My esteemed colleague Howard Mintz has the full story on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and you can read the opinion yourself (assuming the court’s website doesn’t get overloaded again) by clicking here.

Meanwhile, here’s a treasury of quotes from elected officials.

From House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco:

“Today’s decision is a victory for civil rights and for progress for the LGBT community and for all Californians.

“By declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit made a strong statement that laws must not target the LGBT community for discrimination and all of our state’s families deserve to enjoy fair and equal treatment under the law.

“As this battle moves through the appeals process, we must, and will, continue the fight for the fundamental rights of LGBT couples and every American. We will keep up the charge for change and equality in state legislatures and in the courts, and work in Congress to repeal and overturn the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Together, we will make every discriminatory marriage amendment and law a thing of the past.”

From Gov. Jerry Brown:

“The court has rendered a powerful affirmation of the right of same-sex couples to marry. I applaud the wisdom and courage of this decision.”

From Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom:

“Today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stands as a victory for the fundamental American principle that all people are equal, and deserve equal rights and treatment under the law. This is the biggest step that the American judicial system has taken to end the grievous discrimination against men and women in same-sex relationships and should be highly praised.

“Proposition 8 has done nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples. These men and women are our firefighters, our paramedics, our law enforcement, our service-members, and to treat their relationships differently is unfair, unlawful, and violates the basic principle of who we are as a nation.

“Today however, it has been made clear that this type of discrimination will not be tolerated—there is no state power or law that can claim one type of love is more deserving of status and benefits than another. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has fulfilled its obligation to all Americans by protecting the fundamental right of all people to marry those whom they love. It has upheld the overall integrity of the American judicial system by placing individual characteristics of judges and justices secondary to their duty and commitment to true justice and equality.

“Although countless people have worked tirelessly to achieve this ruling, I would like to recognize the inspiring dedication demonstrated by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. They have never relented in their mission for equal marriage rights and should be highly commended for these efforts.

“While today marks a historic milestone towards equality for all Americans, our journey is not over until the highest court in the United States reaches the same decision that the Court of Appeals did today. It is on that day that the struggle for equality will be over and the dream on which this great nation was founded will become a reality.”

From state Attorney General Kamala Harris:

“Today’s ruling is a victory for fairness, a victory for equality and a victory for justice. Proposition 8 denied to gay and lesbian couples the equal protection to which all Americans are entitled. By striking this unconstitutional law from our books, the court has restored dignity, equality and respect to all Californians.”

For some counterpoint (although he’s not an elected official), here’s SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson:

“God created a man and a woman to fit together in marriage. The People of California have twice affirmed this beautiful, natural, and exclusive pro-family institution between a husband and wife, a man and a woman. The Ninth Circuit ruling to strike down man-woman marriage, by a Carter judge and a Clinton judge, is unfair to the voters, against our republic, against our democratic system, against the United States Constitution, against Nature, and against God and His beneficial design of family.

“It’s illogical and unconstitutional to claim that natural, unchangeable race and ethnicity is the same as sexual behavior. That’s not fair or true. Race and ethnicity are inherited, but science has never found homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality to be inherited or unchangeable. Neither is this about commitment. As the divorce of leading anti-Prop. 8 lesbians Robin Tyler and Diane Olson demonstrates, the notion of homosexual ‘marriage’ is not really about ‘commitment,’ but is a political agenda forcing acceptance of homosexuality upon the children of America. Yet nothing is equal to marriage between a man and a woman. If you don’t have a man and a woman, you don’t have marriage.

‘Judicial activists like Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins need to be reined in like Newt Gingrich has been saying about judicial activists. Marriage is not in the United States Constitution, so this case should never have gone to federal court. Now it will be appealed to the nation’s high court, with Anthony Kennedy being the deciding vote. Fortunately, in past rulings favoring homosexuality, Kennedy has written against redefining marriage, making it likely that he will affirm California’s right to reserve marriage licenses for ‘a man and a woman.’”

Lots more, after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

Some Bay Area House members are going bananas over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s decision to stop funding breast-cancer exams through Planned Parenthood health centers.

Here’s a clip of Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, speaking about it on the House floor today:

Speier, along with Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland; Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose; Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; and Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, were among 17 female California House Democrats who issued this joint statement:

“As the largest number of women legislators in Congress, we have come together to express our concern and displeasure over Susan G. Komen’s decision. Caving to a Congressional right-wing witch hunt won’t just hurt Planned Parenthood, it sets back women’s health. Funding from Susan G. Komen has allowed Planned Parenthood to provide nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams in the past five years as well as more than 6,400 mammogram referrals.

