Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2567.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and it is a pleasure to be here on the floor with the gentleman. I wanted to be here for the discussion of CAFTA, and I wanted to say that as a former Peace Corps volunteer in South America, this issue of development of these countries is very, very important. I just think that we are putting the cart before the horse with this trade agreement.

We are dealing with the Central American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua; and of those countries, Nicaragua and Honduras are two of the poorest countries in all of Latin America, Bolivia being the third poorest. These countries do not have, as the gentleman just pointed out, right now a level of living, a wage income to be able to afford imports of American products, which would probably have less of a tariff because of the agreement.

What is missing in this is that in order to really help these countries, we need to invest in education, we need to invest in clean water systems, we need to invest in very basic things. Frankly, they are agrarian countries, meaning they grow agricultural products. Do we think they can compete with any of the agriculture products that we grow in the United States? Absolutely not. There is no way in the world, as we saw with the corn going into Mexico after NAFTA, that even the smallest of those farms can continue to compete.

So I am very concerned and very opposed to CAFTA; and I think, as the gentleman pointed out, it needs to be renegotiated. These countries need investment in infrastructure. That is why the Peace Corps is involved in these countries. If you talk to the Peace Corps volunteers in these countries, I am sure that the discussions they have had with most of the people have nothing to do with CAFTA, because they are like most parents in the United States.

If anybody is listening to this and watching this debate, they will know that as parents, what you are interested in is education for your kids. There are no schools. There is nothing in CAFTA that promises new schools or new teachers or new water systems. There is just a hope that perhaps, with additional investment in these countries, that foreign firms will come in and invest. Why would they invest in these countries? Why? Because there is

cheap labor, cheap labor because people are not educated, because they do not have an infrastructure, tax structure that allows for the development of infrastructure.

So I think that to just jump in and talk about taking the most powerful economic Nation in the world and essentially entering into an agreement which allows us to bully up on the poorest countries in our hemisphere is the wrong way to go. I appreciate the gentleman bringing these issues forward, because I think there is not enough discussion.

Remember, part of CAFTA is also DR CAFTA, which is the Dominican Republic. And that has been bandied about; and of the six legislatures, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, those three legislatures have ratified it. The others have not because they say that an agreement with the Dominican Republic, which is next to Haiti, the other poorest country in the region and in the Caribbean, that they do not have transparency about negotiation and the ratification process.

So we have political infrastructure problems, we have accountability problems, and I think we are missing the point. If we really care about bringing up the level of living, frankly, the way you do that is you invest in the simple things. You invest in rural roads and in rural schools and in rural water systems and definitely health care systems.

So I appreciate the gentleman bringing this forward. The other country here is Costa Rica, and they have an upper-middle-income country. It has one of the best tourism programs in all of Latin America. It did it without having to enter into a trade agreement with the United States. It did it with other kinds of U.S. aid. I would just point out that Nicaragua and Honduras have qualified as countries eligible for Millennium Fund accounts. It is a good program. It is a bottoms-up, sort of let the countries build what they think are important. The program is very good, and these countries qualify because they are the poorest countries there are.

But when it comes down to finding out what the Millennium Account is doing, I think it is being driven essentially by the people interested in CAFTA, because they are building not water systems, not schools, not infrastructure for the rural areas, but building highways from port to port, thinking that CAFTA is going to come along and have this superability for the farmers to compete with the American farmers, for people to be on a level to buy consumer goods that are sent to them from the United States.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps people do not like to hear this, but a country that has been able to put their priorities in perspective has been Cuba, and the reason Cuba did it is they invested in the infrastructure to keep the rural people in the rural areas so that they could have rural economic development. The countries that we are talking about, people are fleeing the rural areas to move into the cities. That is why there are all these poor barrios that are constructed without water.

I lived in a house that did not have water or sewer or lights. It is a pretty miserable situation because all you are doing is, in our case, we had kids haul water for us; they cannot go to school because they have to haul water. So you really begin to understand that if you are going to try to build up sort of an economic base, you have to stay with the basics; and the basics are, you have to have running water in the house. If you have to go and get it, that means that usually the children have to go get the water and bring it to the house.

And if you do not have any electricity, that means you have to build a fire or buy very expensive petroleum, now kerosene, to start a fire. Most people go out and try to get charcoal and get wood. So you are gathering the basics to make the meal so people can eat. You have to go out, and you certainly cannot afford to go to the supermarket, so you go at it piece by piece. It takes the whole day just to put together food on the table.

So if we want to really help these countries, let us make sure that there are some guarantees that this is going to happen. There is nothing in CAFTA that says that. This is about the rich getting richer.

And the poor staying poor. Now, Latin America, I was in Honduras and Nicaragua, and I have to say from the government officials that you talk to, they are all excited about CAFTA. There are some that are worried about losing their identity, some politicians in Costa Rica, the most successful of these countries, that are very, very concerned that the CAFTA agreement is going to have this dominant United States, just sort of the big, huge 800-pound gorilla move into these countries and wipe out their local identity, wipe out their local culture and customs and essentially homogenize the whole thing with American fast-food chains and American businesses.

