Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding. I thank everyone concerned for the additional time in the debate. This is important language supported by certainly the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and I think it will serve the House well.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation which I am very proud to have been the chief Democratic sponsor of, H.R. 1689. This is a narrowly focused bipartisan bill that closes a loophole in the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that allowed for, or created really, a circumvention to State courts. The migration to State courts is not a minor problem. It represents an undermining of the core reforms that this Congress implemented in 1995 because the reform act relied on uniform application and enforcement of the law in order to be effective. The bill is needed because as long as frivolous strike suits are threatening high growth companies, they will be held hostage. Consumers are hurt because the companies will not use the safe harbor provision in the 1995 law. Mr. Speaker, I have a very limited amount of time, one minute, to try to summarize a year and a half's work, and so I want to spend the remaining seconds to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). I also want to thank my very effective partner the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White). It has been a pleasure to work with him and all that have been a part of this. I urge adoption of this legislation. I think the 105th Congress will distinguish itself by doing so.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, it is my clear understanding that, adopting this legislation, Congress does not intend to alter standards of liability under the Exchange Act. I would further like to ask the gentleman from California, who was author of the '95 Reform Act, whether it is his understanding that Congress did not, in adopting the Reform Act, intend to alter standards of liability under the Exchange Act?

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the debate by 2 minutes.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and I especially want to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), for his tremendous efforts to get this bill to the House floor. It has not really been an easy process, even though we are all singing the praises of the bill tonight. I salute our committee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the ranking members. Mr. Speaker, the legislation tackles two very complicated subjects, the Internet and taxes. To explain legislation about either one in the brief period of time is difficult enough; put them together, and the complexity increases exponentially. That is why this bill, which calls for a time-out on Internet taxation, is so important. It is clear that precedents are already being set as taxing authorities around the country search for creative ways to define and tax the Internet. States and localities have targeted the Internet as a new resource for funds, given the tremendous growth in electronic commerce over the past few years, but it is time for the activity really to come to a stop, at least until we all have a better understanding of the ramifications that taxation will have on the future of the global information infrastructure. Representing Silicone Valley, I can tell you that it is rare that high technology companies, particularly Internet companies, come and ask the Federal Government to become more involved in their business. When they do, it is a good indication that a problem exists that could damage the future viability of their industry, and this is an industry that represents the fastest growing segment of our economy. So this legislation that we are considering today is a sound approach to dealing with the development of inconsistent and, in many cases, unworkable taxation of the Internet. It gives us a chance to study the issue, moving forward only when we fully understand what effects taxation will have on the development of what is becoming a global resource that must be protected. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on June 16, as United Flight #200, scheduled to depart San Francisco at 8 am did not depart until 10 am due to mechanical difficulties. I landed at Dulles International Airport at 5:34 pm, and therefore missed Rollcall votes 232 and 233. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on both.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would love to yield, but I do not have the time. I would like to complete my train of thought. I have been on the floor since a quarter of 7 this evening to do this. We can do this, but we have to be very careful to distinguish excuses, throwing sand in the wheels and jamming them up and those issues that really mean something. We are all pros here. We are all pros here. We know what can be done with parliamentary maneuvers. Try to explain that to your constituents. They know it is not for real, they know that there are excuses coming out of this place. Why do we not reach for the brass ring and say to the American people, ``You know what? We can do it.'' It says, ``In God we trust.'' In the people we trust. 