Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, five months ago yesterday, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released a Preliminary Report outlining the imperiled state of our oceans. Yesterday, the U.S. Commission moved our country one step closer to being better stewards of our oceans by submitting to the President and to Congress a Final Report on ``everything oceans.'' This comprehensive document makes recommendations on a wide range of topics, from improving governance of ocean resources to promoting greater marine stewardship and education, from recognizing the need to manage the oceans on an ecosystem basis to suggesting greater exploration of unknown areas of the sea, from discussing reform of fisheries management to arguing for increases in our marine science research budget, and from speaking to the connections between coastal land uses and the oceans to implementing an integrated ocean observation system.

Submission of the Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy is truly an historic event. It has been more than 30 years since we, as a nation, have evaluated our relationship with the sea. I sincerely hope that our evaluation does not get ignored, but instead serves as a springboard for increased protection of this country's largest public trust resource.

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was mandated by the Oceans Act of 2000, legislation on which I am an original cosponsor and which is based on bills that I initially introduced in 1997 and 1999. In the Oceans Act,

we gave the Commissioners an enormous task and today I want to recognize the efforts of the 16 Commissioners, 26 Advisors, and countless staff who helped to create such a comprehensive report. All of these people have spent a large portion of the past five months reading comments on the Preliminary Report provided by Governors, tribal interests, non-governmental organizations, and members of the public--not a small task. I am sure that the Commission's excitement over the release of the Final Report, an endeavor embarked upon roughly three years ago, approximates the thrill felt by those of us who love, care deeply about, and want to protect the oceans.

The Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy details the crises facing our oceans. Building on the Preliminary Report, the Final Report includes refinements in a few areas: the funding mechanism is provided in detail, marine cultural heritage is included, more attention is given to how climate change will affect the oceans, the intent to include all coastal areas such as the Great Lakes and Territories is clarified, and the important role that states should play in protecting ocean resources is emphasized.

While we have many crises--at home and abroad--that require our immediate attention, we cannot overlook the fact that our oceans are in a state of crisis, too. It is my sincere hope that both Members of Congress and the Bush Administration will read the U.S. Commission's Report and realize that our oceans need attention--now--and that the country is looking to us--their leaders--to act. I look forward to analyzing the President's response to the Final Report, a response that, under law, must be submitted within 90 days of today.

We all depend on our oceans and coasts, from the person who lives off the water to the person who visits once in a lifetime. The oceans provide food, jobs, vacation spots, scientific knowledge, and opportunities for 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, over a trillion dollars is added to our economy each year by ocean and coastal economies. I trust that we can all agree that this is a huge contribution; a contribution that must be protected so the returns keep coming.

Protection of our oceans will require a change of course. Unfortunately, all too often we take our oceans for granted: we underestimate their value and we ignore the negative consequences human-related activities can have on them. Our oceans represent the largest public trust resource in the U.S. and cover an area nearly one and a half times the size of the continental United States. Americans expect the Government to safeguard this vast resource and I hope that the Final Report will be the impetus for us to actually begin to do so.

Simply put, our current ocean and coastal management system, created over thirty years ago, is archaic and incompatible with new knowledge about how the oceans and coastal waters function as a whole. Our policies are fragmented, both institutionally and geographically. For example, Mr. Speaker, today we find ourselves with over ten federal departments involved in the implementation of more than 130 ocean- related statutes. It is time to re-consider this incoherent and oftentimes incompatible management situation and bring order to our ocean governance structure. The U.S. Commission's Report offers some guidance on how to do just this.

One of the biggest advances in our understanding of oceans to occur since our last national review of ocean policy is that the natural world functions as ecosystems, with each species intricately connected to the other parts that make up the whole. The U.S. Commission's Final Report, as well as the independent Pew Oceans Commission Report released in June of 2003, clearly states that we must adopt a new policy framework that is based on the concept of ``the whole,'' an ecosystem-based approach rather than one based on political boundaries. This approach will not be as easy or straightforward as our previous approaches, but we must dedicate ourselves to making it a reality. With a comprehensive national ocean policy explicitly written to maintain healthy ocean ecosystems, our oceans will be a bountiful resource in which we can all take pride.

