Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to compliment the members of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for what they have done regarding aid to Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabagh. For the first time in recent memory there will not be a floor debate on several amendments regarding Armenia. This is because they have fashioned a fair consensus position. The provisions included in this bill preserve the House of Representative's longstanding support of the people of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh by maintaining the economic sanctions against the Government of Azerbaijan for its blockade of Armenia, while allowing funds to be made available in Azerbaijan for democracy building. The bill also allows for the crucial delivery of humanitarian aid through nongovernmental organizations to meet the tremendous needs of those affected by the conflict in the Transcaucus region, including refugees, wounded and displaced persons. Unfortunately, the Senate has not chosen the path of consensus. They have chosen to lift the sanctions against Azerbaijan to curry favor with an oil-rich nation. I therefore urge the chairman and ranking member in conference to remain strong and oppose any weakening of section 907. In 1992, Congress passed the Freedom Support Act. This law included a prohibition of direct nonhumanitarian assistance to Azerbaijan. This action was taken in response to the blockades placed on Armenia and Nagorna-Karabagh by Azerbaijan. These blockades have remained in place for over 5 years, and the effect has been devastating. They have denied fuel, heat, shelter, and other basic necessities to the people of Armenia and Karabagh, increasing their exposure to disease, hypothermia, and other public health crises. This misery only amplifies the problems created by armed conflict and nearly 400,000 refugees and displaced persons. We should strengthen our resolve to change Azeri Government behavior. Now is not the time to weaken section 907. Once again I commend all of those who worked to resolve this issue, and hope this a good omen for the future.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilman-Pelosi amendment, which will ensure America's continued support for international family planning programs. Global family planning is essential for protecting the health of women, ensuring the health of children, and reducing the demand for abortions. We must not sacrifice the well-being of families around the world on the altar of abortion politics. Each year, approximately 4 million women will have an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, resulting in nearly 2 million more abortions or miscarriages. These women do not have access to modern contraception, medical advice or prenatal care. In the absence of family planning, over half a million women die each year from pregnancy-related causes, including 70,000 from unsafe abortions. Funding restrictions will only add to these numbers. U.S. support for international family planning has helped families space the birth of their children and has increased the odds that there will be enough food and other essentials to be shared among all family members. We've enabled women to bear children when they are physically strong and can breast-feed normally--increasing child survival by as much as 20 percent. The Gilman-Pelosi amendment will continue our support for family planning programs while preserving current prohibitions on the use of U.S. funds for abortion. It continues the ban on the use of U.S. funds to lobby for or against abortion rights. It prohibits any organization that promotes abortion as a method of family planning with their own funds from receiving U.S. family planning assistance. And it ensures that organizations that provide voluntary, preventative family planning services will receive the necessary funds to continue their work to reduce the number of abortions and the number of pregnancy-related deaths. Mr. Chairman, anyone who is serious about promoting the health of women and children must support family planning. And anyone who truly wants to reduce abortions must support these programs as well. I urge my colleagues to support the Gilman-Pelosi amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Phebe Ward Bostwick, an outstanding citizen and dedicated community leader of the 14th Congressional District who passed away on July 6, 1997. She was the devoted wife of Alan Bostwick and the stepmother of three children, the proud grandmother of eight, and great grandmother of seven. She was married to Alan Bostwick for a remarkable 36 years. Phebe Bostwick was a trailblazer. At the young age of 15, she was admitted to Stanford University as one of only 500 women permitted to study on the campus at any one time. She pursued education as her course of studies and earned her teaching credential at the university. She began her 45 years as a northern California educator in Calistoga, Piedmont, and Redwood City High Schools before becoming an English instructor at San Francisco City College. She earned a reputation at the college as an administrator who could easily adapt to any assignment. She later spent 25 years as principal of Galileo Adult School which eventually became a part of the San Francisco Community College district. She was also loaned out for several other projects; as a counselor with the U.S. Department of Employment for women trainees for aircraft jobs, and to Contra Costa County to set up new community colleges. She also served as a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Commission. She enriched the lives of countless young people as their teacher with her intelligence, common sense, warmth, and wisdom and contributed greatly to the improvement of the administration in all the institutions she served. Upon her retirement from education, Phebe Bostwick committed herself to volunteering in a number of organizations including the Little House Senior Center where she was program director and president of its council, volunteering at the Center for 20 years. She was a forceful advocate for seniors as a member of the California Senior Legislature where she represented 103,000 older adults of San Mateo County. She chaired the Legislative Committee, often testified at hearings, and was a featured speaker at conferences on legislative advocacy training. Phebe Bostwick also served with great distinction on the San Mateo County Commission on Aging and its Advisory Committee, and was a member of Soroptimist International of San Francisco. Mr. Speaker, Phebe Bostwick was a shining light among us, inspiring all who knew her. She was a high achiever and made remarkable contributions to our community and our country. She lives on through her stepchildren, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, through her devoted husband Alan, and through all of us who were blessed to be part of her life, work with her and call her friend. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a noble woman who lived a life of purpose and to extend our deepest sympathy to Alan Bostwick and the entire Bostwick family. Phebe Bostwick's legacy is that she made each one of us better, and because of her, our community and our country have been immeasurably bettered as well.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained because of airline equipment problems, and missed the following rollcall votes earlier today. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall No. 267, yes; on rollcall No. 268, yes; on rollcall No. 269, the Journal, yes; on rollcall No. 270, no; on rollcall No. 271, yes; on rollcall No. 272, no; on rollcall No. 273, no; on rollcall No. 274, yes.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for the Interior appropriations bill because it doesn't waive points of order on funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Unless this rule is defeated, the House will never have a straight up or down vote on funding for this vitally important agency--a vote that NEA supporters would clearly win. A majority of the House is ready to offer the American people a full chorus of beautiful art, but opponents want them to settle for someone singing solo in the shower. I support the NEA because it's a solid financial investment, helping to generate $3.4 billion in Federal income taxes. I support the NEA because it's a solid educational investment, lifting America to new levels of cultural endeavors and bettering our nation immeasurably. And I support the NEA because it's a solid investment in America's cultural heritage, bringing art to communities throughout the United States. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the arts and the NEA by voting to defeat the rule before us.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, as the American people listen to us this afternoon as we engage in this great and important debate about our Nation's budget, it really is a statement of our values. The President came to the Congress, and in his State of the Union Message delivered part of the message, there were 10 million uninsured children relative to health care in our country. The parties came together and said, this is a priority. We then went to write in, to fill in the blank, of how we would plan to insure the 10 million uninsured children in our country. There is only one plan that has been advanced that actually works and reaches out to the majority of the children in our country. It has not created a new entitlement, there are no unfunded mandates, but neither is it a giveaway to our Nation's Governors. It puts children first by building on the public system; by saying to the insurance companies, it says to the insurance companies that you can indeed offer children-only insurance policies. It rewards States that are doing even more for children, and it is the only plan, according to the CBO. The CBO says that the Republican plan will cover only 520,000. That is a deficit for our Nation. I urge that we support this plan. I will not support the budget plan contingent upon this.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall votes 225, 226 and 227. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each one of the three. I ask that the statement be included in the Record immediately following the votes.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago our colleague Sam Farr of California experienced the loss of his father, former State Senator Fred Farr, who passed away at the age of 86. Fred Farr was widely revered as an effective, compassionate leader who fought to improve the lives of Californians from all walks of life through his work in the State Legislature. Fred Farr's greatness emanated from his goodness and he will be sorely missed by those who knew him and benefited from his efforts. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Fred Farr, and extending our deepest condolences to his son and all his family, and request that the article from the San Jose Mercury News be included in the Congressional Record. At this time, I recall the poet's words . . . ``and so he passed on and all the trumpets sounded on the other side.'' [From San Jose Mercury News, June 11, 1997] Fred Farr Was Great Man and Worthy Representative (By Lee Quarnstrom) When my friend John Riley heard that former state Sen. Fred Farr had died Tuesday at the age of 86, he said, ``Well, he won't be going to a better place, because Monterey is already paradise.'' John, who was once Fred Farr's neighbor in Carmel, wasn't being facetious. He was, in fact, expressing in his own way his admiration for the man who represented the Monterey Bay region in the California Senate and whose son, Sam, now represents us in the Congress. Let me get this on the record right now: Fred Farr was a great man. For a tiny portion of this state, the Monterey Bay area has sent some remarkable people to the capitals of California and the United States. Fred Farr was among the best of them. My first encounter with him was during a special election more than a quarter century ago. I was a reporter for the Watsonville Register Pajaronian, and Farr, who had been redistricted out of the state Senate, was seeking an Assembly seat that had opened up because the incumbent had died in a traffic accident. As we motored along Highway I somewhere north of Castroville, where he was scheduled to give a stump speech and shake the voters' hands, Farr looked out across a field of row crops and softly told me, ``There's what I'm proudest of, of all the things I did in the Legislature.'' I asked him what he meant. He explained that he had written the legislation that mandates that sufficient number of portable toilets must be put in the fields when the farmhands who plant and tend and harvest the crops are working. Before