68 percent in the poll in the Wall Street Journal of the American people said they wanted this system reformed. We can do it, Republicans and Democrats. Yield and do not succumb, my colleagues, to these things that are being thrown in as excuses, because that is what they are. Let us come through the 105th Congress the last few days that we have, legislative days, and show the American people that we are worthy of their trust, that we can move legislation through this place where it is not encumbered by any money except the interests of the people that we have come here to represent. Remember that first day our excitement. If we can come to this floor having passed this legislation, having it signed into law, I predict that every day we come to this floor we are going to have that same exhilarating feeling that we did the very first day when we raised our hands, took our oath, and saw all of the endless opportunities without anything getting in the way. Again, I thank my colleagues. They have given me a great deal of courage and inspiration by what they have fought for and kept the faith. And we are going to keep the faith, and I have trust that we can do this.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. If we are going to talk about constitutional issues and freedom of speech, it seems to me that none of us have very much freedom of speech if we are drowned out by millions of dollars. And so we have to, in the House of Representatives, in the Congress, really speak to the hopes and aspirations of the American people and say to them, yes, we are capable of addressing this; we can rebuild the confidence that the American people should have in this institution. They know it is broken. They know much of what goes on here is not on the level. They know that money speaks to this process and that it warps it and that it is corrosive. We have and should have to corral the political will in this place to reform the system. No bill is perfect. Why? Because human beings are not, so no piece of legislation is perfect. But this is sound. It addresses the things that are really broken down.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for yielding to me, and I want to commend all of the sponsors of the Meehan-Shays legislation for the work that they have done, the source of encouragement that each one, especially the original sponsors of the bill, has been to all of us that have yearned for and hoped to make the kinds of changes that we are seeking to make in the campaign financing system that we have today. We hopefully all remember the day that we came to this floor and we raised our hands and took our oath of office, and we had families sitting in the gallery. I do not think that there is a moment in my life that quite matches that one: my hopes and aspirations for the future, the good wishes of my constituents, whether they voted for me or not. We start out, really, I think, with 100 percent goodwill. I think the only thing that could match that day was the day that my two children came into this world. I have to tell my colleagues that if there is one thing that is constantly rubbing down or taking the polish or the gleam off of that magnificent day, that very first day when I became a Member of Congress, is the system by which we are elected, that is, the money in the system. We know it is broken, we know it cannot be defended, but right here on the floor tonight we are debating an amendment that is being offered to this very good piece of legislation. In my view, it seeks to throw some dust in the wheel, to clog up the wheel, throw sand into the wheel, to jam it up.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor John Belforte, upon his retirement as an extraordinary educator for forty-three years. John Belforte served for three years during the Korean War before choosing to pursue a career in education. He earned his Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees from San Francisco State University and embarked upon a life dedicated to education. He was an elementary school teacher for five years, and an elementary, intermediate and middle school administrator for a combined thirty-eight years. Under John Belforte's guidance, numerous projects were undertaken and accomplished at Bowditch Middle School, including a TV/Radio Broadcast Studio, three computer labs, a planetarium, tennis courts, technology work stations in each classroom, an enlarged intra-mural sports program, a conflict resolution program, student selected scheduling and programing, and the highly successful Bowditch Means Business, an innovative business and school partnership. During his tenure as Principal of Bowditch Middle School and as a result of John Belforte's efforts, the school was designated by the U.S. Department of Education as a Blue Ribbon School and a California State Department of Education Recognized School of Excellence. John Belforte served as President of the Jefferson Elementary School District Teachers Association, president of the San Mateo County Teachers Association, Regional President of the Association of California School Administrators, a member of Phi Delta Kappa and the College of Notre Dame Faculty Advisory Committee. John Belforte has given generously of his time and talents to our community, serving as a Commissioner on the San Mateo County Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission, and as a Board Member of the Human Investment Project and Beresford-Hillsdale Homeowners Association. He's been recognized by the Foster City Rotary and Toastmasters International for his outstanding achievements and contributions, and San Francisco State University for his distinguished service as a member of the Advisory Committee to the Department of Education. His extensive involvement was recognized by the City of Foster City which issued a Proclamation naming May 31, 1990 as John Belforte Day. Throughout his distinguished career, John Belforte has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues and peers for his dedication and his effectiveness in improving our educational system. He has touched the lives of countless students and served as an inspiration to many. