being taken today. So I urge my colleagues to accept this conference report. It is a very important one. I look to the future of building on the issues of privacy, of cyber security, of intellectual property, of copyright and also of financial reporting standards. Please vote for this. This is a step that matches the new century, and I salute our chairman for his leadership on it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. and Mrs. McHugh of Belmont, California for their actions of good will. Colleena and Michael McHugh were on a weekend visit to Los Angeles when they spotted a van that had been profiled on a news report as belonging to a known kidnapper. Colleena reported the van to authorities on her wireless phone and was asked by the dispatcher to keep a close distance until California Highway Patrol units could take over. The couple kept the van in sight for about 40 miles before police began their pursuit and eventually made an arrest. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to honor the McHugh's for making California safer. Because of their assistance in this emergency situation they are also being honored by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association with the Wireless Samaritan Award. This award is given to individuals from each state across the country recognizing the contributions heroic individuals make to their communities. The McHugh's have more than earned this award for their exemplary civic service. I'm proud to represent them and I salute them for the distinction they bring to California's 14th Congressional District.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kit Dove, an outstanding environmental activist of California's San Mateo County coast who passed away on April 20, 2000, and who will be honored in a public memorial service at Quarry Park in El Granada, California on June 17, 2000. Mr. Dove was very active in politics since he first moved to the Coastside with his family in 1980. He served as a board member and President of the Granada Sanitary District in the 1980's, and more recently, he served on the San Mateo County Agricultural Advisory Committee. In 1986, he was a co-author of the successful San Mateo County Measure A, a growth control measure for the unincorporated areas of the Coastside. In 1994, he helped pass the Coastal Protection Initiative which closed certain loopholes in Measure A. I had the honor of working closely with Kit to form the Midcoast Community Council in 1991 and I was always impressed with this passion and tireless dedication to the Coastside and environmental preservation. He was subsequently elected to serve on the first Midcoast Community Council and was chosen to be Chairman. Kit Dove was not only active in politics, he was also active in getting others to participate in the public arena. Numerous Coastside environmentalists and elected officials have credited Kit with their own activism in politics, environmental issues and public participation in the community. His wisdom and ability to bring together diverse groups of individuals made him a much sought after advisor and a well respected member of the Coastside community. Mr. Speaker, Kit Dove was a very kind, selfless man dedicated to his family and his community. Anyone who ever came in contact with him gained a greater appreciation for the environment. He lives on through his two children, through his devoted wife Mary and through all of us who were fortunate to have known him. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a wonderful man who lived a life of purpose and to extend our deepest sympathy to Mary Freeman Dove and the entire Dove family.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my good friend and colleague from California, Nancy Pelosi. This amendment increases NIH funding by $2.7 billion and would restore the funding level to the amount the Congress agreed to two years ago when it decided to double the NIH budget within five years. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is truth-in-budgeting legislation. In 1998, and again in 1999, this Congress decided it was critical the National Institutes of Health be funded at a level which doubled the NIH budget by Fiscal Year 2003. Now we are in year three and this appropriations bill seeks to back off from that promise. Let me remind my colleagues why we decided to double the NIH budget. According to a Joint Economic Committee report issued just last week, 15 of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 were developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded research. If the Pelosi amendment does not pass, the funding cuts in this bill mean there will be 1,309 fewer federal research grants. Mr. Chairman, my district has the largest concentration of biotechnology companies in the world. The scientific advancements they are working on are moving at revolutionary speed. We cannot afford to cut back on the groundbreaking work they are doing. The need for increased research grants at NIH has never been greater. Infectious diseases pose a significant threat as new human pathogens are discovered and microorganisms acquire antibiotic resistance. In today's Washington Post, the front page story was about a World Health Organization report which said that disease-causing microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into much more dangerous infections that are failing to respond to treatment. Mr. Chairman, in the story the WHO warned . . . that the world could be plunged back into the preantibiotic era when people commonly died of diseases that in modern times have been easily treated with antibiotics. A WHO official said, The world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide, before the disease