Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stupak substitute and in strong opposition to the underlying bill. I would use this moment just to wake up the city councils and boards of supervisors and county folks around this country, particularly if you have had a closed military base. Because this underlying bill just opens that up and says if the President of the United States decides we need oil refining capacities, they can puts it in your back yard. They waive all the requirements.

They did make an amendment at midnight last night that is still vague, but says they have to following BRAC re-use law, but that does not affect Federal lands that may be in the closed base. So essentially they could parachute an oil refinery in the middle of a closed military base, and it waives all of the requirements that are local, zoning and all of that. That just would not have any effect.

I will tell you why this is crazy. Because one of the bases that would probably qualify with a deep port and a lot of land is Fort Ord. Fort Ord, California, is surrounded by the National Marine Sanctuary and is one of the most beautiful areas in the whole United States. The last thing we should ever do is have an oil refinery there. This is a crazy bill, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank Gary Anund Knutson, a dedicated public servant. Mr. Knutson, County Auditor- Controller of Santa Cruz, will retire after 35 years of public service, 19 of which were spent as the County Auditor-Controller. Mr. Knutson will be retiring on December 30, 2005, bringing an end to nearly four decades of outstanding service.

Mr. Knutson, who has spent a great deal of time maintaining a great working environment in his office, has decided to pursue other ambitions. His retirement will be enjoyed spending time on other personal activities. Mr. Knutson has done an exceptional job and his service is truly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, when he retires, Gary Anund Knutson will be leaving behind 35 years of excellence and professionalism. I applaud Mr. Knutson for his work and contributions. He has left a lasting impact on his community, and we would like to wish him well in his upcoming retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise as a Member probably more affected by this law than anybody else in the United States Congress. I probably represent more critical habitat in the coastal counties of Monterey Bay than anybody. That is the Big Sur, Carmel, Pebble Beach, Santa Cruz region.

That critical habitat has made us a lot of money on what is watchable wildlife. Watchable wildlife is the largest business, fastest-growing business in the United States. Of all the sports in this country, watchable wildlife exceeds them all. This bill undermines the greatest economic asset we have, which is our natural things by creating a new issue on takings.

You argue the bill is broken because the administration has not been able to administer it.

Well, it is not the bill that is at fault; it is the United States Congress and the President of the United States that are at fault.

I am on the Committee on Appropriations, and in 2003 the Fish and Wildlife Service said it needed approximately $153 million to address the critical backlog of listings of critical habitat; yet the President only asked for $18 million. This is the way to kill an organization. You do not fund it, and say, look, the law does not work, you have a backlog.

So let us take the law. Every city councilmember, every city supervisor in the United States ought to wake up and look at this law because now they give full development rights under this law. If you do not like the way the law is, you have trees in your backyard that the government says, the community says you ought to preserve, you do not have to worry about that now because you can say that is a taking.

Pebble Beach, cut all of your cypress trees and pine trees, which are the Monterey cypress and the Monterey pines, because now instead of beautiful scenery, you can build hotels all over that land. And if they do not allow you to do that because of the trees, the government will pay you.

Mr. Speaker, guess what, the government has no money. It cannot even pay the bureaucrats that are responsible for carrying out the law. This bill is a gun to the head. This bill says if you do not grant that development, by God, government, you have to pay it. The lawyers say, government, you have no money, you better grant the request.

This is a full development rights. It is an attack on America's greatest heritage. It endangers wild and scenic species.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, when you do take, meaning you have no value left, then you have just compensation, was the Supreme Court decision.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying amendment, because in the middle of the night, the manager's amendment removed the NOAA fisheries provision in the Interior.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, as it is currently drafted.

Mr. Chairman, once again California leads the Nation: This time it is for the number of listings for threatened and endangered species. California has more than twice the species listed as any other State.

My home on the Central Coast in the 17th district has more habitat where both endangered plants and animals have lived with commercial farming and ranching. The same climate that produces over three billion dollars annually in agriculture farm gate also is home to the tar plant in Santa Cruz and the California condor in Big Sur.

Another example is the Big Sur area of California where you can find redwoods from

northern California growing next to the yucca of southern California.

I recognize the need for some ``tune-ups'' in the ESA, unfortunately, H.R. 3824 takes a meat axe approach when what we need is a scalpel.

The Endangered Species Act is one of America's most important and successful environmental laws. As one of the pillars of environmental law, it has brought public attention to the impact of human activities on our Nation's wildlife that contributes so much beauty and delight to life as well as growing economic development in environmental tourism.