“One in five women in America has gone to Planned Parenthood at some point in her life, and as science has shown, early detection is the key to survival. For the sake of women’s health we sincerely hope that Komen will reconsider their decision, and until then, we do not plan to work with the national foundation.”

And, from U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.:

“I was perplexed and troubled to see the decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to cut off funding for life-saving breast cancer screenings through Planned Parenthood because of a political witch hunt by House Republicans. I truly hope that they will reconsider this decision and put the needs of women first.”

More, after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

More than two dozen California House Democrats – including almost the entire Bay Area delegation, and led by three Bay Area members – have urged President Barack Obama to make a recess appointment that could bring a national mortgage-refinancing wave which in turn could stave off countless foreclosures.

Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose; and Mike Thompson, D-Napa led the effort to convince the president to appoint a new director to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the FHFA has been without a permanent director for two and a half years.

“Republicans in the Senate have been playing games with the American people by blocking the Federal Housing Financial Authority from having a proper leader,” Lofgren said in a news release. “These are difficult times and we need to be doing everything we can to prevent foreclosures and keep families in their homes. I urge President Obama to take immediate action and appoint a permanent director.”

As the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein blogged yesterday, there’s some bipartisan consensus that “the agency could write the rules so that anyone with a loan backed by Fannie and Freddie and current on their payments for six months would be automatically approved for refinancing.”

“The effect on the economy would be twofold: First, the refinancings would act like a high-powered tax cut for those homeowners who took advantage of them,” Klein wrote. “As Hubbard and Mayer write, ‘Empirical evidence suggests that consumers spend a larger portion of permanent increases in income than temporary increases.’ And as these refinancings would lower payments, they’re as permanent as you can get in government policy. Second, it would make the Fed’s efforts to keep interest rates low more effective in stimulating the economy.”

More than two million California homeowners are considered “underwater” because they owe more on their homes then their homes are worth; that’s about three in 10 of all California homes with mortgages.

Eshoo today said the national economy “cannot fully rebound unless and until housing is addressed. The current situation of foreclosures is unacceptable.”

Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, issued a release noting this region has been disproportionately affected by the financial and housing crises.

“Families are faced with foreclosures, even as unemployment remains high. We can’t wait to have leadership to help folks stay in their homes,” he said. “Keeping folks in their homes is critical to the economic health of our communities. More has to be done to give people a clear path to avoiding foreclosure.”

The only Bay Area House member who didn’t sign the letter was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco.

The Federal Communications Commission has given television stations, cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors one year to comply with new rules limiting the volume of advertisements under a Bay Area House member’s law.

No, it’s not your imagination – those ads are louder than the shows they interrupt. To forbid this, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, authored the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, a Senate version of which passed the Senate unanimously in September 2010 and passed the House on a voice vote three months later and was signed into law by President Barack Obama a year ago this Thursday.

Eshoo since then has been working with the FCC to ensure that the rules implementing the new law are fair. Those rules were approved today.

“I’m proud to have led the charge to pass the CALM Act, which will give consumers the relief they’ve clamored for. TV stations now have the responsibility to turn down the volume on excessively loud commercials, and it’s about time,” Eshoo said in a news release. “The law I wrote is simple – the volume of television commercials cannot be louder than regular programming. Households across the country will soon get the relief they deserve from the annoyance of blaringly loud television commercials.”

Eshoo’s office said loud commercials have been a top consumer complaint for decades, and are listed as such in 21 of the FCC’s 25 quarterly reports between 2002 and 2009. A 2009 Harris poll found almost 90 percent of TV viewers are bothered by high commercial volumes, prompting 41 percent of viewers to turn down the volume, 22 percent to mute the TV, and 17 percent to change the channel altogether. Before the CALM Act, the official FCC policy recommended that consumers mute commercials if they find them too strident.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, unsurprisingly has spent the most of any Bay Area House member so far in 2011 while Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, has spent the least, according to Congressional spending data crunched by the Sunlight Foundation.

