Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, purports to address gender discrimination by preventing abortions on the basis of sex. While one of the most effective ways to end gender discrimination is to empower women, H.R. 3541 only serves to marginalize women even further. Today, minority women have to overcome additional hurdles to receive the quality healthcare they deserve and this legislation only serves to subject them to even further scrutiny when making healthcare decisions.

This legislation restricts women's access to reproductive healthcare by threatening doctors with up to five years in prison and other penalties if they perform sex selection abortions. If the drafters of H.R. 3541 were really trying to end sex-selective abortions, wouldn't they also be prosecuting those who sought an abortion for these reasons, not only doctors? With doctors fearful of yet even more restrictions to their practice, many will simply refuse to treat women who want to obtain a safe and legal abortion. After all, abortion is still a constitutionally guaranteed right in this country.

In addition, this bill includes language requiring any medical or mental health professional to report known or suspected sex-selective abortions. However, in virtually all circumstances, it would be impossible for reproductive healthcare providers to determine whether a woman seeks a sex-selective abortion, thus amounting to a ``witch hunt''.

I am lucky enough to be surrounded by women in my family. I have a wife, a sister, a daughter, and a granddaughter. I am deeply troubled by gender discrimination. I support legislation to address the real issues in low-income communities of color, and to promote women's rights, including: S. 1925, the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act; H.R. 1519, the Paycheck Fairness Act; and H.J. Res. 69, proposing an amendment to the Constitution on the equal rights for men and women. Since the Majority is so concerned with gender discrimination, I look forward to the day when the Republican leadership decides to bring these bills on the floor for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am completely opposed to sex-selective abortions but H.R. 3541 will not prevent these and, in fact, will do far more harm than good.

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to rise today in opposition to H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012.

VAWA has never been a partisan issue until this Congress, and I am disappointed that the safety of women in this country is now a political game to those in charge.

Mr. Speaker, I am a brother, a father and a grandfather.

I want to be a part of a country that believes in protecting and preventing violence towards all people, especially our most vulnerable.

When women and girls feel threatened or are at risk of experiencing violence, it interferes with their ability to pursue an education, employment, or community involvement.

For this reason, I have been a strong supporter of past Violence Against Women bills.

The Violence Against Women Act has been an essential tool in helping to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence and to allow women and girls to pursue the American dream.

First passed in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000 and 2005, VAWA has successfully strengthened enforcement of state and federal anti- violence laws and underwritten effective prevention and victim support programs.

Since VAWA was first signed into law, annual incidents of domestic violence have dropped by more than 60 percent.

It has been one of the best tools law enforcement, prosecutors, and community service providers have to help protect and support women who have experienced gender violence. The law also streamlines these community programs, saving states and the federal government billions of dollars.

Unfortunately, the version of the bill before us today reverses many of the modest protections in the original bill.

Even worse, this bill goes a step further and outright excludes vulnerable populations such as Native American women, non-citizen women, and LGBT individuals.

Tragically, H.R. 4970 subjects many women to even greater risks of violence and makes it even harder for them to receive the services and programs that should be readily available to them.

Once again, House Republicans are choosing confrontation over compromise.

This Republican bill is opposed by hundreds of groups including law enforcement, civil rights, and faith-based groups and many, many, many of my constituents.

I want only the best for the women in my family and for all of the women in this country.

This bill falls far, far short of the mark.

It does not deserve to be called the ``Violence Against Women Act'' because it fails to protect the people it claims to serve.

I will be voting against this bill and I urge my colleagues to support all women and reject this terrible legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 290, I was caught in traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern about the steady deterioration of human rights in Honduras since the June 2009 coup d'etat. In recent months, attacks against journalists; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) advocates; land rights activists and other vulnerable communities have increased. I want to draw particular attention to a few tragic deaths that occurred just this month: on May 1st, Santos Alberto Dominguez, a member of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations (COPINH), was murdered. On May 8th, Erick Martinez, a well-known LGBTI activist, was found dead in a gutter. And on May 9th, Alfredo Villatoro--a popular radio show host--was kidnapped on his way to work and has not been heard from since.

