Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Humboldt County Public Defender James J. Steinberg on the occasion of his retirement after nearly 30 years of service to the people of Humboldt County.

James Steinberg began his public service career as a Humboldt County Deputy Public Defender in 1977, shortly after graduating from the University of California Hastings School of Law in 1976. Promoted to Assistant Public Defender in 1989, Mr. Steinberg was then appointed as Public Defender in 1997. During this period, he represented well over 15,000 clients, including Three Strikes and death penalty cases.

In addition to his dedicated performance in the Public Defenders office, Mr. Steinberg has served as the Humboldt County Bar Association President and the President of the Board of Trustees for the Humboldt County Law Library. Mr. Steinberg has also been a member of the North- Coast Co-op Board of Directors, the City of Arcata Budget Advisory Committee, and as a lecturer and instructor at both Humboldt State University and College of the Redwoods. Mr. Steinberg is a founding member of the Teen Court, which conducts trials by peers for first-time juvenile offenders, giving young people a hands-on experience in how our justice system works.

Mr. Steinberg was recognized in 1997 as the Democrat of the Year by the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee. He graciously accepted the award in an unforgettable address, delivered in rhymed verse. Mr. Steinberg is well-known and highly regarded by his colleagues for his patience, leadership, quick wit, superior intelligence and steadfast commitment to public service.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we recognize Public Defender James J. Steinberg for his valuable service over three decades to the people of California, and extend our best wishes to him on the occasion of his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to Sergeant Jason James Buzzard, United States Army, who was killed in action in Iraq on June 21, 2006, when a bomb exploded near his cargo truck while he was engaged in combat south of Baghdad. Sergeant Buzzard, 31, a resident of Mendocino County, California, answered his country's call and paid the ultimate price.

Sergeant Buzzard was born in the town of Willits, California. He graduated from Ukiah High School in Ukiah, California, where he worked for a time before fulfilling a lifelong dream to join the military.

According to his wife Michele, Sergeant Buzzard ``always wanted to defend his country.'' He joined the U.S. Army on February 18, 1998. He was stationed in Colorado and Korea before being stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, with the Second Battalion, Eighth Infantry Regiment, Second Brigade Combat Team, Fourth Infantry Division.

Sergeant Buzzard was deployed to Iraq in November 2005. He excelled at his job, was highly regarded by his unit and twice received the Good Conduct Medal. He was awarded the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Combat Action Badge and Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) patch, for which he was most proud.

In addition to his wife Michele, his high school sweetheart and closest companion for 13 years, Sergeant Buzzard is survived by daughter Michala Rae, son Tristan James, parents Marilyn and Jerry Buzzard, sister Kelly Lyn MacMillan, and an extended loving family.

Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Jason James Buzzard died serving the country he loved, with comrades he loved and with the love of his family in his heart. Our Nation is humbled and grateful for his sacrifice. It is, therefore, appropriate at this time that we honor and recognize Sergeant Jason James Buzzard, U.S. Army, who gave his life in service to his country.

Mr. Speaker, The Oregonian today printed, the west coast salmon fishing industry is nearly dead in the water, and everybody can see it is going to hit the rocks. But so far, the Bush administration is unwilling to lift a finger.

Mr. Speaker, NOAA fisheries at the local level said it is a disaster. Governors in California and Oregon have said it is a disaster, but NOAA fisheries in Washington D.C. and the Bush administration have said to the west coast, drop dead, we are not even going to look at this issue until February.

By the time February rolls around, fishing families and fishing communities throughout the coast, in my district, in Eureka, Fort Bragg, Fortuna, Arcada, Crescent City, they are going to be out of business. They are going to lose their boats. They are going to lose their homes. They are not going to be able to pay for their kids to go to college or buy insurance.

This is a disaster. The administration is refusing to even look at it. The Republican Congress is ignoring this fact that working families are being displaced, put out of jobs and are going bankrupt.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, takes $2 million out of the Secretary of Commerce's Department managerial budget, and it puts that same $2 million in NOAA Fisheries Operational Account. The reason that this is necessary is to create a placeholder so when this bill goes to conference we will be able to revisit and address the very real disaster that is happening on the coast of California and the coast of Oregon, a disaster that, unfortunately, has been completely ignored by this administration.

