Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of engaging the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding a critical bay area transportation project. The Tasman Corridor light rail project is an integral piece of the local rail agreement fashioned by our regional metropolitan planning organization, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. All of the bay area jurisdictions are a party to this agreement which represents the best in local planning and decisionmaking. When the California Supreme Court on September 28 invalidated the so-called Measure A, a half-cent sales tax dedicated to many important highway, commuter rail, and transit construction projects in Santa Clara County, the planned- for local match for the Tasman project was assumed to be lost. Due to the perseverance of all involved, in the few short weeks since the ruling, the Tasman Corridor plan has been revised to reflect the new fiscal realities. It has been proposed that only the west extension to Mountain View be built at this time. This segment is compelling. The 7.5-mile line is expected to cost $125 million less than the original project, with 50 percent of its funding derived from Federal Sec. 3 New Start funds. Of the $122 million in proposed new starts funding, some $33 million has already been appropriated and dedicated to the Tasman project by the MTC. The remainder of the funding will come from identified State, local and ISTEA flexible funding sources. This revised plan has the unanimous backing of the transit agency board, and I expect shortly will be approved by the MTC and later included in the California Transportation Commission's revised States Transportation Improvement Program. Mr. Speaker, particularly in view of these positive developments, and in deference to the local and regional planning process which has served us well, I would ask if the chairman agrees that if the revised Tasman project secures all requisite Federal, State, and regional approvals in a timely fashion, the $33 million in unobligated balances referenced in the conference report may be provided by the MTC for the commencement of construction on the Tasman West extension.

Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, today the Gingrich Republicans are being encouraged to use certain words, probably put together by some PR agency or PR person, to describe their Medicare plan, words like ``historic, serious, and long-term.'' Well, in some ways, I could not agree with them more. Their plan is historic because it marks the end of a 30-year commitment to provide our seniors with health care. It is serious. It is radical surgery, because it places the lives and well-being of 37 million Americans at risk. And it is long-term because it will tear holes in our social safety net that will remain for many years to come. It ``saves, preserves, and protects,'' not Medicare, but $245 billion in tax breaks that no one is asking for. It ``protects the right to stay with your doctor,'' but only if you are able to pay more for the privilege. It ``protects the right to choose,'' only if your choices are slim and none. It is ``responsible,'' but only if you are a member of the AMA. It is ``innovative and bold,'' inasmuch as it breaks new ground for being cruel to seniors. It is ``the right thing to do,'' but only if your parents did not raise you to know any better. Mr. Chairman, the Republican Medicare plan is all these words and one more, disgraceful, and I urge my colleagues to defeat it so that we can go on and make America a stronger, better, and more gentle Nation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, when Norman Y. Mineta--whose constituents all know as Norm--announced his retirement from the House of Representatives earlier this month, it marked the end of a congressional career that has spanned 20 years and enriched the lives of people in California's 15th Congressional District and throughout our entire Nation. His leadership will be missed, and his special friendship with many in this institution will never be forgotten. Norm's hometown newspaper called him a calming voice for civility, compassion, and reason. I agree. His service to America is more than the sum of his votes and his legislation. It is more than his reputation as Mr. Transportation--even though Norm certainly deserves to be recognized as the person who heralded a new era for public transportation in the South Bay area and the country as a whole. It's more than his expertise on high technology and science issues-- although Norm can certainly take credit for being one of the leading spokespeople for Silicon Valley and educating everyone in Congress about the importance of high technology to America's economy, work force, and future in the international market. And it's more than his ability to know and represent successfully the views and interests of his constituents--even though Norm's highly regarded as a classic public servant who started in local government as a member of the San Jose Human Relations Commission, a San Jose City Councilman, and mayor of San Jose before he was elected to Congress. To truly understand who Norm Mineta is, you must understand where he has come from and how that has shaped his life. When he was a 10-year-old boy at the beginning of World War II, Norm was sent to an internment camp where Japanese-Americans were held for no other reason than their national ancestry. He was still wearing his Cub Scout uniform and