Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of making this TANF law better, instead of giving welfare recipients the tools to move from welfare to self-sufficiency, we are once again renewing, for the eighth time renewing it, actually, a bill that continues moving families from welfare further into poverty.

Instead, we should be making education or training count as work so that that activity for welfare recipients will help them get ready for better educational opportunities and job training so they can have better opportunities for earning a salary that pays a livable wage. They will not get that unless they have education and training. Instead of again extending an outdated welfare bill, we should be providing quality child care, child care that includes more care for infants, child care that extends to parents who work weekends and evenings. That is what we need. That is what these parents need. That is what they need to help them get their jobs and become self-sufficient.

Let us face it, if parents do not have a safe, convenient place to leave their children, they cannot go to work. Believe me, I know, because over 30 years ago I was a single mother with three small children, abandoned by their father; and even though I was working full-time, I needed welfare, aid for dependent children at that time, to keep our lives together, to get my children the health care, the child care they needed. But eventually I worked my way out of poverty and started my own business before running for Congress. Of course, you have to know that I believe that others should have the same opportunities that I had.

While I support this short-term extension as necessary, I want us to begin to work to authorize a bill that will give workers the training and the education and the child care that they need so that they can be successful. They need the same kind of opportunities that I was afforded 30 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Walt Disney once said that ``our greatest natural resource is the minds of our children.''

Today, we honor the Festival of Children Foundation, an organization that improves the lives of children and families in Orange County, California, by collaborating with local children's charities to promote education, community involvement and the arts.

In the last 2 years, more than 100 nonprofit groups in southern California have benefited enormously from the exposure, partnership and assistance of the Festival of Children Foundation. In particular, the foundation has declared September 2004 as a month to ``Celebrate the Magic of Childhood.'' It is working with 52 agencies and organizations to serve the children of southern California with high-profile exhibits to continue with the foundation's mission.

I would like to congratulate the foundation on its excellent work to strengthen their community and to benefit the lives of children, and I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for introducing this meaningful legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the life of William ``Count'' Basie and his influence on jazz and swing music. Born in Red Bank, New Jersey, Count Basie began to learn the piano under his mother's direction. In 1924, he moved to New York City to perfect his talent and begin his remarkable career.

Throughout the years, he developed and advanced his own music style. In 1935, Count Basie formed his own nine-piece group called the Barons of Rhythm. The Barons of Rhythm's style was a powerful one. This earned Basie the nickname ``Count.'' By the end of the 1930s, the band was one of the most popular in the world, with hits like ``One O'clock Jump'' and ``Jumpin' At the Woodside.''

Count Basie continued to share his talent with the world through the 1970s. In 1985, one year after his death, President Reagan awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 1996, the U.S. Post Office honored him with a commemorative stamp.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we honor the 100th anniversary of the birth of Count Basie and acknowledge the tremendous impact he had on music. I congratulate our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Duke Ellington has been called the ``quintessential American composer'' and is one of the greats of world music history. He brought a great deal of refinement and elegance to jazz.

His first piano lessons began around the age of 7, but it took seeing a few great live performances to cement his commitment to music. The Duke found piano playing jobs at clubs and cafes throughout the Washington, D.C. area. In late 1917, he formed his first group. By the late 1920s, his band became the most sought after band in the United States. Duke Ellington and his band played everywhere from New York to New Delhi, Chicago to Cairo, Los Angeles to London. Duke Ellington and his band played with Miles Davis, Cab Calloway, Dizzy Gillespie, Ella Fitzgerald, Tony Bennett, and Louis Armstrong, and entertained everyone from queens to Presidents.

Thirty years ago, Washington, D.C. honored the Duke by renaming a high school the Duke Ellington School of Arts. I am pleased that today we will again honor the Duke by passing this resolution which came to us through the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who knows good music when she hears it. This resolution commemorates Duke Ellington's life and work, and supports the annual Duke Ellington Jazz Festival on the mall.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in the place of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our Education and Workforce ranking member, in strong support of this resolution and to honor the United Negro College Fund on the occasion of the fund's 60th anniversary. Founded in 1944 by Dr. Frederick Patterson, the United Negro College Fund is the Nation's largest, oldest, most successful and most comprehensive minority education assistance organization. The United Negro College Fund has long been a forerunner in recognizing the importance of a quality education for both individuals and for the greater good of society. Just as millions of students, particularly minority and low-income students, struggle to pay for a college education, the fund continues to enhance the quality of education by providing college aid to deserving students. In fact, the United Negro College Fund has raised over $2 billion towards helping more than 300,000 students attend college.