But it also goes beyond that to declare the preservation of such species as the American bald eagle and the California condor, that glide on the thermals along the Big Sur coastline, a national priority.

While opponents of the law complain that it has restored healthy populations of only 16 of the more than 1,800 species on its endangered list, dozens of other species have dramatically increased their populations because of the law's protection.

Without the ESA these species could easily have succumbed to extinction as corporations and developers decided the fate of their habitats.

That's no small accomplishment. What's more, only nine endangered plants and animals have been lost. We cannot forget that robust biodiversity is absolutely necessary to a healthy human environment.

Ninety-eight percent of the species protected under the Endangered Species Act are still alive today, and many are stable or improving. Without the Endangered Species Act, wildlife such as the bald eagle, American alligator, California condor, Florida panther and many other animals that are part of America's natural heritage could have disappeared from the planet years ago. The Endangered Species Act works because it safeguards the places where endangered animals and plants live.

With the recent discovery of the once thought to be extinct Ivory- billed woodpecker in Arkansas and the Mount Diablo Buckwheat in California, I think this is an opportune moment to highlight the success of many of our conservation efforts. For example, in my home State of California, I am especially proud of the conservation and management efforts that have helped significantly restore populations of California condor, the Southern sea otter, the winter run Chinook salmon, the Least Bell's Vireo songbird, the California Brown Pelican, and the California gray whale.

Mr. Chairman, it is fitting that Congress is moving to reauthorize ESA on Sea Otter Awareness Week since the sea otters are a success story in my district. While the Southern Sea Otter still has a long way to go before being delisted, the increased numbers of sea otters along my district shoreline have greatly contributed to our tourism economy. Studies show sea otters draw tourists to my district where they spend money on lodging, restaurants and other merchandise.

The dramatic turnaround realized by the once thought extinct Southern sea otter is a result of two critical protection laws--the ESA and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Southern sea otter population grew from less than 100 otters in the 1930's to the present total of 2,800. Scientists maintain that it will take 3,100 otters to make a population stable enough to even consider removing them from the Endangered Species list and many threats remain. As reauthorization of the ESA moves forward this week in the House, I will fight to keep it strong enough to successfully overcome these threats to the Southern sea otter.

Despite success stories, like this we need to be aware that more needs to be done. At this time, more than 1,000 species in the U.S. and abroad, are designated as ``at risk'' for extinction. One small step is to increase awareness about the seriousness of the circumstances facing many of these endangered species and educating the public about these species.

I know the ESA has it's problems and the proponents of this legislation have brought many of those cases to light today.

Any law that has been on the books for as long as the Endangered Species Act will have issues--Some of these issues deal with inadequate funding, and some with the law itself.

I agree we need to tweak and update the current law, to make changes, but we do not need to completely rewrite this critical protection legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to use the rest of my time to discuss a specific provision to move the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ESA responsibilities to the Department of Interior.

This is an awful idea, and it should have been vetted within the Resources committee before being brought to the floor.

As you know, many of our constituents across the country care deeply about, whales, salmon, and sea turtles. Taking ESA responsibilities away from the experts at NOAA, will put these animals at further risk.

Giving jurisdiction of the ocean animals, whose survival is most at risk, to an agency without ocean expertise is ludicrous. Taking ESA responsibilities from NOAA will split jurisdiction on marine animals, creating a management nightmare and further fracturing our marine management.

For example, Pacific salmon will be a management nightmare. Fish in one river that arrive in spring will be managed by the Department of Commerce, while fish that arrive in that same river during fall will be managed by the Department of Interior. To make things more complicated, who will manage these fish when they are all mixed together in the ocean? Will the fishermen have to choose from two sets of fishing regulations, one from the Department of Commerce and the other from the Department of Interior?

As the Pew and US Commissions on Ocean Policy recommended, we need to consolidate our ocean management under one roof, Specifically the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce, to be effective. Further splitting our ocean management is only going to create more problems.

Mr. Chairman, let's not send the message that this Congress is more interested in private property development than in the common good of America the beautiful, from sea to shining sea.

The action this House takes today is a step in the long process to reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act. I urge my colleagues not to take the meat axe approach but to support the bipartisan Miller/ Boehlert substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the annual selection of The Golden Poppy Award in California. The Golden Poppy Award is given annually by the California State Parks Foundation to individuals or organizations that have made a significant contribution to protecting, enhancing, and advocating for California's state parks. This year's recipient of the Golden Poppy Award is Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.