It came to a head last night when a number of the impacted districts' representatives met with NOAA fisheries and we were told, in no uncertain terms, that the administration and NOAA were not going to address the problems that working families were having because of the salmon fishing disaster on the west coast. They said that they weren't going to even look at this until February of next year.

By that time, these families are going to be out of business. They are going to lose their boats and, in some instances, lose their homes. They are not going to be able to pay their insurance payments, to send their kids to school, and the Federal Government is giving them the proverbial backhand. This is immoral behavior from this Department. We need to have it addressed, and this will provide the placeholder that we need to do that.

This morning, the Oregonian newspaper editorialized saying the west coast salmon fishing industry is nearly dead in the water, and everybody can see it is going to hit the rocks. But, so far, the Bush administration is unwilling to lift a finger to help. That is inexcusable. We need to step in. We need to help save these businesses. We need to help save these hardworking families, and that is what this amendment will do.

I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Wu from Oregon.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to Mr. DeFazio from Oregon.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to thank our colleague and my friend, Mr. Wolf, for helping in this regard; and I just want to emphasize that this is a very serious problem that is impacting the lives of very real people. Both Governors, the Governors from California and Oregon, have declared disasters. They are waiting for us to act.

And I have heard from countless people from not only my district, but throughout the impacted area. Barbara and Ron Kemp, who are commercial fishers from Fortuna, called me last night and said for the first time in 23 years of marriage they have missed their mortgage payment. They have exhausted all of their savings, down to the last 12 cents in their savings account. They imagine that they are going to have to sell their boat. He is 44 years old, and he has made a career of fishing. He wants to know what he is going to do.

Ms. Hooley mentioned that they opened periods of the season, but those periods don't allow enough time to fish, nor is the season open in the places where there are fish. They just have no fish to catch.

Barbara Stickel from Morro Bay says in May, when their portion of the season was open, they were able to fish for 5 days. They caught zero fish.

They are $48,000 in the hole just trying to fish those 5 days. They have no idea what they are going to do or how they are going to make ends meet.

And it is not just the fishers. It is the related businesses as well. Larry Reuter, a salmon buyer from San Jose, California, says in 2004 he bought 21,000 pounds of salmon from commercial fishermen. This year, he was only able to buy 4,000 pounds. He has already suffered an $80,000 loss to his business, and this year he is paying $27.99 a pound. Before, he had never paid more than $7.

Up at the Klamath Lodge in Del Norte County, Paula Zimmerman says that they were booked solid during the spring season, but they have had massive cancellations because of the closure. Already this year, they have lost $21,000. That may not seem like a lot to those of us inside the Beltway, but for someone who is barely making ends meet, it is everything. This is the money that they need to live on through the winter months. They cannot go on.

Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for hearing us out on this issue. This is an extremely important issue. Our failure to act would be nothing less than immoral.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Davis High School Advanced Treble and Madrigal Choirs as they prepare to perform at the 60th Diamond Anniversary International Musical Eisteddfod to be held in Llangollen, Northern Wales, this July 4th to 9th.

The Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod began in 1946, following the devastation of World War II, with the mission of promoting international peace through music, song and dance. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004, the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod draws competitors from more than 50 countries. Luminaries such as Luciano Pavarotti and Charlotte Church participated as children in past competitions.

The Davis High School Advanced Treble Choir and Madrigal Choir are the only high school choirs from the United States to compete in the 2006 festival. Davis High School is only the second high school from California ever to represent their state and nation in this prestigious competition. The choirs are greatly honored to be part of an event whose purpose is the promotion of international peace and understanding through the bonds of music and friendship.

At a time when the need for cultural understanding among nations is great, the invitation highlights the choirs' cherished tradition of inclusiveness. Musically, they represent a legacy of more than 30 years for the Madrigal choir and an investment of more than five years in the development of the Advanced Treble choir. The distinguished invitation to Llangollen attests to the reputation built by predecessors and to the support of the wider Davis community. Funds have been raised in the community to ensure that every singer in the choirs is able to make the trip to Wales.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we commend and convey best wishes to the Davis High School Advanced Treble and Madrigal Choirs, and send our greetings and congratulations to all those involved in the 60th Diamond Anniversary Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod.

Mr. Speaker, the departure time for my flight from California was delayed 2 hours this morning, and I didn't arrive at Dulles International Airport until 5:16 p.m. Because votes were called at 5:00 p.m., it was unfortunately impossible for me to make today's votes.