Over the past 60 years, the fund has distributed more funds to help minority students attend school than any other organization outside of the Federal Government. In addition, the fund continues to provide critical support to Historically Black Colleges and Universities as a means to keep tuition down to a rate that is about half that at comparable schools and to continue to provide a quality education. If not for their important work and investments, many students in my own district would be unable to attend college.

The United Negro College Fund is also dedicated to raising operating funds for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and to boosting access to technology for students and faculty at these institutions. These funds help to ensure that students have access to quality academic student support services and to new technologies necessary to prepare them for careers in science, medicine, and public safety. The United Negro College Fund has contributed immensely to the Nation by producing graduates who have given back to their communities as nurses, teachers, elected officials, civil servants, community leaders, and doctors.

I commend the United Negro College Fund on its 60th anniversary for its outstanding commitment toward providing a quality education for minority and low-income students and towards strengthening our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration loves to tout George W. Bush's willingness to stay the course as the source of his strength as a President. Day after day, the President and his surrogates use this ``resolve'' to demonstrate why he should be reelected.

The sad truth is that President Bush's resolve amounts to little more than a campaign tool to disguise the fact that his administration's policies have increasingly made Americans far less safe in the world. The President's resolve is actually nothing more than his attempt to lead our Nation while wearing blinders.

President Bush failed to demonstrate resolve in fighting terrorism in the days before the September 11 terrorist attack. In fact, he vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, for the entire month of August in the year 2001, neglecting to act on his daily intelligence briefings which specifically warned against terrorists crashing planes into large city buildings.

Since September 11, President Bush has continued to fail in his resolve to fight international terrorism. Despite a promise to apprehend Osama bin Laden, dead or alive, President Bush actually pulled troops out of Afghanistan in the year 2002. This grave error

allowed the al Qaeda leader to flee to the shadowy hinterlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Early in 2002, with bin Laden still on the loose, President Bush turned his attention to Iraq. Citing the threat of Iraq's nuclear weapons program and Saddam Hussein's links to al Qaeda, Bush marshaled a war resolution through Congress.

Resolve, however, was not enough to win the support of the United Nations; so our President, determined to stop Iraq's supposed nuclear threat, went to Iraq with the support of only a loose and fragmented coalition of other countries.

Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction have been found and no evidence has ever linked Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Still, the President's handlers point to his resolve as a source of strength. Strength for whom? The terrorists who have escaped from America's grasp as we shamefully turned our attention to Iraq? The leaders of Iran and North Korea who continue to develop the deadliest weapons known to man? Resolve, as thousands of insurgents savagely attack our soldiers and Iraqi civilians? Resolve, as more than 1,000 American soldiers and at least 13,000 innocent Iraqi civilians are killed in Iraq? And let us not forget about the more than 7,000 U.S. soldiers who have been gravely wounded. Where is the resolve to protect our troops?

I, for one, am sick and tired of the White House calling it resolve when President Bush continues to focus on Iraq at the expense of other, more important issues.

Today the House voted to reallocate $3.4 billion of last year's $18.4 billion supplemental, using it for military purposes instead of for Iraq's reconstruction. So now we are forced to pilfer money that is supposed to pay for infrastructure needs for the Iraqi people.

This, after spending less than $2 billion of the $18.4 billion allocated for Iraq's reconstruction in the first place. I do not consider that resolve; I consider it malignant neglect of an entire country's needs.

There has to be a better way to handle the quagmire in Iraq. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism.

SMART security treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships, and it controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes.

If we had pursued a SMART security strategy in the first place, America would not be embroiled in this violent situation in Iraq. Let us not forget that Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapons program and Iraq did not have ties to al Qaeda. Instead of blindly focusing our country's resources on a conflict that has nothing to do with American security, President Bush should take off his blinders and focus on the real threats to our country.

How can we be secure if our public schools are failing our children and 40 million Americans lack health insurance? How can we be secure when our President's shameful tax cuts force our children to repay America's debt for the next several decades?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Rahall), the gentlewoman from Guam (Ranking Member Bordallo) and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Chairman Radanovich) and the House leadership for allowing us to consider this piece of legislation. This is legislation that is very important to my district and to the San Francisco Bay Area.

As my colleagues may know, I have worked for the past 2 years with the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation and the gentlewoman from California (Leader Pelosi) in an effort to preserve the historic Angel Island Immigration Station located just east of Sausalito in the San Francisco Bay.

This landmark is a high priority because of what it means to Asian Americans. Many of my colleagues are familiar with the symbolism of Ellis Island to European Americans. Well, the same feelings of history and pride can be equated to the Americans of Asian heritage on the west coast, because Angel Island was the first American soil most Asian immigrants stepped on.