Support of our state parks means support of our environment. This company has developed its own ``Toyota Earth Charter.'' In it, Toyota outlines its goal of growing as a company in a way that is in harmony with the environment, including achieving zero emissions throughout all areas of business activities. To that end the company pledges to build close and cooperative relationships with a wide spectrum of individuals and organizations involved in environmental preservation, including governments, local municipalities, and related companies and industries.

One such example of the company's interest in a clean environment is its development of a high-mileage, low-emissions gas-electric hybrid vehicle, the Prius. The technology behind the Prius has made Toyota a leader in environment friendly hybrid technology today.

In keeping with the spirit of their Earth Charter, Toyota supports a wide range of projects, and awarded a major grant to the California State Parks Foundation for its ``Coast Alive!'' program. ``Coast Alive!'' underwrites workshops to middle school teachers that enable them to lead their classes on field studies at nearby State Parks. Armed with this knowledge, their students study the fragile marine ecology of our coastline, experience its beauty, and come to understand the importance of restoring and preserving it as a valuable resource. With the generous donation from Toyota, the Foundation will be able to create interactive, multi-media materials for this program.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the California State Parks family in congratulating Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. on earning the Golden Poppy Award, the symbol of the Golden State.

Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department is entrusted with one of the most sacred rights of American citizenship--protecting the right to privacy.

The privacy rights of my constituents at Moss Landing Harbor on the central coast of California were recently violated under the guise of ``homeland security.''

At 10:30 at night, Coast Guard members armed with M-16 rifles approached docked boats, woke my constituents up, and boarded and searched their boats.

When asked why they were subject to these searches, the officers cited safety, ``homeland security'' and allegedly the PATRIOT Act.

The PATRIOT Act does not give the Coast Guard the right to violate the privacy of law-abiding citizens. It is exactly these kinds of abuses that prove why we should not be making PATRIOT Act provisions permanent.

As we reauthorize the Department of Justice today, we must be mindful of our obligation to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The U.S. cherishes the rule of Law and the protection of civil liberties.

Unlawful search and seizure in the name of Homeland Security is Homeland insecurity.

[From the Monterey Herald, Sept. 18, 2005]

Coast Guard Overboard With Searches

Coast Guard officers apparently were on firm ground legally

when they randomly boarded and inspected nearly 30 boats

docked in Monterey Bay during the Labor Day weekend, but that

doesn't make it right.

An officer with the Coast Guard's Monterey division said

the operation, carried out with the Monterey County Sheriff's

Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was directed

at ensuring boating safety during the busiest boating weekend

of the year. And officers found problems worthy of citation,

including lack of flotation and fire-extinguishing devices.

But some boaters who were subject to the inspections had

legitimate complaints. Two who contacted the Herald said

their boats were boarded after 10:30 p.m. and that officers

arrived carrying M-16 rifles. Some of the boats were live-

aboards, making the inspections comparable to having law

enforcement officers show up at homes on dry land for a

random search with no probable cause--something banned under

the Constitution.

Officials said U.S. Code and maritime law give them

authority for inspections and searches on Federal waters and

the waterways that lead to them. But surprised area

harbormasters and boating enthusiasts said they've never

before seen random, door-to-door inspections. One called it

``pretty preposterous.'' Another described it as ``a little

scary.''

The Coast Guard said the officers weren't responding to any

particular law enforcement report or threat. So why start

this intrusive practice now? Because they can isn't a good

enough answer. Maybe it's time, instead, to shore up maritime

law and bring it more in line with the protections we enjoy

on land.

Andy Turpin, senior editor of Latitude 38, a popular

sailing magazine in Marin County, said the gaps are

significant.

``All the things we take for granted when we're living

ashore go out the window with maritime law,'' Turpin said.

``It's all based on a big-vessel context. There's very little

legislation,'' that has to do with smaller vessels and live-

aboard boats.

Lt. Mark Warren of the Monterey Coast Guard Station said in

light of some of the criticisms, his agency may rethink

future, similar actions.

``We take lessons and learn from these types of operations.

If the public is genuinely distasteful of it, we might not do

it,'' he said.

Part of the Coast Guard's aim was to increase public

awareness of its role as a law enforcement agency. Mission

accomplished--but in an unnecessarily intrusive way. We

depend on the Coast Guard for law enforcement on open seas.