However, I want you to know I would have recorded ``yes'' votes for all three bills on today's calendar. They included: H.R. 5540--Sergeant Jacob Dan Dones Post Office Designation Act, H.R. 5504--Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building Designation Act, H. Res. 826--Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a National Youth Sports Week should be established.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution will not ensure any success in Iraq. It will not bring our troops home. It will only signal the death of true, honest debate within the walls of this great Chamber.

For many more years than any of us have been alive, this House, the People's House, has been democracy's citadel for intelligent, meaningful, real debate that has led to solutions to some of history's most important and vexing crises.

The charade that many on this floor are attempting to pass as a debate today does a great disservice to those monumental American leaders who have spoken from this same floor over the past two centuries. It does a great disservice to the American public, which expects its leaders to lead, not pander. And it does a great disservice to our military men and women who are depending on us to work together and complete our mission so that they may complete their mission and come home. Today's so called debate is politics at its worst--we're playing politics while U.S. men and women are being killed, wounded and kept away from their families.

Mr. Speaker, I remember lying in a military hospital bed just home from Vietnam while Congress played politics--it was disdainful then and when I think of those brave men and women I've visited at Walter Reed Hospital, Bethesda Hospital and Ramstein Hospital in Germany--it makes me sick today. Let's do our job and bring our troops home as soon as possible.

For weeks we have been told, and the American people have been promised, by the Republican majority that there would be a debate on this floor on the Iraq war. Instead, we get what the news is reporting as ``Republican election year strategy.'' Mr. Speaker, this charade represents a shameless dereliction of our duties and a missed opportunity to provide the American public with the open and honest debate they have been demanding for the past 3 long years now.

This feel-good resolution ignores the issues most important to the men and women serving in Iraq, their families and the taxpayers who have already been billed nearly half a trillion dollars.

It ignores the issues raised by some of our most respected generals. Just listen to what a few have said about the Administration's rush to war:

``We are paying the price for the lack of credible

planning, or the lack of a plan.''--General Anthony Zinni

``What we are living with now is the consequences of

successive policy failures.''--Lieutenant General Greg

Newbold

``They pressed for open warfare before the diplomacy was

finished. It was a tragic mistake. It's a strategic

blunder.''--General Wesley Clark

This resolution ignores the lack of accountability and oversight that's led to some of the most egregious and embarrassing examples of waste, fraud and abuse on record, such as:

$9 billion in missing reconstruction funds.

$263 million in excessive or unsubstantiated costs for importing gasoline into Iraq.

Over $20 million for items that weren't delivered, including:

Security for civilian flights at Baghdad International Airport that never occurred; nonexistent pipeline employees; old and broken down trucks; spray-painted Iraqi cranes passed off as new; police trucks; and a refurbished police academy and library. And millions more have been wasted at taxpayer expense due to no-bid and over-billed contracts awarded by the Bush administration.

This resolution ignores how the civilian leadership of the Defense Department grossly miscalculated the armor and equipment needs of our troops before sending them into combat, which resulted in:

40,000 troops who didn't have basic Kevlar vests or the ceramic plates needed for full protection, which left parents and spouses to buy body armor for their loved ones;

30,000 Marines who needed twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles and more communications equipment to perform their operations successfully;

Soldiers who were issued boots with cheap and soft soles that quickly wore out, thus having to sew material to the bottom of their boots out of desperation;

Soldiers who went to combat with inadequate or poor field radios, ammo carriers, weapon lubricant, socks and even rifle slings;

Military units that were deployed without the necessary armor needed to protect ground vehicles, making them vulnerable to IEDs. And when our troops jerry-rigged them with steel playing, they often flipped or rolled-over, injuring or killing soldiers;

And soldiers who subsequently had to sift through garbage dumps for scrap metal to uparmor ground vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, if you are in charge, you are responsible. That is why several respected generals have cast a vote of no confidence with our civilian leadership of the Defense Department for its lack of planning:

Rumsfeld and his team turned what should have been a

deliberate victory in Iraq into a prolonged challenge.--Major

General John Batiste.

I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to

fight that war, based on his absolute failures in managing

the war against Saddam in Iraq.--Major General Charles H.

Swannack, Jr.