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating John Belforte on his retirement, thanking him for his tireless efforts and dedication, and wishing him all the best in the years ahead.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 284, the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution. Last summer, the Congress and the President worked together to reach agreement on a balanced budget for the first time in 30 years. This resolution breaks that agreement. I cannot support this resolution, House Democrats will not support this resolution, and the President will not support this resolution. Even the Republican Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said this resolution is a ``mockery.'' Ths resolution includes drastic cuts in non-defense discretionary spending. Even more outrageous than the magnitude of these cuts is the fact that the resolution does not specify which programs will be cut or by how much. However, the list of suggested cuts distributed by the Budget Committee clearly reveals the intentions of the Republican leadership. The cuts are so broad and so sweeping that almost every American would feel the impact of this budget resolution. This budget resolution will gut environmental protections, law enforcement, low income housing, and health care for uninsured children. And it does nothing to protect Social Security. I'd like to list just a few examples of just how extreme this resolution really is. The budget resolution: Eliminates Americorps; Cuts the federal commitment to Mass Transit programs, which we just increased under the ISTEA reauthorization; Freezes future spending on law enforcement, at the same time that Republicans argue that there is a lack of commitment to fight the war on drugs; Ends the federal commitment under Title I which assists low-income areas meet their education needs; Ends the work of the Legal Services Corporation; Ends federal support of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; Ends federal land acquisition programs; Reduces the Children's Health Insurance Program, which was part of last year's Balanced Budget Act, by 40 percent; and Increases premiums for health insurance for all government employees. Why are all these cuts necessary? Not to secure the future of Social Security. Not to protect the solvency of Medicare. Not to make the needed investment in our children's education. The cuts are ``needed'' so we can have another tax cut. This is not a serious budget resolution. It is a empty political gesture and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. The most often asked question of me at home, especially with the young people that I represent in California's very distinguished 14th congressional district, is the following: What got you interested in politics, and why do you want to be in it? What do you want to get done? I was attracted to public service at a very early age when I was in high school. We did not vote then. You had to be 21 years old to vote. And I became involved in the presidential campaign of John Fitzgerald Kennedy When he won, I honestly felt that I had put him over the top with the work that I had done. It was a time when public service was celebrated. Today in 1998, 38 years later, I am sorry that we cannot report the same thing. Why? Because people do not believe that this place is on the level. And they are right. Why? Because money influences everything that takes place here. We must step up to the bar and encourage the American people that they can indeed have confidence in this institution and their representatives by reforming a broken congressional finance campaign system. Vote for the Meehan-Shays bill. It is the real one. We should pass it, and we should be judged as to whether we have voted for it or not.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Meehan-Shays Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1998. This legislation bans soft money and prevents this ban from being circumvented by loopholes and exceptions. Campaign finance reform is essential to restoring public confidence in not only the political system but our legislative process, as evidenced by a Wall Street Journal/Hart poll in which 68% of the people questioned said they believed the American political system is more influenced by special interest money than it was 20 years ago. But we don't need polls to tell us that the American people distrust the way that soft money has infiltrated this institution. All of us in this body have heard from our constituents, and they are clamoring for reform. Mr. Speaker, those opposed to this legislation would have us believe that the bill is unconstitutional, that it would erode our First Amendment rights to free speech. H.R. 3256 does not impinge on our constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech. What it does do, however, is strengthen the definition of the term ``campaign ad'', so that groups who pay to produce and broadcast these ads must adhere to federal election laws. Specifically, under the