Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Commerce for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when we passed the bipartisan patients' bill of rights on October 7, we made a commitment to the American people to reform the managed health care system in our country. Webster's dictionary defines reform as, quote, ``to put an end to a harm by introducing a better method or course of action.'' The Senate bill does not provide a better course of action. Rather, its weak consumer protections continue to allow HMOs to sacrifice quality and reliability for profits. As we go to conference with the Senate, we must insist that the basic consumer protections included in the House-passed patients' bill of rights are retained, the guaranteed access to specialists at no additional cost, the access to saving clinical trials, the assurances that medical decisions are made by physicians, not insurance bureaucrats, the direct access to OB-GYN services, the ability to hold our health plans accountable in court when its decisions to withhold or limit care cause injury or death. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Dingell motion to instruct conferees.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today the House is taking an important step to bring our Nation's laws in line with the explosive growth of E- commerce. In 1997 my office was the first to establish a virtual district office in the Congress. I quickly realized my constituents were not permitted to provide their authorization for any casework with an electronic signature. Subsequently, I introduced the first piece of legislation addressing the issue of electronic signatures during the 105th Congress and succeeded in passing this bill into law. The legislation requires Federal agencies to make Government forms available online and accept a person's electronic signature on these forms. Following on this success, I introduced a bill in the 106th Congress to expand the legality of electronic signatures to the private sector. Today, we're voting on a bill that Chairman Bliley introduced which attempts to accomplish the same goal as H.R. 1320. The Congress must ensure that there are no roadblocks impeding the growth of E-commerce. E-commerce is expected to generate over $1.3 trillion worth of business by 2003. Our laws should not impede this staggering growth so we must act to bridge the gap between now and the time when every State has passed an updated form of the Uniform State Law Code. This legislation encourages States to pass a uniform law so that our Nation's consumers and businesses will not have to face 50 different sets of regulations to engage in E-commerce. I am concerned about the electronic records provisions in this bill, and hope that with further work, these concerns will be ironed out by conferees. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1714. Our Nation's economy will be the beneficiary.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my grave concerns about the practice of reprocessing and reusing single-use medical devices. There have been several recent media reports of medical devices intended for one use only being cleaned and used again on a different patient. Delicate devices, such as balloon catheters and biopsy forceps, are being reused on patients and causing infection and injuries. It's estimated that as many as one in every three hospitals are reprocessing and reusing medical devices intended for single-use only. They are doing it without the consent of the patient and they are charging Medicare and the Federal Government the full price of a new device. This practice is both deceptive and dangerous. Unsterile, brittle devices are injuring patients. A recent article in U.S. News & World Report told of a 50-year old woman who needed surgery when two reprocessed catheters broke during a brain scan. Premature babies have suffered infections from unsterile sutures. A biopsy patient was contaminated with hepatitis B from reused biopsy forceps. Mr. Speaker, FDA clearly has the authority to regulate the practice of reusing medical devices yet it has failed to do so. Representative Upton and I are introducing legislation today to ensure FDA regulation so that patients are protected. Our bill, the Reprocessed Single Use Medical Device Patient Safety Act of 1999, will require reprocessed medical devices to undergo pre-market approval for safety and effectiveness. The bill will also require hospitals to get a patient's informed consent before reusing a single-use medical device on them. Finally, the bill will require hospitals to monitor and report any injuries or infections that occur as a result of using a reprocessed medical device. I understand the fiscal constraints hospitals are under. Managed health care has cut their payments so drastically that they feel pressured to cut costs wherever possible. However, we can't continue putting patients at risk in order to save a few dollars. We must put patients before profits. I urge my colleagues' support for the Reprocessed Single Use Medical Device Patient Safety Act of 1999.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to count myself among the cosponsors of H.R. 1180 as it will truly improve the lives of people with disabilities by helping them to achieve self-sufficiency through employment. People with disabilities want to work yet our current system discourages them from doing so by taking away their health care coverage. This bill will undo this practice and provide job opportunities for the estimated 72 percent of Americans with disabilities who want to work yet remain unemployed. Under existing law, when a person with a disability takes a job, they lose health care coverage through the Medicare or Medicaid programs. Yet private sector health coverage is often unavailable or unaffordable for people with disabilities specifically because of their disability. H.R. 1180 would allow states to extend Medicaid health care coverage to working people with disabilities who would otherwise be eligible but for their income. We should not be forcing Americans with disabilities to choose between work and losing their health benefits or forgoing work in order to maintain them. Now, more than ever, thanks to innovations in medicine