They only need the military advice when it satisfies their

agenda.--Lieutenant General John Riggs

If I was President I would have relieved him three years

ago.--Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper

Two and a half more years of that leadership was too long

for my nation, for my Army, and for my family.--Major General

Paul Eaton

Mr. Speaker, we need to be working non-stop to bring our troops home as soon as possible, not to score political points while they

are fighting a war. And we need to be working to keep them as safe as possible until they are home.

For starters, we need to send a loud message to the insurgents that we will not occupy Iraq and that we will not control Iraq's oil--a message that we want to leave Iraq as much as they want us to leave. Instead, Mr. Speaker, the President has given every impression that the U.S. military has become an occupying force. We are in the process of building a gigantic new U.S. embassy in Baghdad that will span 104 acres, the size of nearly 80 football fields. This does not give the impression that we are winding things down in Iraq. It says to insurgents that we want a permanent military presence and it serves as a recruiting tool to sign up more insurgents. Moreover, it provides no incentives for the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for the security of its country.

On my last visit to Iraq everyone I spoke with--privates, sergeants and the officers in charge of training the Iraqi security forces--want the Iraqis to assume more of the security responsibilities. Our military has done its job--more often than not in two, three or four tours of deployment--an unconscionable demand on our troops, an unconscionable demand on their families and an unconscionable demand on their communities. And make no mistake--it's taking a toll on our military. Continuous deployment in Iraq has hurt military personnel and their families, and strained recruiting and retention. Consider some of the latest statistics on active duty personnel and selected reserves as well as on recruiting and retention:

Each month the equivalent of one battalion is lost due to deaths and wounds.

All the Army's available active duty combat brigades have served at least a 12-month tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.

At least half of those combat brigades have completed their second tour of duty.

By next year the Army projects that it will be short 3,500 active duty officers, primarily captains and majors.

Approximately 3,500 airmen, as well as sailors, are currently performing Army missions they were not adequately trained to do.

Ninety-seven percent of the National Guard combat and special operations battalions have been mobilized since September 11th.

The average tour for National Guard members is 342 days.

Continuous deployment has damaged readiness for mission skills necessary in the war on terror outside those required in Iraq. Consider some of the latest statistics:

Forty percent of all the Army's and Marine Corps' ground equipment is deployed to Iraq. That equipment is wearing out 2 to 9 time's peacetime rate.

Humvees that are designed for 14 years of operation needs are being overhauled or replaced in just 3 years.

The Army has lost over 100 tanks and armored vehicles and over 1,000 vehicles since the start of the war.

If the war in Iraq ended today, it would take the Army more than 2 years to repair or replace its damaged equipment.

The Marine Corps has determined that equipment deployed to Iraq has suffered such significant damage and wear and tear that 80 percent of it will need to be replaced.

In excess of $50 billion is needed to repair and replace equipment damaged or lost in Iraq for the Army and Marine Corps.

Mr. Speaker, stay the course is not a strategy for success and we're not doing our job by being a rubber stamp for the Administration. Each day, it becomes more apparent that the Administration does not have, nor has it ever had, a clear, concise and realistic strategy for ending large scale U.S. involvement in Iraq. The American people deserve a clear explanation of what we are doing in Iraq. They deserve to know what the President is going to do to reduce the incredible physical, emotional and financial burden that all Americans are bearing. If this Congress and the President expect the American people to continue making these sacrifices, then there must be a strategy for success.

Mr. Speaker, we must set the bar and identify what it will take for us to accomplish the mission in Iraq. When the Iraqi people conclude the process of amending their constitution, or by September 30, 2006, we must begin the process of redeployment as soon as practicable. This is a workable approach that tracks a timeline set by the Administration. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 348, which would do just that. This legislation is a bipartisan, comprehensive plan to redeploy American forces out of Iraq and send a clear message to the Iraqi people that the United States has no plans to be a permanent occupying force and we have no designs on Iraqi oil. Six Republicans have signed onto this bill. This bipartisan measure has been introduced in the Senate (S. Con. Res. 93), making it the only bicameral approach to Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I did not support the President's plan to invade Iraq. I considered it to be an unnecessary distraction from hunting down those responsible for the attacks of September 11th. But, as the U.S. has entered its fourth year in Iraq, this is where we are and now we must find a rational and reasonable way out of this mess.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an honest debate about this important issue and while the majority plays politics our men and women serving in Iraq are in terrible danger.