With over 1 million people being processed through the site, millions of Asian descendants nationwide are eager to see their roots in this country honored in the same way that we honor Ellis Island.

In addition, Angel Island Immigration Station also houses a unique literary display of Asian American culture. The walls of the main building hold layers of poetry reflecting the record of hardship endured and the indignities suffered by the early Chinese as they were being processed into America. If these walls crumble, we would lose this one-of-a-kind documentation forever.

Because of its rich history, the site is currently used as a teaching tool for students and a museum for visitors. Hundreds of schoolchildren and researchers make the trip out to the site each year by ferry, by the way, to learn about its rich history.

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the Foundation to find additional sources of funding for the restoration project to ensure future generations can learn from this site. The current estimate to preserve it is over $30 million. With $16 million already raised through grants, State funding and private donations, $15 million is still needed. With no more grants to pursue and the State of California contributing close to half of the funding, it is important that we allow the Federal Government to become a part of this preservation effort, and that is what we are doing today, and I thank my colleagues for that.

The Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act, with over 45 bipartisan cosponsors, will simply allow the Angel Island Immigration Station to retain its status as a State-owned facility, while allowing the preservation project to receive Federal dollars. Passing this legislation will put us one step closer to protecting this site forever.

Among the strongest supporters in this effort are the gentlewoman from California (Minority Leader Pelosi) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). Also, I would like to acknowledge the tireless work of Katherine Toy and Irene Bueno on behalf of the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation. All of their hard work on this bill has been critical to moving it forward. In addition, I would like to thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer for introducing identical legislation in the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues again for allowing us to debate this important bill. The supporters are dedicated to this project and will continue to work passionately to help others learn and understand the story of the Angel Island Immigration Station. We urge our colleagues to join us and vote yes on H.R. 4469.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, every day at least four hate crimes are reported in the United States, at least four. But even worse are the crimes that are not reported. They are not reported out of fear of retaliation or feeling that law enforcement just will not follow through.

That is why we need tough Federal hate crime language to protect all Americans, and we need to include it in the Department of Defense authorization bill. If we do that, then the lack of response will change because no one in this country should live in fear, even for one day, because of his or her ethnic background, his or her religious affiliation, gender, disability, or sexual preference.

Mr. Speaker, that is why it is so important to pass meaningful hate crimes legislation and pass it now, today; and today we can send a message to all Americans that hateful behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated any longer. It is clear that existing Federal law is inadequate to vigorously fight and prosecute hate crimes.

Too often our law enforcement officials lack the resources and/or the education required to deal with these crimes. They do not have what they need within their own communities to step up to these criminal charges.

In California, for example, a report called ``Reporting Hate Crimes,'' a study commissioned by Attorney General Bill Lockyear, reveals there is a general lack of understanding by California law enforcement agencies on how to deal with hate crimes in local communities. The study found that in some communities, and this is horrible, in some communities public officials and business leaders actually discourage law enforcement officers from reporting hate crimes for fear of adverse publicity.

If law enforcement officers do not report hate crimes, what in the world happens to their credibility when they are supposed to be addressing the problem in the first place? Their credibility diminishes.

What is even more alarming is that hate crimes based on gender and disability are generally not reported at all. It is obvious we need hate crimes language in the Department of Defense authorization bill. We need it now. We need not have one person ever faced with a hate crime based on who they are. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, all of us who have listened to the suspension debates just before the Special Orders have to acknowledge that there are not nearly enough post offices in this country to honor all of those who have fallen as heroes in Iraq. We have to do something about that. In fact, when it comes to Iraq, the White House does not seem to know which way is up. Instead of relying on facts and truth, the Bush administration has two-timed the American people by relying on doublespeak, innuendos and, worst of all, bald-faced lies.

Last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that Iraq's elections will occur in January of 2005 regardless of what happens on the ground there. Even if half of Iraq's provinces are under the control of insurgents, preventing Iraqis from getting to the polls, elections will still take place. Secretary Rumsfeld validated this type of sham election by saying that, and I quote him, no election is perfect. Does that mean he would endorse an American Presidential election if only 25 of 50 States were able to participate? Then again, perhaps that is exactly what this administration would endorse.

Subsequent to Secretary Rumsfeld's remarks, Secretary of State Colin Powell had to slow down the administration's gears regarding the election issue, stating that the country must be secure for elections to take place. On ABC's ``This Week'' program, Secretary Powell also stated that, ``Yes, it's getting worse in Iraq. We have seen an increase in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.''