The Final Report released yesterday also stresses the importance of instilling a new ecosystem-based stewardship ethic. Involved in instilling this ethic is increasing ocean-related education for all Americans at all levels, from first-graders learning how to read to graduate students investigating intricate scientific processes. The U.S. Commission details suggestions on how we can instill a new stewardship ethic by emphasizing and investing in greater marine science education. I see this recommendation--that of committing ourselves to teaching people about all aspects of the oceans and how our activities can have negative consequences for ocean ecosystems--as being fundamental to ensuring a better future for our oceans.

It is up to each of us to not let this unprecedented opportunity pass us by--we cannot wait any longer to clean up this mess we have created for our oceans. On this point both the Pew and U.S. Commission reports are adamant: we must rethink the way we look at the oceans. We are at a turning point in oceans management and we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to take the momentum created by the two ocean reports and make long lasting changes to protect our seas.

Within the Legislative Branch, I have been working to bring attention to oceans issues. I worked with my fellow co-chairs of the bi-partisan House Oceans Caucus, Mr. Jim Greenwood (R-PA), Mr. Tom Allen (D-ME), and Mr. Curt Weldon (R-PA), to introduce a comprehensive oceans bill, H.R. 4900 (informally known as OCEANS-21). OCEANS-21 answers the calls of the Pew and U.S. Commissions by establishing a clear national oceans policy and by providing a framework for addressing the many problems outlined in the reports. I hope that those in the majority party will recognize the bi-partisan nature of OCEANS-21 and give it consideration during this session of Congress. In addition to my efforts on H.R. 4900, I am working closely with Mr. Rahall, Ranking Member of the House Resources Committee, on his efforts to implement those recommendations from the Pew and U.S. Commissions that address management of our nation's fishery resources (H.R. 4706). The specific elements of this bill include separating the biological science from the allocation decisions, implementing conflict of interest requirements for members of the fishery councils, and broadening representation on the councils. I am also the lead sponsor on H.R. 4100, a bill that addresses the problem of pollution from cruise ships, and am a cosponsor of both H.R. 4897, a bill to protect deep sea corals, and H.R. 5001, a bill to establish an ocean observation pilot project that will move us closer to having an integrated ocean observation system. Individual members of the House of Representatives have been working hard to introduce legislation that implements the changes needed to ensure that the oceans we pass to the next generations are oceans that we can be proud of. We are now looking to the House leadership to consider our bills and to make good on the collective responsibility we have to future generations.

Within the Executive Branch, the Bush Administration has a prime opportunity to take the steps necessary to instill a new ocean ethic in our government. In fact, Pew and U.S. Commission recommendation-based action by this Administration could very well save our largest public trust. The time for leadership is now. I am dedicated to providing it in Congress, with the help of my fellow Oceans Caucus co-chairs and other colleagues concerned about ocean issues, and I hope the President will provide it in the White House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with a quote from the Final Report that encapsulates my thoughts on the importance of yesterday's historic occasion:

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. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to dedicate themselves to shaping a better future for our oceans.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe the number of misstatements I have heard tonight. I think this is an argument between dumb and dumber. This is a debate about ID.

Let us look at the facts. Mexico has a national statistics ID program. The United States does not. Mexico uses the exact same ID protections in their ID form that the FBI uses for their badges. We do not have that for American civilians at all. Mexico has a database on life, death, divorce. It has a base that they can rely upon. We do not.

So what happens in retaliation? What happens the next time you want to go to a foreign country, you want to rent a car, you want to cash a check? Where is your national ID? Are you going to pull out your voter card? That is not recognized as an international ID. It is probably the only thing we have closest to it. It would not even be recognized at an airport. You pull out your California driver's license? That is not a national ID. What are you going to show as your national ID? A Social Security card? It does not even exist.