clutching his baseball, glove, and cap when his family was rounded up and shipped off to Wyoming. Norm says that ``a lot of what I am today is really that 10-plus-year-old kid who got on that train'' in May 1942. He could have emerged from that humiliating and stressful experience as a bitter person, and no one would have blamed him. Instead, Norm MIneta gained a greater appreciation for the need to champion justice in our society. That appreciation led him to launch a public career that made Norm the first Japanese-American elected to Congress from the mainland. His passion for justice and his recognition of the need for someone to speak out on behalf of Asian-Americans are woven like threads throughout his years of service. And those threads can clearly be seen in the crowning achievement of his congressional career--the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, with which he won a formal apology and compensation for all Japanese-Americans thrown into internment camps by the United States Government. Norm has taken his sense of fairness and applied it in other ways, too, both large and small. It's no accident that when you walk down the Halls of the House, he can be heard saying hello by name not only to Members of Congress, but also the guards, elevator operators, and other workers. He takes the time to know them all. Norm also has taken the time to keep himself firmly rooted in the community that sent him to Congress. He was asked on several occasions to run for statewide office. And while he doesn't talk about it much, it's generally known that he was President Clinton's first choice for Secretary of Transportation. But Norm turned down those opportunities because he wanted to represent people--his people, his community--rather than a State or an agency. And when he announced his retirement, he didn't do it in Washington. He did it the only way he knew how--back home at his father's house in San Jose among his family, friends, and constituents. His internal compass has always pointed home. It's only fitting that he chose to end his career where it all began. In closing, let me say that I shall miss Norm's comradery in the House and his extraordinary service to our country. Norm always finishes his speeches by saying ``Thanks a million.'' And as he finishes his career on Capitol Hill, I ask my colleagues to join me in saying ``Thanks a million, Norm'' for giving so much of yourself to help build a more compassionate, progressive Nation. We wish you every success in the next chapter of your life.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1296 is a good government approach to management of the Presidio within the National Park System. No other park possesses the unique combination of resources and real estate as the Presidio. Because of this unusual combination, the Presidio lends itself to a management structure outside the realm of traditional operation of our national parks. [[Page E 1824]] That is why I strongly support H.R. 1296, which would create a Presidio trust. This model would preserve park resources while allowing the Presidio's properties to be used to generate revenues which could, in turn, be used to operate the Presidio. While this model might not work for other national parks, it is a practical approach for the vast and unique properties which comprise the Presidio. Mr. Speaker, it makes sense for us to pursue this type of management--it's cost-effective and addresses the monumental challenge of how to make the best public use of this unique and historically significant land. We should give H.R. 1296 a chance and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey amendment which would preserve cross-ownership restrictions on cable and broadcast television in local markets, as well as limit the percentage of viewers to which one media company could have access nationwide. There's a single phrase that defines the unique character of American society and democracy. It's a phrase that we learn as children and carry with us every day, yet seldom pause to reflect upon: ``E Pluribus Unum,'' or ``Out of Many, One.'' This phrase helps explain why the Markey amendment is so important. It reminds us that America is not monolithic. We are a nation that draws its strength from diversity, that prides itself on pluralism, that relishes the free flow of ideas. From the earliest days of the days of this country's existence, America has been a calliope of different voices, opinions, and convictions. We've revelled in our pluralism, encouraged robust debate, and fostered an aggressive national press to facilitate free speech. Public debate is not necessarily convenient for governing, but it's essential for democracy. It allows us to consider all sides of an issue, make sound decisions, and move ahead as one nation with firmness and resolve. ``E Pluribus Unum.'' It's a promise that all points of view will be aired--a sign that democracy is alive and well in the United States. The Markey amendment will ensure that many voices will continue to be heard in this Nation, that no one will be granted a monopoly on espousing ideas in our communities, that we will continue our proud tradition of vigorous public debate. In short, the Markey amendment will help preserve the diversity of opinion that is so vital to American democracy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, in my view, there is a gap in the debate we are engaged in. The mantra is that we must cut, cut drastically for