Getting worse in Iraq? That is one of the biggest understatements yet from the administration that specializes in understatements. During the past 2 weeks, 29 United States soldiers and at least 250 Iraqis have been killed, not to even mention how many of our troops have been severely wounded. U.S. forces now face 70 attacks by insurgents daily. That is up from 40 to 50 hostile incidents that occurred each day before the U.S. transferred authority to Iraq's interim government.

Contrast Secretary Powell's comments about Iraq with the unnecessarily rosy statements given by President Bush and his mouthpiece in Iraq, interim Iraqi President Ayad Allawi. Despite a disturbing wave of violence in the past several weeks, our President recently stated that Iraq is showing signs of steady progress. He has also made the outrageous claim that only a relative few of the 25 million Iraqis are trying to stop the march of freedom. In fact, there are thousands of insurgents fighting the American forces in Iraq and there are likely many, many more thousands who are sympathetic to the insurgency.

Nobody should be surprised by the Bush administration's doublespeak on this issue, because the White House has actually gotten quite good at lying directly to the American people while somehow managing to keep a straight face.

President Bush delivers only good news, like declaring the mission accomplished aboard a giant Navy ship. He paints an optimistic picture of Iraq, saying that the violence is decreasing in scope and intensity. Then the White House dispatches someone like Colin Powell to deliver the truth that Iraq is actually still mired in chaos and violence and that anti-Americanism is on the rise. It amounts to nothing less than an institutionalized method of a White House that speaks out of both sides of its mouth, telling lies to the American people. Lies instead of truth, in spite of the deaths of more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers, at least 13,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, and let us not forget about the more than 7,000 gravely wounded U.S. troops who have lost arms and legs and an inner peace they may never recover. I wonder if these individuals would agree with President Bush's assessment of steady progress in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way of handling the quagmire in Iraq. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism. If we had been following the SMART security, we would not be in Iraq in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats' Partnership for a New America is a lot about helping American families. There is no better way to help working American families than to support them as they struggle to balance work and family life, because workers need help addressing how to be both a good parent and a good employee, how to give their family the time they need without compromising their job or their career.

The Partnership with America will improve the lives of working families by encouraging debate on legislation like the Balancing Act. This Balancing Act will provide paid family leave for new parents, improve the quality and availability of child care, in-school nutrition programs, after school assistance, fund voluntary universal preschool and assist employers in establishing a family-friendly workplace.

I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing the needs of all families, thus having a true partnership with Americans.

Mr. Speaker, in June of this year, the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water bravely stood up to the Bush White House by reducing, or flat out rejecting all of the administration's requests for nuclear weapons funding in its fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill. This subcommittee's move, under the sensible leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) is one of the only bipartisan instances of Members of Congress standing up to the heavy-handed Bush administration since this President took office in January of 2001.

The Subcommittee on Energy and Water wisely rejected White House requests of nearly $70 million for research and development of new nuclear weapons. Specifically, the White House requested $28 million for research on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, otherwise known as the Bunker Buster; $30 million for planning a modern pit facility to produce new plutonium triggers; and $9 million for a new nuclear weapons initiative.

Moreover, the new energy and water appropriations bill in its current form would reduce the administration's request for the Cruise Missile warhead by $40 million and limit funds for all nuclear stockpile activities. In total, the subcommittee's changes would save American taxpayers over $150 million.

The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) said the Bush administration's requests, quoting the chairman here, ``were technically questionable and frankly unnecessarily provocative in the international arena.'' He went on to say, ``They also cost a bunch of money.'' ``Unnecessarily provocative'' are the key words here.

Despite the unnecessarily provocative nature of these requests for new nuclear weapons, the Bush administration is trying to force the funding through anyway.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham outlined their concerns about the lack of funding for new nuclear weapons in a recent letter to the Republican House leadership in an attempt to dismiss entirely the tried and true appropriations process. Of course, they did not send this letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) or his counterpart, Senator Pete Domenici, unless the letters got lost in the mail. To me, it seems like the Bush administration is up to its usual tricks.

Mr. Speaker, this White House has demonstrated nothing but callous disregard for the Congress and the congressional process. President Bush and his cohorts have given no pause when it comes to freezing out anyone who will not toe the line on their fiscally unsound, budget- busting spending plans.

When it comes to nuclear weapons in particular, President Bush just does not get it. Instead of investing in programs that will truly secure America, like nonproliferation initiatives and vigorous inspection regimes whenever possible, President Bush has spent America's money on more and bigger weapons, in an attempt, I believe, to be tough and also to avoid working with other nations.

Sometimes it seems like the Oval Office is run by a third grade bully. How many nuclear weapons can the United States possibly need? We already possess 9,000 strategic warheads. Do we really need to spend another $150 million to develop new weapons systems?