his bill, farm workers had to squat between rows of lettuce or cauliflower--or whatever--when nature called. His bill, he proudly told me, give those men and women who pick our food ``some privacy and dignity when they have to relieve themselves.'' ``What a great man!'' I said to myself. And I meant it. Fred Farr did many things for many people. He saved the Coast Highway through Big Sur when the state Department of Transportation wanted to turn Highway I into a multilane freeway--a deed for which each of us should be eternally grateful. He helped preserve the stone tower and home of the late and great Carmel poet, Robinson Jeffers. He was a founder of the Tor House Foundation, which helped raise funds so that Jeffers' heirs would not have to sell the house when they needed cash to live on. He was a stalwart liberal during the darkness of the McCarthy era and took stands that caused some Americans to be labeled as Communists. The last time I saw Farr was when he invited me to lunch in Carmel a few years ago. After our meal he walked me to my car, where I discovered I had a flat tire. He drove me to his gas station and politely asked the mechanic whether he could solve my problem expeditiously. He was not demanding service as a former bigwig, he asked for the mechanic's help simply as the gentleman that he was. His son Sam told me Tuesday that as his father lay dying, people came to his hospital room not only to pay tribute to Fred Farr, but to touch him, the way people touch those who possess great good souls or notable celebrity. If there is place where good souls go after the body dies, it will no doubt be more beautiful and probably less crowded that the Monterey Peninsula. If that place exists, Fred Farr will grace it no less than he graced this region he called home and where he died.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Frank Lee of San Mateo, CA, who passed away on June 7, 1997, and who will be buried in Golden Gate National Cemetery. He will be fondly remembered for his lifelong dedication to marine engineering, significantly improving harbor facilities in the San Francisco Bay area, and providing leadership in the Asian-American community. Frank Lee gave much of himself to our region and touched people's lives both at home and abroad. He served his country in the South Pacific during World War II as a merchant marine and spent 35 successful years as a marine engineer and naval architect. During his career, he completed the $467 million retrofit of the battleship New Jersey and led over 50 design modifications of various U.S. Navy and commercial ships. Frank Lee served for 28 years on the board of directors of the San Mateo County Harbor District. He was president of the board for six terms, and, in 1994, he was named president emeritus of the board, a position created just for him. Frank Lee has left an indelible mark on our county harbors. He transformed the Pillar Point Harbor into a premier commercial and recreation harbor with 369 berths and then did the same with Oyster Point Harbor. Frank Lee also found time to provide leadership in the Asian-American community. He was a founder of the Peninsula Association for Chinese Americans, an advisor to the Organization of Chinese Americans, a member of the Asian American Manufacturers Association, and a president of People to People International, an organization promoting world peace. Frank Lee always encouraged other Asian-Americans to become active in the community and gained the respect and admiration of everyone who worked with him. Above all, Frank Lee was devoted to his beautiful family. Mr. Speaker, Frank Lee will be greatly missed by all whose lives he touched. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Frank Lee and his lifetime of contributions to the bay area community.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the House's most distinguished Members, Representative Thomas Foglietta of Pennsylvania, for his upcoming appointment by the President as the next U.S. Ambassador to Italy. This is an extraordinary and well-deserved honor for a true gentleman who has given four decades of his life to public service. Since his election to the House of Representatives in 1980, Tom Foglietta has been a tireless fighter for his constituents in Philadelphia and Delaware County. As a member of the Appropriations Committee and a leader of the Urban Caucus, he has protected city jobs, helped restore Independence Hall, and put more police on the streets. Perhaps just as important to his new duties, Tom Foglietta has also been on the forefront of global affairs. He has worked to provide famine relief to starving people overseas and has never hesitated to speak up against tyrants around the world. Only in America could the grandson of immigrants who came from Italy over 100 years ago live the dream of representing the birthplace of this Nation's freedom in the Halls of Congress and go on to serve his country as its representative in the land of his family's heritage. Tom Foglietta is an outstanding example of what is possible for those who serve the United States with honor and distinction. Mr. Speaker, Washington's loss is Italy's gain. Congress will undoubtedly be a lesser place when Tom Foglietta takes his intelligence, dedication, integrity, and charm to Italy. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending best wishes and a fond arrivederci to Tom Foglietta as he stands ready to embark on another exciting chapter of his career, and insert the following editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer to be included for the Record. [From The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 28, 1997] Arrivederci--Tom Foglietta Has Earned His New Job. Let's Hope His Successor Serves the Region as Well as He Did After four decades of public service, Tom Foglietta richly deserves a job that melds diplomacy and la dolce vita: U.S. ambassador to Italy. So even though the Philadelphia area stands to lose its most senior member of the U.S. House, his constituents in the city and in Delaware County can still salute the (unofficial) news that he's headed for Rome. Mr. Foglietta has worked hard for the needs of Philadelphia and other cities. As a member of the Appropriations Committee since 1993 and as a prime mover of the Urban Caucus, he's tried to aim more federal dollars at urban needs. His local causes have included protecting jobs at the Navy Yard, reversing the neglect of Independence Hall, and funding more police for the city of Chester. Not all of his votes on pocketbook issues have been dead- on. He backed the Clinton economic package, tax hikes and all, but loudly opposed the modest, Penny-Kasich spending cuts. He sided with labor over consumers by voting against