Rhetorical attempts to obfuscate failed tactical decisions in Iraq with the global war on terror will do nothing to solve the problem that is before us today. Nor will it correct this body's failure to provide its constitutional oversight responsibility that has led to the billions of American taxpayer dollars that have either been misused or remain unaccounted for in our efforts to rebuild Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, global terrorism remains a grave national security threat to the United States. However, the war in Iraq and this resolution is a distraction from our struggle against terrorism. As the President continues his stay the course strategy in Iraq, the Taliban is regaining strength in Afghanistan. If we are to prevail in the war on terrorism we must refocus our efforts on terrorist hotbeds, such as Afghanistan.

The brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces are the best- equipped, best-trained and most professional fighting forces in the world. They have been performing their jobs courageously and honorably and their morale remains high. These men and women deserve our thanks and our respect. They deserve better than this sham resolution.

Mr. Speaker, give this House back to the people for real debate on our policy in Iraq.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution will not secure any success in Iraq. It will not bring our troops home. It will only signal the death of true, honest debate within the walls of this great Chamber.

Today's so-called debate is politics at its worst. We are playing politics while U.S. men and women are being killed, wounded and kept away from their families. I remember laying in an Army hospital bed just home from Vietnam while another Congress played politics.

He was disdainful then, and when I think of those brave men and women I visited at Walter Reed, Bethesda, Ramstein, it makes me sick today. Let's do our job and bring our troops home as soon as possible.

For weeks we have been told, and the American people have been promised by the Republican majority, that there would be a debate on this floor on the Iraq war. Instead we get what the news is calling today Republican election year strategy. This resolution ignores the issues most important to the men and women serving in Iraq, their families and the taxpayers who have already been billed nearly a half trillion dollars.

It ignores the issues raised by some of our most respected generals, and it ignores the lack of accountability and oversight that has led to some of the most egregious and embarrassing examples of waste, fraud and abuse on record. We need to be working nonstop to bring our troops home as soon as possible, not trying to score political points while they are fighting a war.

We need to be working to keep them safe, as safe as possible, until they are home. For starters, we should send a strong, loud message to the insurgents who will not occupy Iraq and will not control Iraq's oil, a message that we want to leave, as bad as they want us to leave.

On my last visit to Iraq, everyone I spoke with said that they want the Iraqis to assume more security responsibility faster. Our military has done its job, often in two, three or four deployments, an unconscionable demand on our troops, an unconscionable demand on their families, and an unconscionable demand on their communities. Make no mistake, it has taken a toll on our military. Stay the course is not a strategy for success, and we are not doing our job by being a rubber stamp for this administration.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't honest debate. While the majority plays politics, our men and women serving in Iraq are in terrible danger.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a veteran of the Second World War.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time. We have a lot less time than on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California for the purpose of putting a statement in the Record.

(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York for the same purpose.

(Mr. McNULTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) who fought in the Korean War and was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), a combat veteran of the Korea war.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to correct some disinformation that the previous speaker put out.

It should be noted that this Chamber was near united on going into Afghanistan. Moreover, we believed strongly that is where we should have been. So it wasn't anywhere close to what he explained.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who served 4 years active duty in the U.S. Navy and retired as a full bird colonel after 26 years with the Tennessee National Guard.

(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding time for some of the veterans on the Democratic side of the aisle to have the opportunity to speak out against this sham resolution, and I yield back to him the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Community Resources for Independence (CRI) as this organization celebrates 30 years of assisting people with disabilities in Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino Counties.

CRI was founded as a non-profit organization in 1976 to advance the rights of people with disabilities to equal justice, access, opportunity and participation. From its humble beginnings with a single office in one county, it has grown to an organization with three offices serving more than 2,500 people in four counties with an annual operating budget of $1.5 million.

CRI has enriched the lives of its clients by working with individuals, cities and counties to improve access for persons with disabilities in their work, study, play, housing and worship and received national recognition for its work in 2000.

The organization's Transition Project assists people with disabilities in moving from institutional to independent living. It is the only program successfully serving homeless disabled individuals in Sonoma County.

The Deaf Services Program provides advocacy, communication assistance, community education, independent living skills, peer counseling and accessibility equipment resources.