and technology, people with disabilities can and should be able to work. People with disabilities deserve to be able to contribute their talents and skills to society and to have broad options for obtaining the care and services they need to be productive workers. H.R. 1180 provides these services--services like Medicaid coverage and Tickets to Work. The bill also provides grants to states to develop infrastructures for working people with disabilities and for outreach efforts aimed at getting more people with disabilities to work. We took the first step toward significantly improving the lives of people with disabilities when we enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. Thanks to that law, people with disabilities can no longer be discriminated against in hiring. With passage of H.R. 1180, we will take the next important step to ensuring that the thousands of Americans with disabilities who are offered jobs this year will be able to take them.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lewis E. Platt, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett-Packard who is retiring after 33 years of service to the Company. Hewlett-Packard has flourished under Lew Platt's leadership. The Company, based in the heart of Silicon Valley, Palo Alto, has increased its revenues every year since Mr. Platt was elected President and Chief Executive Officer. But Lew Platt's success cannot be measured by sales figures only. Lew Platt took it upon himself to create a workplace second-to-none in its acceptance of women and minorities. Because of his passion and commitment to create a level playing field for all his employees, he built upon the established ``HP Way,'' to the much-celebrated corporate values instituted by the Company's founders Bill Hewlett and David Packard. And because of Lew Platt's leadership, Hewlett-Packard is consistently among the top ten of Fortune's Best Companies to Work For in America. Mr. Platt has focused Hewlett Packard's corporate giving on three objectives: significantly improving K-12 science and math achievement, increasing the number of women and minorities studying and teaching science and mathematics, and ensuring that all children are ready to learn when they begin school. Under Mr. Platt's guidance, the Company has donated approximately $55 million each year to education. Lew Platt's leadership has extended well beyond Hewlett-Packard. In 1995, he was appointed by President Clinton to the Advisory Committee on Trade Policy Negotiations. He has served as Chairman of one of its three task forces, the World Trade Organization Task Force. He also serves on the Cornell University Council and the Wharton School Board of Overseers. Lew Platt has also exemplified the best in leadership in his own community--Silicon Valley. In 1996, he was elected Co-Chair of the Board of Directors of Joint Venture: Silicon Valley, an organization formed to strengthen our local economy and help make our region a better place to live for everyone. Under his leadership, Joint Venture: Silicon Valley has launched a number of initiatives that bring people together from business, government, and education to identify and act on regional issues affecting our economic vitality and our quality of life. He has also served as a member of the California Business Roundtable. Mr. Platt's leadership in California's 14th Congressional District and Silicon Valley which I'm so privileged to represent is a model for all to follow. Through his extraordinary leadership of H-P and the industry, Lew Platt has contributed mightily to our community and our country. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Lew Platt for who he is and all he has done. We are indeed a better country and a better people because of this man.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to salute all the Members that have worked so hard to bring forward the Dingell-Norwood bill. I would like to say some things today that really will remind us of some of the greatest things that have happened in this Chamber in the past chapters of American history: when a Congress and a President put together Social Security, when a Congress and a President put together Medicare. In our day and our time, we, too, can do something noble. The American people are really pleading with us. They are saying to us in our town hall meetings, wherever we gather in our congressional districts all over the country, fix the ills in this system. There are parts of it that are broken. We need access. We need fairness. We want our physicians, our doctors, that sacred relationship between a patient and a doctor. We want the doctor to make the calls. There is interference in the system, and we know what we need to do. The Patients' Bill of Rights is the bill that the American people genuinely support. We know that. There is politics of special interests here that take amendments and debates one way or another. But I am convinced that the American people still respect access to the courts, not overuse of the courts, but access to the courts, and that they want the laws to be enforceable ultimately if that is where it has to go. We can cast a vote that is going to keep faith with the American people. I believe that when they come back to judge us, that this will be the yardstick by which they will measure Members of the 106th Congress. I ask my colleagues to defeat the substitute. There is no substitute for the Norwood-Dingell bill. Let us pass the Patients' Bill of Rights and do ourselves proud in this Congress.