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way, because investing in new nuclear weapons does not prevent America from being attacked. In fact, it encourages a nuclear attack, because such investments incite our enemies and encourage other nations, like Iran, to develop nuclear weapons of their own.

That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a Smart Security Platform For America's future. SMART

stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. Instead of a renewed buildup of nuclear weapons, SMART security calls for aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements and inspection regimes. Being smart about national security requires the United States to set an example for young democracies so that they can follow.

The U.S. must renounce first use of nuclear weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons. The Bush doctrine of arrogant nuclear proliferation has been tried and it has failed. Instead of engaging in a nuclear arms race for the 21st century, the United States must engage in a SMART security strategy for the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sister M. Samuel Conlan, who died July 11, 2004, at the age of 77. Sister Samuel served Dominican University of California in San Rafael in many capacities, including president, for many years. Her association with the school dates back to 1944 when she enrolled as a freshman.

Sister Samuel was born Patricia Conlan in 1927 and took the name of her father, Samuel Leo Conlan Jr., when she entered the religious life with the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael in 1949. She taught for five years while earning a master's degree in English literature from Catholic University of America, then joined the faculty as an English professor. In 1963, she earned her doctorate from Stanford University.

From 1968 to 1980 she served Dominican University as dean of students, academic dean, and eventually president. She is remembered for admitting male undergraduates to the all-girls college during her tenure, but to all who knew her, her contributions were so much greater. She inspired by bringing out the best in people, teaching by her example of faith and service. Her community work, which earned her an induction into the Marin County Women's Hall of Fame in 1995, included championing the needs of children in special education.

Retired from teaching in 1997, Sister Samuel continued to serve Dominican University in various capacities until her death, including fundraising for a new chapel to be built on the campus.

Mr. Speaker, Sister Samuel was a mentor and role model to generations of students and friends. Her guiding light will be missed in our community even as we know her spirit lives on in so many around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Steve McNamara of Mill Valley, California, for his 39 years as editor and publisher of the award-winning and innovative weekly newspaper, the Pacific Sun. Steve purchased the paper in 1966, and developed it into a newsweekly known for its quality writing, environmental advocacy, commitment to journalistic integrity, and strong relationships with the communities it serves.

The Pacific Sun, under Steve's leadership, set a national standard for how local newspapers can influence the fabric of a community. The paper told stories about local people and took positions on important social issues, fulfilling its mission ``to cover events of ongoing significance with clarity, intelligence, style, and wit.''

The Sun was an influential player in opposing unfortunate environmental projects such as building a nuclear power plant at Bodega Bay on the San Andreas Fault and filling in Richardson Bay for Los Angeles style marinas. Steve also promoted the creation of Point Reyes National Seashore, preserving the beautiful Marin county coast as a jewel of the national park system rather than home to thousands of commercial and residential sites. He successfully championed the building of a new civic center designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, now the pride of Mann County, and was prophetic, though unsuccessful, in encouraging development of a solar village at Hamilton Air Force Base.

Steve has always believed that the written word should be celebrated. More importantly, he has always stuck to the notion that ideas and activities should be reported on what he calls the ``human scale''-- focusing on small, tangible issues and activities to which people can relate. During his career at the Sun, he was passionate about reporting local events, local politics and social issues, and local people. Steve was able to bring these elements together, and by doing so, he helped make up the fabric of the community.

Prior to purchasing the Sun in 1966, Steve was the Sunday editor of the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle. He had also been the executive sports editor of The Examiner, a writer covering Grand Prix auto racing in Europe for Car and Driver Magazine, and a reporter and editor at The Miami Herald and Winston-Salem Journal. Steve became the first president of the National Association of Alternative Newsweeklys (now AAN), which has nearly 130 member papers and was a founding president of the California Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (Cal-AAN), president of the California Society of Newspaper Editors and a member of the board of the California Newspapers Association. After 50 years in journalism, 39 of them at the Pacific Sun, Steve made his decision to sell the Pacific Sun and move on to other projects at the age of 70.

Steve is proud to have been a resident of Mill Valley for so many years. His five children, and especially his wife Kay, all had an active role in the paper at some point in their lives. With his family's help, Steve made the Pacific Sun a success, its reputation as the conscience of Marin County often contrasting with the area's daily newspaper.

Mr. Speaker, Steve McNamara's record social activism, ethical reporting, and community leadership embodies the idea of living and working on the human scale, and as a result, Steve has become an important part of so many lives in the North Bay. I have enjoyed working with Steve and wish him luck in his new endeavors.