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to introduce legislation to raise the individual cap on lifetime health insurance payments to $10 million for group insurance coverage. The current standard lifetime cap is like a dinosaur from Jurassic Park--a relic from another age that can still be hazardous to those who get in its way. A million dollar cap was fine when it was established in the early 1970's. But inflation has sent medical costs skyrocketing and forced thousands of Americans to bump up against that payment ceiling. As a result, some patients who desperately require medical attention are plowing through their savings and ending up on public assistance just to pay their doctor bills. Since anyone can be hit at any time with a disabling disease or traumatic injury--resulting from everything from AIDS to car accidents--this initiative will benefit a wide range of people. The legislation would amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Public Health Service Act to raise the lifetime cap from the typical exisiting limit of $1 million to $5 million in 1998 and $10 million in 2002. It would exclude employers with fewer than 20 workers. Over 150 national health-related nonpartisan groups have endorsed the measure. At present, approximately one quarter of employer-sponsored health plans have no lifetime limit. Unfortunately, many people don't realize that their health insurance policies have a lifetime cap that could be easily exceeded if a catastrophic illness or injury occurred. If the industry standard of a $1 million cap were indexed for medical inflation since 1970, it would be worth between $10 million and $15 million today. The American Academy of Actuaries found that raising the lifetime cap on large employers would likely require a premium increase of only $7 per year per adult to cover between $500,000 and $1 million. According to the accounting firm of Price Waterhouse, 1,500 people exhaust their lifetime payments under their private health insurance each year and have no choice but to impoverish themselves and their families to qualify for Medicaid. The firm estimates that an additional 10,000 people will reach their lifetime payment limits in the next 5 years. Lifetime caps are particularly devastating to those who become seriously ill, disabled, or injured at an early age. Some children born with certain cancers or hemophilia reach their lifetime cap by the time they are 10 years old. Raising the payment cap will not only provide more payments for patients, but also save money for the Federal Government. Price Waterhouse estimates that raising the caps would save approximately $7 billion for the Medicaid program over 7 years because people would not be forced to turn to the Federal Government as the health-care provider of last resort. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join with my colleague from Texas, Mr. Barton, to introduce the Medical Device Regulatory Modernization Act of 1997. Since coming to Congress over 4 years ago, I have heard a consistent message from medical device companies in my district--the Food and Drug Administration is not keeping up with innovation. Companies were asking for congressional action to help modernize FDA's regulatory process. The bipartisan legislation we are introducing today accomplishes that goal. We've had testimony before the Commerce Committee that the agency lacks the resources to keep up with its workload and as a result reviews were taking too long. The Barton/Eshoo bill frees up FDA resources by allowing for independent review for class I and class II devices that are not implantable or likely to cause serious harm if they fail. Class I and class II devices are relatively less complex, ranging from surgical gloves and syringes to MRI machines. By increasing the use of third parties for lower risk devices, the agency will be able to focus their attention on higher risk, more complicated products that demand greater resources and time. We were told that a chasm of communication exists between medical device companies and the FDA. Under our legislation, FDA will be required to meet with applicants at their request both during the investigational device exemption phase and early on in the product review stage. It is hoped that through this increased communication, there will be a greater understanding on the part of the applicant as to what the agency will require for approval, and a greater understanding by the agency of the technology being employed by the applicant. We heard that the FDA needs to recognize national and international performance standards to cut down on paperwork and redundant reporting requirements. The bill allows the FDA to recognize national and international standards and allows companies to self-certify to these standards. There are penalties for the falsification of data and all certification information is available at FDA's request. Last, companies have raised concerns that in reviewing applications, FDA has, in the past, required information from companies that is outside the scope of the application. The bill makes clear that it is FDA's job to review applications for substantial equivalence, for lower risk devices, or safety and effectiveness, for higher risk devices. The agency is not charged with reviewing relative effectiveness, which should be determined by the marketplace, or for reviewing items outside the proposed intent of the device; as long as the public health is not at risk. These are some of the key provisions of the legislation, but they are by no means the only important provisions in this bill. There are 22 sections to the legislation that address issues including cost market surveillance, dispute resolution, humanitarian use of devices, device tracking and regulatory harmonization to name a few. It is a comprehensive approach to modernizing the way the FDA regulates medical devices. Representative Barton and I have worked very hard to ensure that this bill moves the agency forward. It's a positive blueprint to strengthen the FDA's oversight of the public health. I believe it will help the agency review products more efficiently and improve communications between FDA and industry, brining new products to market and to the patients that urgently need them. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 408, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. This bill is flawed on several counts. I have two primary concerns. First, the bill doubles the amount of dolphins allowed to be killed every year. Second, it makes a mockery of the dolphin-safe label used on all tuna sold in the United States. As a supporter of free trade, including NAFTA, I do not believe that trade should be a reason for the United States to change its definition of ``dolphin-safe.'' We can address the specific trade concerns raised by Mexico and other countries which are subject to tuna embargo because of their fishing practices which result in the death of dolphins, without denying or lying to the American consumer. If we pass H.R. 408, dolphin-safe will merely mean ``no dolphin killed,'' even though dolphins can be chased, encircled, injured, pulled onto a boat and dumped back in the ocean under this bill. This would be considered safe, as long as the dolphin is not seen dying on the boat or in the net. Mother dolphins can be separated from their feeding young, chased dolphins can be exhausted and fatigued to the point of death by cruel practices, but it will be called dolphin-safe under this bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Let's keep truth in labeling. Don't lie to the American consumer.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1997. This bipartisan bill will finally guarantee a single set of standards for securities litigation for nationally traded securities. This legislation, introduced with Representative Rick White, is a narrowly focused bill that will address a specific problem created by a loophole in the 1995 Securities Litigation Reform Act. It does not in any way seek to limit the ability of States to enforce its laws. The bill is strictly limited to nationally traded securities traded on the American Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ. The legislation clarifies that nationally traded securities, whose regulation is a primary responsibility of the Federal Government, will be subject to Federal securities law, as amended by the 1995 Securities Litigation Reform Act. Among the major reforms instituted by that law were a safe harbor provision that protected forward looking statements, the creation of a single pleading standard that required plaintiffs present some evidence of securities fraud, and a stay of discovery when a motion to dismiss is pending. Unless these important reforms are applied across the board, they are meaningless. The need for these reforms was clear. Without an enforceable safe harbor provision, companies would continue to fear releasing any forward looking statements that could be grounds for a meritless suit. Without a single standard for pleading, there could be a different requirement, or no requirement, for a plaintiff presenting evidence of grounds for fraud. Finally, without a stay of discovery, companies could be forced to settle out of court to avoid huge legal fees. Unfortunately, in the last year, we have seen these reforms undermined by a shift to State courts where safe harbor, uniform pleading standards, and stay of discovery do not apply. Two studies, one done by the Securities and Exchange Commission and one by two Stanford professors, have indicated a significant move to file securities class action in State courts, and in some cases, filing parallel cases in both Federal and State courts. Professors Joseph Grundfest and Michael Perino of the Stanford Law School did extensive research into the nature of class actions suits filed after the 1995 securities litigation reform was implemented. They found that prior to passage of the 1995 reforms filings in State courts of securities class actions were de minimis. In the past year 26 percent of class actions involving nationally traded securities were filed in State Courts. The shift to the State courts has undermined the safe harbor provisions to the extent that corporate heads still avoid forward looking statements according to a letter sent to me by 181 presidents and CEO's of high technology companies. Sixty-one Democrats recognized the need to address this problem when earlier this year we sent a letter to President Clinton calling on him to support legislation to establish uniform standards. We have constructed a narrow bill that seeks to get at the specific problem that has been raised. The bill will require class action lawsuits that involve nationally traded securities to be heard in Federal court. It does not cover public class actions or State enforcement. It affects only class actions, not all private actions. Finally, it avoids needless litigation by making removal to Federal courts the procedure by which these cases will be heard. I thank Representative White and each of the original cosponsors of this legislation for their work and support, and I look forward to the passage of this needed, balanced legislation in the 105th Congress.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, when I was elected to Congress in 1992, my overriding priority was to promote an agenda of important investments for our Nation's future and the urgent need to reduce and eliminate our enormous deficit. Today, we come to a budget resolution that promise a balanced budget by 2002 and we have come to it because of the tough 1993 Budget vote only Democrats cast. The deficit has been reduced from a quarter of a trillion dollars to $67 billion. Now we can move on to finish our tough task for America. The agreement reached between the President and congressional leaders 2 weeks ago is not a perfect one. In fact, I expressed my deep concerns that we not take the country back to the deficits of the 1980s and allow the deficit to explode in the out years of the plan. While some concerns remain, I believe the resolution before the House today represents an important step toward bringing our Nation's budget into balance. Much work remains to be done to hammer out the specifics of it. Mr. Chairman, there is much to support in this compromise budget resolution. It represents the largest increase in 30 years for higher education. It adds important preventive benefits to Medicare such as annual mammograms, colorectal cancer screening, and diabetes management. It adds important resources to protect our environment. It provides funding for healthcare for five million of our Nation's children who have no insurance coverage at all. It restores our promise to legal immigrants that came to our country expecting to be treated equally under the law while they labor to add to the greatness of our Nation. It recognizes the need for tax relief for America's families. I support the resolution and look forward to working in the weeks ahead to fulfill the best of its promises for the betterment of all Americans.