Here are the year-to-date spending numbers through Sept. 30, the end of the third quarter:

Nancy Pelosi — $1,131,048.95
Lynn Woolsey — $1,102.313.04
Anna Eshoo – $1,065,928.98
Jackie Speier — $1,053,889.75
Mike Honda — $1,037,247,79
Barbara Lee — $1,009.844.70
Zoe Lofgren — $970,630.03
George Miller — $950,707.76
Pete Stark — $941,132.97
Jerry McNerney — $838,944.86
John Garamendi — $780,133.41

Pelosi’s spending has been driven in large part by her $201,793.78 in the rent/communications/utilities category, which was about three times the lowest amount a Bay Area member spent in that area (that’s Pete Stark, D-Fremont, at $67,773.11). As reported last year, the rent on Pelosi’s district office – in the new federal office building on Seventh Street south of Market in San Francisco – is the House’s highest by far, at $18,736 per month.

Stark, however, has spent more than three times the next-closest Bay Area member on franked mail – $56,489.20 – and almost twice as much on printing and reproduction, at $53,887.27. That’s in keeping with Stark’s past practices, however: In 2010 he spent $100,518.11 on franked mail and $69,001.83 on printing and reproduction; in 2009, it was $165,554.82 on franked mail and $141,112.70 on printing and reproduction. As one of his constituents, I can attest that Stark loves sending mailers regularly to his district’s voters, updating them on issues and inviting them to town meetings.

Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, who is retiring at the end of this term, clocked in with both the highest personnel costs of any Bay Area member so far this year – $883,353.14 – and the highest travel costs, at $40,870.14. Garamendi has the lowest personnel costs ($573,073.70) while Stark logged the least travel costs ($7,369.66).

The South Bay’s House members are among 39 Democrats who signed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Alabama’s anti-illegal immigration law, HB 56.

Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; Mike Honda, D-San Jose; and Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, joined in the brief filed Monday, which argued six sections of Alabama’s law are unconstitutional.

“All of these sections are impliedly preempted by federal law and Congressional power and, if allowed to stand, will create an unworkable conflict between federal and state enforcement schemes and priorities,” the brief said. “Such a conflict will frustrate the orderly enforcement of federal immigration law and could jeopardize this Nation’s relationships with its closest allies.”

The brief also argues the law will harm the rights of all Alabamans, including citizens, under the First, Fourth, Sixth and 14th Amendments.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., spearheaded the effort to get lawmakers on board with the brief, including a Nov. 21 delegation trip to Birmingham, Ala., which Lofgren accompanied. Other signers of the brief included Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Democratic Caucus Vice Chair Xavier Becerra, D-Los Angeles.

“The Constitution is quite clear about the federal government’s preeminent role in immigration matters and having 50 inconsistent state policies towards immigrants is a level of chaos the Founders sought to avoid,” Gutierrez, who chairs the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’s Immigration Task Force, said in a news release. “HB 56 adds layers of punitive measures targeting Alabama residents that are inconsistent with federal policy. Congress has the responsibility to balance many concerns in legislating federal immigration policy, such as law enforcement, the economy, family unity, education, civil rights, and so on. HB 56 has and will cause irreparable harm to communities and families throughout Alabama, but will also cause irreparable damage to Constitutional principles if allowed to stand. We join the U.S. Department of Justice, civil rights organizations, immigrant advocates, educators and people of faith in calling for HB 56 to be stripped from Alabama’s law books.”

Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction co-chairs Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., acknowledged this afternoon that their “supercommittee” has failed, issuing this joint statement:

“After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline.

“Despite our inability to bridge the committee’s significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation’s fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve. We remain hopeful that Congress can build on this committee’s work and can find a way to tackle this issue in a way that works for the American people and our economy.

“We are deeply disappointed that we have been unable to come to a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement, but as we approach the uniquely American holiday of Thanksgiving, we want to express our appreciation to every member of this committee, each of whom came into the process committed to achieving a solution that has eluded many groups before us. Most importantly, we want to thank the American people for sharing thoughts and ideas and for providing support and good will as we worked to accomplish this difficult task.

“We would also like to thank our committee staff, in particular Staff Director Mark Prater and Deputy Staff Director Sarah Kuehl, as well as each committee member’s staff for the tremendous work they contributed to this effort. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Douglas Elmendorf and Mr. Thomas Barthold and their teams at the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, respectively, for the technical support they provided to the committee and its members.”

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, responded:

“While I am disappointed, the House will forge ahead with the commitments we have made to reducing government spending and removing barriers standing in the way of private-sector job creation. Doing otherwise is not an option. This process did not end in the desired outcome, but it did bring our enormous fiscal challenges into greater focus. I am confident the work done by this committee will play a role in the solution we must eventually find as a nation.