the long term, for future generations. Mr. Chairman, there is a new generation, Congress, and they are alive today. They are our young; they are our kids. They have a right to hope and fulfill their dreams for themselves. They are the little ones of America today. Today, Mr. Chairman. We need to balance our budget, but the Republican budget priorities, tax breaks for the most fortunate of our country, who are not even asking for them, by the way, coupled with increased defense spending on the one hand and massive cuts in critical health and education programs on the other, shows just how little this majority really cares about the children of today. Healthy Start is a small program with a big payoff. It began 4 years ago as a demonstration project, providing funds to 15 communities with the highest rates of infant mortality in the country. Every industrial society measures itself by infant mortality rates. It operates on the premise that we should plant a seed, which is nurtured by local communities, with input from health care providers, so that we can solve this terrible problem. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a sad commentary on the priorities of this Congress, and this country, to increase defense spending, provide corporate subsidies that total over $100 billion, and insist on hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts while denying our tiniest citizens a chance at a healthy start. It is wrong-headed, it is wrong for the future of our Nation, and I think that it is shameful that the Congress would be doing this.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Crapo amendment which establishes a deficit reduction lockbox and finally makes our cuts count. When I was first elected to Congress, one of my first priorities was to reduce and eliminate the deficit. I became a cosponsor of the Deficit Reduction Lockbox Act then and have again cosponsored the bill in the 104th Congress. Why is this bill necessary? Every time we vote to cut spending in appropriations bills, these funds can be reallocated to other programs rather than being used for deficit reduction. Mr. Chairman, we must get our House in order before we reorder anything else. I worked hard to keep my own congressional office budget as low as possible both to save money and set an example of accountability to my constituents. I was one of the rock-bottom, low spenders in my class, returning the unspent dollars of my office account back to the Federal Treasury for deficit reduction. It's an outrage that we cannot do the same with our annual appropriations. This amendment will bring some accountability and common sense into our appropriations process, rebuild the confidence of the American people in what we do, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, if 1992 was the year of the woman, then 1995 must be the year of the assault on women. A good example of the continuing offensive against women in this country is the elimination of title X family planning money in this bill. Title X was enacted with broad bipartisan support in 1970. This program provides critical services to low-income women and uninsured working women. In addition to family planning services, title X clinics provide screening for breast and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, and hypertension. For many women, it provides the only basic health care they receive. While some in this body are pro-choice and others are anti-choice, none of us are pro-abortion. Yet this bill eliminates the one program which effectively prevents unwanted pregnancies and abortions. In fact, for less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget, this program averts 1.2 million unintended pregnancies, 516,000 abortions and 344,000 out-of-wedlock births each year. I find it interesting that this prevention program has come under attack only after its termination was urged by the Christian coalition in its ``Contract with the American Family.'' Mr. Chairman, we can't allow special interests to run this Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote against this mean-spirited attack on American women. We have come too far to let demagogic extremists reverse our gains.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of HR 1555. The indelible mark of the latter part of this century is that we have moved from an industrial era to the information age. Our Nation's telecommunications policies need revisions to match not only this moment but also prepare us for a new century. California's Silicon Valley, which I'm privileged to represent, are reinventing cyberspace each day, pioneering technologies so dramatic, that they revolutionize how we live, how we work, and how we learn. I'm committed to maintaining and enhancing the ingenuity and innovation of our high technology and communications industries. That's why I offered an amendment during full Commerce Committee consideration of this bill, adopted unanimously, that ensures that the FCC does not mandate standards which limit technology or consumer choices. The language is supported by American business alliances including the Telecommunications Industry Association, the Alliance to Promote Software Innovation, the Coalition to Preserve Competition and Open Markets, and the National Cable Television Association. On the other hand, foreign TV manufacturers are pushing the Federal Government to impose standards that will establish television sets as the gatekeeper to home automation