We're grateful for the role it plays in search-and-rescue

operations. And we appreciate its efforts to make sure the

boats on the bay are in safe condition.

But random, dockside boardings are going overboard and

should be discontinued.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to Sea Otter Awareness Week, sponsored by Defenders of Wildlife. The support given by Defenders, Friends of the Sea Otter, the Otter Project, and the Ocean Conservancy to recover the Southern Sea Otter has raised public awareness and helped protect this important species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.

The study of southern sea otter populations provides much-needed information on ways to improve the health of coastal ecosystems. We already know sea otters play a critical role in maintaining healthy kelp beds along the California coast, an important habitat and nursery ground for some of the depleted West Coast rockfish stocks. Sea otter research has proven to be an effective method of monitoring toxins and diseases in the marine environment, both of which can affect the health of humans and other wildlife. These charismatic animals also bring significant tourism spending to central Californian coastal communities.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting to hold Sea Otter Awareness Week this week as Congress moves to reauthorize arguably the bedrock of environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The dramatic turnaround realized by the once thought extinct southern sea otter is a result of two critical protection laws--the ESA and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the southern sea otter population grew from less than 100 otters in the 1930's to the present total of 2,800. Scientists maintain that it will take 3,100 otters to make a population stable enough to even consider removing them from the Endangered Species list. Unfortunately, threats from disease, exposure to environmental pollutants, and entrapment in fisheries gear are threatening the species' continued recovery. As reauthorization of the ESA moves forward this week in the House, I will fight to keep it strong enough to successfully overcome these threats to the Southern Sea Otter.

Many constituents in my District have an interest in, and are affected by, sea otter management. I introduced H.R. 2323, the Southern Sea Otter Recovery and Research Act, and work with my colleagues to secure funding in an effort to support the recovery of the population. The nonprofit environmental groups work with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, researchers, fishermen, and state and Federal agencies to recover the Southern Sea Otter, obtain increased research funds, and remove threats to this keystone species.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the many accomplishments of the non-profit environmental organizations and other agencies and people who devote a tremendous effort to protect and recover the Southern Sea Otter. This week I join the people of my and other districts honoring Sea Otters and those people working to save them and restore their populations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ellen Moir for receiving the prestigious Harold W. McGraw Jr. Prize in education.

Ms. Moir is the founder and executive director of the New Teacher Center (NTC) at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The NTC is a unique place where educators and researchers develop programs for new teachers. Evolving from a staff of 5, NTC has grown into an organization of 65 teachers and researchers who continue to turn Moir's mission into a reality. Ms. Moir has brought academic innovation as well as tireless focus to preparing students and teachers for success and it is certainly fitting that Ms. Moir is nationally recognized for her expertise in teacher preparation, induction, and support.

Thus, I would like to salute Ellen Moir for her outstanding contribution to teacher professional development education. She has dedicated her life to improving the education system in this country and without her motivation and expertise, organizations like the NTC would never have been established. Her accomplishments are invaluable and continue to make a difference in the nation today. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to honor such a compassionate and innovative individual who resides in the 17th district of California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a constituent and an activist who has worked tirelessly for her community and the

Democratic Party. The condition of our local communities stands at the heart of our Nation's well being, and we should all commend and find ourselves humbled by those individuals who dedicate themselves to their specific improvement and prosperity. Barbara Graves is one such individual and, for her great work, is being honored by the Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee, SCCDCC, as the 2005 Democrat of the Year.

Barbara has worked tirelessly to improve and protect her community, having served as Capitola's alternate on the Regional Transportation Commission, Capitola's representative to the Advisory Committee of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Chair of Capitola Walks Club, the Ventana Chapter's Delegate Alternate to the Sierra Club's National Council, Chair of the local Sierra Club Political Committee, and Treasurer of the Environmental Council of Santa Cruz County. Ms. Graves serves currently as the Region 9 Director and Environmental Caucus Secretary of the California Democratic Party, and contributes in no small way to the betterment of her community by coordinating both the non-profit ``Traffic Busters in Schools'' and WAVE. As part of her dedication to the Democratic Party and with the hopes of fostering political innovation she also coordinates the Santa Cruz County Precinct Captains Program providing, among other things, free training on the use of campaign data tools.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to honor Ms. Barbara Graves as an exceptional citizen and community leader. Barbara's ongoing service to the Democratic Party and undaunted commitment to her community show her as an example to all those who wonder how it is that one person might affect real, substantial change, and I commend the Santa Cruz County D.C.C. on their recognition of Barbara's work and achievement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to honor this exemplary individual.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman LoBiondo).