The Disability Law Clinic has been instrumental in raising disability awareness in the community by working with employers to support reasonable accommodations in the workplace and by protecting the rights of its clients to be participating members in the community.

2006 is also a milestone year as it marked the inauguration of CRI's first wheelchair basketball team, The Redwood Rollers. Naturally they won their first game.

In work and in play, Community Resources for Independence has become an invaluable organization in my Congressional District and it is therefore appropriate that we acknowledge and honor them as they celebrate 30 years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and my colleague from California, and I concur that this is an important resolution. Although the beer measure was taken up first; as someone who has lived in the wine industry my entire life, someone who grows wine grapes and someone who has worked in many different jobs in the wine industry, I can tell you firsthand that there is truth in the old saying that it takes a lot of beer to make good wine. So it is probably appropriate that both of these measures are taken up tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor and pleasure of representing California's 1st Congressional District, home to over 500 wineries, I believe and I think everyone would agree, the heart and soul of the American wine industry. So you might ask why it is that I would have introduced a resolution honoring a French wine tasting.

As my colleague from California said, the fact of the matter is the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976 is the seminal event in the history of the U.S. wine industry. At that event, some of Europe's greatest wine critics, those from within the European wine community, chose U.S. wines as the winners of that tasting in a blind test. That is why that wine tasting is known even today as the tasting heard around the world.

The Paris tasting was proof that American wine makers could compete with the best in the world, that wine makers like Warren Winiarski of Stag's Leap Wine Cellars and Mike Grgich of Chateau Montelena, he now owns his own winery, but at the time he was the wine maker at Chateau Montelena, were in fact making some of the best wines in the world.

Robert Parker, the world-renowned wine critic, put it best when he said, ``The Paris tasting destroyed the myth of French supremacy and marked the democratization of the wine world. It was a watershed in the history of wine.''

The tasting served as a launching pad for an industry that has grown to become a major contributor to our national economy, now totaling over $50 billion a year. There are over 4,000 commercial wineries throughout all 50 States. Many of them are small family-owned businesses. The number has grown by 30 percent in the last 4 years, and the wine industry and the tourism that it generates employs over 250,000 tax-paying Americans.

It is, in fact, a great industry, and our wines are in fact the best. It is appropriate that we take this time to commend those who participated in and the industry that has grown out of the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this. I thank you for the courtesy of bringing this measure up tonight, both out of order and on the floor, recognizing the 30th anniversary of this famous wine tasting.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Alan Siegel of Lake County, CA, as California's 2005 Teacher of the Year.

For nearly 20 years, Alan has been educating and challenging the minds of the children of California's First Congressional District. He has served at Mount Vista Middle School, Oak Hill Middle School and is currently teaching at Carle Continuation High School in the Konocti Unified School District.

At Carle Continuation High School, Alan has played a positive and influential role in the lives of these young adults, not only as a teacher but as a mentor. Alan is the leading force in the social studies department, teaching U.S. history, civics and economics. He has also dedicated his time to educating his students in the field of computers and technology.

Mr. Speaker, Alan's commitment to bettering Lake County extends beyond the classroom. He has become an active member of our community, volunteering each year to organize the Lower Lake Memorial Day Parade. He also volunteers his time to place American flags on the graves of veterans in the Lower Lake Cemetery to honor those who risked their lives to protect our country.

Mr. Speaker, Alan is one of 5 teachers selected as California's 2005 Teacher of the Year. He is also the first ``continuation school'' teacher to be awared this honor. After receiving this award, Alan traveled around the world to talk with educators and learn about different approaches to education. Last summer, Alan traveled to Japan for 12 days where he visited several schools, including a continuation school and lived with a Japanese family for 3 days.

Alan graduated with a bachelor of art's degree in psychology from Michigan State University in 1981 and earned his teaching credentials and his bachelor of art's degree in history from San Francisco State in 1987. His wife, Angela, is also a teacher at Carle Continuation High School and has been awarded Lake County's 2006 Teacher of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we take this time to honor Mr. Alan Siegel as California's 2005 Teacher of the Year and to thank him for his unwavering dedication to the students of Lake County. I wish Alan the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the League of Women Voters of Humboldt County, California.

The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan political organization that has worked since 1920 to improve our governmental systems and impact public policies through citizen education and advocacy. A grassroots organization, working at the national, State and local levels, the League's enduring vitality is a testament to its member's commitment to their communities.