Meehan-Shays Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, any ad run within 60 days of an election that features a clearly identified federal candidate is considered ``campaigning'' and will have to be paid for according to FEC guidelines. This provision ensures that the public is fully aware of who is paying for these so-called ``issue advocacy'' ads. It would be applied evenly, to Republicans and Democrats, corporations and unions, individuals and organizations. Mr. Speaker, we have a limited number of legislative days remaining in the 105th Congress. We are well into the 1998 election cycle. H.R. 3256 is a reasonable and well-crafted bipartisan approach to an issue that the American people want this Congress to address as soon as possible. Let's do the right thing, let's pass real reforms to the Congressional Campaign System.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed that the National Security Committee was unable to include funding for the construction of a new composite hangar for the Air National Guard 129th Rescue Wing stationed at Moffett Federal Airfield in California. I understand the fiscal restraints placed on the Committee, especially in the area of construction and infrastructure. That is why I am urging the Administration to give careful consideration to including the project in the FY 2000 budget currently being developed. Currently, the hangar and maintenance facilities for the 129th Rescue Wing at MFA are inadequate and unsafe for personnel and aircraft. The existing hangar (Hangar 3), built before World War II, was designed to house dirigibles an is much too large and in need of costly renovations and repairs. A newly constructed Composite Maintenance Hangar would greatly enhance the operational effectiveness and readiness of the California Air National Guard and the 129th Rescue Wing. NASA was designated as the host agency to accommodate federal assets at Moffett as a result of the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommendations. Subsequently, all tenants at Moffett were required to relocate to contiguous areas, using available facilities to house their activities. As a result, there are no aircraft hangar facilities available to house the nearly 200 maintenance personnel performing repairs to the HC-130P and HH-60G aircraft in the Air National Guard area. Hangar and related aircraft maintenance activities are currently being performed in a World War II hangar designed for dirigibles. The hangar is almost seven times the size of what is needed by the Air National Guard, and is located a substantial distance from the identified Air National Guard area. This building is constructed of wood with a metal roof and has no fire protection or state-of-the-art safety features. The current facility has inefficient and obsolete utility and environmental systems. The building also requires extensive code upgrades to ensure seismic safety, and the alarm systems are inadequate. Because of the age and condition of the existing hangar, critical and substantial operation and maintenance (O&M) funds are being expended annually to keep the hangar marginally useful. A Life Cycle Cost Report done by the Air Force shows that there is a one year payback involved in the construction of this new composite maintenance hangar, and design of the project has been completed. I urge the administration to include this project in next year's budget, and hope that at this time next year I can thank the Committee for its work in protecting and assisting the members of the Guard that serve California.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Josue Hoyos, Vice-President of Skyline College in San Mateo County, upon his retirement after 33 years of dedicated service to education. Josue Hoyos has always taken pride in commitment to his country and to others, as demonstrated by his service in the U.S. Army from 1958 to 1960 and his activity with the Civil Rights movement in the 60's and 70's, marching with Cesar Chavez and the Farm Workers Union. Josue Hoyos began his teaching career in 1965 at Ridgeview Junior High School in Napa where he was appointed to a faculty group to develop a team teaching approach to World History, a major innovation in the teaching of history at that time. He was appointed Director of Adult Basic Education at Napa College in 1969 and devoted himself to teaching ESL in the fields to farm workers, serving as a liaison to the Mexican American Community and strengthening the ABE program. Josue Hoyos developed the first EOPS program for Napa College in 1970, began the development of a Chicano Studies Curriculum and taught U.S. and Chicano History. In 1972 Josue Hoyos was appointed to head the Open Education Program (EOPS) at Skyline College. He was instrumental in forming a Traveling Seminar to visit community colleges in California to learn about Learning Centers for Developmental Education. The result of the Traveling Seminar and the proposals which were written followed the plan for the Learning Center developed at Skyline College. Josue Hoyos was also the first Special Program and Services Dean at Skyline. Josue Hoyos was appointed Dean of Students at Canada College in 1977, where he developed a School Relations Program and continued to work closely with the community and legislative bodies in the interest of the College. While Dean of Special Programs and Services at College of San Mateo in 1980, Josue Hoyos was the operations administrator of the first child care