So where I am concerned about this is that I think if we want to have a win-win, I mean, frankly, the Central American markets, these are small countries. These are poor countries. There is not a huge market down there. This is not going to put a big blip on America's foreign trade. This is not like trading with China or trading with Europe. These are some of the smallest countries in the entire; well, they are the smallest countries in the entire hemisphere. And the importance of these countries in a trade agreement for us as sellers is not that big. For us, as a country that is looking to stabilize the hemisphere, it is about infrastructure development. If you want to generate drug trade, keep a country poor. If you want to generate people that would be interested in terrorism because life is not getting better for them, so you go to extremes and start listening to that, keep them uneducated, keep them poor.

So if we really want to fight for our priorities and emphasize our priorities in this country, we ought to be ensuring, first of all, that these countries have an infrastructure development that has 100 percent access to education, 100 percent access to health care, 100 percent access to a safe place to sleep. And then, when you begin developing an educated middle class, you can begin these more sophisticated trade agreements.

Frankly, I do not see that the trade agreements, there is no responsibility for the outsiders in this agreement, for the countries outside, to do anything to improve the level of living. They are just going to assume that the free market enterprise is going to take care of us; it will trickle down.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and I know that it does not even work in the United States, the trickle down theory here. We had a tax cut for the most wealthy people in America with the idea that the wealthiest would take all of that tax cut and they would give it to the poor and they would start funding the necessary affordable housing, they would fund the educational stream in America, where the public sector does not meet it. They would fund, essentially, the charity of America. It has not happened. It does not work that way. And CAFTA is not going to solve the Central American problem, and it certainly is not going to solve America's trade balance, which is caused by primarily our trade with China, trade imbalance.

Now, my farmers, it is interesting, in California we grow $3 billion of agriculture in my district. None of it is subsidized by the Federal Government.

These associations, they have all come out and said, we support trade agreements, they support all of these trade agreements; but as individuals, that is not the market we are interested in. We do not expect; in fact, if anything, they are going to be growing these products and trying to send them into us, because they are going to try to grow strawberries, which is a value-added project.

We grow the most strawberries in the world in my district, we grow the lettuce, we grow the things that you find that are fresh fruits and vegetables, and those countries have climates that they can grow those. So what are they going to do? They are going to compete with our farmers, if they can at all; and frankly I do not think the worry is that they can compete much, at least not on a large scale.

So this issue of the kind of the social conscience of CAFTA is missing the point. We need to invest in America's best, which is our social responsibility as the leading economic engine, the leading power of the world, to make sure that the level of living for the rest of the world is being improved by our business ventures, not being taken advantage of.

It is very interesting. Before coming here I was in the State legislature and before that in local government, and before that in the Peace Corps. And what I learned in local government, and we are dealing with economic development all of the time, trying to encourage business development.

But, you know, in that process, you extract a lot from business. Because it is essentially sort of that corporate responsibility to be a citizen of your community. In California, we tax them a lot. If you are going to build hotels, we tax the hotels for tourism occupancy tax. That stays with the city.

We tax sales tax, high sales tax. And communities can raise it higher. We tax on gasoline. We have a huge tax. And people will say, yeah, California is a big high-tax State. But guess what? It is also the biggest economic engine, the fifth largest economy in the world. The most start-up businesses, the most everything.

California is not suffering by the fact that it is proud to have businesses that share in their prosperity through the taxation process and through being good corporate neighborhoods. Silicon Valley is out raising their own money to support local transit, their own money, private money, to build housing for people on the street, for the homeless and for people who cannot afford the rental rates, to have subsidized housing, and leverage that with public money.

That is the kind of agreement you ought to be making. It ought to be this quid pro quo. It is not just about trade. It is not just about going in and taking advantage of people, but, really, what is the social benefit that you get from allowing businesses to come into your community, or allowing businesses to come into your country. And I do not see that in this legislation. That is the problem. We are missing the leadership role that the United States has.

And these things could be negotiated out. Yes. The agreements are all about trade agreements under the GATT agreements, which are commodity by commodity. So it is not so broken that those things do not already exist. So you can deal in bananas, and you can deal in sugar. You do not need CAFTA to do that.

But you do need these side bar agreements. And here we have created the Millennium Fund. I compliment the President for creating it. But I think at the same time, the Millennium Fund has gone to these countries and said, What do you want? It is really ironic. I do not think they have talked to the poor people. I do not think they have talked to the people they need to talk to, even though it is supposed to be very good transparency, because they come back and say, We want big super- highways.

Well, that is not going to benefit the education of poor kids. We want bigger ports so bigger ships can come in here, because when we do have the ability to trade with America, we are going to be needing places for a lot of these American goods for land and for our goods to go out. We are forgetting the basics.