systems. These interests have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising calling for the elimination of this language. They've done this because the amendment is the only obstacle in their path to monopolizing consumers. Mr. Chairman, my provision is not simply about TV wiring and cable signals. It's about shedding the past. It's about embracing the future. It's about allowing American technology to unleash their genius and create a new world of possibilities--new ways to communicate with each other, new ways to improve our lives, new ways to make technology work better for all of us. I urge Members to support deregulation of our telecommunications markets. Our nation's leadership in the information age depends on it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stokes/ Boehlert amendment. The VA-HUD bill drives a stake through the heart of our Nation's environmental laws. The new majority apparently doesn't think cutting EPA's budget by 34 percent is enough--they've weighed the bill down with restrictions on EPA spending which ties their hands in implementing and enforcing critically important programs for the protection of the American people. The riders on the bill would prohibit EPA from spending any money on programs which protect wetlands, control polluted runoff, prevent raw sewage from being discharged into our waters, implement the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, and then proceed with new standards for arsenic and radioactive pollutants in our drinking water. Mr. Chairman, more than 35 million people would be exposed to significant levels of arsenic in their drinking water, heightening cancer risks across our Nation. And while the republicans are proposing that EPA's ability to protect the health of American citizens be decimated, they are giving special favors and granting exemptions to environmental laws to their friends in the oil and gas industry and cement kiln operators. The Stokes/Boehlert amendment strips the appropriations bill of these legislative riders and enables the EPA, with the limited resources it has left, to implement the laws that the American people want, need and support which protect their air, water, and overall health. I thank the gentlemen for offering this amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Stokes- Boehlert amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Medicare's 30th birthday, let us remember its genesis. It was the people of this country who asked their government to enter into a partnership with them to provide security in their later years. It was an idea supported by Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and even Nixon. It was an idea that worked and continues to work. Not one of my constituents has ever written, called, or met with me asking me to gut Medicare, eliminate it, or slash its funding. The Republicans seem to think that they can fool the citizens of this country into thinking that their massive cuts will somehow reform the system. Cuts, I might add, that are suspiciously similar to the amount of money needed for their tax break package. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is a trust fund, not a slush fund. It is a program whose inception began with the American people and is still overwhelmingly supported by them. Let us celebrate Medicare's 30th birthday, Mr. Speaker, not prepare for its funeral.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the compromise amendment to restore crucial funding to NOAA, and in particular, the Coastal Zone Management Program. President Nixon signed the Coastal Zone Management Act into law in 1972 and since then it's been remarkably successful in achieving the dual goals of environmental protection and economic development. This is a voluntary program that allows states which choose to participate to establish their own programs based upon their own needs. The fact that 34 out of 35 eligible States have chosen to participate in CZMA is a testament to the program's overall success. Indeed, this Federal partnership with the States has encouraged coastal-dependent industries, enhanced commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational uses of marine resources, and protected natural and scenic treasures. Why is this program so important? Almost 50 percent of our country's population lives along our coasts and 80 percent live and work within 50 miles of our coasts. Of course, millions more visit our beautiful coasts each year. These growing numbers generate competing demands for coastal resources and create an increasing need for coastal management. The Federal matching grants from the Coastal Zone Management Program are critical for allowing local coastal managers to continue doing the jobs they do so well. Retreating from our Federal commitment to the coasts will not make coastal problems or coastal needs go away. It will just saddle cash- strapped state an local governments with more of the responsibility. What does this mean? It means less protection for our beaches, environmentally sensitive habitats, and wetlands. All of these are critical to the fishing, tourism, and recreation industries which together contribute more than $50 billion to our economy and support hundreds of thousands of jobs. It means less money for flood control and natural disaster protection. In short, it means a lower quality of life for the growing numbers of people who choose to live, work and visit our coastal areas. Mr. Chairman, I happen to have one of the most beautiful sections of coastline in my district and I want it to remain that way so that my grandchildren can enjoy it as much as I do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Mollohan amendment.