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce The Early Education Act of 1999. This bill would supplement state efforts in providing early education to children before they reach kindergarten. It authorizes $300 million a year so that high-quality, accessible early education will be available to all children. Early education is vitally important to the success of our children, both for their academic progress as well as achievements in life. The National Research Council reported that early education opportunities are necessary if children are going to develop the language and literacy skills necessary to learn to read. A New York Times article also reported that ``[students] with higher quality preschool classes did better in language and math skills'' than those who were not in these classes. Research suggests that a child's early years are critical in the development of the brain and that early brain development is an important component of educational and intellectual achievement. Evaluations of state efforts demonstrate the value of early education. Compared to children with similar backgrounds who have not had the benefit of early education, children who have are more likely to stay academically at or near their grade level and make normal academic progress throughout elementary school. These students are also less likely to be held back a grade or require special education services in elementary school. They are more likely to show greater learning retention, initiative, creativity, and social competency. They are more enthusiastic about school and more likely to have good attendance records. The Early Education Act of 1999 would provide additional means for states to expand their education systems to ensure that our children will have the utmost in opportunities. Studies estimate that for every dollar invested in quality early education, approximately seven dollars are saved in later costs. I can't think of many things that Congress does that are more important than the education and health of our children. I hope all my colleagues will agree with me on the importance of early education and support this bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation, and I want to extend my special thanks to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). We came into the Congress together. He has been a great colleague. If we had paid attention to him on campaign finance reform and independent counsel, this country would be in eminently better shape. The American people want us to pass this. Why? Because they want to believe in their government, in the institution of the Congress. We continue to do less and less on this issue, and their faith in their government, in this institution of the Congress, in this place that is supposed to be the House of the people, they believe in less and less. Why? Because they know that money has more and more and more to do with the decisions that come out of this place. The House of Representatives can distinguish itself by doing the right thing for the American people. Do we not try to engage our constituents to participate in our campaigns? They are doing so less and less. They are engaging less and less because they know that money has more and more to do with what goes on here. Today, this vote can inject more confidence in the system. We should comport ourselves the way our Founding Fathers and Mothers would. Pass this needed legislation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Palo Alto Medical Foundation on the occasion of the dedication of its superb new facilities, located on 9 acres on El Camino Real in Palo Alto, CA. The new facility will unite health care, research and community education in a beautiful, new, $120 million, state of the art building. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation's new facility will bring together over 250 physicians and hundreds of support personnel to care for 130,000 patients who will make more than 750,000 visits to the Clinic this year alone in a modern facility suited to the importance of this work. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation's state of the art new facility helps the Foundation live up to its tradition of being a place ahead of its time. Begun in the early 1920's when Dr. Tom Williams opened a medical practice in Palo Alto and recruited Dr. Russell Van Arsdale Lee to join him, the Clinic became a permanent partnership soon after Drs. Fritz Roth, Esther Clark, Blake Wilbur and Milton Saier joined them. Three physicians joined the group during the depression years: Drs. H.L. Niebel, Harold Sox and Robert Dunn. Together with Drs. Lee, Roth, Clark, Wilbur and Saier they become known as the founding partners. After World War II a surge of growth on the Peninsula caused a surge in growth at the Palo Alto Clinic. Twelve new physicians joined the clinic in 1946 and by the 1960's there were 40 partners. In 1961 the Clinic's Russell V. Lee Building in downtown Palo Alto was completed. The Palo Alto Medical Research Foundation was founded in 1950 and soon became an internationally known institution. It is now the Research Institute of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. In 1980 the Palo Alto Medical Foundation was formed, combining the Health Care Division, Research Institute and Education Division under one nonprofit, umbrella organization. In 1992, PAMF officials recognized the need for joining a larger health care system and selected Sacramento-based Sutter Health as it partner. From its beginning, the Palo Alto clinic was known for innovation in treatment methods, in technology and in meeting new health care challenges. This tradition continues today as the PAMF pursues its mission of providing and integrating quality health care, health education and biomedical research to improve the health status of our region. Mr. Speaker, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation is an extraordinary community resource, one built on a vision of excellent health care, education and research. I salute the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Robert Jamplis, the founders and all those involved with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation for working to create this extraordinary new community asset. I join with them in celebrating the opening of this great new facility and wish them continued success in the pursuit of providing extraordinary health care to the greater Palo Alto Community. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this outstanding institution, all it has achieved and all it continues to do to provide first rate health care to our community, thereby strengthening our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and in support of extending Normal Trade Relations with China. U.S. exports to China have quadrupled over the past decade and last year alone, our exports to China totaled over $14 billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the U.S. economy is envied by the rest of the world. Our economy has rebounded and flourished because we decided it was more prudent to engage our trading partners than to build walls around our borders. We do have the responsibility to actively continue an aggressive push for human rights and environmental reforms, recognizing that these responsibilities need not come at the expense of our economic prosperity. They can and should be addressed in concert with economic issues. The U.S. policy of engagement ``with our eyes wide open'' best exemplifies the vision needed for global trade success in the new economy. Today, we should renew this policy and defeat this resolution. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and support the continuation of Normal Trade Relations with China.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Democratic substitute and in opposition to H.R. 2488, the fiscally irresponsible Republican tax bill of 1999. I support the Democratic substitute because it does three things. First, I believe that the ultimate tax cut are low interest rates for the American people. We will achieve this by paying down our national debt. Second, it secures Social Security and Medicare and third it provides targeted tax cuts that invest in our people and our economy. One of the tax cuts is making the Research & Development tax credit permanent. This tax credit has been critical to our nation's stunning economic growth, but it is not permanent and recently expired once again. Because of its start-stop nature, companies are unable to rely on the full benefits that the R&D tax credit provides. Imagine if the home mortgage deduction was temporary. Homeowners would live in uncertainty, and the housing industry would be in chaos. It's time to make the R&D tax credit permanent. The Democratic substitute makes it permanent; the Republican plan does not. The Republican plan is irresponsible. It will promote huge budget deficits, more national debt and weaken the American economy. It will set up a generational mugging. I urge members to vote for the Democratic substitute. We can't go back--we must go forward.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Restoration of Women's Citizenship Act, legislation that corrects an antiquated law that mars our nation's history. In 1922, Rose Bouslacchi, an American citizen, married Conrad Sabatini, a tailor by profession and an immigrant from northern Italy. When the couple married, a federal law existed which stripped women of their U.S. citizenship if they married alien men. Later that year the U.S. granted Conrad Sabatini the privilege of citizenship but in accordance with the law, refused to reinstate Rose Bouslacchi's citizenship. During the course of her life Rose Bouslacchi reared a family of five daughters, each a college graduate and each a contributor to the well being of our nation. Four became teachers and one became a nurse. Rose Bouslacchi was an active member of her church and worked with her husband in the running of their business. Her life embodied the values of family and faith, representing the best of America. But, Rose Bouslacchi could never be called an American again. Rose Bouslacchi was not alone. There were many women affected by this law. On September 22, 1922, the Congress recognized the gross inequality of the Act, and in a series of acts, created procedures to reinstate citizenship for most of the women affected by this law. But the changes will never help Rose Bouslacchi. By a legislative oversight, the women who married between 1907 and 1922 were not able to retain their citizenship until procedures were created in 1952, at which point many of these women had passed on. The Restoration of Women's Citizenship Act will rid our history completely of this discriminatory law by granting citizenship posthumously to the women who didn't live long enough to take advantage of the Nationality Act of 1952. I urge all my colleagues to join me in this important effort by cosponsoring the Restoration of Women's Citizenship Act.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), for yielding me this time and for his work on this resolution, as well as my colleagues who are cosponsors of this resolution. I cannot think of a time coming to this floor since I was elected to the House that I skipped over with glee to come to the floor to salute the women of this championship team. I am not really someone that can give my colleagues very many statistics about sports, and I think that that was shaped from my childhood because we were really not encouraged to be participants on the playing field of sports. My father taught me how to swim very well and also how to water ski, but when it came to the other sports, we were not encouraged; the teams were not there in the schools that we went to. But this weekend that all changed when billions of people around the world were glued to their TV sets to watch the American team do something that really raised up the whole issue of women in sports and how we can compete and be world champions. Our American flag that is behind you, Mr. Speaker, was carried throughout the stands in the Rose Bowl in California, my home State, and I think that the message that went around the world is that America can compete; that we all have a share in the opportunity in this country, which is really what the idea of America is all about. So I salute each woman that brought this victory home, to each of them that wove together this exceptional team, and I say bravo, bravo, bravo, and especially as a woman Member of the Congress of the United States I could not be prouder of them. They have made history, they have raised up the hopes and the aspirations of every girl and young woman in our Nation and sent out the message around the world that America is a can-do country and that women indeed are part of the championship of this idea of America.