We are losing the war on drugs in Colombia because we are fighting the war by eradicating crops. We are investing very little in alternative development and alternative crops. You cannot win on the war on poverty by just making businesses be more successful. I mean, the lesson in this country is that if you want to win the war on poverty, it has got to be a social collective responsibility to assure that there is investment in institutions that help the poor, and that the poor can help themselves through programs like Head Start, through programs like the welfare social services that we have.

And, you know, I just think that the debate here about our hemisphere, we ought to be prouder of this hemisphere. We ought to be more involved in this hemisphere. We ought to be looking at the responsibility, and we have seen that with all of the immigration issues. We debate immigration all of the time. It is sort of like if we build a higher fence and make the border secure, 10 million undocumented people will sort of disappear. It is not going to disappear as long as you have a border between the United States and Mexico, the changes between the richest and poorest border in the world, and the heaviest trafficked border.

We have not learned. The only way you are going to improve that is by investment in Mexico. We have NAFTA. NAFTA has not risen Mexico up to the level where people can stop coming across the border. So what makes you think that CAFTA is going to raise the level of El Salvador and Nicaragua so that they do not migrate up through Guatemala and up through Mexico, and are part of the illegal immigrants?

This is what I am saying, that we cannot deal with this on a piecemeal fashion. We have got to have a bolder, wiser, more inclusive commitment to raising, as you said, raising the ships, raising, you know, the tides for all ships, not just winners and losers.

Remember, when these companies come in, they are coming in according to the zoning that has been adopted by the local community. They are coming because the community wants them there, and they know that they are going to be sharing in the responsibility.

I mean, I do not think we are trying to knock down responsible corporate entities, and companies that do a lot for their employees. But I think you cannot just do this on the fact that some of the companies do much better jobs than others.

Some of my companies in the Salinas Valley provide for all of their farm workers health care insurance, 401(k) plans, scholarships for every one of the farm workers' children that go to college. And I represent more farm workers than any other ag district in the United States.

And so I know that there are very responsible corporate entities that will do the responsible social thing. But you cannot just sort of, when you are dealing with a whole country like this, and dealing with major trade agreements, you cannot just sort of pick out that there will be some winners and losers.

The country cannot afford to have any losers. The country and the people in these countries, the poorest countries in Latin America cannot afford not to have a total commitment. And CAFTA does very little to ensure that the infrastructure is going to be improved. It only hopes that the trickle-down effect will make it better, thinking that there will be more capital in the country by investment and by productivity. At the expense of what?

The gentlewoman and I are both on the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations, and I cannot think of two people that fight more for small farms and the ability of rural America to have a successful economic development.

I am wondering if the gentlewoman is finding in Ohio, in the people the gentlewoman has run across, most of the agricultural trade associations are supporting CAFTA. As I run into the members of those associations, they are not so keen on it. They are very concerned. They think that these are agrarian countries, and so what is going to happen is the products that they grow and can get into the school lunch program, can get into the organic program, can get into essentially the multi-billion dollars that America spends on food for the military and food for food stamps and things like that, that these products will be produced not at the local farmers market and additional farmers markets; but these products will come from Central America, at the expense of small farmers in our country, particularly of speciality crops.

I think the difficult is, and we all agree on this, that you cannot just have these trade agreements which are private business contracts and expect the social responsibility of both sides of the agreement are going to raise those opportunities for people who are less educated, for people who are below living standards.

It has got to be a totality. If we are going to trade ideas and products, we have also got to trade in education. We have got to trade in social responsibility and minimum standards, minimum wages, minimum protection for labor, minimum protection for environment. The whole quality of life has to improve.

This is the most giant business deal that the United States will ever make. And it is tragic that in this giant business deal we are not dealing with all of these other issues that we came here to Congress to try and solve.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to recognize an outstanding American who retires from Federal civilian service after 37\1/2\ years. On July 1st, Mr. Raymond J. Fatz of Herndon, VA, completes a long, and lustrous career in the Federal Government, which began as a soldier in the United States Army in 1967.

Mr. Fatz' extraordinary leadership and accomplishments as the senior executive for the Army's environmental, safety and occupational health programs have had a positive, direct, and lasting impact on the Soldiers and on the Army's ability to complete its peacetime and wartime missions--past, present and future.

I came to know Ray Fatz through his work on clean-up issues at Fort Ord. To anyone who has heard me preach about Fort Ord, you know how deep into the details I am. Whether it be cleaning up the UXO, filtering the contaminated water plume, or capping old landfills, I am passionate about getting clean up right. Ray Fatz not only understood this, he relished it. He went after Fort Ord clean up with a spirit that speaks volumes of his commitment to public service and dedication to Army environmental principles. Though Fort Ord has been a tough nut to crack, I'm happy to say that under Ray Fatz's leadership, we are on a path to getting Fort Ord clean, back into the hands of civilians, and ready for an economic boom.

It has been Ray's collegial style and quiet diplomacy that has enabled him to navigate the difficult issues of military environmental stewardship. During times of tighter budgets but increased demands, Ray has done a masterful job of allocating resources where they can do the most public good. In that respect, we all should take a page out of Ray's rule book.