These deaths come amidst numerous reports of abuses committed by Honduran security forces. And yet the vast majority of these abuses as well as Mr. Dominguez and Mr. Martinez's deaths have yet to be investigated and prosecuted. I have repeatedly requested that all U.S. assistance to Honduran police and military forces be suspended as long as Honduran authorities fail to investigate and prosecute these abuses. It is a travesty that U.S. taxpayers dollars are bolstering abusive security forces.

But while the situation in Honduras continues to deteriorate, I am encouraged by the important work of Honduran human rights organizations. These groups are on the frontlines of justice, documenting human rights abuses and offering the support and legal representation that the Honduran state fails to provide. Yet these organizations are receiving threats of sexual violence--particularly targeted at female human rights workers--and death threats without any form of effective protection from the Honduran authorities. There has also been a troubling escalation of threats against international human rights accompaniers. All of these threats must be immediately investigated, and the individuals and groups that are behind them must be brought to justice.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to support human rights in Honduras. The people of Honduras deserve their rights. They deserve their freedoms. And they deserve peace. They have suffered too much. Justice cannot wait a moment longer.

Thank you very much, Congresswoman Edwards, for your leadership before you even became a Member of Congress, but especially tonight to lead this discussion.

I can't believe what we're about to do tomorrow in a vote to reauthorize. I was here in 1994 when we were so proud of creating this historical legislation to protect women against violence. It wasn't some women; it was all women. And now we're on the verge, 18 years later, of saying, well, let's change that.

What's so appalling about it is we're going to take that in a debate tomorrow in this room, where every time we're in session we start that session by getting up and taking a pledge to that flag behind you saying ``justice for all.'' That's our role. We're elected here to bring about justice for all.

We just had a census in the United States. In that census, we didn't just count some people because they were citizens, some people because they were rich, some people because they were this or that or had an education. We counted every living being in the United States. Why? Because the laws of this country are supposed to be protecting and enhancing and providing a quality of life for every living being. Now we're on the verge, in an election year--when the majority of voters in this country are women--to say to the

women of this country, Oh, by the way, we're going to start taking back some of the provisions that have protected you.

You know, I rise, as Mr. Garamendi did before me, we rise as brothers, as husbands, as fathers, as a grandfather. In every one of those situations, the brother is because I have a sister, the husband is because I have a wife, the father is because I have a daughter, and the grandfather is because I have a granddaughter. My world in politics is about their lives and the future and growing up in the great country of the United States of America.

So here we are with this law that we passed back in 1994. We reauthorized it. We didn't have takeaways when we reauthorized that law in 2000. We didn't take away things when we reauthorized it in 2005. And now we're in 2012 and the vote before the Congress is: Let's take away some stuff. Why? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Why do you say, well, you can exclude Native Americans? Why? Aren't they? They're Americans. They're Native Americans. They're probably more American than anybody. Take away rights that those women have been given and now are being taken away.

Noncitizen women? Noncitizen women. Those are a lot of immigrants. It doesn't matter whether you have a green card or no card, taking away your rights to complain about violence.

To those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities, they're individuals. You take away their rights? Shame.

It's an election year. Women are voting. I hope they will wake up and understand that the Congress, led by the Republican leadership in this House, is about to destroy the ability for people to access justice in a Congress and in a Nation where we pledge allegiance and pledge justice for all. Not tonight.

Thank you for having this special session.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman.

The worst form of democracy is to take away the ability for it to work. This is a bad amendment, and I hope we oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I can't believe what we're hearing here. How quickly we forget.

It was your committee, Mr. Chairman, that passed the bill, the bipartisan bill, that created the Ocean Commission, which was signed into law by President Clinton, and then the appointees to that commission that were made by President Bush. Who was on that commission? The chair of it was Admiral Watkins--the former head of the Navy, the former Secretary of Energy, a great Republican, a great admiral who understood ocean policy.