center in the San Mateo Community College District and established the successful Parent's Night Program and Services. Josue Hoyos served in the first U.C. Berkeley Community College Council in the early 1980's which developed processes to ease the tension between the University of California system and Community Colleges, and to increase the number of transfers to U.C. As a result of the Council, several community colleges implemented the U.C. Guaranteed Enrollment Program or U.C. Scholars program for graduating high school seniors who were eligible to be admitted to U.C., but because of space limitation were not accepted. The University guaranteed their admission as juniors if they went to selected community college that had agreements with U.C. In 1989 Josue Hoyos was appointed Vice President for Student Services at Skyline College. He developed and implemented the College's first Security Department, chaired the committee that developed the Student Equity Plan, one out of eleven Community College Plans that were approved out of 107 colleges, developed the Incident Command System for disaster preparedness, initiated the planning process for the Student Services Center and led the development of Skyline College's first Children's Center. Josue Hoyos has served on numerous Community College Committees developing school policies. In addition, he has been an active participant in community organizations including the Napa City Planning Commission where he was instrumental in pushing through the first low income housing plans in 1970, Co-founder of the Chicano Educators Association in Marin, Napa, and Sonoma Counties and a member of the Mexican American Educators Association, Planned Parenthood, Hispanic Concilio of San Mateo County, the Child Care Coordinating Council, the Daly City/Colma Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the Latino Leadership Council of San Mateo County. Throughout his distinguished career, Josue Hoyos has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues and peers and has done the utmost to improve the educational system. He has touched the lives of countless students and has served as an inspiration to many. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Josue Hoyos on his retirement, commending him for his tireless efforts and dedication, and wishing him all the best in the years ahead.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out today obviously in strong support of the Roemer amendment, a proposal to restore the ability of colleges and universities to carefully design and budget their own athletic programs. I would like to add this for the record, because some of my colleagues on the other side of this issue are talking about NCAA sports: In 1996-1997, this represents men's and women's sports. I do not know where all of this is coming from of what has been dropped. Look at what has been added, 360, this is what has been dropped. I think that this is a very provocative number and something that our colleagues should pay close attention to. Without the Roemer amendment, H.R. 6 would force institutions to make irrevocable decisions about which programs will receive funding far in advance of current requirements. The Roemer amendment strikes a provision which represents, in unparalleled Federal intrusion, Federal micromanagement and Federal mandates. The NCAA supports this amendment. Their statistics further reveal that the original provision is unnecessary. I am very, very proud to represent Stanford University whose outstanding academic and athletic accomplishments can be matched by few. The university sponsors 17 varsity women's sports, and their list of championships is stunning. National volleyball champions 3 of the last 4 years, national tennis championships 10 times in the last 20 years. In 20 years, the varsity women's swimming, they have won eight national titles. The Stanford women's basketball team has been in the final four six times in the 1990s and national champions in 1991 and 1992. Stanford's record offers compelling proof that women's success does not harm a college's athletic program. Is the Congress going to require that universities and colleges submit to us in a report as to whether they are going to drop their Japanese overseas programming? This is ludicrous. This is not being applied to anything that is academic but only that which is athletic. The Roemer amendment would ensure that Stanford University and the rest of our Nation's colleges and universities have the necessary flexibility to continue to develop such strong athletic and academic programs free of Federal intrusion, free of Federal micromanagement, and free of Federal mandates. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for the Roemer amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in opposition to the Tauzin amendment. Mr. Chairman, first I think that, for all of our House colleagues, there was a statement that was made earlier that this is a very complex issue, and we owe it to our colleagues that were not part of the debate on the Committee on Commerce to offer them some clarity. What is this amendment about? This amendment is about a provision in the bill entitled ``fresh look,'' and what it would do is strike it; it would take it out of the bill. Now, why did the committee pass the bill out to the floor with this particular component, this element of the bill, and why did we find it important? First of all, ``fresh look'' is a critical component of the bill. Why? Because it is what will help consumers realize the benefits of competition and doing away with a monopoly. The service providers are going to have to be able to take full advantage of direct access to INTELSAT so that the bill provides consumers what we are promising them, and that is competition. It does not do any good to say to companies, ``Okay, go ahead, negotiate the best deal possible'' if, in fact, they are still locked into something that they agreed to when they were still a monopoly. And so ``fresh look'' is a provision in the bill that will allow companies, one time only in the year 2000, to take a ``fresh look'' and to move on from there into a procompetitive environment and leaving the monopolistic environment behind. ``Fresh look'' will enable companies to take advantage of privatization, which is really what the underpinnings of this legislation are all about. So again, if my colleagues support privatization and procompetition, then they will vote ``no'' on this provision. ``Fresh look'' is necessary. We must be able to take a fresh look in order to be competitive. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Tauzin amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is searching for a problem that does not exist. The argument that takings is an issue seems tenuous at best. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) I think has done a superb job of rolling out the case in detail on this issue because it defines contracts as property, which I think is a new twist. I have not heard of that one before. I would congratulate those that are offering the amendment and supporting it for coming up with such a unique take on this. But the argument that takings is defined as property I think is faulty. Furthermore, removing the FCC's ability to apply service restrictions, or a fresh look, actually cuts out the heart of the bill. These provisions are incentives to privatization and they are necessary incentives and need to be retained. I would like to believe that COMSAT and INTELSAT will act in all of our best interests without any prodding, but that does not seem to be the case, nor does it seem to be realistic. As I warned in my opening statement, this amendment is designed to kill the bill, not to amend it or to improve it. If Members of the House wish to support and protect a monopoly, then they should vote for this amendment. If they are in fact pro-competition and pro- privatization, they should vote to oppose the amendment.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1872, legislation which will bring about the privatization of INTELSAT and Inmarsat. When Neil Armstrong took the first steps on the surface of the Moon in 1969, the world was able to watch each step because of a successful Cold War collaboration known as INTELSAT. It was a network of three satellites at the time, just enough to provide global coverage of the Moon landing. It is now a network of 24 satellites offering voice, data, and video services around the world. Combined with Inmarsat's eight satellites, these ventures should be viewed as two of the most important successful international cooperation efforts ever undertaken. The United States demonstrated great leadership when it helped create INTELSAT. I think we must demonstrate our leadership once again in making the changes necessary to fit our times by privatizing INTELSAT and Inmarsat. There is agreement on the goal of privatization, but how we get there is the key question. During subcommittee and full committee consideration of the bill, sponsors sought to address many of the concerns raised. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on their efforts to bring us closer to a consensus. I realize some still have reservations about the bill, but it is important to recognize that compromises and concessions have been made. Concerns were raised about service restrictions on COMSAT. Those provisions were moderated. Concerns were raised about so-called fresh- look provisions. Those provisions were moderated. At some point, we need to ask whether those seeking further compromise are asking for changes to improve the bill or to kill it. In closing, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues my concerns with INTELSAT's current plan to spin off a private entity. Ever since the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Commerce held a hearing on competition in the satellite industry over a year and a half ago, I have consistently raised concerns that any privatized spinoffs from INTELSAT or Inmarsat must be pro-competitive. The process of privatization we are supporting today is undermined if the privatized entity is created with unfair competitive advantages. I look forward to moving this bill today, and I ask my colleagues to keep in mind whether those that are opposed are doing it to kill the bill or really to improve it. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1872.