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, and I want to salute my colleagues that have written it and brought it forward to us. I think that they have done a very, very important task for us and this is a very important debate. Before I talk about the amendment and why I think it is a prudent one, I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), who has been faced with enormous challenges, a budget that does not match it, but I think a heart and a mind that has stretched to do magnificent things in our country. He is absolutely right that we are not committing the kind of resources that we should to the conservation and the protection of the lands that we are already responsible for. So in no way do my comments or should my comments be thought of as being critical of what he has done, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate his leadership and what has come from it. When the Congress created the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 1964 to purchase land and water resources for the creation of open spaces and local and national parks and recreational areas, the Congress then took an enormous important step. One of my distinguished colleagues came to the floor earlier and said, this is Sophie's Choice. It is not. Sophie's Choice is a movie with a marvelous actress in it. This is not Sophie's Choice. This is about the Congress stepping up and really keeping at least part of her word from 1964. Thanks to that congressional act, nearly 7 million acres of parkland are now protected, and over 37,000 State and local park and recreation projects have been created. I cannot think of an action that the Congress has taken that meets with the success of this. This is one of the most meritorious cases in our Nation. In my district alone, with one of its great values being the environment and the protection of parklands and open space, nearly 8,000 acres have been preserved since 1964. In fact, it is an area that is one of the envies of our Nation because so much has been protected. When we enacted the Land and Water Conservation Fund to an authorized level of $900 million, we continued to fund the program, but not at the levels that we had originally promised. In fact, they have gone lower and lower, and we have continued to divert funds away from land and water and conservation, and that is what this amendment tries to repair in a very small way today. I think we should take the next step by fully and permanently funding the Act. My good and great friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), along with many others, seeks to do that. I am proud to cosponsor the Resources 2000 Act. Today we are looking for just a small step. The Miller bill is the final big step. Of course, we know he wears a very large shoe, and that shoe would accomplish a lot if that step were taken. So I support this because I think it is important. It is not only important because we see what it has done, but we know, as Auntie Mame said, that we have miles to go and places to see in our country. This is an act that gives our local governments and our State governments the right kind of leverage. It attracts, it becomes a magnet for private funds, and it is one of the ingredients for one of the greatest recipes of success in our country. Going to our parks, I have been very fond of saying, is one of the cheapest vacations for the American people. We want them at all levels. Everyone cannot get to Yosemite. Everyone cannot get to a national park. So let us move on and take a small step of Congress reestablishing her word, the word that was established in 1964, and take this important step today by embracing this amendment. It is a great one, it is a good one. It will do good things for our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the very distinguished ranking member of the House Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I think I am going to leave my printed copy just on the stand here because really I think everyone in the Chamber has their minds made up about what kind of a vote they are going to cast on this bill. We are here as representatives for the American people. So my message to the American people, whomever is tuned in, is what is it that we are debating? What is it that we are fighting and arguing about which is so important in this bill? First of all, this is a bill to reshape financial services and how they are delivered in our great Nation. It is an overhaul of laws that need to be overhauled because they have not been touched really since the Great Depression. So we know that there is a timeliness to this effort and an importance attached to it. I want to raise something to the American people, and the reason why I come to the floor in my disappointment is because when I cast my votes in the House Committee on Commerce I had every intention of supporting this financial services bill. This is not an excuse on my part, American people. I feel very strongly about this. What brings me to the floor is the issue of privacy, financial privacy. Now, if someone asks Mrs. Smith how much is in her money market account, her first reaction is, why should I say? It is not anyone's business. Financial dealings and how we conduct our finances is very, very private. Who we write our checks to, where they go, whether it is to a doctor, should the bank manager know more or as much as our personal physicians? I think not. I think it is the responsibility of the House of Representatives, the House of the people, the people that are out there, to protect their personal financial privacy. That is what I am raising in this. Regardless of what anyone else says, and whomever rises, when one reads the print, it says, we will protect their financial privacy, dot, dot, dot, with all of these following exceptions. I do not think this is good enough. I know we can do better. I think the American consumer deserves this kind of protection. In fact, I think there is going to be like a prairie fire of objection that moves across the country on this issue, because no one would believe that their elected representative would not stand between them, the constituent, and whatever financial institutions are out there. We need them to do business with. But that our personal, private financial information be sold and dealt away and possibly used against us? Come on. We can do better than this. I would say thanks to Mr. and Mrs. America. This is what brought me to the floor.