“I commend both of the panel’s leaders, Jeb Hensarling and Patty Murray, for the dignified and statesmanlike manner in which the committee carried out its difficult negotiations. I want to particularly thank Jeb for the principled leadership and love of country he consistently has demonstrated in leading Republicans on the Joint Select Committee, as well as Dave Camp and Fred Upton for the countless hours they invested in this process for a noble cause.”

Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, said today that President Obama had wanted a plan that was “big, bold and balanced” between spending cuts and revenue increases, but “from day one, (Senate Minority Leader) Mitch Mcconnell and the Republican leadership said they would not put new revenues on the table.”

Miller said he never had “a lot of confidence it would work, but it’s part of a process” and that process’ next part is sequestration – $1.2 trillion in automatically triggered cuts, about half in domestic spending and half in defense, to be implemented at the start of 2013. “Now the question is, are we going to keep our word?”

If anyone in Congress moves to diminish those cuts, he said, President Obama should veto the bill – exactly what the White House promised today. “This was a bargain we made with the public – not my favorite bargain, but it’s what we said we were going to do,” Miller said. “Now, I think the point is, we need to stand by that.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, on KQED’s Forum this morning said Republican intransigence is to blame.

“(T)he sticking point from the very beginning was the announcement of Republicans saying that they had signed a pledge with Grover Norquist, and that revenues and increases of taxes for certain income brackets were off the table,” she said. “On the Democratic side, it’s not true that we didn’t support reform to the entitlements, to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. What the Democrats opposed was stripping away the guarantee and simply going to a voucher system. What I’m struck by is that the message that goes out, if the Committee doesn’t come up with anything today, is a pox on everyone’s house, and that the Congress can’t accomplish anything.”

“Here we are a can-do nation, respected around the world, and everyone really shaking their heads and saying what’s wrong with them. I think it sends a bad message not only to our constituents, but also the markets as well during a very tenuous time when our economy is as fragile as it is,” Eshoo said. “It seems to me that this Grover Norquist pledge is trumping the pledge that we take when we are sworn in as Members of Congress.”

More from the Bay Area’s voices in Congress, after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

Local members of Congress applauded President Obama ‘s announcement today of new policies meant to shore up the shaky housing market – a plan that could help a lot of Bay Area homeowners refinance “underwater” mortgages at historically low interest rates.

From U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.:

“I am very pleased that the administration is taking these steps to help responsible homeowners refinance at historically low interest rates. Allowing these homeowners to refinance at today’s record low rates will keep families in their homes and boost the economy by putting thousands of dollars back in the pockets of borrowers. I urge FHFA to move swiftly to assure that these new policies will help as many homeowners as possible.”

From Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton:

“I am glad that a step has been taken in the right direction. I hope this has a positive effect, but if it does not deliver, I will continue to hold the Obama Administration accountable and demand relief for homeowners. We must do more to help the people of California who have been plagued by the foreclosure crisis from day one.

“For far too long, I have heard heartbreaking stories from people in our region: tales of people doing everything they can, and still being foreclosed upon. I will continue to fight for more real, commonsense solutions to the housing crisis and to keep the pressure on the folks in Washington to help our community.

“We need to relieve some of the financial burden for homeowners who are ‘underwater,’ not only to more foreclosures, but to generate more money that will go into our local businesses. Helping the people of our region stay in their homes is step one to restoring our economy.”

From Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto:

“The President took a positive first step today to help address the catastrophic housing situation in the country. It’s not enough though. Up to a million families nationally could be helped, but there are two million underwater homeowners in California alone.

“We need meaningful principal reductions on a large scale. It’s time to implement a Homeowner’s Bill of Rights that ends dual-tracking and creates a single point of contact for borrowers. The size and scope of this housing crisis requires us to think big. Our nation’s economy simply will not recover until the crisis of foreclosures is over.”

From Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough:

“Finally, relief for the middle class families of America! I applaud the FHFA for taking bold and needed action. I and many of my colleagues had appealed directly to Mr. DeMarco, the head of FHFA, to take these actions to refinance middle class America, and he has responded. In particular, the decision not to put a cap on the loan-to-value ratio that is eligible to be refinanced via a fixed rate mortgage will mean that potentially millions of homeowners will be eligible. Given that Fannie and Freddie are owned by taxpayers, this decision is a win for them as well. There are reduced odds of losses from the guarantees issued by these two agencies, and there is no cost to taxpayers because Fannie and Freddie will fund this refinancing activity through new bonds. If the wave materializes, it could also help to stabilize the housing market in neighborhoods where refinancing occurs frequently, and could potentially put thousands of dollars into the pockets of a strapped homeowner who refinances. All in all, I only wish that this process could begin immediately, but I understand that banks aren’t set up to handle a wave of applicants. Hopefully, competition between lenders will force them to participate in this new program and drive them to get set up rapidly.”