Who else was on that commission? Oil and gas executives, fish processors, all kinds of people, because we set up a commission to look at these conflicts at sea. Why? Because, as was stated, America has more ocean water than any other country in the world because of the exclusive economic zone, which also applies to all the atolls and islands like Guam, Hawaii, and so on.

What was happening then? We were having all kinds of conflicts, conflicts between seismic boats that were going out to look for oil and gas, fishermen who had crab pots, stationary pots, buoys, everything that you could think of. And everybody came and said the only government that can resolve this is the United States Congress because these are all Federal agencies. They don't talk to each other and they don't have any coordination, but we need to resolve this.

So we appointed a commission, and they did their work and had hearings all over the United States and came back with their policies. Guess what we did like we do when we have commission work? We implemented those policies in a bill. I worked very hard on it, but I wasn't going to be the lead author on the bill because it was a Republican administration. So your colleague, Jim Saxton, authored that bill; your colleague, Congressman Gilchrest, authored that bill; your colleague, Mr. Jim Greenwood, authored that bill; your colleague, Mr. Curt Weldon, authored that bill.

These were Republican bills before your committee. And guess what? The chair at that time, Mr. Pombo, would not even hear their bills. Wouldn't hear them. Admiral Watkins came here and asked for a hearing on it. That policy has been lingering for over a decade, and all of the recommendations into that went to the administration. Guess what this administration did? They assembled every single agency of government, including DHS, the State Department, the Department of Defense. They were all in it because they all have issues.

We have an ambassador for fish, for example. It's in the State Department. All these things need to be discussed and resolved, and they came up with this ocean policy. This is to avoid conflicts. Everybody is satisfied by it. The Navy needs it. The military needs it for security purposes. You're nuts not to have it. To defund this because you say your committee hasn't heard it--which is just false, because your committee had that bill for not one session, two sessions, three sessions, about four sessions and never took it up and never dealt with the policy. It was all there.

For lack of congressional action, this is now done by executive order. Thank God it's done by executive order and those--those were all the people that were opposed because they said these things may happen. Well, my God, are we worried about maybe because they're in Idaho and think that potato farmers are going to be affected by ocean policy? Come on. That's a stretch.

I tell you, this amendment is not only not good, it goes backwards in being able to deal with the conflicts at sea and being able to do what the United States Government has to do, which is to lead the world on ocean policy, not take a second seat to it.

I urge a strong defeat.

Certainly I will yield.

You're absolutely wrong.

Thank you very much.

As the President cannot create the councils by executive order, the councils have to be created by Congress. I would hope that the leadership of your committee and jurisdiction would create those councils so that they will have some bottoms-up authorities.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the responsible issue here is if you want to do that, let's have a congressional hearing, an oversight hearing on this ocean policy. I would be proud to defend it. But to take a meat-ax approach and whack it and say whatever it is, whatever it accomplishes, we're not going to allow it to be implemented I think is reckless and irresponsible.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much for yielding.

I think you can note the passion I've had on this issue because we worked at it a long time. And I want to assure you--I'm ranking member of the Ag Appropriations Committee. I probably represent more productive agriculture than anybody in Congress. I have just one county I represent that has 85 crops in it. We do about $4.2 billion of agriculture out of that county.

I can assure you that coastal States' agriculture is very much concerned about all of these issues that are coming up and really supports the ideas that we can have a coordinated effort. This is a long effort. We had the military involved in this. We've got FEMA involved in this. We've got the Department of Agriculture involved in this. We've got every other agency. And it's how you resolve conflicts that are there.

Yes, we in Congress have enacted an awful lot of laws. And I want to say there isn't anything the President has done or any of these agencies are doing that isn't authorized in law. We gave them those authorities. We just never required them to all sit down and talk about those conflicts and how to resolve those conflicts.

We have a huge responsibility here. This is a long effort to create a National Ocean Policy. It's the smart thing to do. It's got all the Federal agencies at the table, finally, and it's got all the user groups, both private and public.