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1385 and the en bloc amendment. In particular, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], and certainly the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] for accepting the language I offered to strengthen section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] for his willingness to actively support this provision in full committee. There are approximately 145,000 Federal employees with disabilities, and they comprise 7\1/2\ percent of the Federal work force. Most work in the Departments of Defense, Veterans' Affairs, and Agriculture. Information technology has played a large role in opening up jobs in the Federal Government and elsewhere to people with disabilities. An estimated 43 percent of employed people who are blind or visually impaired use computers to write. However, information technology can also shut the door to people with disabilities if it is not accessible to them. So it is imperative for Federal employees with disabilities to have Federal agencies purchase information technology that gives them a chance to do their jobs well. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act was designed to achieve this goal, but it was not working as it should have because it did not have teeth in it and terms of enforcement. It now does. The en bloc amendment establishes a way to enforce agency compliance. It will require the OMB to develop uniform procedures for Federal agencies to use each year to certify whether or not they are in compliance with section 508, and the OMB also is given authority to review agency compliance statements and assist the agencies in making their information technology systems accessible to their employees with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to support certainly this bill. I congratulate the leadership and all the members of the committee for the outstanding work that they have done. I certainly support H.R. 1385, and I am very proud to have this language included. I really think it is going to make a difference for the people that we employ, and the message will go out to the country that we, too, the Federal Government, are an enlightened employer in this country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, included in the fiscal year 1997 supplemental appropriation bill which we are considering is language that makes available to the State of California, emergency relief funding for the repair or reconstruction of highway 1 at Devil's Slide in San Mateo County. For decades the residents of San Mateo County have dealt with the ongoing problem of Devil's Slide. The current highway runs along the coast and is prone to damage from mudslides and vulnerable to long closures. An original proposal to construct a bypass road further inland ran into several problems, with opposition from local residents concerned about its impact. However, last year the people of San Mateo County voted overwhelmingly to endorse the building of a tunnel bypass. The tunnel alternative has the strong support of local officials, business owners, the environmental community, and residents. After a long and difficult process, we are ready to move forward to solve this problem and provide reliable access to those who visit, live, and drive in San Mateo County. I congratulate Representatives Lantos and Pelosi for their hard, effective work that will allow us to finally move forward.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 478, the so- called Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act of 1997. This bill will not provide any more protection beyond current law to those who live in areas threatened by flooding. Instead it will create a giant sinkhole in the Endangered Species Act. Right now, without passage of this bill, the Endangered Species Act has provisions that allow for expedited review for improvements or upgrades to existing structures in emergencies. This bill will permanently exempt the reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and repair of all flood control projects, including dams, hydroelectric facilities, levees, and canals. This means that operations like those designed to revive the salmon on the Pacific Coast could be threatened and possibly suspended. As Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has pointed out this could exempt the entire Columbia River basin from provisions of the Endangered Species. Some Members have said that the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle delayed repairs which caused the levees to collapse. However, as my colleague, Mr. Miller, has pointed out the levees that failed in the Central Valley failed not because they were not repaired, but because there was 10 times the amount of water than the levees were designed to withstand. H.R. 478 is not a flood prevention bill. Instead it is a backdoor assault on the Endangered Species Act, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the substitute offered by Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Fazio and reject H.R. 478.