Today, I wish Ray Fatz the best in his well-deserved retirement. He can now improve his golf game, go fishing and spend more time with his family.

Mr. Fatz, I thank you, the Army thanks you, and your country thanks you for your extraordinary service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary organization based in my Central California district, the Grower- Shipper Association of Central California, on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. Initially formed in 1930 by a handful of growers and shippers to represent one commodity--iceberg lettuce, the GSA now includes over 300 members, spanning four Central Coast counties and representing dozens of commodities--virtually all vegetables, berries, mushrooms, and wine grapes. Through its long record of achievement, the Association has become the premier local representative of agriculture on the Central Coast.

For most of its first 50 years, the Association's work focused on the issue of labor. Today the GSA tackles an extensive workload including food safety and security, pest and plant disease prevention, control and eradication, land use in the agriculture/urban interface, water supply and distribution, market access and trade, agricultural research and education, government, legislative and regulatory affairs, worker safety and training, and labor and employment law.

While managing these increased challenges, the Grower-Shipper Association maintains a commitment to its members and community. Its mission statement declares ``We are the local solution representing our members' agricultural needs.'' The Grower-Shipper Association lives up to this standard through education, representation, and advocacy. In 2003, GSA established the non-profit Grower-Shipper Association Foundation to further its support of the Central Coast agricultural community. Funds from the Foundation will allow the Association to significantly expand its support of educational, training, and other programs of service to the community.

The Grower-Shipper Association has made a substantial contribution to both the agriculture industry and the broader community of the Central Coast. The Association's achievements are a direct result of the leadership of its members, boards, and presidents, past and present. For 75 years the GSA organization has earned a reputation for integrity that honors the culture, companies, and employees of Central Coast agriculture that have made this region the most productive and innovative in the world. Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to recognize the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Congressman Michael Honda, to honor Mr. Shane Lee Meyers, who has dedicated the last several years to establishing two websites that provide political informa- tion to the public. These websites, including the Election Volunteer Project (www.electionvolunteer.com) and the Join California site (www.joincalifornia.com). focus on the Santa Clara county area and serve to educate that region's voters in a non-partisan way by providing biographies of candidates for major public office. The Election Volunteer Project intends to eventually expand the websites to include all of northern California and perhaps even the entire state.

Mr. Meyers deserves recognition today for the great interest he has shown in improving the lines of communication between the public and their representatives at both the state and federal levels. A longtime resident of Capitola, he has volunteered a large portion of his time toward the website's public education effort. His efforts toward improving community political awareness are to be commended.

I would also like to add that Mr. Meyers is a recent graduate in electrical engineering from Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo. He is currently employed by Nokia as a Software Quality Assurance Engineer.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the many accomplishments of Mr. Meyers and wish him continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday represented a giant step forward towards the protection and sustainable management of this nation's largest public trust: our oceans. I introduced OCEANS 21, a comprehensive oceans policy bill that answers the calls of the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, along with other bi-partisan co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus, Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, Tom Allen of Maine, and Jim Saxton of New Jersey.

Our bill offers a comprehensive legislative solution to crises documented in both of the Oceans Commissions reports by establishing a strong National Oceans Policy that protects, maintains, and restores the health of marine ecosystems. This National Oceans Policy will secure, for present and future generations, the full range of benefits of healthy marine ecosystems--a responsibility that I take quite seriously in my job of representing California's central coast, home to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

The importance of this policy cannot be overstated, as we all depend on our oceans and coasts, from the person who lives off the water to the person who visits the ocean once in a lifetime. The oceans provide food, jobs, vacation spots, as well as opportunities for scientific inquiry, including medical discovery, and personal reflection. Despite our inability to measure the many non-market values associated with our oceans and coasts, we are able to quantify some of the benefits they provide. For example, the ocean economy--the portion of the economy that relies directly on ocean attributes--contributes well over $100 billion to American prosperity. About one tenth of the nation's annual gross domestic product (GDP) is generated in nearshore areas, the relatively narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the coast. If that area is expanded to include coastal watershed counties, representing about one quarter of the nation's land area, the contribution increases to about half of the nation's GDP. This is a huge economic contribution to our gross domestic product; a contribution that must be protected so the returns keep coming.

Oceans-2l was introduced in the 108th Congress to begin a national dialogue on our coasts and oceans. Since that time, the co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus have revised the bill based on input from the oceans and fishing communities. This effort reflects continued forward momentum toward the goal of healthy marine ecosystems for present and future generations of Americans. The most substantive changes to the bill from the 108th Congress are to the regional governance and trust fund provisions. The bill would establish Regional Ocean Partnerships that facilitate communication among federal, state, and local management entities. The Oceans and Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund no longer relies on monies from outer continental shelf activities and instead draws from general revenues.