Allow a program that has assurances for protection, moderate protection. The propriety of this protection in this card is owned by a United States company. It is the same propriety that is used in our top security cards. That is what they want to use, and all this is, is an ID card. All this is, is an ID card. Let this amendment pass.

Mr. Speaker, during the 1960s, I lived and worked in Colombia as a Peace Corps Volunteer. I was able to see first hand the resilience, business savvy and general gumption of the Colombian people. One of the sectors in Colombia that exemplifies the strength of Colombians is the Colombian cafeteros, or coffee farmers. Despite the roller coaster that is the world market of coffee prices, Colombian cafeteros have managed to excel and continue to produce the best coffee beans in the world. Decades ago, Colombian farmers joined together and formed the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia--a farmer owned and controlled organization that has worked tirelessly to improve the livelihoods of Colombian cafeteros.

In the 1980s the Federation recognized the importance of marketing and created, what is now a pop icon, the Juan Valdez logo. Today, I would like to applaud the Colombian Coffee Federation for reinvigorating the Juan Valdez logo by opening up the first Washington, DC branch of Juan Valdez coffee shop, located in the Washington headquarters of the Organization of American States building. Selling directly to consumers will help the Colombian farmers earn more for the quality beans that they produce and help increase the standard of living of the cafeteros. Again, I would like to send a special ``felicidades'' to the Federation for their work on behalf of Colombian cafeteros and wish them the best of luck with the Juan Valdez coffee shops.

Mr. Speaker, today I come to the floor to protest the Republican leadership's refusal to renew the assault weapons ban. I have heard from law enforcement agencies across the country and citizens from my district urging Congress to take action and renew the assault weapons ban. It is unconscionable that this ban has been allowed to lapse and that we may again see assault style weapons on our street corners.

The assault weapons ban did not have to expire. There are several bills in both the House and Senate that would have extended the assault weapons ban and continued to protect our law enforcement officers from these dangerous weapons. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2038, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003, and H.R. 3831, Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003. Either of these bills would have successfully and seamlessly continued the protection established by the original assault weapons ban in 1994.

The Assault Weapons Ban has proven remarkably effective in reducing the use of assault weapons in crime. Since 1994, the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent. In addition, opinion polls show that 75 percent of the public supports the renewal of the assault weapons ban. This legislation takes a commonsense approach that successfully protects the rights of those who collect or hunt and use weapons for legitimate recreational purposes, while also guarding the safety of our law enforcement officers.

On this issue, the Congressional Republican leadership has ignored the will of the public, the professional opinion of law enforcement agencies across the country, and even the views of President Bush who publicly stated his willingness to sign an extension of the assault weapons ban into law. I am saddened by this failure and I will continue working to reinstate the assault weapons ban and to provide our law enforcement officers with the greatest protection possible.

Mr. Speaker, I support and applaud the authors of H. Con. Res. 363 for urging Syria to live in peace and security with the international community and for condemning Syrian human rights violations. The U.S. Congress is an appropriate venue for highlighting human rights abuses and forum for urging other nations to abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Every year Congress passes dozens of resolutions condemning human rights violations throughout the world. Unfortunately, while there are a plethora of countries that demand censure, the House of Representatives tends to focus more frequently on a few specific countries like the People's Republic of China, Iran and Syria; all countries that we must prod to do better. Many of the statements regarding human rights violations in H. Con. Res. 363 apply to numerous other countries in the world.

If we condemn one country and turn a blind eye to the very same abuses in another country, the magnitude and moral legitimacy of our censure is greatly diminished. For example, H. Con. Res. 363 condemns: ``The family law of Syria as applied to Muslim women is governed by Sharia law and is discriminatory in marriage, divorce, and inheritance matters.'' But Sharia family law is also practiced in numerous other Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia.

Syria needs to understand that by passage of H. Con. Res. 363, the United States Congress expects Syria to improve its human rights record and adhere to the rule of law. Approval of H. Con. Res. 363 should also signal to other countries that the United States will continue to express its disapproval of violators of basic human rights and disregard of the dignities of its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and pleasure that I am able to rise to

recognize Ocean Mist Farms, the premier grower and shipper of artichokes in the United States. Based in Monterey County, California of my congressional district, Ocean Mist Farms produces over a dozen other vegetables in addition to artichokes on its farms which are located throughout California. On Saturday, August 28, 2004, the people of Ocean Mist Farms celebrated their company's 80th anniversary.