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak about the Reconstructive Breast Surgery Benefits Act of 1997 H.R. 164 and S. 609. I am proud to be the original House sponsor of this critical legislation which will end the short-sighted insurance practice of denying coverage for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction based on the false assumption that the surgery is merely a ``cosmetic'' procedure. When in reality, reconstructive surgery is often an integral part of the mental and physical recovery of a woman who undergoes a traumatic amputation of her breast. Specifically, the Reconstructive Breast Surgery Benefits Act requires health insurance companies that provide coverage for mastectomies to also cover reconstructive breast surgery resulting from those mastectomies (including surgery to establish symmetry between breasts). Approximately 85,000 American women undergo a mastectomy each year as part of their treatment for breast cancer. While this is a life-saving procedure, it's also a horribly disfiguring operation. Studies have demonstrated that many women say that fear of losing a breast is a leading reason why they do not participate in early breast cancer detection programs. More than 25,000 mastectomy patients each year elect to undergo breast reconstruction. Since I began my work on this bill, I've heard daily from so many who have relayed their own individual experiences to me. Karen Ingalls, for example--a breast cancer survivor from San Mateo, CA--read about my legislation and asked her coworkers to write to me if they support it. In just 4 hours, she collected signatures and comments from 120 people. Karen herself wrote, ``I feel denial of coverage is just one more assault on [a] women's psyche. Something must be done to prevent this.'' I sometimes hear from critics who ask why ``all-of-a-sudden'' there seems to be a congressional rush toward breast cancer legislation as opposed to other serious health care conditions. My answer to this question is that we, as representatives of our people, are responding to the needs of breast cancer patients because we have heard the stories of thousands of American women and men who have been victimized twice by breast cancer first by the disease, then by the callous treatment of insurance companies. I find it regrettable that there are those who find legislative responsiveness to constituent needs to be out of line. While comprehensive health care reform would have addressed many of the specific complaints being brought to members of Congress, the political reality today is that only incremental measures have a chance of becoming law at this time. The suggestions that Congress should ignore some festering health care problems just because all of them cannot be addressed simultaneously is a great way to ensure that everyone suffers equally. I much prefer helping those we can whenever possible starting with, but not limited to, breast cancer patients. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 164, the Reconstructive Breast Surgery Benefits Act.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Computer Donation Incentive Act, which would provide greater tax incentives for corporate donations of computers, software, and related training for educational purposes. Specifically, the legislation would give an enhanced tax deduction to companies for such donations to public elementary and secondary schools, libraries, recreational centers, and other governmental entities. It also would provide an enhanced tax break to nonprofit and government organizations that provide computer training to people with disabilities. I am pleased to have worked closely with my colleague from Michigan, Representative Debbie Stabenow, in developing this initiative. Bringing our classrooms into the 21st century is a tremendously expensive undertaking that cannot be accomplished by government alone. We need to encourage greater public-private partnerships for upgrading the technology in our schools to make them world class centers for excellence in education. In Silicon Valley, private efforts, like Challenge 2000 and net day, have emerged because our high tech industry recognizes that a computer- literate work force is needed to keep companies competitive in the global market. And while some businesses have been donating computer hardware to schools for several years, they have only recently begun to recognize that teachers need to be trained to use that equipment if they hope to employ it properly in the classroom. The Computer Donation Incentive Act will go a long way to encourage more companies to invest in our schools, our people, and their own future success. Under current law, computer donations from manufacturers to public schools qualify for a normal tax deduction worth the cost of making the equipment. At the same time, donations to private schools, colleges, and universities qualify for an enhanced tax deduction worth approximately the production cost of the equipment plus half of the profit that the manufacturer would have received if the equipment had been sold on the market. The Computer Donation Incentive Act would make the enhanced tax deduction available for computer hardware and software donations to public K-12 schools, libraries, recreational centers, other government entities, and qualified organizations that provide computer training to people with disabilities. It would also offer the enhanced deduction to nonmanufacturers that make charitable computer contributions within 3 years of the date that computers are purchased. Further, companies could claim the enhanced tax deduction for donations of up to 8 hours of teacher training associated with hardware and software donations. Other features of the legislation include: An enhanced tax deduction for computer contributions to nonprofit organizations that repair and refurbish equipment that is subsequently donated to public schools, other qualifying government organizations, and groups that provide computer training to people with disabilities; an enhanced tax deduction for donations of digital augmentative speech devices; a sense of Congress provision that one of the main purposes of the legislation is to encourage computer donations to schools serving low income communities; and a General Accounting Office study to be conducted before 1999 on the effectiveness of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help encourage companies to make a positive difference in our public schools, libraries, and recreation centers by supporting the Computer Donation Incentive Act.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Representatives Pallone and Porter for their work on behalf of Armenia, and in particular for organizing this special order in remembrance of the Armenian Genocide. Today marks the 82nd anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide, an event that foreshadowed many dark moments to come in this century. In its final days, the Ottoman Empire systematically exterminated 1.5 million Armenians, and the forcibly deported 500,000 more. These tragic events began on April 24, 1915 when leaders of the Armenian community living in Constantinople were arrested and killed. Tragically the genocide lasted for eight years until 1923 and the international community never mounted any serious effort to bring it to an end. Armenians were deprived of their homes and businesses. Families were torn apart and individuals were robbed of their freedom and dignity. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were forced to flee their homeland or risk death, and 1.5 million people lost their lives. As the only Member of Congress of Armenian descent, I believe what we are doing here tonight is important, not only because we honor the memory of the men, women and children who lost their lives, but also the millions of those who survived and have contributed to our nation. We cannot lapse in our efforts to speak out and teach about the atrocities of the past. When the international community stands silent, as they did in 1915, we allow the evil to flourish. When we commemorate the Armenian Genocide we fight not only against forgetting, but also against tolerating a future that brings misery to vulnerable people wherever they may live. We must continue to fight against those who want to obscure, minimize or even deny that the Armenian Genocide occurred, and memory is our weapon, the memory of survivors, victims, and their relatives. The memory is also alive in modern Armenia, where in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, fledgling democracy is taking hold. It is my hope that as we come together tonight to remember the past, we also renew our commitment to a secure and prosperous Armenia. This will only come through full enforcement of the Humanitarian Corridor Act, and a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabagh based upon self-determination. As an Armenian-American I am grateful so many of my colleagues have participated in this remembrance of the 82nd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. I am also proud of the contributions so many Armenians have made to our nation. Their legacy ensures that we will never forget this tragic chapter in history.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, along with Representative Carolyn Maloney and over 50 cosponsors, the Act to Save America's Forests. This bill is a dramatic and bold change in direction in how we as a nation protect and treat our public lands. Mudslides, scarred landscapes, preventable forest fires and destruction caused by clearcutting and other misguided forest management must end. This legislation is a huge step in that direction. Our Nation's 155 national forests are home to 34 million acres of remote wilderness areas and 4,385 miles of wild and scenic rivers. They are a valuable resource that generates nearly $199 billion in recreation dollars. For a century we have tried to balance the conservation of the land and continued access to those who use it. But, now, how we manage our public lands is no longer in balance. We favor timber creation instead of careful stewardship. There are currently eight times more roads in National Forests than there are in the National Highway System. Year after year below cost timber sales are pushed through, which does not benefit the environment or the taxpayer. The most egregious step was the passage of the Timber Salvage Rider in the last Congress which waived all laws protecting these forests and had a devastating impact on the land, rivers and wildlife of our Nation. The Act to Save America's Forest will end clearcutting and other even-age logging techniques throughout all lands controlled by the Federal Government. Under this bill, maintaining native forest biological diversity will be the priority of the Federal forest management activities. No longer will the Forest Service be charged with the task of exploiting and selling off our resources, often below costs, instead of conserving them. The passage of this bill would also protect once and for all core areas of biodiversity including Roadless Areas, the Ancient Forests of the Pacific Northwest and over 100 specified areas spread throughout our Nation's forest system. The overwhelming majority of American people support more environmental protection, not less. The bill I introduce today is a giant step forward fulfilling our obligation to protect and leave for future generations the lands that have been entrusted to us.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us makes a clear statement that Congress does not support the use of Federal funds to directly or indirectly support assisted suicide. We heard testimony in the Health and Environment Subcommittee in support of this view and certainly in the full committee. In fact, the bill is a restatement of present Federal policy. Not a penny of Federal dollars is spent in support of assisted suicide. I think it is very important for the American people to understand this. We are not correcting something. We are simply restating Federal policy here today. However, in the committee we also heard clear testimony that the current state of dying and care for the dying is inadequate. Pain management is insufficient. Palliative care generally is lacking. The American Medical Association gave testimony and even announced that they have launched a new initiative to better educate their doctors on care of the terminally ill in their final days. During the full committee consideration of the legislation, I offered an amendment to address this problem based on the testimony that we had received. It simply stated that Federal health programs should have guidelines in place for appropriate palliative and pain management care of terminally ill beneficiaries. Unfortunately, the amendment failed. It is my hope that the vision of death described by the religious leaders that testified before our subcommittee in which we are surrounded by loved ones and at peace with God would be the case for every American. Unfortunately, it is not the case for too many today. I am not endorsing assisted suicide. No one is. I am saying that there is much more to this debate that the Congress can bring to it. There is much more that we can do to lessen the prevalence of assisted suicide or those that wish to commit suicide because pain management is simply not addressed in America today the way it should be. This bill before us is a small step. We could have done much more.