So I just think that this is kind of a meat-ax approach. If you do have concerns, let's do it in the regular legislative order, not just say that we're going to eliminate that whole ability for them to resolve conflicts. You're going to end up with more lawsuits and a lot of concerns by people who are going to wonder what the future holds without a good, comprehensive plan.

So I again compassionately ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this amendment. It would be a very dangerous thing for this country to do, to adopt this amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rohrabacher-Hinchey- Farr and now McClintock amendment.

It is obvious from the votes that we've been casting here, yesterday and tonight, this afternoon, that this body insists on protecting the rights of States to define marriage. This body insists on protecting the rights of States to set abortion policies. This body insists on protecting rights of the States to determine education curricula and standards. Just yesterday this body decided that certain States get to enforce Federal immigration laws however they see fit.

But when it comes to protecting the rights of States to set medical scope of practice laws, this body balks. All of a sudden States no longer have the right to determine what is best for their citizens and when those rights include medical marijuana.

The Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Farr-McClintock amendment doesn't change Federal law. It doesn't change drug policy. However, it does protect States' rights.

For those of you who come from States that do not have medical marijuana laws, nothing in this amendment will impact your States. Everything in your States remains exactly status quo. For those of you who come from States that do have medical marijuana laws, which means the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, which is my own State--it's interesting what we have done in California. We've decriminalized the possession of medical marijuana. It's an infraction, not a felony. We've also legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but the voters at the same time have turned down an intensive legalization use. So it's very controlled. The laws are tight and they are enforced.

The other States that have passed laws are Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. For your States, very little in this amendment will impact your States except that you will now have a State that will be able to implement the laws without fear of retribution or of retaliation from the Federal Government. I will also note that, in addition to the 16 States I've just mentioned, the State of Connecticut just passed a medical marijuana bill last week, and the Governor said he'll sign it. So, to the list of 16 States, we soon have added No. 17, the State of Connecticut.

If States' rights are not a good enough reason to pass this amendment, then do it because of compassion. Compassion demands it. We offer this amendment for terminal cancer patients, for AIDS victims, for persons who suffer with chronic pain. We offer this amendment not only to protect those people, but we offer this amendment to protect the States that are progressive enough to provide alternative medical options to those who need it. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Farr amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

First of all, this is an appropriations bill. We're supposed to be discussing how we appropriate money to the Justice Department, Commerce Department, and State Department. People are just kind of cavaliering, coming in here and offering all kinds of amendments to make no funds available. That isn't the way you set policy, and that isn't the way you have a discussion on an issue like this. This is a very important issue. This is about enforcing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. You don't think we had discrimination in this country? Don't you think we still have discrimination and are making it difficult for people to access the voting booth?

I come from a county, a district, that is under this section. I'm from California. The gentleman spoke about Georgia. There are States, even like California, that have counties that qualify to be under this act because they had so low of a percentage of adults registered to vote. Obviously, these counties were making it very difficult. What this says is that in those counties, when you draw political districts, you've got to have them reviewed by the Justice Department. What's wrong with that?

We have a history of discrimination. To come in to an appropriations bill and take a big whack out of it in the Voting Rights Act in an election year, what message are we sending--that these States that want to make it very difficult for people to vote are showing how democracy ought to be practiced around the world?

No, I will not yield to the gentleman.

I think these and a lot of other amendments warrant some serious debate in Congress, but certainly not on this bill and not at this time--10 o'clock at night, in an election year, on a Voting Rights Act bill that deals with the basic fundamental rights of individuals being able to have access to the ballot. No, sir. This amendment is inappropriate at this time, and it ought to be voted down.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dimming of a great light in our community. Luke Stanton Nachbar was a loving husband and father and a vibrant spark for all those around him. He died last week of cancer at the young age of forty six. His departure tears a hole in the fabric of the Monterey Bay Area community that I represent here in Congress. While we all recognize the pain and loss felt by his family, especially his young children, and wife, we will also feel his loss in the public life of many communities.