In 1924, Castroville area farmers Daniel Pieri, Amerigo and Angelo Del Chiaro, Alfred Tottino and Louis Bellone combined formed a company to grow, ship, and market artichokes. Their little company persevered through the Great Depression and WWII to transform artichokes from an obscure ethnic specialty to a national delicacy. It took genius and hard work to accomplish this, and these characteristics have assured their success through today. Under the current leadership of the Boutonnet and Bengard families, Ocean Mist Farms employs more than 60 people in sales and administrative positions, more than 160 workers in its packing, shipping and cooling facilities, and nearly 600 individuals in related harvesting and production operations, as well as operating several affiliate operations throughout California and Arizona. It is a company that has helped make the Central Coast of California the most productive agricultural region in the world and it continues to give back to the local communities of the Salinas Valley.

Ocean Mist Farms is also an environmental leader in our region. It has remained in the forefront of innovations in farming methods designed to protect the environment. Using advanced techniques of irrigation and integrated pest and soil management, Ocean Mist Farms has proved itself to be truly invested in the preservation of the beauty and natural resources offered by Monterey County. It also took the lead in developing the world's largest reclaimed wastewater irrigation project.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Ocean Mist Farms on its 80th anniversary. Monterey County has benefited immensely from their commitment to growing outstanding produce and I wish the company and all who work for Ocean Mist Farms the very best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor David Meyers, a dedicated member of the Monterey community. David will be retiring from his current position of General Manager of the Monterey Waste Management District, where he has worked diligently for twenty-five years overseeing the burying and recycling of the peninsula's waste.

During his years of service, David has gone above and beyond his normal duties by playing a leading role in turning the Marina Dump into an innovative recycling and waste management center. While Meyers was working there, the center was one of the first to siphon methane and carbon dioxide gases for electrical uses in 1983. Then, in 1989, when the state passed legislation requiring cities and counties to divert 50 percent of their solid waste from landfills by 2000, David spurred the waste management center into action. Under his leadership the district grew from 10 employees who buried trash to 130 employees whose duties range in a wide variety of recycling tasks.

David's innovation did not stop there. He created a thrift store on the site called the Last Shop Mercantile that sells items that would otherwise have been thrown away. It brings in $400,000 annually and pays for itself.

Under his stewardship, the Monterey County Waste Management District has been honored with the first ever ``Best Solid Waste System in North America'' award by the Solid Waste Association of North America. Meyers himself has been given two awards by the Solid Waste Association of North America: the Planning and Management Technical Division's Distinguished Achievement Award and the Robert L. Lawrence Distinguished Service Award.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate David on his much deserved retirement and thank him for his contribution to our community. David has continually gone above and beyond the roles bestowed asked of him and his innovation has lead to a cleaner, healthier community. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor David ``Rowdy'' Pennisi, who disappeared at sea on June 22, 2004. Commercial fishing was not only his profession, but also his passion in life. He will be lovingly remembered by family and friends for his generous and kindhearted nature.

David Pennisi was raised on a ranch near Hollister, and was an active member with Future Farmers of America. He moved to Monterey when he was fourteen and quickly adapted to his new life on the wharf. Fisherman's Wharf has long been the center of a vibrant fishing and canning industry, made famous in Steinbeck's Cannery Row. David eagerly continued this tradition when he became a commercial fisherman himself.

While David was respected around Monterey for his abilities as a fisherman, he was better known for the kindness and love he showed to all who knew him. In a profession dominated by stereotypes of loud, brash men, David, like his father, was regarded as a gentleman. A good friend of the family, Pat Flanagan, spoke about David at his memorial service, ``He died in a dying industry, with dignity and respect.''