The League of Women Voters of Eureka, California was organized in 1956, and in 1981 became the League of Women Voters of Humboldt County. It has influenced public policy through education and advocacy including supporting local efforts to increase affordable housing and the development and maintenance of a high quality public education system. Additionally the League has advocated for responsible stewardship of the Humboldt Bay and has aided in improving public library facilities in the Humboldt County Library District.

From its inception the League of Women Voters of Humboldt County has provided a comprehensive nonpartisan Voter Service program to the public, including live and televised candidate forums, printed information concerning State ballot measures, voter registration booths and online resources. Since 1980 the League has published and updated ``A Citizen's Guide to County Government,'' an excellent source of current information about local government, distributed to the public free of charge.

Since 1992 the League of Women Voters of Humboldt County has honored 18 individuals and 8 organizations at its State of the Community Luncheon, with Civic Contribution Awards for the recipients' efforts in making democracy work in Humboldt County.

The League of Women Voters of Humboldt County is committed to the mission of encouraging the informed and active participation of citizens in government and has declared 2006 ``The Year of the Voter'' to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the organization's existence.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we recognize and commend the League of Women Voters of Humboldt County on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman. I want to thank you for the good work you and Ranking Member DeLauro have done on this bill and all the good work you have done for agriculture, much of which is manifested in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, thank you in particular for the interest that you have paid in regard to the wine industry, which is very important not only to my district but to the entire State of California, now a nearly $50 billion annual industry in California. I know that you took the time to come out and see it firsthand from the ground up, and that is very much appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, on page 22 of the House report, it directs and approves the reprogramming of available construction funds away from certain facilities. The report further states: ``This reprogramming will be used to offset construction costs for other Federal facilities in those States.''

I would like to get clarification, Mr. Chairman, that this language is not intended to imply that the committee has decided that these other projects are unworthy facilities or that the committee has determined that construction funding is no longer warranted.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you and your staff on this and other matters that are important to this region in the future. We would love to get you back out there to see the parts of the industry that you didn't get a chance to see, and I appreciate your continued interest and hard work on behalf of this industry.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this amendment and in support of this initiative.

The grape industry is very, very important to the country, as the gentleman noted; but this program is also very important to the grape industry and to the consumers across this country. Grapes are the sixth largest crop in the United States and the largest specialty crop in the United States.

In the past, wine, wine grapes, raisins, table grapes, and the grape juice industry have all competed for Federal funds. This is funding that does work in regard to pest control and in research for health issues that are important to the American people. Because of this competition factor in the past, oftentimes those funds were spent in ways that were duplicative and were uncoordinated. That is not healthy for the taxpayers, for the industry, or for the American people.

With this initiative, all of those aforementioned industries have come together to ensure that the funding would be coordinated and it would be focused. It would be focused to work to benefit not only all of these industries but all of the American people. Again, this is in research for health care, for health issues, and for pest control.

An example: at UC Davis, some of the work they have been doing under this program has led to some incredibly good developments in combating diabetes. If this amendment were accepted, that program would go away and all of this work would be lost. We shouldn't reduce the funding in this program, and we should all vote against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy regarding the Klamath River Basin recovery in northern California.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, salmon fishing off the coast of California and Oregon has been shut down this year due to poor returns of Chinook salmon to the Klamath River. In 2001, farmers in the Klamath Basin were similarly shut down due to the resource problems in this watershed.

I know the chairman would agree with me that these two occurrences demonstrate the urgent need to combine peer-reviewed science with local stakeholder cooperation in order to help fish in the Klamath Basin recover so that fishing and farming in the area can continue. Mr. Chairman, you have helped with this effort in the past, and I thank you for your attention to this important issue.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, one important aspect of addressing Klamath issues is the development of a salmon recovery plan. And no plan will be successful without broad support and voluntary cooperation by local stakeholders. Fortunately, there has been progress in the Klamath Basin to develop voluntary recovery plans and projects for the threatened Coho salmon. This has been done collectively with farmers, tribes, fishers, and scientists. Would the chairman support me in requesting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA fisheries use their existing authorities and the conservation funds identified in this bill for the Klamath Basin to implement the salmon recovery projects that have been developed by this local stakeholder group?

I thank the chairman for his cooperation.