wears the drugs down first. Mr. Chairman, we need NIH to join in this battle before time runs out. And speaking of time running out, the number of Americans over age 65 will double in the next 30 years. What are we going to do to fight the diseases of the elderly? Also, the threat of bioterrorism--once remote--is now a probability. Mr. Chairman, our purpose for a sustained funding track for NIH was so that the multi-year process for NIH grantmaking was well planned and spent federal funds efficiently. This amendment by my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, achieves that objective. More importantly, the Pelosi amendment keeps a congressional promise. Last March, over 108 Members on both sides of the aisle signed a letter urging a $2.7 billion increase in the NIH budget. The Pelosi amendment would provide that increase. It is the third installment on a bipartisan plan to double the NIH budget by 2003. I thank my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, for offering this amendment, and I compliment her on her leadership and her tireless efforts to improve the health of this country. I urge my colleagues to join her and support this amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Student Advisory Board of the 14th Congressional District of California. The Board is a group of exceptional high school students who live or attend school in my district and have been chosen from a competitive pool of applicants for a year-long research project. This year the Board chose the issue of gun control as their research topic, a very timely topic for the students in light of the national tragedies we have witnessed. On May 13, 2000, the Board made their final presentation in the Palo Alto City Council Chambers. It was well attended by elected officials, parents, friends and law enforcement officials. Everyone in attendance agreed that the Board's presentation was extraordinarily thoughtful and very informative. I was deeply impressed with the exceptional research done by the students and their work gives me hope for the future well- being of our nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to the Student Advisory Board of the 14th Congressional District of California thanking them for their superb work and their leadership and submit their report for the Record.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, when Medicare was created in 1965, seniors were more likely to undergo surgery than to use prescription drugs. Today, prescription drugs are often the preferred, and sometimes the only method of treatment for many diseases. In fact, 77 percent of all seniors take a prescription drug on a regular basis. And yet, nearly 15 million Medicare beneficiaries don't have access to the lifesaving drugs you produce because Medicare doesn't cover them. Countless others are forced to spend an enormous portion of their modest monthly incomes on prescription drugs with 18 percent of seniors spending over $100 a month on prescriptions. Seniors want and need prescription drug coverage. Hence, the question before Congress is not whether we should provide a Medicare drug benefit but how to do it? There are some in Congress who think that the way to do this is to turn the problem over to the private insurance market, but the private insurance market is pulling out from under seniors in the Medigap and Medicare+Choice markets. Others believe that we should limit how much drug companies can charge. I disagree. I understand the investment required for R&D and I believe that price controls will ultimately limit access. I've devised what I believe is a common-sense approach that incorporates a generous, defined benefit that's easy for seniors to understand with provisions that reduce administrative inefficiencies and increase competition. The result will be a more affordable drug benefit for both beneficiaries and the Federal Government. The bill is simple. Available to all Medicare beneficiaries, the Federal government will pay half of an individual's drug costs up to $5,000 a year (when fully phased in). There are no deductibles and a modest premium of approximately $44 a year. For seniors who exceed $5,000 in drug expenditures or $2,500 in out-of-pocket costs--the Federal Government picks up the whole tab. What about drug costs? By allowing multiple PBM's to participate, my bill will, for the first time, introduce open competition into Medicare and drive down prices. We know from the private marketplace that simply purchasing a large quantity of drugs does not drive down prices. Drug companies grant discounts when a PBM can show that it will increase its market share. By allowing multiple PBMs, my bill increases competition, lowers prices and provides greater consumer choice. We also removed administration of the program from HCFA. The healthcare system has evolved rapidly, and regrettably HCFA has not kept pace. HCFA lacks the expertise to run a benefit that relies on private sector competition to control costs. Fortunately, there is another agency that has expertise interacting with private sector health plans, and has proven that it can administer benefits effectively and efficiently with a minimum of bureaucracy. It's the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) which runs the widely acclaimed Federal Employee Health Benefit (FEHB) program. Under OPM's leadership, I'm confident that an efficient and effective competitive benefit can be integrated successfully into the Medicare program. Congress must enact a Medicare drug benefit this year. For our Nation's seniors, prescription drugs are not a luxury. During these times of historic prosperity and strength, there is absolutely no reason that we should force seniors to make between buying