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farr amendment, which reinstates funding for the coastal zone management program and marine sanctuary program. I would just like to say something about the word sanctuary. Whenever anyone hears that word, we think of something being precious, something being holy, as it were. There have been great battles in California to designate our precious areas of our coast as marine sanctuaries. These are gifts of our Nation that we share with all of our citizens and the citizens of the world, because they come to see it. So I think that funding should match the nobility of what we have. I rise to support what the gentleman from California is doing. He has been on the forefront of this issue for many, many years. I think that the Congress of the United States would distinguish itself in appropriating some money so that we can continue saying that this is indeed sanctuary, it is holy, it is something special, and we should treat it that way. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Farr amendment, which reinstates funding for the Coastal Zone Management Program and the Marine Sanctuary Program. Our Nation is largely a coastal one, with 80 percent of Americans living within 50 miles of the coast. The increasing demands on our coastal resources that result from the growing number of people and industries residing in coastal areas require sound policy and an adequate level of protection. The Coastal Zone Management Program is a proven State Federal partnership that protects our national treasures and promotes economic development. It is a voluntary program that 34 of 35 eligible States have chosen to participate in. They have elected to participate in this program because it allows them to establish their own programs based upon their own needs. The $9 million that the Farr amendment seeks to reinstate is critical for allowing local coastal managers to continue doing their jobs. I remind my colleagues that the increasing demands on our coasts will not go away if we choose to retreat from our Federal commitment. Indeed, failing to adequately fund this program will only result in a declining economy and a declining quality of life for the majority of Americans that choose to live and visit our beautiful coasts. The sanctuaries program protects and conserves our Nation's most precious marine resources. Limited funding in the past has barely kept pace with this rapidly growing program. But the 50 percent cut proposed by the Republicans would require closing some sites and drastically reducing funding for others. Mr. Chairman, these programs are vital to our coastal and marine resources. I urge my colleagues to support the Farr amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I amended the telecommunications bill to ensure the emergence of the Smart House--a fully automated digital home which the chart next to me diagrams. It is all about the future. The amendment ensures that the FCC does not limit consumers' ability to use their computers to provide security, maintain air quality, and provide entertainment. The language is supported by American business alliances including the Telecommunications Industry Association [TIA], the Alliance to Promote Software Innovation [APSI], and the National Cable Television Association [NCTA]. On the other hand, foreign TV manufacturers are pushing for FCC standards that will establish television sets as the gatekeeper to home automation systems. Mr. Speaker, the issue is simply. We can either embrace the future by allowing new technologies to flourish with minimum Government interference or cling to the past. I urge you to protect the cable compatibility language in H.R. 1555 and oppose any amendment to limit or strike it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the GAO issued a report outlining charges against ABC Home Health Care for defrauding American taxpayers through the Medicare Program. The Democrats want to reform the Medicare system, but you do not do it by picking the seniors' health care pockets dry. What we want to do is to scrap the tax break plan and stop this private sector ripoff of the public sector. The GAO said that this Georgia company did do this: $140,000 for airplane costs; $21,000 for a pilot's salary; $16,000 for alcohol at a leadership conference. Get this one: $84,000 for gourmet popcorn. My mother and father have never done this. This is, again, a ripoff by the providers and the private sector of the public sector. Scrap the tax break plan and stop picking at our senior citizens.