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and wonderful leader on this issue and so many others from the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). I rise in support of the conference report, and I first of all want to salute everyone that has worked on bringing this resolution forward. I think it is a much improved version of the House bill. I did not support the House bill, and I was reluctant in doing that, and I think many people were surprised that I rose in opposition to it, especially because I represent so much of the high technology industry. I thought it was an effort that could be improved upon, and we have that here today, because after all, with the year 2000 Y2K problem, which has now become part of our day-to-day language across America, we wanted legislation that would help American business spend its time and its resources repairing the problem and not moving over into their legal departments to continually litigate it. This legislation provides limits on the lawsuits while providing redress for real damages, which is what the American people want and need. It encourages remediation and alternative dispute resolution over litigation, which I think is really fairly enlightened in an area that we need to build upon and do more and more with. It provides protections to companies that have acted in good faith while ensuring that bad actors will be liable for the damage they have caused. I want to take just a brief moment to salute my colleague in the other body, Senator Dodd, who has been a real leader on this issue and has worked on a bipartisan basis in the other body coupled with the hard work done, of course, with those that I have mentioned here in the House and finally in the White House. I am very pleased that the President has signaled that he will sign this legislation into law. It would not be effective if it were passed in the year 2001. So now is the moment, and I am proud to support the conference report.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker pro tempore's approval of the Journal.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Research and Development tax credit in our Nation expired. H.R. 835, a bipartisan bill supported by over 150 of our colleagues, would make this Research and Development tax credit permanent. Mr. Speaker, because the tax credit has expired, we need to act. What are we waiting for? We really should pass this bill because the bill is good public policy. Making the R&D tax credit permanent is critical to the continuing growth of America's economy, especially our new economy. If this tax credit were made permanent, our GDP would increase by nearly $28 billion over the next 20 years. American businesses, Mr. Speaker, cannot base their planning on a year-to-year renewal of this credit anymore than the American family should base their financial planning on a year-to-year renewal of the home mortgage deduction. So now that the tax credit has expired, Congress should extend it. What are we waiting for, Mr. Speaker? Let us take action on this and expand our economy in a new and better way.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in opposition to the rule. So many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have expressed very eloquently their problems with the rule and why they oppose it. My main reason and what brings me to the floor today in opposition is for the reason of privacy, privacy, privacy, privacy. If there is anything that runs through the veins of the American people, it does not matter what party they belong to, it does not matter where they live, it does not matter how much money they have, it does not matter what color they are, they want their privacy protected. There is something wrong when the Congress considers a bill where the bankers know more than our doctors or have the same information. We need to stand with our constituents in this battle, and we need to stand next to what every red-blooded American understands, that what they have in their checking account, what they have in their money market account is no one else's business. It should not be sold. It should not be marketed. It should be kept private. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member, for recognizing me for this time, and for the work that has been done on this bill by both the leaders of the Committee on Ways and Means, the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce, and certainly the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for their work on this bill. So I rise in support of H.R. 1802, the Foster Care Independence Act. I support providing more resources to the States to help children make the very important transition from foster care to independent living. I also want to express my support for the critical provision in the bill for World War II veterans, especially the Filipino-American veterans. I know that there are many of us that have worked on this provision for a long, long time and support it. I want to salute those that have seen fit to put it in this bill. For the more than 500,000, that is a half a million, children in our country today in the foster care system, turning 18 can be a frightening time. They have had a rough time being in the foster care system, because we know it is not a system that we can at all times say that we are proud of. I know of what I speak, because I rise as a foster parent. One of my kids came to us at 13 years old, and we were her 26th placement. It is very difficult to move on in life having moved through a system that is rough, children that have really not had a real home and parents to love them. So I think I know of what I speak because I have dealt with the system. For those of us that have raised teenage children, we know that it is a very, very difficult time. It is difficult for them to move out on their own and pay their own bills. So H.R. 1802 addresses this by providing States the flexibility and the necessary funding. We can do all the talking we want about these things, but if there are not the necessary resources to continue supporting these kids through the age of 21 and what comes with it, then what we want to happen really will not happen. We can do better for our Nation's children. I think this bill sets this aside and does that. There is another group of people, Mr. Chairman, who I think deserve better than the current system, and that is the underinsured and