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the Solomon bill which would permanently prohibit Federal funding for needle exchange programs. First, let me say that I am deeply disappointed with the administration's recent decision not to restore Federal funding for the program, and I hope in the future the administration will listen to the scientific community, the public health experts that have spoken so eloquently because of the studies that have clearly demonstrated that lives are being saved and more lives can be saved by funding the program. This legislation that we are debating today would end any hope that this decision could ever be corrected. As the AIDS epidemic continues, we have to continue to support efforts by local authorities. There has been so much talk in this Congress that we should pay attention to what is going on in the States and in local government. Well, they have demonstrated by the implementation of the needle exchange programs that they use all the prevention methods that are available and that this is prevention. It helps to prevent the spread of this dreaded disease and save lives. Numerous scientific studies demonstrate that needle exchange is effective in preventing HIV infection amongst drug users, their spouses and their children. And this group today now represents nearly 50 percent of new HIV infections. In more than 50 cities, needle exchange programs operate on shoestring budgets, and many are run by volunteers. Despite these difficulties, the programs have been largely effective in reducing the spread of AIDS. Now, what has not happened, what has not happened, and I think this is very important for us to state this, because it has been documented, it has not demonstrated a use of more drugs. That is not the case. Very easy to come to this floor and use inflammatory language and say that this is going to increase the use of drugs. It is not what has been demonstrated at all. But there are those that would come to the floor under the guise of being tough on drugs and crime and state that that is the case. It is not. The studies demonstrate that needle exchange does not lead to increased drug use among participants in the programs, does not increase crime, and does not encourage first-time drug use. One of my colleagues came to the floor and said that all common sense has been lost. I was taught that the most uncommon of the senses is common sense. It is very easy to come here and rail. It is another thing to have read the studies by some of the leading scientific experts in our country. So I come to the floor today, really, on an issue that I know can be used against some Members of Congress that would have the courage to come here and say that needle exchange does work. We can indeed save lives. It is the right thing to do. Do not allow politics to come before science. I ask my colleagues to vote against the rule and the bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I, too, was on flight 52 from San Francisco to D.C., which landed late, unfortunately; and on rollcalls 110 and 111 I would have voted aye.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor James McShane on the occasion of his 90th birthday. Mr. McShane was born in County Donegal in Ireland on April 26, 1908. Named for his grandfather and one of ten children, he immigrated to the United States in 1929 and proudly became an American citizen. Mr. McShane patriotically defended his adopted homeland during World War II, enlisting in the U.S. Army in 1941 and serving as a Master Sergeant until October 1, 1945. During the conflict, he found time to marry Marie Stirn, with whom he had three children: Dennis James, Margaret Mary, and Kathleen Bridget. Dennis James has gone on to become an outstanding doctor for the people of California's 14th Congressional District and a long-term partner for Richard Gordon, who serves on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating James McShane on his 90th birthday and in honoring his service to our nation and the legacy he has provided us through his loving family.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Varian Associates, Inc. upon their 50th anniversary of incorporation. Varian Associates was formed by brothers Russell and Sigurd Varian, along with a number of associates from Stanford University. The company first opened its doors July 1, 1948, with just six employees and total capital of $22,000 to conduct general research in the field of physical science. Varian was one of the first companies to recognize the significance and importance of a strong industry-university connection, and encouraged the formation of Stanford Industrial Park, becoming its initial resident. Varian has grown from its modest beginnings into one of Silicon Valley's greatest success stories, winning over 10,000 patents, receiving countless Industrial Research 100 Awards, and continually producing one or more of our nation's 100 most promising new products yearly. Varian has evolved into a world leader in its current line of business--health care systems, analytical instruments, and semiconductor manufacturing equipment. The company employs over 7,000 individuals at over 100 plants and offices in nine countries, and generates sales well in excess of one billion dollars annually. Since its inception, Varian has had a strong commitment to our community, exemplified by its establishment of our nation's second Minority Small Business Investment Company and its leadership role with the Urban Coalition on fair housing, among others. Varian was recognized by Industry Week Magazine as one of the World's 100 Best Managed Companies in 1997. Over the last 50 years, Varian has become one of our nation's most successful companies. Varian is a jewel in the crown of the 14th Congressional District of California and Silicon Valley. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Varian's inception and in commending the company for its extraordinary achievements and its contributions to our nation.