Mr. Speaker, David Pennisi was dedicated to a profession that is neither easy nor safe, but he loved it nonetheless. Not many people choose to become fishermen in this day and age, but David will continue to provide a shining example for generations to come. He has made a lasting impact on our community and the people with whom he worked. I join the communities of the Monterey Bay, his friends and his family in honoring this truly commendable man and all of his lifelong achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Ray Clifford, a long-time Salinas resident and Chancellor of the Defense Language Institute. Dr. Clifford is retiring from the Defense Language Institute after 24 years of dedicated service, leadership and mentorship to his students and country.

During his years of service, Dr. Clifford honorably fulfilled the Institute's mission to educate, sustain, evaluate and support foreign language specialists, ensuring that our military forces are prepared to meet ever-changing global foreign language requirements. As the academic leader of the world's largest language school, he has represented the Institute in national, international and professional forums including regular briefings to members of Congress and senior leaders in the Department of Defense.

Under his leadership, the Defense Language Institute has been continually regarded as one of the finest schools for foreign language instruction in the world. Specifically, Dr. Clifford has improved the language performance results four-fold in over 80 percent of major programs, created and implemented the first standardized language proficiency testing program for the Department of Defense and spearheaded the Institute's response to terrorism with the addition of new instructional and testing programs for military personnel.

In addition to his commitment to the Defense Language Institute, Dr. Clifford served in the United States Army, worked for the Bureau of Land Management and the Central Intelligence Agency. His dedication to national service is embodied in his overall belief in community service and education. He has published many papers and articles on teacher development, language proficiency assessment, curriculum design and educational program administration.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Dr. Clifford on his retirement and thank him for his contributions to our community and country. Dr. Clifford has dedicated his life to public service and his contributions to the Defense Language Institute have been instrumental in the Institute's recognition as a world renowned language instruction institute. I wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jess Ojeda, an extremely gifted police officer who dedicated much of his life to the Watsonville Community and the California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. Mr. Ojeda, who was born in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1912 and moved to Watsonville, California in 1922, passed away of natural causes on August 9th, 2004. He was 91. Mr. Ojeda's wife, Lillian Martha Ojeda, passed away in 1999. He is survived by three children, Kelley, Martha, and Shane, seven grandchildren and six great-grandchildren.

The son of Jesus Antonio and Rosa Luisa Ojeda, Mr. Ojeda worked hard upon his arrival to America. Before becoming a police officer, his jobs included working in a butcher shop, starting up a courier business, deputy civil engineer, and tomato farming. After assisting in the construction of Fort Ord, one of the largest training bases in the U.S., Mr. Ojeda became a police officer with the Watsonville Police Department in 1949. He was known for his true concern for the people of Watsonville and the compassion with which he performed his job.

Mr. Ojeda worked for the Watsonville Police Department until 1957 when he earned a spot as an undercover agent with the state's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement in San Francisco. During his time as an undercover agent, Mr. Ojeda faced great danger in order to successfully arrest the criminals whose extensive drug operations he was determined to bring down. During his long career, he made over 5,000 arrests and had a 95 percent conviction rate.

Mr. Ojeda never lost sight of his true goal, which was to protect the people of his community who suffered at the hands of drug kingpins and dealers. His main objective was to reduce the number of addicts, not through punitive means, but through legislation focused on treatment, counseling, and support programs.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my condolences to the Ojeda family during these difficult times. His legacy as a devoted police officer and community leader will have a longlasting effect in both the Pajaro Valley and all of California. I join the Watsonville community, friends and family in honoring this truly admirable man for all his lifelong achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the first ever ``National Attention Deficit Disorder Awareness Day.'' This day, made official by Senate Resolution 370, will serve as an important tool in furthering the national education campaign about Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, also known as AD/HD.

Although AD/HD can affect people across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines, poor and minority communities have been especially underserved by the available resources. The disorder can interfere with school and workplace activities, lead to antisocial behavior, and even substance abuse and problems with the justice system. It is only recently that AD/HD has received national attention, so there are still many children and adults who remain undiagnosed and suffering from the stigma associated with this disorder.

Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD), a national non-profit organization, was founded in 1987 to increase awareness and offer resources and encouragement to those suffering from the disorder and their family members. Recently CHADD has expanded into Santa Cruz County with the creation of Chapter #605, and I would like to take this opportunity to welcome them to our community. Only through education and understanding can we, as a nation, begin to address the effects of this disorder and seek ways to treat it.

It is important to realize the effect AD/HD can have on individuals and communities, and I would like to commend the efforts of CHADD Chapter #605 in their goal of expanding understanding of this disorder. Through combining grassroots campaigns with the new ``National Attention Deficit Disorder Awareness Day'' we can begin to address this problem on both a local and national level.

Mr. Speaker, today signals the beginning of a new era in the protection and management of this Nation's largest public trust resource: our oceans. Along with the other bi-partisan co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus, Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania, Tom Allen of Maine, and Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, 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.

Our bill offers a comprehensive legislative solution to all of the crises documented in both oceans reports by establishing a strong national oceans policy that protects, maintains, and restores the health of marine ecosystems. This national 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 Nation's largest 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, over a trillion dollars is added to our economy each year by ocean and coastal economies. This is a huge economic contribution to our gross domestic product, a contribution that must be protected so the returns keep coming. Our bill explicitly protects these returns.

Mr. Speaker, to implement the national oceans policy set forth in OCEANS 21, we provide four national standards which covered actions, defined as those carried out by the Federal Government or paid for in part by Federal funds, must be consistent with. These standards include a precautionary approach and a reversal of the burden of proof. These cornerstones of OCEANS 21 are founded on the opinions of many marine scientists who have seen the health of marine ecosystems degrade over the past years. In fact, many scientists have been encouraging a restructuring of our ocean policy to reflect a precautionary approach and a reversal of the burden of proof for many years. For example, in a 1998 Science article, Paul Dayton, a preeminent marine scientist, asserted, ``If society's environmental needs are to be protected so that future generations can also enjoy, learn, and profit from marine ecosystems, this legal burden of proof must be applied to our marine resources so that those hoping to exploit them must demonstrate no ecologically significant long-term changes.'' Today, I am proud to report back to the scientists, those who know our oceans better than most, that members of Congress have heard their calls and have responded.

As asserted in both the Pew and U.S. Commission Reports, our government needs a way to promote greater coordination among federal agencies whose actions may affect the oceans. Our bill responds to this issue by establishing a National Oceans Council comprised of secretaries of departments and heads of independent agencies. OCEANS 21 recommends that this Council be chaired by a National Oceans Advisor to the President. We recognized early on in our House Oceans Caucus leadership discussions that the best way to improve federal stewardship of our ocean resources was to offer a mechanism for bringing federal agencies together and to have an advisor to the President who can articulate the importance of the oceans. The National Oceans Council and the National Oceans Advisor are the solutions we present.

One of the biggest advances in our understanding of the oceans to occur since our last national review of ocean policy over 30 years ago is that the natural world functions as ecosystems, with each species intricately connected to the other parts that make up the whole. Both the Pew and the U.S. Commission Reports clearly state that we must adopt a new policy framework that is based on the concept of ``the whole,'' an ecosystem-based approach, and move away from our archaic approach based on political boundaries. This new ecosystem-based management approach will not be as easy as our previous approaches, but we must dedicate ourselves to making it a reality.

We have responded to the call for ecosystem-based management by including within OCEANS 21 a provision for Regional Ocean Councils, whose primary responsibility is to do ecosystem planning. We do comprehensive land use planning, so why not do comprehensive ocean planning? With a national ocean policy explicitly written to maintain healthy ocean ecosystems and with Regional Ocean Councils charged with developing and implementing regional ocean ecosystem plans, we can turn back the tide of irresponsible ocean management.

Mr. Speaker, the bill also provides an ``Organic Act'' for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)--an agency whose existence today is only reflected in an Executive Order. Our bill establishes NOAA in statute. However, unlike some of the other proposals currently being considered, we do not simply codify the status quo. This is because we recognize the status quo has failed and, if long-term ecological sustainability is one of our goals, then we can no longer consider our ocean resources in a piecemeal fashion. OCEANS 21, therefore, restructures NOAA to better reflect the importance of ecosystem approaches.