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2058, the Bereuter- Wolf bill which sets forth a clear policy on China by the Congress, and requires the President to report back to Congress every 6 months on the progress China is making toward achieving democracy as we reward them with MFN status. It sets forth international standards of conduct on nuclear proliferation, international standards on human rights, and the lack of access to their markets. Last year Members of Congress were told that the provision of most favored nation [MFN] for China would give an incentive to Chinese leaders to be responsible with respect to how they treat their citizens and address the trade deficit. Since then, thousands of Chinese have been wrongfully imprisoned and persecuted and the Chinese leadership has continued to prevent freedom of association, speech, and religion. Although China is going through political and social changes, its leaders must know that the United States stands firm in our defense of the basic principles upon which our democracy was founded--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of affiliation. The detention of Harry Wu, an American citizen and a Hoover Institute scholar from Stanford University, which I am privileged to represent, and a globally recognized human rights leader is the most recent example of how oppressive the Chinese Government is. This resolution addresses the significant economic inequities which exist between our two countries. In 1989 the trade deficit was $6 billion; today it is closer to $40 billion. Our trade deficit with China will exceed our trade deficit with Japan in the next few years if we do not forge a clear policy to deal with it. But the most valuable export our great Nation has is democracy and the best lesson in democracy we can give the world are the standards upon which our democracy rests and celebrates. I urge my colleagues to support the Bereuter-Wolf bill, which will send a strong and clear message to the Chinese leadership that the Congress of the United States insists on these values in return for granting most-favored-nation status.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out on something which never should have seen the light of day in our political process--a new low in tactics to raise money to win elections. As part of a recent fund raising drive, the National Republican Congressional Committee has issued a special ``wanted'' poster. This poster features pictures of 28 Democrats who it claims to be targeting for defeat because they voted against the Contract With America 70 percent of the time. Ninety Democrats have similar voting records, yet the Republican wanted poster consists almost entirely of people who are seldom associated with Republican fund raising lists--African-Americans, women, Jewish-Americans, and Hispanics. In fact, only 6 of the 28 targeted Democrats are white men who are not Jewish. Despite Republican protests to the contrary, this wanted poster is less about raising money than it is about raising the ugly specter of racism, sexism, and antisemitism. It's all about appealing to the most base elements of human nature. It's all about degrading the opposition with thinly veiled personal attacks. It's all about manipulating the political forces of division and hate. This wanted poster illustrates how far the party of Lincoln has fallen. Today's Republican Party has been captured by the forces of extremism and intolerance. Moderate Republican voices are being drowned out by a chorus of right-wing ideologues who are far outside the mainstream of American thinking. This wanted poster sends several messages. It says that while Pat Buchanan and David Duke may have failed in their efforts to win national public office, they have won the hearts and minds of the national Republican Party. It says that Republicans would rather run with Willie Horton than run on the issues. It says that Republicans are less concerned about controlling illegal immigration than they are about whipping up fear over Hispanics increasing their presence in our communities. It says that women who stand up for the right to choose should sit down and be silent. It says that the gay-baiting and bashing openly practiced by Republican leaders in the House and Senate is a deliberate policy, not a slip of the tongue. Finally, it says that Republicans are willing to inflame the anti- Government sentiment which contributed to the Oklahoma City tragedy instead of reminding people that public service is a noble calling. The Republican wanted poster demonstrates a dark side of the majority party and their politics. These below-the-belt tactics have no place in this Nation and its body politic. I think the Republican Party needs a new wanted poster, and here's what it should say: ``Wanted--Tolerance. Civility. Moderation. Inclusion. If found, please apply to the Republican National Congressional Committee for reward.'' Mr. Speaker, bigotry belongs in the trash bin of American history, not in the envelopes of Republican fund raising letters. It's time for those who instigated this effort to recognize their mistake and apologize to the people who they attacked and withdraw this shameful effort. It's time for them to pledge to the American people that it will never happen again. And it's time for them to heed the words of President George Washington who wrote that our Government should be one which ``* * * gives bigotry no sanction; to persecution no assistance.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns- Crane amendment. Republicans are trying to run roughshod over the majority of the American people. A nationwide poll shows that 60 percent of Americans want Federal support for the arts. And why not? The arts attract tourist dollars, stimulate business development, spur urban renewal, and improve the overall quality of life--they are an investment in our communities and in our children. Some of my colleagues justify terminating this worthwhile program in the name of budget austerity. Yet cultural funding costs only about 64 cents a year per capita and helps generate $37 billion in economic activity, including over $3 billion in Federal income taxes. Mr. Chairman, this is not deficit reduction--it's a mean-spirited attempt to do away with what benefits the American people. I urge my colleagues to defeat his amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1289.