uninsured women in our country that are diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer. I am using some of this time to once again highlight something that has been left so far unattended by this Congress and I think that we need to move on it. In 1990, the Congress directed the CDC to provide screening for breast and cervical cancer for underinsured and uninsured low-income women. It was a very, very important step that the Congress took. But we need to take the next step, because women that are diagnosed through the screening are then informed by us that they are on their own; that there is not any resources for the treatment that needs to take place. A bill that I introduced with my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) would close this loophole, and I urge the leadership to not only hold a hearing on this bill that has 250 cosponsors but also to move on a markup. I think we can do this, along with what we are doing today with the foster care bill, and I thank my colleagues for giving me the time to not only underscore this but to rise in support of 1802. I support providing more money to states to help children make the very important transition from foster care to independent living. For the more than 500,000 children now in the foster care system, turning 18 can be a frightening time. That is because the system we currently have in place drops them on their 18th birthday. For those of us with teenage children, we know that 18-year-olds aren't often prepared to live on their own, paying their own bills. H.R. 1802 addresses this by providing states the flexibility and funding to continue supporting these kids until age 21. I support this bill because the Nation's children deserve better than the current system. There is another group of people who deserve better than the current system, Mr. Chairman--uninsured and underinsured women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer. In 1990, Congress enacted the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act, authorizing a breast and cervical cancer-screening program for low-income, uninsured or underinsured women through the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). This law was an important first step, but it was only a first step. While the current program covers screening services, it does not cover treatment for women who are diagnosed with cancer through the program. A bill I have introduced with my colleague, Rick Lazio of New York, would close this loophole. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act (H.R. 1070) would establish an optional state Medicaid benefit for the coverage of uninsured and underinsured women who were screened by the CDC program and diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer. The federal government should not be in the business of telling low- income women, ``We've helped you find out whether you have cancer, now that you do, you're on your own.'' H.R. 1070 is a matter of life or death. Breast cancer kills over 46,000 women each year and is the leading cause of death among women between 40 and 45. Cervical cancer has a mortality rate over 30%. Yet, it lies in the drawer of a Commerce Committee staffer with no floor action scheduled and no date for a markup. The Committee Leadership has said we don't have time for the Breast and Cervical Cancer bill. Yet, twice in the past week, the Commerce Committee has discharged its jurisdiction on legislation and brought it immediately to the floor for a vote. On Tuesday, a resolution on prostate cancer with 65 cosponsors. Today, a bill on foster care with no cosponsors. And yet, the Breast and Cervical Cancer bill--a bill with 250 cosponsors, including over three-quarters of the Commerce Committee-- remains in limbo. What kind of message are we sending to the women of this country? We have time for prostate cancer and foster care but no time for a breast and cervical cancer treatment bill that has the overwhelming support of over half the Congress and yet we have time to push through other bills? Thankfully, Mr. Chairman, we possess the technology to detect and treat breast and cervical cancer. But we must pair this with the will to help women fight this disease. Treatment for breast and cervical cancer should not be a partisan issue. In the last decade we have made great strides in diagnosing and treating breast and cervical cancer. But the causes of these cancers remain unknown and for many women how they will pay for their treatment remains unknown as well. H.R. 1070 would change that for thousands of women each year. The women of this country deserve consideration of H.R. 1070. The 18 organizations that endorse the bill deserve its consideration. The 250 Members of Congress who are cosponsors deserve its consideration. I implore the Commerce Committee Leadership to schedule a markup of H.R. 1070, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and good friend from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding me the time. I want to first of all rise in support of this very important resolution and the intent that it carries. I would like to pay tribute to my colleague the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) our subcommittee chairman, who are great supporters of this very good thing. So I want to salute them for that and thank them for bringing this resolution to the floor. After all, who amongst us can be opposed to something like this? We know the toll that cancer takes on the American people, most specifically, with men in this country. Yesterday we celebrated a magnificent holiday for our Nation's fathers. I certainly missed mine, who went to heaven about a year and a half ago. And as we bring this resolution to the floor around Father's Day, I also want to rise to speak about an issue that is important to mothers, fathers, families across this country; and that is breast and cervical cancer. When the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and myself introduced a bill in the House, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Act, we made a pledge at that press conference that by Mother's Day our goal was to secure the majority of the House of Representatives in support of that legislation. Well, we not only did that. Mother's