I first met Luke in 1996 when he came to my Washington, DC, office as a freshly minted Monterey Institute of International Studies graduate and returned Peace Corps volunteer on a Sea Grant fellowship looking for a job. Lost in the mists of time are the exact reasons why we made the mistake of not hiring him. But he soon landed a prime position with the office of New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg. That job ultimately led the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to tap him as a specialist in Congressional Affairs for the Policy, Planning and Analysis division of NOAA's National Ocean Service based in Monterey. In true Luke Nachbar fashion, he convinced his management that that he could best accomplish the job from Monterey rather than Silver Spring. So Luke was able to build a career in national ocean policy while raising his children with his wife on the central coast on Monterey Bay.

Everybody who knew Luke recognized his expansive and cheerful personality. He was ever the optimist, which translated professionally into an unwavering can do attitude--always an asset when dealing with Congress. Personally, his optimism translated into support for the Detroit Tigers and love of poker. One could never fail to notice his presence in a room. He always made the company around him more cheerful.

The greatest tragedy of Luke's early death is his children's loss of their father. Quinn, Flint, and Rainn were the center of Luke's life. No words can make up for their loss but I hope they never forget one important lesson that Luke epitomized--one person can make a difference and make the world a better place. I also want to offer my own personal condolences to Luke's wife, Seaberry Nachbar.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House in expressing gratitude for the public service Luke Nachbar gave to his country and community and to share with his family and friends our deep sense of loss.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I rise in opposition because I know what it's like to live with and to travel with a disabled person--my brother-in-law, a very distinguished retired lawyer who actually was injured in a diving accident and is paralyzed from the waist down.

I never fully had an appreciation for ADA until I started living with him and realized, as he said, that the ADA was not a zoning ordinance about construction; the ADA is a civil right that this Congress enacted 22 years ago. It was remarkable legislation. And to govern that legislation, we have an access board who are not made up of, as someone said, bureaucrats, but they're made up of citizens who are appointed, I guess, all by the President.

And I watched, because my brother-in-law was appointed to that board under President Clinton. I've watched that board as they go through all kinds of issues dealing with people with disabilities very conscientiously, thorough hearings, lots of discussions about how to implement it, and I'm just shocked that Congress would think that we ought to take away an access.

I'm sure these same debates were given when people said, well, we shouldn't do curb cuts; they cost money, and there is nobody standing on that curb that needs it. Ladies and gentlemen, curb cuts make a big difference not just for people that are disabled, but just for elderly people who can't be that lift.

By the way, you and I are all, as my friends like to say, temporarily able-bodied persons, because you never know when you're going to be in the next accident.

So I think that the statements that were made are right on on this side. There is a lot of misinformation going on about these proposed regulations.

I represent the Tourism Caucus. I'm the chair of the bipartisan caucus on tourism. And, yes, a lot of my hoteliers have come in and said, You can't do this. But you know what? There's an exemption in there. For small hotels for whom the pool lift is too expensive to buy it, they're exempted. The regulation also allows hoteliers to do either a permanent or portable lift. There is a lot of discussion here that says, It's all portable. It's mandatory.

By the way, the disability community is a big traveling community. There is a lot of money in that community. And I will just give a kudo, because one of the hotels that is very conscientious about this and has a reputation for being extremely well-suited for disabilities is the Four Seasons Hotel. That is not a cheap hotel.

So there are conscientious hoteliers out there that want to reach this market. There are people that want to get access, and we should never, never take away something that is so essential to quality of life. Indeed, I think our role here is to protect the domestic tranquility of this country. And a lot of that domestic tranquility is people with disabilities, including many of our soldiers.

I want to make sure that we defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I find this argument very interesting that people like to cast both blame and aspersions that we are sort of different from all our States, that the Federal Government is one thing and the States are different.

I have an amendment in a moment, and I hope all these people will support it, which would prohibit the Federal Government from enforcing laws on legal use of marijuana in those States for medical purposes. It's the exact same argument.

So if you're going to make this argument that, you know, we're only going to be selective, we're going to tell the Justice Department that in immigration laws we're going to prohibit you from enforcing Federal provisions, and turn around and yet allow you to enforce Federal provisions that give States that have legally enacted in their own rights, and law enforcement is supportive of them, to have medical marijuana, it seems very inconsistent.