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this budget resolution. I support a balanced budget amendment and am prepared to make the tough choices needed to stop the flow of red ink. But this budget is built on a faulty foundation and constructed with a tax break for the rich that we can not afford. In the midst of a fiscal crisis is it responsible to give away $245 billion in tax cuts? I do not think so. A tax break for the wealthy means less for everyone else. It means breaking our commitments to the American people. It says we no longer care about seniors who have built our country and we no longer care about educating our young people who will ensure our country's future. Seniors must give up, get less, and pay more and college bound students must go it alone. Mr. Speaker, we can reduce the deficit in a balanced and fair way-- one that reduces spending while investing in our future. My constituents care deeply about education, protection of our fragile environment, basic research, and fairness. They say cut and invest. This budget does neither and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment and in support of the Meyers amendment. I think that it is very important on all issues that we debate in this House that we have some truth in advertising. This issue that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] has raised zeros and zero. Since 1973, the taxpayers of this Nation have not funded abortions overseas. Let me repeat that. Since 1973, the U.S. taxpayer has not funded abortions overseas. We are not going to start doing that now. What Mr. Smith is proposing is to go after family planning. Any thinking person in this country and around the world recognizes that one of the great environmental issues that faces not only this Nation but around the globe is the issue of overpopulation. If, in fact, if, in fact, we want abortions reduced, then we should recognize that around the world, especially the greatest and the most powerful nation on the face of this earth should give leadership on the issue of family planning. When family planning takes place, then that begins to resolve so many of the problems that we extend our hand in aid for. So every Member of this House, regardless of where they are on the issue of abortion or choice, should understand that it is not a debate about public dollars going to fund abortions overseas. That is not what this issue is about. Mr. Smith seeks to knock out family planning. And people in this country overwhelmingly understand and appreciate what the issue of family planning can bring about. So I rise in support of the Meyers amendment. I think it is important. I think that it is straightforward. I think it speaks to the direction that we need to move. I applaud the leadership that she had given on it. I think that every Member of the House should again understand that Mr. Smith is not going after stopping any U.S. tax dollar for abortions. For my entire 5 minutes I should have repeated one sentence and one sentence only. He is going after family planning. No tax dollar was used since 1973 for abortions overseas.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chris K. Mouroufas, a proud Greek-American, a great civic leader, and an extraordinary friend who passed away this month. Mr. Mouroufas lived the American success story. Born in Messina, Greece, he emigrated to the United States, built a prosperous business, and became widely known in the Greek-American community for his willingness to help newcomers. He was a leader in the affairs of the city of San Francisco, having been appointed to the San Francisco Protocol Committee by mayors George Moscone, Dianne Feinstein, and Art Agnos. In addition, Mayor Agnos named Mr. Mouroufas to the San Francisco Film Commission, where he served as chairman. Mr. Speaker, Chris Mouroufas was a prominent member of the San Francisco Bay area who selflessly gave his time and talents to make our community a better place. What he cherished most was his family and his family of friends. He was a man of his word, a man of loyalty and a man of integrity. When Chris Mouroufas extended himself in friendship, it was a bond for life. I know, I was blessed to be his friend. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring him and all he did as a noble citizen of a nation he embraced, served, and loved, and extend our deepest sympathies to his beloved wife, Tula, and godson, Christopher.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, this morning I think that we should recall the words of a great woman of many, many years ago, Barbara Jordan, during the Watergate hearings, when she intoned the Constitution. Yesterday was a bad day for the Constitution. Yesterday was a bad day for this card that we each have that the people of our respective congressional districts graced us with, the power to speak for them, the power to represent them with our vote. The Constitution. The Constitution. Yesterday was a good day for fundraising. Yesterday was a bad day for democracy and for the Constitution and the power that the people gave us in the House of Representatives to cast our vote and to speak for them. Shame on those that would chip away at the Constitution.