One of the most common concerns about the 108th Congress bill was that the structure of Regional Governance added an ineffective layer of bureaucracy without helping ecosystem-based management efforts. The integration of ecosystem-based management into current ocean and coastal management regimes must occur incrementally. Regional Ocean Partnerships are a first step toward deliberate and strategic planning for the long term health of our marine ecosystems. The revised language removes regulatory mandates from the Partnership's purview and concentrates instead on planning, removing the extra layer of bureaucracy. Currently, there is no organized forum for communication between federal and state entities responsible for management of coastal and ocean resources.

The successful co-management of the oceans relies on frequent and effective communication.

Fisheries are not only affected by the number of fish we take out of the sea but are also affected by pollution, invasive species, degradation of nursery areas, and other ocean uses. Fishermen have not been able to adequately address or voice their concerns about non- fishing issues that affect their resource. Oceans 21 will give fishing a loud voice by including the executive director of each Regional Fishery Management Council on the corresponding Regional Ocean Partnership. Fishermen need the ability to be effective ocean stewards.

I urge all of my colleagues to dedicate themselves to shaping a better future for our oceans by supporting the House Oceans Caucus Founder's ocean policy bill. Our bill will not only bring U.S. ocean policy into the 21st century, it will set the tone for a future in which our oceans remain vital components of our economy, our communities, and our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with a quote from the U.S. Commission Report that encapsulates my thoughts on the urgency of considering OCEANS 21 this session: ``The responsibility of our generation is to reclaim and renew the oceans for ourselves, for our children, and--if we do the job right--for those whose footprints will mark the sands of beaches from Maine to Hawaii long after ours have washed away.''

Mr. Chairman, the U.N. soon to celerate its 60th anniversary, is chartered to promote universal human rights, justice and social progress. These are perfect ideals that the global community must strive to put into action, but that does not mean the U.N. is a perfect organization. Recent scandals and the lack of transparency within the U.N. undermine the essential role the U.N. plays in world affairs. Reform is an urgent priority but the cure for fixing these problems should not be worse than the disease.

H.R. 2745 will hamstring the U.S.'s ability to create positive reform within the U.N., tarnish the image of the U.S. abroad when public opinion of the U.S., particularly in the Arab countries where is at an all time low, and defeat the Administration's public diplomacy efforts before Karen Hughes even assumes her new responsibilities in September. Additionally, H.R. 2745 would halt funding for any new or expanded peacekeeping missions. Unilaterally preventing the U.S. from supporting new peacekeeping missions puts an untold number of lives at risk and additionally, could endanger U.S. national security interests. In fact many of the peacekeeping reforms contained in the Hyde bill are endorsed by the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations, and in most cases are already underway, to address recent concerns raised about sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping missions.

Moreover, H.R. 2745 does not enjoy the full support of the administration. According to R. Nicholas Bums, under secretary of state for political affairs, ``We have serious concerns with the bill. We are the founder of the U.N. We're the host country of the U.N. We're the leading contributor to the U.N. We don't want to put ourselves in a position where the United States is withholding 50 percent of the American contributions to the U.N. system.''

Congress must provide the State Department with the tools and flexibility to push for positive changes within the U.N. The Lantos/ Shays substitute would provide the authority, but not mandate, the Secretary of State to withhold dues from the U.N. if reform measures aren't implemented in a timely manner. The United States, as the world leader, must take an active, positive role in helping reform the U.N. The Lantos/Shays substitute is the step in the right direction for U.S. reform efforts and I will vote in favor of this substitute and against the U.N. Reform Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of robust funding for two important Small Business Administration programs: the 7(a) Lending Program and the Microloan program.

Small business owners take huge risks to try to realize their dreams of owning their own business which fuel U.S. economic growth. If

we want a strong economy and a business environment that encourages this entrepreneurial spirit, the federal government needs to give small business the economic tools to be successful. That tool is the 7(a) program that was created to provide capital to small business owners unable to access traditional financing. Through this program, more capital has been made available for small business investment that has helped grow the economy. Companies who participate in the 7(a) program account for approximately 75 percent of the net new jobs added to the economy! Funding the 7(a) program at $79 million is an investment in Main Street, USA.

The Microloan Program is another excellent SBA program that creates jobs on Main Street. This program provides loans to low- and moderate- income entrepreneurs that are not served by private sector banks or the 7(a) loan program. One example of the benefits of the SBA Microloan program is the California Coastal Rural Development Corporation (Cal Coastal) in my district, which has made microloans totaling $2,775,000 since 1998. With the loan and technical assistance financing provided by the SBA Microloan Program, Cal Coastal has financed more than 153 businesses with an average loan of $18,000. Cal Coastal is just one example of the excellent work being done by non-profit intermediaries throughout our state and across the country. Fully funding the SBA Microloan program is a smart business investment for Main Street.

I rise today to honor the life of Victor Ghio, an influential member of the Santa Cruz community. He passed away on March 31, 2005 at age 88 and is survived by his brother, Johnnie M. Ghio; his sisters, Victoria Gemignani, Mary Marsalisi, and Gloria Della Mora; and numerous nieces, nephews, grandnieces, and grandnephews. Mr. Ghio is most notable as a local legend and a vital link to the city's storied Italian fishing colony.