Setting the stage for a long-term solution to the best possible management of our ocean resources, we also call for the President to submit recommendations for reorganizing Federal departments to establish a Department of Natural Resources. This way, all of our valuable natural resources can be managed together--reflecting our full acknowledgement of the connections between all parts of the natural world, from the oceans to the land to the air.

In addition to addressing the problems of oceans governance, OCEANS 21 also addresses the need for increased investments in marine science research, including ocean exploration, and marine education.

Mr. Speaker, to address the Pew and U.S. Commission recommendations surrounding the ocean science, our bill calls for a national strategy on ocean and coastal science and authorizes funding for marine ecosystems research. OCEANS 21 also creates a National Oceans Council Subcommittee to focus Federal investments on scientific areas especially requiring attention.

One of the most exciting aspects of OCEANS 21 is that it will help to instill a new marine stewardship ethic in all people--from first- graders learning how to read to graduate students investigating challenging scientific processes. The bill does this is in many ways: by explicitly describing education as one of NOAA's missions; by creating an interagency ocean science and coastal education program; by establishing an ocean science and technology scholarship program; and by creating a mass media campaign on how we are all dependent on healthy and productive oceans.

Mr. Speaker, OCEANS 21 is a comprehensive response to two comprehensive ocean reports that both deliver the same sad message: our oceans are in peril and we must act now. It is up to each of us to not let this unprecedented, once-in-a-generation opportunity pass us by. With the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and The Pew Oceans Commission Reports both calling for immediate action to protect the oceans, this Congress has a responsibility to the American public to pass legislation that ensures future generations have the opportunity to benefit from healthy oceans. Since coming to Congress in 1993, I have worked hard to raise awareness of the importance of our oceans and today, my dedication to protecting this Country's largest public trust resource is reflected in the introduction of OCEANS 21. I have worked with the bi-partisan cochairs of the House Oceans Caucus to introduce a bill that we all support and this bipartisan effort should be celebrated.

The Bush Administration has a prime opportunity to take the steps necessary to instill a new ocean ethic in our government. Action by this Administration could very well save our oceans. The time for leadership is now. I am dedicated to providing it in Congress, and I hope the President will provide it in the White House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to dedicate themselves to shaping a better future for our oceans by supporting the House Oceans Caucus Leadership'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, I rise to strike the last word.

I want to have a colloquy between myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite you to engage in a brief colloquy with me on an issue regarding Fort Hunter Liggett in California.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

As the gentleman knows, Fort Hunter Liggett is today surrounded by U.S. Forest Service property.

In fact, prior to becoming a military base, most of the land was in the possession of the Forest Service, and another huge tract of land next door was owned by the famed Hearst family.

During the 1995 BRAC round, Fort Hunter Liggett was realigned and the cantonment area was excessed to the National Park Service. This means virtually all the functional buildings to support troop activities were given away, but all the land was retained by the military and put under the control of the Army Reserve.

The National Park Service, in preparation for accepting the cantonment area, studied its options with regard to management of this new property. In its report just released last month, the National Park Service labeled the land of Fort Hunter Liggett as ``relatively unchanged landscape'' from the time of the California's missionaries; as having ``no equivalent'' in terms of protected, undisturbed habitat; and as a ``rarity'' in its ``representation of cultural and natural history.''

However, because of the type of BRAC action at Fort Hunter Liggett, the land is not available to the Park Service and the Department of the Interior has indicated its reluctance to add such a huge tract of land to its inventory.

I guess, Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is that Fort Hunter Liggett, as active a military base as it is, still is a unique natural resource to our country; and it would be a shame to lose that resource should the base ever find itself nonessential to the military mission of our country.

While the Park Service, at this point anyway, seems disinclined to pursue further ownership of lands at Fort Hunter Liggett, the Forest Service is very interested.