It also seems very inconsistent to say, well, what about those States that have taken a different approach and allow undocumented folks to have a driver's license? Many States have allowed that. The Federal Government doesn't go in and say you can't do that.

What about those States that allow undocumented children graduating from high school with great grades and getting accepted to colleges to have access to scholarships, called the DREAM Act? States have DREAM Acts. The Federal Government does not.

It seems to me that this argument is just choose your blame and go after the Justice Department. I hope that the people who vote for this amendment, if that's what they want to do, will also vote for the amendment that restricts the Federal Government from enforcing State- enacted medical marijuana laws.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise as a Representative from a great fishing community, Monterey, California. Many of you may have heard about Monterey because it was the sardine port of the world, the largest sardine port in the world; and it certainly was written about in Steinbeck's famous ``Cannery Row.''

We don't catch sardines anymore. They're all gone. We fished them all out, destroyed an entire industry. No programs there to help people in the 1950s when that whole Cannery Row closed down.

It took about 50 years to rebuild it as a tourist industry, but the sensitivities of all the Italian and Portuguese fishermen that were in that community are still there today.

We have a catch share program on the west coast, and people endorse it wholeheartedly.

I've been listening to this debate. Unfortunately, the debate hasn't really gone to the amendment. Let me read what the amendment is:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to

develop, approve or implement a new limited access privilege

program.

It doesn't say anything about fishermen's votes or catch shares or anything like that. This is just taking a tool out of the toolbox and saying you can't even use it, that you cannot use it. There hasn't been a program developed, approved or implemented yet. So why are we trying to say you can't use any of these funds to go and do that? It's because the process is from the bottom up. That's the way it was worked out in all of these fisheries. So we're taking a meat ax to, really, a weak fish, a delicate fish. We're taking a meat ax to a delicate fish.

I think the process here of Congress is overreaching, and it is prohibiting a tool to be used to work out with local fishermen, which are all the things the gentlelady from Maine said. Fishermen want to be able to have certainty in that they can go out and fish within the quota. They don't want to have to go out, because the season is so short, when the storms are high--because that's the window--and risk their lives. They want to be able to have more. If all the fish are caught at the same time, the price for fish goes down. This way, you can spread it out. Then, as you've heard, revenue goes up for fishermen. They have a sustainability, and the fishery doesn't get pounded so hard. It can replenish itself.

There are all the good things in here that any farmer would tell you were absolutely logical in farming practices. So why wouldn't we want to apply that to farming the sea? You are using this amendment to say, before you even think about it, before you even discuss it, we're not going to allow you to even consider it. We're going to take the money away from the administration and prohibit it from doing it.

Don't leap before you look. It is not broken. It does not need to be fixed yet.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and achievements of Richard Tyler-Tigerman, who recently passed away at the age of 89. Richard was a remarkable man, beloved by all who had the great fortune to know him. Our nation is a more cultured place for his lifetime of efforts.

Richard became best known in my hometown of Carmel, California, as the Director of the Sunset Cultural Center. In that role he helped develop the Sunset Center--at one time the elementary school that I attended as a boy--into a world renowned performing arts center. And while he was expanding the national and international cultural impact of the Sunset Center, he never lost sight of his neighbors and made sure that he and the Sunset Center were still a local community resource. Richard was a true cultural icon in Carmel, always welcoming, convivial, and engaging.

Richard Tyler-Tigerman was born September 28, 1922, in Chicago, the ninth son of Hungarian immigrants. Apart from a two year stay in New York, where Richard participated in a WPA-sponsored children's theatre project, Richard grew up in Chicago. His mother Minna, a classically trained singer herself, encouraged him and he got his break on stage playing Robin Hood in a high school production. He later studied theater at the University of Chicago until World War II started. He enlisted in the United States Army which eventually took him to the Philippines where he worked with different entertainment groups that came to lift troop morale. After the war, Richard studied theatre in Florida and Chicago on the G.I. Bill. Then, at Northwestern University, he taught and turned professional. For the rest of his life he remained a professional performance man: music, theater, recitals, opera, musical comedy, and eventually directing and producing. He directed the Chicago premiere of Leonard Bernstein's opera ``Trouble in Tahiti'' to wonderful reviews.