Mr. Ghio was born on August 20, 1916 in Santa Cruz, California. Following the footsteps of his grandfather and father, Mr. Ohio learned to fish around the age of 8. Shortly after graduating from high school, he went into the family business. However, when World War II broke out, he enlisted, and spent a decade in the service. Mr. Ghio earned the prestigious award of a Purple Heart for his assistance in the war effort.

Mr. Ghio spent more than 60 seasons fishing the Monterey Bay area on his 30-foot boat, Catherina G., named after his beloved mother. Just shortly before his death, Mr. Ghio was still buying fishing equipment to get ready for the season's commercial salmon season. The ocean was evidently his world in which he could live as a free spirit, away from the bustle of the city.

Mr. Speaker, I am joined by Mr. Ghio's family and friends in honoring his life and contributions to the community. He will be remembered by his positive spirit and a wonderful outlook on life. Mr. Ghio's service will be truly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a great public servant for Monterey County, California. Frank J. Lichtanski passed away on June 9, 2005 in his home in Del Rey Oaks, California after a battle with cancer.

Frank was passionate about all modes of transportation, and particularly buses, for more than 31 years. At age 23, he worked as a bus driver for Monterey-Salinas Transit, beginning what would become an illustrious career. After six years, Frank became general manager, and in 1982 he became Monterey-Salinas Transit's Chief Executive Officer. In his 31 years of service with MST, Frank turned a fledgling bus service with only nine buses and twenty employees into a thriving public transit system. Today, Monterey-Salinas Transit provides public transit service in Monterey, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties and carries 4.8 million passengers each year. Each time Frank came to Washington, D.C., he marveled at the Metro system and how Union Station had developed as a commercial center with transportation as the anchor for restaurants and entertainment. He took that inspiration and figured out how a public transit station could benefit Monterey County. The City of Marina is the northern gateway to the Monterey Peninsula. Frank's vision grew to become the Marina Transit Station, situated at the west end of a major corridor between the coastal communities and the inland communities of Monterey County. The Marina Transit Station is a multimodal connection serving transit and over-the-road buses, as well as automobile passengers, taxis, and bicyclists. It will serve as the anchor for economic development in a part of the county that had lost its commercial businesses when the former Fort Ord military base closed.

He was a regional leader in implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems that include visual tracking of buses through enhanced communication systems, automated voice announcements to ensure compliance with ADA, and visual displays at transit centers to provide passengers with real time bus arrivals and departures. Frank understood that technology improvements alone would not improve ridership and championed the purchase of new fuel efficient buses. Always a creative problem solver, Frank fought for and won FTA approval to leverage the purchase of three buses into a financing package of 46 new buses to respond to 10 percent annual growth in ridership.

Frank amassed a collection of train and bus schedules dating back to the early 1900s, and I am talking to officials at the Smithsonian Institution about the possibility of a display of Frank's memorabilia. Being passionate about all modes of transportation, Frank personally traveled to 34 countries and inspected more than 180 transit systems, always searching for ideas to improve public transit on the Central Coast.

The residents of Del Ray Oaks, Monterey County and the Central Coast mourn the passing of Frank Lichtanski and join me in expressing our heartfelt condolences to Frank's wife, Pam; his daughter, Aaron; and sisters Jeannie Stopa and Fran Stauff, and to the MST family to whom Frank devoted his stellar career.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I stand as a Member from California, which has had a law for almost 10 years now allowing the medical prescription use of marijuana for alleviating pain. It has not been a problem in California. It does not legalize drugs. It does not get drugs into the hands of kids. That law is enforced. Drug laws in California are strictly enforced by local law enforcement. But local law enforcement also supports in my community this use of pain relief.

I mean, this issue is about doctors and patients, doctors who prescribe for pain. They can have all kinds of alternatives prescribed. In some cases, this is the way that pain is best relieved. So what we are asking is that no money be spent to enforce the laws in those States that have been working. The Supreme Court did not strike down those laws. They did not say they were illegal. This is the ability of whether Congress is going to now step in and require those 10 States that have practices in place that are alleviating pain that they can no longer do that.

Do not allow the Federal Government to bust old ladies who are suffering from pain and have a prescription for relief.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment and am proud to be a cosponsor of that amendment.

Oppenents of this amendment would want you to believe that this amendment is all about legalizing pot, or about unfettered access to street drugs, or about creating a generation of drug addicts.

They know it's not and their exaggeration won't change the facts.

The facts are--

This amendment is about States rights and the ultimate right of the citizens to empower their government through the democratic process.

This amendment is about health care, under a doctor's prescription and direction.

This amendment is about compassion and caring for persons who suffer from chronic pain and/or terminal illnesses.

This amendment is not about legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana.

This amendment is not about unfettered marijuana growth, distribution or usage. It is about regulated, controlled access.

My friends across the aisle seem to forget that this body, this House of Representatives gets its power from the people. In the United States the people empower their government, not the reverse.