prescription drugs or groceries. In introduction today I urge all of my colleagues to give careful consideration to my bill. It provides a real answer for seniors without price controls and without threatening innovation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished American and proud Californian, Evelyn Banks Neely, on the occasion of her retirement as director of the Income Maintenance Division of the County of San Mateo, CA, Human Services Agency. Evelyn Banks Neely has served San Mateo County honorably and with distinction for more than 32 years. She has been instrumental in developing and implementing innovative social services, programs, including the homeless General Assistance Program, the Greater Avenues for Independence [GAIN] Program, and the SUCCESS Program, which she piloted in Redwood City. She successfully negotiated San Mateo County's first In-Home Supportive Services contract and has served with distinction as the past president of the County Administrators' Association and the San Mateo County Women in Management organization. Evelyn Banks Neely has provided great leadership in forming Black Women in County Government, co-chairing the development of a symposium highlighting issues and strategies for preserving black families and serving as a member of the first Affirmative Action Advisory Committee in San Mateo County. Evelyn Banks Neely has dedicated her leadership skills to many volunteer activities, including serving as past president of Delta Sigma Theta, serving as past president of Links, Inc., a volunteer service organization, serving as fundraising co-chair to provide scholastic benefits to high school graduates, and she has maintained active membership in the National Association of Black Social Workers. Evelyn Banks Neely's accomplishments have been previously honored by the California State Senate, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame, and the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority. Evelyn Banks Neely has earned the respect, admiration, and dedication of the hundreds of Human Services staff who have served with her during her progressively responsible leadership positions with the County of San Mateo. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Evelyn Banks Neely for her more than 32 years of exemplary service to the people of County of San Mateo, the State of California and our Nation. Her life of leadership and community involvement is instructive to us all. Her dedication to the ideals of democracy and public service stand tall and it is fitting that she is being honored on the occasion of her retirement. Therefore I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join me in honoring a great and good woman and someone I'm privileged to call my friend and colleague. We are indeed a better county, a better country, and a better people because of Evelyn Banks Neely.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished American and dedicated veteran who passed away on March 15, 2000. James Herbert Howard enlisted in the United States Navy on July 7, 1942 beginning a period of thirty-six years of service to his beloved country. He was a veteran of World War Il. He was catapulted off aircraft carriers, transferred at sea and saw combat in the Solomon Islands. James Herbert Howard served aboard several LSTS and was assigned to the U.S.S. Teror until it was decommissioned in 1947. Chief Howard served as a Quarter Master aboard such distinguished Naval Ships as the U.S.S. Ajax and the U.S.S. Ticonderoga. In 1972, Commander N.H. Kragseth wrote, ``Chief Howard is a man of poise with an excellent military appearance . . . that he can express his ideas and communicate his instructions. He is dedicated to the United States Navy. He contributes to our retention, advancement and organization and he is an individual I would most want in my unit.'' James Herbert Howard was a highly valuable asset to the United States Navy. He received numerous commendations including the Good Conduct Medal and Bronze Star on July 1, 1945, January 20, 1960, and January 20, 1963. While Chief Howard might have been frightened as a young man when he saw combat, he believed there to be a greater fear, a fear of a great nation losing freedom. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a wonderful man who lived a life of purpose, who loved his country and who believed in the United States of America and that we extend our deepest sympathy to his loving family.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that will repeal the 3 percent telephone Federal excise tax. The tax should be repealed, it has outlived its use, it passed originally, as has been stated by several colleagues as a luxury tax. Virtually every home in America now has a telephone, even those that can afford very few luxuries. Indeed, the tax was first passed a century ago when the telephone was a new and simple device. Today, at the dawn of another century, telecommunications has changed so much that it is impossible to apply the tax even fairly. If consumers use a telephone line to access the Internet, they will pay this tax. If they use a cable modem, they will not. Furthermore, how does this tax apply to new delivery systems? Will people who use delivery systems like DSL be taxed when they use DSL for telephoning, but not be taxed when they use the Internet? I think our responsibilities include repealing old, outmoded laws and also make it possible for our constituents to enjoy new advancements in technology. This legislation does both. In the recommittal, I urge my colleagues to vote for disclosure. The American people deserve it, they deserve the right to know. None of us can brag that this campaign finance system is something that is good for the country. Vote for disclosure.