He came to Carmel in 1975 to take on the directorship of the Sunset Center, a post he held until his retirement in 1990. He helped revive the Center, which had been struggling ever since the city of Carmel had converted the old school into a performing arts and cultural center. Richard saw his signal accomplishments there as presenting a performance pattern of dance companies, stimulating and interesting professional theater, opera, and people of note, a film series chosen by the audience, and a series of varied and interesting entertainers. He continued beyond retirement to advise local officials who sought his insights about the unique artistic heritage of that city. He served on numerous civic boards and committees, including the Monterey Film Commission, Arts Habitat, and the State Theatre Preservation Group.

His partner of thirty-eight years is Constantine ``Dino'' Cocalis, with whom he shared a home and traveled extensively, particularly to the Greek isles. Richard had one son, Craig Ellis Tigerman, of Rock Island, IL. Grandchildren include Christopher Lee Gibrich of Grand Prairie, TX, Bethany Judith Kump of Rock Island, Chelli Marie Esser of Apple Valley, MN, Justin Thomas Wilson Tigerman of Chicago and Rock Island, and a step-grandchild, Richard Michael Albertson of Carbondale and Moline, IL. Great-grandchildren include Andrew James Doyle and Owen Benjamin Kump of Rock Island, and Sophia Marylyn Esser of Apple Valley. Two more great-grandchildren are on the way later this year.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House in extending our condolences to his loved ones and friends for their loss, and in honoring Richard's contribution to our lives. The world is a better place because of Richard Tyler-Tigerman's presence.

I rise today in opposition of H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act. Keeping student loan rates at their current level should be an easy, bipartisan bill. However, it should not be at the cost of an assault on women's health. Of all the offsets available to the majority, they chose to undermine the well-being of America's women and children by gutting investments in screening for breast and cervical cancer, childhood immunizations, and initiatives to reduce birth defects.

I remain committed to preventing an increase in student loan costs for over 7.4 million Americans. I would like to see a new, bipartisan bill sent to the President's desk well in advance of the July 1 deadline when the rates are scheduled to go up. But any student loan relief should not come at the expense of funding for childhood immunizations, screening programs for breast and cervical cancer, and birth defects.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this flawed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication of the Santa Cruz World Surfing Reserve. Santa Cruz is one of just four surf zones located around the world that has qualified to be designated as a World Surfing Reserve by the Save the Waves Coalition. This designation is intended to focus attention on the need to protect our natural resources along the coast including surf breaks and the unique conditions that allow them to exist. The program serves as a model for preserving wave breaks and their surrounding areas by recognizing the positive environmental, cultural, economic, and community benefits of surfing areas.

The surf zone encompasses seven miles of coast and includes world- famous spots such as Steamer Lane, Pleasure Point, the Hook, and Shark's Cove. The zone extends from the high-tide line out to the first surfable break along the designated coastline. The four components that make Santa Cruz uniquely qualified for the creation of the World Surfing Reserve are: the high quality of the waves and surf zones in the area; its rich surf culture and history; local community support; and the incomparable environmental characteristics of its shores.

The World Surfing Reserve designation takes an additional step toward protecting our irreplaceable natural resources along the coast. Residents of Santa Cruz and the surrounding area have a history of strong community action to protect and preserve clean waters and the wealth of marine life that flourishes in the bay. Members of this community value the bountiful resources the coast provides and have worked tirelessly toward ensuring it stays a safe place to swim and surf for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the Santa Cruz World Surfing Preserve as a step forward in the preservation of California's central coast. May the Preserve inspire future generations to share in celebrating, enjoying, and preserving our valued coastlines.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer tribute to The Gabriel Zimmerman Scholarship Fund at University of California, Santa Cruz and the recipient of the inaugural award, Yethzell Diaz, a senior majoring in Latin American and Latino studies and sociology.