Day came and went. It passed. We now have 250 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle in support of this bill. I think it is very important that the House Committee on Commerce take this bill up in a hearing so that it can be examined. Because the majority of the members of the committee are cosponsors, including the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) our subcommittee chairman. Now, why this bill? In 1999, the House of Representatives passed a very important and good piece of legislation. That piece of legislation directed the Center for Disease Control, the CDC, to conduct early screening for breast and cervical cancer. It has been a very successful program, but it stopped short of something. And that is, when detection takes place and cancer is discovered either in the cervix or the breast, we now say to American women they are on their own for treatment. This great Nation can do better than this. And so, the legislation moves beyond where we are now. It offers a carrot to the States where we offer more money in Medicaid for under-insured and uninsured women. We all have these constituents amongst us. We have heard their eloquent testimonies, very sad testimonies, too many of us. And so, I urge that all of the members of the House Committee on Commerce, most specifically our leadership, to schedule a hearing on this bill so that we can move forward and also to a markup. I think it is an important step for the women and the families of our Nation. By next Mother's Day, hopefully, we will have this legislation in law.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy-Roukema amendment, with thanks to these two gentlewomen for the children of America.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. I think it is deeply, deeply flawed. I am not going to reiterate what has been pointed out by my colleagues that have gone to the heart of the flaws of the amendment. What I would like to do with my remaining time is to do just a very brief congressional classroom sort of history here. How did we arrive here and begin debating what we are debating? There was a bill that was being sent over from the Senate. It was said by the Speaker that he wanted to bring about something that was reasonable on gun control. I think that this is a bob and weave effort, because the bills have been separated out. What happened in Littleton and on other high school campuses is really engraved in an inextricable way in the Americans' conscience: That is, America's children running outside of their schools with their hands over their heads because there were students inside of those institutions, inside of those classrooms, that were holding guns to the heads of other students. So the target in my view, today and in our arguments, in our debates, is what we are going to do about guns. The American people and parents across this country did not ask the Members of Congress to come here and trample on First Amendment rights. They want us to do what the Congress can and should do, and that is stay with the target and control and do something about guns going into our children's hands.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas J. D'Alesandro, III who was recently awarded the distinguished President's Medal by his alma mater, Loyola College of Baltimore, at Loyola's commencement ceremonies on May 18, 1999. Thomas D'Alesandro is one of Baltimore's great civic leaders whose leadership as Mayor of Baltimore came at a crucial time during the city's history. His dedication to the principles of justice and equality helped advance the cause of civil rights in Baltimore. Grounded in a personal commitment to these values, he led his community with a moral authority, championing landmark legislation for all he represented. Thomas J. D'Alesandro, III is part of a legendary political family. The D'Alesandros are the ``first family of Baltimore politics'' and a classic American success story. Thomas' father, Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. was also a great Mayor of Baltimore and later served as a Member of Congress. His mother, Nancy D'Alesandro, was a major figure in Baltimore politics in her own right and was described by former Governor William Schafer as ``a very fiery women, loved her kids, and was superb to old Tommy. She was a Democrat through and through.'' His only sister Nancy was elected to the Congress in 1987, and has distinguished herself as a great civic leader of her adopted City of San Francisco and is considered one of the most widely regarded Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, character blooms in critical moments of choice. At that moment, complacency must give way to action, the expected must be set aside for what is just. Thomas D'Alesandro's resolute leadership as President of the City Council resulted in the passage of Baltimore's landmark Civil Rights Act. He later said that this legislation grew not from political expediency but from a moral imperative instilled in him by his years of Jesuit education. After serving as President of the Baltimore City Council, Thomas J. D'Alesandro, III followed in his father's footsteps and was elected Mayor in 1967. During his term as Mayor, Baltimore saw advancement in nearly every avenue of equal opportunity from housing to employment. Through criticism and praise alike, he maintained his distinctive presence of straightforwardness and honesty. It was because of his leadership that Baltimore was kept calm for two full days after the tragic assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. The Jesuits of Loyola College look with pride at the extraordinary contributions that Thomas D'Alesandro has made. His service to his community, his devotion to his family, and his commitment to the faith and values taught at Loyola represent the ``Jesuit ideal'' that the Society of Jesus seeks to instill in their pupils. It is truly fitting that Loyola honors him with its President's Award. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join in honoring Thomas D'Alesandro, III for his historic contributions to civic life in Baltimore and congratulate him on being awarded the prestigious Loyola President's Award for a life lived by the highest ideals of service to humankind.