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New Jersey is aware, Congress in 2002

during the last reauthorization of Coast Guard activities enacted into law authorization for the Coast Guard to transfer a parcel of land at Point Pinos, California, to the City of Pacific Grove. Over the last 3 years, the city has worked with the Coast Guard to finalize the arrangements, but the land has yet to be transferred. The delay has frustrated city officials, prevented the reuse of the land, and burdened the Coast Guard with maintenance and security of a facility they no longer need.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman if he is aware of the problem and whether anything can be done to expedite the closure to this issue and the transfer of the property.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the offer of assistance from the chairman and look forward to working with him to get this done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a tremendous public servant. Col. Michael R. Simone, United States Army, recently retired after 30 years of uniformed service to our Nation. I know him both as a friend and as the Commandant of the Defense Language Institute located in my Central California District. DLI is the premier language training institution in the world, instructing U.S. troops in any language required to meet national security demands. I can think of no other single training officer in the U.S. military other than Colonel Simone who has done more to directly prepare our service men and women to meet the challenges we face in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and in the broader struggle against international terrorism.

In 1975, Colonel Simone earned a bachelor of science at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. After serving in field artillery, he went on to earn a masters in International Affairs from Columbia University in 1985. Colonel Simone served as assistant professor of Soviet Studies at West Point, completed a masters in Political Science at Columbia University, and also earned a Certificate of Advanced Training in Soviet Studies from the Averell Harriman Institute. Finally, he attended the Armed Forces Staff College, the U.S. Army Russian Institute, and completed the Defense Attache Course.

Then Colonel Simone became a diplomat. From 1993 to 1995, he served as the Assistant Army Attache in Embassy Moscow. Colonel Simone then moved to Vienna as the Assistant Joint Staff Representative to the U.S. Delegation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. In 1998, he returned to Moscow as the Army Attache. Then from August 2000 until May 2003, he commanded the European Operations Division of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's On-Site Inspection Directorate in Darmstadt, Germany. On June 4, 2003, Colonel Simone became the Commandant of the Defense Language Institute. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to close with a short personal anecdote. One of the greatest pleasures as a Member of Congress is to nominate the brightest high school graduates of our districts to the service academies. Every year, I host a small reception for the nominees and their families just before the students leave for their first academy year. This year, I asked Colonel Simone to host this reception. Not only did he and his wonderful wife Jan open their home, but they made sure, more importantly, that every room was full of serving junior officers, academy graduates all, who could offer the students advice and support as they began their great journey. This happy evening gave me a first-hand look at Colonel Simone's all-consuming dedication to training soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to applaud Col. Michael R. Simone, a person who has served his country with great distinction for so many years. I join with all his friends and family in honoring this talented man and his many achievements.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of the 17th District of California, we extend our heartfelt sympathy to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The devastation wrought on Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is unimaginable to most Americans but we on the Central Coast of California want our fellow Americans on the Gulf Coast to know that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them to rebuild their lives and communities.

The epicenter of the 1989 Lorna Prieta earthquake occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains 10 miles from my congressional district. It was 7.1 on the Richter scale and was the first major quake in northern California since 1906. Since that time, residents on the Central Coast have experienced many federally designated natural disasters including mudslides and flooding.

We Californians understand all too well that Federal disaster assistance has to be immediate and sustained. The $10.5 billion in emergency funding approved on September 2 is the start of what must be a long-term Federal effort to assist the residents of the Gulf Coast communities to rebuild their lives and communities. There is no price tag on the emotional and spiritual healing for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, but it may be a small comfort to know that millions and millions of Americans are contributing in many ways to your future well-being and that you are not alone.

Mr. Speaker, there is a rumor in Monterey, California, that when the Portola expedition arrived there in June, 1770, Mayor Dan Albert was there to welcome them to the City. Mayor Albert has served the people of Monterey for so long that we forget that there was a time when he was not part of local government. He and his wife Joanne are also dear friends to me and my wife Shary. So I rise today to honor not only a public servant of the highest caliber, but also a friend of many years.