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. It's important that we recognize the rich cultural heritage of the Asian and Pacific Islander American community and all that they have contributed to America and American values. All too often, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans are subject to prejudice and acts of violence. We must resolve to repair the damage done from past abuses and recognize and promote equality in every walk of life and in every way possible. I introduced H. Con. Res. 111 to condemn acts of prejudice against Asian and Pacific Islander Americans and support political and civic participation by Asian and Pacific Islander Americans. I'm also proud to be a co-sponsor of legislation and a signatory on several letters that recognize the rich heritage of Asian and Pacific Americans and condemn past wrongs. I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in supporting the following bills and letters: I'm proud to be a signatory of Representative Matsui's open letter in support of the President's initiative aimed at preserving WWII-era Japanese American Internment Camps in order to educate future generations about lessons learned from this stain on our nation's history. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the Wartime Parity and Justice Act which would grant relief to Japanese Latin Americans who were abducted and unlawfully interned in the United States but who were not included in the settlement agreement signed into law by the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. I call for the leadership of the Congress to move forward without delay on the nomination of Bill Lann Lee as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and I pay tribute to the efforts of the Administration to act on Bill Lann Lee's appointment. The President has appointed more Asian Pacific Americans to Administration positions and the Federal bench than any other President. In June 1999, the Clinton-Gore Administration issued an Executive Order dedicated to improving the lives of Asian Pacific Americans, the first of its kind ever issued. President Clinton has also proposed $698 million for civil rights enforcement this year--a 13 percent increase--to prosecute criminal civil rights cases, including hate crimes and police misconduct. Asian and Pacific Islander Americans have suffered unfounded and demagogic accusations of disloyalty throughout the history of the United States. We should, instead, recognize the rich cultural heritage of the Asian and Pacific Islander American community and all they have contributed to America and American values. We must never forget the strength our country has gained from the inspiration, the hard work, the loyalty and the leadership of Asian and Pacific Americans and all they contribute to the strength of our nation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a distinguished American, a proud Californian and a great labor leader, Ray Perry, who has been chosen to receive the C.O.P.E. Unity Award at the 21st, Annual Committee on Political Education banquet. Ray Perry has devoted more than two decades of his life in steadfast support of the San Mateo County California Central Labor Council. Since the beginning of his career as an apprentice mechanic at Alameda Naval Air Station in 1966, Ray Perry has brought his skills and energy to community activism and has become a leader of the labor community. First appointed as a Delegate to the San Mateo Central Labor Council in 1979, Ray Perry is now President of the International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge 1781, representing over 10,000 employees of United Airlines at San Francisco International Airport. As a Delegate, he's worked tirelessly to guide and develop the COPE structure into one of the most well organized, innovative and effective political programs in San Mateo County. Because of his leadership in the campaign to gather signatures, the drive to restore CAL-OSHA was successful in preserving the toughest worker safety program in our nation. Today, Ray Perry continues his extraordinary work. As Chairman of the U.A.L. Grievance Committee, he is currently working to strengthen the United Airlines Labor Coalition of Machinists, the Association of Flight Attendants, and the Airline Pilots Association. He is widely admired for his boundless energy and his effective work as well as his passionate crusade to improve the lives of those around him. Ray Perry's life of leadership and community involvement is instructive to us all. His dedication to the ideals of democracy and public service stand tall. I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join me in honoring this good man whom I'm privileged to know and call my friend. We are indeed a better community and a better country because of him.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, today our Nation, and I believe this Congress, stand at the beginning of a new century; and with it comes the new opportunity to export our products to the largest emerging market in the world. America today is enjoying unparalleled economic successes. We are the envy of the world. Economic growth is sustained. Unemployment is low. Inflation has been kept at bay. The new economy has brought new wealth and new opportunities to our Nation and its workers. I am proud to represent a district which is home to Silicon Valley and where the high technology industries are the primary contributors to the economic engine of our new economy. But this issue is larger than any one industry or any one congressional district. President Kennedy said, ``Economic isolation and political leadership are wholly incompatible. The United States has encouraged sweeping changes in free world economic patterns in order to strengthen the forces of freedom, but we cannot ourselves stand still. We must adapt our own economy to the imperatives of a changing world and once more assert our leadership.'' These words hold truth for us today. This legislation, I believe, is good for the American worker; and it opens the greatest market for the products they make to a much greater market. This House and our Nation, I think, really owe a debt of gratitude to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). Refusing to turn their backs on history, they, instead, chose to make history by writing legislation that brings the framework of the famous Helsinki courts to our relationship with China. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe that we will seize a historic opportunity, not only for our country and its workers, but that future generations will say that we took an important step, seized the opportunity for our people. So I thank my colleagues for this opportunity, and I thank especially the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for the work that he has done. Mr. Speaker, today our nation--and this Congress--stand at the beginning of a new century and with it comes a new opportunity to export our products to the largest emerging market in the world. Today America is enjoying unparalleled economic success. We're the envy of the world. Economic growth is sustained. Unemployment is low. Inflation has been kept at bay. The New Economy has brought new wealth and new opportunities to our nation and its workers. I'm proud to represent a district which is home to Silicon Valley and where the high technology industries are the primary contributors to the economic engine of our New Economy. But this issue is larger than any one industry or any one Congressional District. President Kennedy said, Economic isolation and political leadership are wholly incompatible. The United States has encouraged sweeping changes in free world economic patterns in order to strengthen the forces of freedom. But we cannot ourselves stand still. We must adapt our own economy to the imperatives of a changing world and once more assert our leadership. These words hold true for us today. This legislation is good for the American worker. It opens the greatest market of this new century to American products and American values. I want to salute our colleagues, Congressional Levin and Bereueter for refusing to turn their backs on history and instead choosing to make history by writing legislation that brings the framework of the famous Helsinki Accords to our relationship with China. Mr. Speaker, China's outdated politically-decrept political system has shown over fifty years that it can repress its people by keeping them closed off from the rest of the world. I doubt they can succeed with this economic and political repression in the face of an Internet society where millions of computers and wireless telephones will connect China to the rest of the world. An Internet society punches a thousand holes in the dike of political repression. China not only will be exposed to American values, but it will become part of the community of nations. I urge my colleagues to vote yes to extend permanent normal trade relations to China and thus seize this historic opportunity.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today I honor teachers throughout our nation and speak in support of H. Res. 492, which expresses a sense of the House of Representatives in support of America's Teachers. Teaching is one of the oldest and most important professions in the world, yet it is a profession which is underappreciated by too many. I come to the House floor today to demonstrate my appreciation for the teachers who shaped my life and those who inspire our children today. Diane Hooper is one such individual from California's 14th Congressional District who has devoted her life to shaping and improving the lives of tomorrow's leaders by educating and inspiring her students. Ms. Hooper teaches math at Sequoia High School and she was named San Mateo County's Teacher of the Year for 2000 for her outstanding contributions. The 14th Congressional District is blessed with Vonneke Broekhof- Miller and team teachers Brenda Goldstein and Andrew Lucia. They teach middle school science at Peterson Middle School in Sunnyvale and were honored at the 1999 American Teacher Awards last November. Paul Jorgans, a teacher at Stanford Middle School in Palo Alto was recognized for developing cutting-edge curriculum for integrating computer technology into classroom curriculum. Clarence Bakken from Palo Alto Unified School District, Gayle Britt from the San Carlos School District, and Shane Tatman from the Cupertino Union School District were recognized for excellence in teaching by the Innovations in Teaching Awards Program. These teachers are shaping the way students learn in the 21st Century by using innovative and proven methods that inspire other teachers and lead to increased student learning and greater achievements. Teachers touch the future and shape it every day. My sister, Veronica Georges, teaches in the Sequoia School District and my daughter and son-in-law are devoted educators as well. They along with Linda Mitchell, Pat Dawson, Sheila Haberkorn, Kris Weaver, and Dale Deffiner are the mothers, fathers and sisters of my staff who are influencing America's future today. I'm exceedingly proud of them and the superb work they do daily. This statement of recognition by the House of Representatives is but a small tribute of gratitude to those who have dedicated themselves to education. On behalf of a grateful nation, I salute every teacher in our land!