President Obama has announced that all U.S. troops except about 150 will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of this year; the few remaining troops will protect the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and serve as trainers.

From Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney:

“President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq.”

From U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.:

“I applaud President Obama for a promise kept. Today is a day to honor our troops and our military families who have sacrificed so much over the last nine years to give the Iraqi people a chance at a better future. It is now up to the Iraqis to secure their country and provide opportunity for all their people.”

From House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio:

“The continued drawdown of American troops that began under the previous administration wouldn’t be possible if not for the hard work and sacrifice of our service members, diplomats and their families. While on a congressional visit to Iraq this year, several lawmakers and I saw firsthand the progress our men and women in uniform had made. American forces not only freed Iraq from a vicious tyrant, but – under the strategy developed and implemented by our generals, and the leadership of both President Bush and President Obama – ended a violent terrorist insurgency that threatened the Iraqi people, and provided an opportunity for the Iraqi government to build the capacity needed to effectively meet the needs of the country.

“We must never forget the sacrifice of those who’ve served and all who will soon be making the journey home. And we owe it to them to continue engaging with the Iraqi government in a way that ensures our hard-fought gains translate into long-term success. While I’m concerned that a full withdrawal could jeopardize those gains, I’m hopeful that both countries will work together to guarantee that a free and democratic Iraq remains a strong and stable partner for the United States in the Middle East.

“We must also keep working to ensure our veterans have our full support as they return home to a tough economy. That’s why the House recently passed a bipartisan veterans hiring bill that provides training and assistance to unemployed veterans, and breaks down barriers preventing them from finding work.”

From Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont:

“I am happy to hear President Obama’s announcement that our troops will be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the end of this year. This is significant progress in the right direction. However, I am still concerned about the thousands of contractors who will continue to work in Iraq, and whether their continued presence constitutes a real withdrawal from the nation. While I hope the transition to a self-governing Iraq is a smooth one, I also hope for a true withdrawal of U.S. involvement.”

More, after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

Three U.S. Senate Democrats introduced a bill today that mirrors legislation introduced in June by a Bay Area House member to make wireless providers give complete, accurate information about their 4G wireless data services in their ads and sales practices.

The Next Generation Wireless Disclosure Act by U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Al Franken, D-Minn., parallels the earlier bill, HR 2281, by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto.

“Consumers deserve to know exactly what they’re getting when they sign up for a two year wireless data plan,” Eshoo, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Communications and Technology Subcommittee, said today. “Consumers want faster and faster phones, and demand for 4G is only going to increase. But they also deserve to know the truth about the speeds they’re actually getting. Wireless companies advertise 4G service as ‘lightning fast’ and ‘super-charged,’ but that’s not always the case. My legislation is simple – it will require truth in advertising.”

She said she’s proud to see Blumenthal and Franken – both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law – along with Klobuchar introduce the bill’s Senate version. “With their help, we can make sure that consumers have all the information they need to make an informed choice about which wireless data service to purchase.”

At the moment, 4G wireless broadband internet is in the eye of the beholder: With no standard definition, the four major wireless companies can advertise different technology as “4G” despite speeds that differ vastly depending on provider and location. The legislation would force them to disclose guaranteed minimum data speed, network reliability, coverage area maps, pricing, the technology used to provide 4G service and network conditions that can impact speed on all of their point-of-sale marketing and advertising as well as on all billing materials.

The bills also would require the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate the speed and price of 4G wireless data service provided by the top ten U.S. wireless carriers, so consumers can see a side-by-side comparison in their own service areas.

“When consumers purchase a 4G wireless plan, they have the right to know exactly what they’re getting for their money,” Klobuchar said today. “This legislation will help ensure that wireless companies are honest about their product’s capabilities so consumers can get a fair deal.”

Consumer advocate groups are all about this legislation.

“The Eshoo bill will empower consumers who are shopping for wireless broadband service,” Consumers Union policy counsel Parul Desai had said in June. “It will help people cut through the clutter so we can compare prices and options, and we can better understand what really constitutes 4G data service. Right now, there aren’t a lot of consumer protections for mobile broadband customers, and the Eshoo bill would help ensure consumers have certain rights and information when they sign up for a plan.”