Gabriel Zimmerman graduated from UC Santa Cruz in 2002 with a degree in sociology. He served as community outreach director for Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Tragically, he was one of six people fatally wounded in the Tucson, Arizona shooting rampage that also critically injured Representative Giffords. He was the first congressional staffer to give his life in the line of duty. Gabe was a passionate public servant, committed to non-violent solutions and consensus and was motivated to help people.

Moved by his death, UCSC alumni Jonathan Klein and Alex Clemens established a scholarship fund in his honor and offered an initial gift. The scholarship is designed to support students commited to public service.

On Friday, April 27th Gabe's mother Emily Nottingham will present the first scholarship award to Yethzell Diaz. Yethzell has already demonstrated her commitment to public service and social issues. After high school, she lived in Paraguay for seven months doing human rights work with Amnesty International. At UCSC she has worked with other students to create and implement a program in Watsonville schools to increase computer literacy among Spanish-speaking parents. She has also worked to start ``Strive for College'', a program the will help prepare students from underserved and disadvantaged communities to successfully transition from high school to college.

Mr. Speaker, this scholarship not only honors the efforts to which Gabe Zimmerman devoted his life, it also will support the work of Yethzell Diaz and future students who are involved in helping average citizens improve their quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the National Day of Silence, which is tomorrow. This is the 15th year we've commemorated the National Day of Silence, a time when students across the country remain silent for the whole day to draw attention to discrimination toward their LGBT peers.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning youth and their allies face verbal and physical bullying on a daily basis just for being who they are.

In a time when these teens are at a greater risk of suicide and self- harm, we cannot afford to be silent.

I'm proud to say that in my district, queer youth and allies work together to make life better. Many of our middle schools and high schools in my district host student-run gay-straight alliances which create a supportive space so that queer youth do not feel isolated.

I'm proud of my constituents for calling for a stop to harassment of GLBT individuals, and I encourage all Americans to do the same.

I am particularly proud of two high school seniors from my district:

Joaquin Garcia, from Pacific Collegiate School, and Lucy Walters, from Harbor High School, are two of 14 recipients of eQuality Scholarships in honor of their service and leadership within the LGBT community. Joaquin and Lucy are already making a difference in their communities, and I know they will continue making a difference at college.

Though many lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender youth advocates and their straight allies are silent tomorrow, we in Congress must never be silent. It is our job to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Foxx Amendment that seeks to gut the Antiquities Act and add unnecessary bureaucracy.

The Antiquities Act is the best tool in the tool box for saving America's heritage--cultural and natural--to respect what our ancestors set aside for us and to inspire, educate, and enlighten future generations.

The Antiquities Act has a long bipartisan tradition. After being signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, sixteen presidents of both parties--8 Republicans and 8 Democrats--have used this Act to protect federally-owned lands and waters to better protect America's treasures for future generations.

The Antiquities Act protects our national heritage. Sites like the Statue of Liberty, the Grand Canyon, and the World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument and in my Congressional District the Pinnacles National Monument have been protected through the Antiquities Act.

The Foxx Amendment seeks to gut the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act was specifically designed to allow presidents to respond quickly to protect places in the national interest.

Had the Antiquities Act been written with Rep. Foxx's language, the Grand Canyon would be overrun by sprawl, ancient cliff dwellings and the Petrified Forest National Park would have been looted, and Arches National Park wouldn't even exist.

The Foxx Amendment is poorly conceived. Several state legislatures only meet every other year and are ill-equipped to respond to urgent threats to public lands.

The Foxx Amendment would prevent archaeological, cultural and historical sites from receiving the urgent protections they need from looting, vandalism or other threats.

The Foxx Amendment also doesn't recognize that the United States has vast areas of unincorporated territory that is not under the jurisdiction of a state legislature.

President George W. Bush used the Antiquities Act to protect lands and waters in unincorporated federal areas including the Marianas Trench Marine and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments.

Stand up for our National Parks and our national heritage. Vote against the Foxx Amendment to H.R. 4089.