In this country the people have the right to tell government how to govern.

In this country the people have the right to petition their government for change.

And when that happens, this government, this House of Representatives, has an obligation to respond.

When Americans called for an end to discrimination, we had an obligation to pass the Civil Rights Act.

When Americans called for fairness to persons with disabilities, we had an obligation to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Ten states and millions of American citizens have voted to make it the law in their states that marijuana is available through prescriptions for health care purposes.

They are asking us--their representatives in Congress--to change the law to make it so. We have an obligation to respond.

The Hinchey amendment is the responsible thing to do. It is the right thing to do.

I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on the Hinchey amendment.

I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts to put together a balanced Science, State, Justice, Commerce bill; especially working with such limited resources. However, I would like to point out the shortfall in funding to the ocean, or wet, side of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in this bill.

It is distressing to see NOAA, our primary domestic ocean agency, take a $500 million cut from FY 05 levels less than a year after the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued its final report calling for an increase of $1.5 billion in ocean funding during the first year after the report. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was established by the Oceans Act of 2000 and appointed by President Bush to study our oceans and make recommendations for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. The Oceans Commission spent four years studying our oceans and made over 200 recommendations, and it spent $9.5 million figuring out how to better manage our oceans. We are now ignoring the clear, loud message that we need to invest more in our oceans. To put it another way, we are cutting more than a million dollars in ocean programs in our primary ocean agency for each page in the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy final report.

With the atmospheric, or dry, side of NOAA seeing a 9% increase for the National Weather Service and a 7% increase for the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, the cuts to the wet side of NOAA are even deeper than they first appear. The National Ocean Service will receive a 40% cut and the National Marine Fisheries Service will receive a 20% cut.

To no one's surprise, Americans love the oceans, but what many Americans probably do not know is how much our economy relies on the oceans. The ocean economy--the portion of the economy that relies directly on ocean attributes--contributes well over $100 billion to American prosperity. About one tenth of the nation's annual gross domestic product (GDP) is generated in nearshore areas, the relatively narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the coast. Coastal watershed counties, representing about one quarter of the nation's land area, contribute about half of the nation's GDP. NOAA funding is not only an investment in the protection, wise management, and productivity of our oceans and coasts; it is an investment in the well being of our coastal cities and communities.

Cuts to NOAA threaten the wise management of our oceans and will have far reaching ramifications such as on the tourism industry in my district and tourism in coastal districts around the nation. Tourism is one of the largest economic drivers of coastal areas, and my district is no exception. Tourists flock to my district for the same reason people want to live there, because of its natural wonders. Not only are the rocky shores dramatic, but people can watch sea otters paddle in the kelp, sea lions lounge on the docks, and whales breach in the bay. The more adventurous dive in the lush fish filled kelp beds, and the less adventurous--well, they go to the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

The Marine Sanctuaries program has been cut by 40% and the Coastal Nonpoint and Community Resource Improvement Grants program has been cut out completely. These two NOAA programs have been instrumental in keeping the coastal waters of my district unpolluted, allowing the waters to teem with life. The Monterey Bay Sanctuary office has been working with farmers in the productive valleys that drain into the Monterey Bay to reduce pollution from pesticides and nutrients. The farmers were skeptical until they realized they were saving money by finding ways to keep their fertilizers and pesticides on the fields and out of our ocean waters. The farmers are now bigger proponents of the program than the Sanctuary office. I don't want the ocean waters off my district to end up as a dead-zone like the waters off Louisiana, where due to nutrient pollution, there is a dead zone the size of Massachusetts. Pollution kills more than marine life; it kills fisheries and it kills tourism--For some reason I just can't quite picture a tourism brochure that reads ``Come visit the country's biggest ocean dead-zone.''

The State Coastal Zone Management Grants program was cut by $2 million. The National Estuarine Research Reserves program was cut by $3.7 million, and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program was cut by a whopping $38.7 million. These programs have been instrumental in allowing my district and other districts around the country to grow wisely striking a balance between development and preservation. The natural areas, parks and public beach access--besides pleasing the environmentalists--have been a smart tourism investment. Without the

ability for people to access the beach and enjoy the wildlife in these natural areas, people will not bother coming to my district.

When I think about the oceans, fishing is one of the first things that comes to mind. It is an economic and cultural backbone for many coastal communities, and with American consumers eating over 15 pounds of fish per person every year, it is an important food source for people across our nation. Recreational fishing is a boon to coastal tourism as well, with more than 17 million recreational fishers spending approximately $25 billion a year on fishing-related activities. At a time when we know the status of less than a third of our fish stocks and are overfishing or have overfished more than 30% of the stocks we know about, we should be investing heavily in the National Marine Fisheries Service instead of making deeper budget cuts.

At a time when we know clearly from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy report that we need to be investing in our oceans, making drastic funding cuts to NOAA, the primary agency for managing our coasts and oceans, makes no sense.