Dan Albert is serving his tenth two-year term as Mayor of Monterey. He has held the position of Mayor longer than anyone in Monterey's 225 year history. Mayor Albert was elected to the City Council in 1979 and elected Mayor in 1986. Prior to that time, he served on the City of Monterey Parks and Recreation Commission for several years. He is a former member and Chair of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the one local position that he and I have both held.

But length of service is not everything, as my colleagues know. The value to a community comes through what it continues to receive from its longstanding public officials. By that measure, Dan Albert is worth his weight in gold. When first elected to the City Council, Monterey was in the economic doldrums. The fishing industry had disappeared, the tourism industry was weak and the military economic activity was being continually threatened. What a difference 25 years of real leadership makes. The BRAC Commission just reaffirmed the indispensable role that Monterey plays in supporting the Defense Language Institute and Naval Postgraduate School. Monterey is the center of a thriving regional tourism economy. Its convention center, Window on the Bay Park, Aquarium, and coastal recreation trail all draw and enrich visitors from at home and abroad. And the City of Monterey is a national model for the participation of its citizens in neighborhood preservation and enhancement. All of these trends, and many others, have Dan Albert's quiet leadership at their center. It is a legacy that has made a permanent mark on Monterey.

Mayor Albert retired after 37 years from his position as teacher at Monterey High School. During his time at Monterey High he coached the Monterey High varsity football team for 23 years. Mayor Albert and his wife, Joanne, are lifetime residents of the city and both attended Monterey High School. They have four grown children and ten grandchildren.

Finally, I want to mention something that is not often said of politicians. Danny Albert is polite. He is always gracious; always friendly. He treats all those around him with dignity, respect and a charming humor. Which is not to say that he doesn't fight hard for his city. As a former football coach, he knows how to block, tackle, and score touchdowns for Monterey. But he does so with a style that preserves the conversation and promotes mutual respect and comity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Conference Report to H.R. 6, the so-called comprehensive energy bill before us today. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation, which represents bad energy policy, bad environmental policy, bad fiscal policy, and bad nonproliferation policy.

H.R. 6 does nothing to address the issue of America's continuing dependency on imported oil. It does nothing to require more fuel efficient vehicles. It does nothing to reduce pump prices now or in the future, but it does shower wealthy oil and natural gas companies with unneeded tax breaks, royalty-free drilling on public lands, and exemptions from environmental laws.

We can and must do better if we are to seriously address the energy needs of our Nation. We should strike a sound policy balance by pursuing improvements in fuel technology and energy efficiency, maintaining a clean environment, and preserving our wilderness areas and public lands.

Frankly, this bill is an embarrassment--after six years of discussion and negotiation, the best we have to offer is a bill that in effect preserves the status quo? Instead of providing forward-looking policy ideas for a sound energy future, H.R. 6 is content to drive us into the future by looking through the rearview mirror with its heavily weighted dependence on fossil fuels.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of subsidies in H.R. 6 go to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries, leading to more pollution, more oil

drilling and more radioactive-waste-producing nuclear power.

By contrast, only a small percentage of the tax breaks would go to energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives that could actually save consumers money and reduce our dependence on dirty energy sources.

By refusing to commit to improving and investing in sustainable fuel technology, we are putting our technology and manufacturing industries at a competitive disadvantage at a time when the rest of the planet is searching for alternatives to fossil fuels.

American consumers are being squeezed at the pump while the big oil companies are reaping record profits and the Republican Leadership is passing an energy bill that will further raise gas prices.

How in good faith can we go back to our constituents with a national energy policy that does not address the future, does not address short term fixes or long term solutions?

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation so we can develop a comprehensive energy policy that looks to the future and doesn't rely on repackaged out-dated technologies from the past.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this body what is the rush? There is no need to adopt. There is no deadlines on this agreement. Three of the six countries have not even ratified it yet. I think when we are trying to do a trade agreement, we have got to do the best that America can do.

The richest country in the world is about to enter into a trade agreement with the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere so that we can open up nontariff issues. They send us goods without tariffs. Yes, we do not grow bananas in the United States or guanabana or platano, but we want to send them our goods so that people who are earning $2 a day can buy Two Buck Chuck.

Come on. America, can do better. You cannot have fair trade until you have basic aid. You cannot have a middle class without having schools and water and sewers. There is nothing in here; even the Millennium Fund that the President introduced, a good program, underfunded it to these countries.

You have got to build up countries so that they have a faith in themselves before they have the opportunity for a middle class. We can do better, America. Congress, put this over. Vote against it.