I, with my fellow co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus, sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee asking for adequate funding of key nation wide NOAA programs. We had the support of 84 bipartisan members who felt strongly about these programs. Of the 13 different programs we highlighted in our letter, none of them was funded at our requested levels. Only one program received a small increase over FY 05 enacted levels and only one was level funded. This is especially disappointing given the support of so many members--nearly 20%--of the House.

While I believe the Committee did a good job given the tight budget situation, it is disappointing to see NOAA receive such large cuts when they should be getting large increases. NOAA needs more money to do its job of protecting, managing and keeping our coasts and oceans healthy and productive.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, not because SCAAP is not a good idea to fully fund, and I support that, but not taking it from NOAA. What you are doing here is choosing to cut California to help California, and choosing to cut California results in cutting what is essentially the largest population in the entire United States living on the California coastline. They develop, on all of the issues of the marine sanctuaries, the research that goes on, of the students that go out on the NOAA ships, all of these funds are going to be affected by this cut.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of things we can do about SCAAP, and I strongly support more funding, but I think California can do a better job of trying those cases in Mexico where they have been successful in incarcerating and gotten 100 percent conviction in courts in Mexico, which are a lot cheaper than incarcerating them in California. This $50 million cut really wipes out NOAA. The committee already cut half a billion dollars from NOAA, and to add another $50 million, which RIFs 100 people, a lot of those people live in California.

This is a bad amendment because of what it attempts to cut, and I would strongly oppose it and ask my colleagues to defeat the Dreier amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an invaluable member of my community, Mr. John Hanson. Mr. Hanson is a Building Maintenance Specialist from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and has recently completed a tour of duty in Iraq with the Army National Guard. Sergeant First Class Hanson's unit was called up in late 2003 and he served in Iraq for 16 consecutive months.

Mr. Hanson has been with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea since 1988 and was well supported by his wife, Annette, his two children, and his community. Mr. Hanson has not only served his country with honor, but has met some of the humanitarian needs of the Iraqis that he has come in contact with. While he was in Iraq, John supported, with the assistance of his family at home, an Iraqi school with shipments of items like flip-flops, tank tops, and school supplies. For having endured an extended time away from his family and friends, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has awarded him a key to the City.

Through his enormous sense of decency, fairness, generosity, and commitment to his country, Mr. John Hanson has been an asset to everyone that he has touched. Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to recognize Sergeant First Class John Hanson.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Beth Guislin for her years of dedication as an employee of the University of California and for her contribution to the world community.

Beth began her career with the University in 1976 at the Los Angeles campus. After leaving UCLA, she continued her work at the

Santa Cruz campus of the University of California system. As UCSC's Director of Instructional Computing, she built a campus institution respected by both faculty and students that enhanced the campus' reputation for undergraduate education by providing a space for students to publish their work and gain needed employment skills.

Beth has also shared her expertise with people around the world through her love for travel. She served as a mental health counselor for Americans living in Bangkok during the Vietnam War, was a field assistant for the Smithsonian-sponsored Arun Valley Wildlife Expedition in Nepal and contributed to the betterment of public health in Thailand. Beth is also fluent in Thai, and as a Peace Corp volunteer, she acted as a liaison between the Thai Ministries of Health, Agriculture, and Education in the area of nutrition and was involved in the establishment of markets for locally produced foods in some of Thailand's rural areas.

Beth is also an expert sailor with 19 years of experience as a member of a Los Angeles crew for international cruises and races. One of the highlights of her sailing experience includes sailing from California to Tahiti.

Mr. Speaker I wish to honor Beth Guislin, upon her retirement from the University of California, for her compassion and dedication to education. Her actions serve as an example of how to live life to the fullest, while selflessly giving back to those in need here and around the world. I join the University in commending Beth for her leadership in instructional computing and international public service, and I extend my sincere best wishes for her retirement and future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Darryel Nacua, a true hero who passed away tragically and unexpectedly on May 30, 2004 at the age of 48. Most of Darryel's twenty-three year law career was spent with California Rural Legal Assistance, where he dedicated his life to giving legal help to the farm workers of Central California, the community of his own roots.

Darryel's assignments with California Rural Legal Assistance took him to Santa Maria, Gliroy, Salinas and finally to the Watsonville/Santa Cruz office, where he acted as Directing Attorney. He fought hard against poverty, injustice, and substandard housing, and he was equally tenacious in his battles for education and employment. Darryel was fearless in taking on all entities in his pursuit of social justice. Darryel also served the greater Santa Cruz area as a member of the Lawyer Referral Service Governing Committee and the Human Care Alliance Advocacy.

Darryel was endearingly referred to within his community as a man of ``sangre liviana,'' one of ``light blood,'' or a pleasant disposition. They also called him ``sano,'' a person of sincerity, honesty, and one without malice. He was appreciated as a mentor, a profound listener, and for his gentle sense of humor.

Mr. Speaker, it is altogether fitting that California Rural Legal Assistance should name their office building in honor of Darryel Nacua. The community will miss him greatly, but we know his life will continue to inspire those he touched.