Of course, no one is talking about giving anyone any land at Fort Hunter Liggett right now. It is a very active base, and I expect that it will merit strong support within the BRAC process for keeping it open and functioning.

But, Mr. Chairman, I wish to inquire if the gentleman is aware that the version of the Military Construction bill that is working its way through the other body does, in fact, contain the language addressing the issue of future land status at Fort Hunter Liggett.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response and his observation that I do desire to keep Fort Hunter Liggett as a natural resource if and when the military finds it is no longer essential to its mission; and I emphasize again to the chairman, only if and when the land is no longer essential to its military mission. I have no desire to close Fort Hunter Liggett as long as the Army finds it critical to its mission.

The chairman knows that I hoped to attach to the House bill we are debating right now language similar to that inserted on the other side, but in the interest of the House rules and jurisdictional matters, I chose not to.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask one further question of the chairman. I would ask that the gentleman would work with me during the conference on this issue to retain language we all find agreeable that will keep the Forest Service as first in line to get Fort Hunter Liggett when and if it is excessed.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership and cooperation and friendship.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for his leadership on this bill.

We have just had a long debate on this military housing issue, and I think what is missing in it is a little bit of understanding of what it is all about.

Several years ago, Congress authorized that instead of designing military housing, instead of funding and building it, essentially putting up taxpayers' money and then going out to bid and building it to a military plan, we decided why not allow the private sector to build this housing, build it more like the housing that is in the communities, higher quality housing, and build it to the standards that are normally found in the private sector in housing; and this was called the RCI, Residential Community Initiative. It has been a very effective program because we do not have to put up taxpayer money to do it.

Through that, what we have found is that the private sector rushed in and put together these consortiums of developers and have done a job that is more attractive than anything we could have done under the old sort of public-military housing concept.

And the soldiers and the wives of the soldiers are very, very interested. In fact, they came to our committee and said of all of the issues affecting the military, of all of the issues affecting families in the military, the number one issue was adequate housing. Not surprisingly, it is probably the same question on the private side. And they applauded us for addressing the issue, but they asked us to make sure that we do not get stuck in these internal budget rules.

What we are talking about is an internal rule. It is our own rule, we can waive it if we want to, and that is the issue. We should be waiving it. Why should we be waiving it? Because we do not have to put up the money; the private sector does it. Why should we waive it? Because it is all about investment. It is the ounce of prevention that is worth a pound of cure. What is the investment in? It is in quality homes built to code standards in the community, the highest standards we have ever had in this country. It is built to the kind of quality that the housewives and soldiers, the men and women in uniform like.

And what does it do? It helps us, one, go out and recruit people, and we are in an all-voluntary military. We cannot force them to join. They want to join, and part of it is the benefit package that is offered to you while you are in the military, including the housing.

The second is, once you get in, if you are assigned to bases that have the inadequate housing that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) talked about, and there is a lot of it out there, people living in Quonset huts, we should not allow that. If these were local homes, they would be shut down by the building inspectors, yet we allow military families to live in them when the private sector can build new homes. So we need to do that for retention.

Once we have these well-trained people in the military, we want them to stay. One of the biggest attractions of staying is you get to live in a quality community.

So this internal budget rule makes no sense, and I hope that nobody raises an objection.

Mr. Speaker, history reminds us of people who made a difference, who used their talent to change things. John Baker is one of those rare persons whose life has made a difference.

I first met John Baker as his classmate entering Williamette University in Salem, Oregon. We both joined the Sigma Chi Fraternity together. We studied science, religion, and history together. We played intramural sports and campus politics together.

John was always special. I think he was the first person I met who constructively was questioning authority--asking, ``why not?'' whenever someone was treated unfairly he spoke up for them. When the Civil Rights movement began in the South, John made sure the injustice being done was brought to the attention of the Northwest. He was always the first to rise to the cause--in many cases began the cause--to fight evil.

John's career brought him to the ministry to use it as a means of educating parishioners to the wrongs in society.

To the farmers, he brought the issues of farm workers. To the warriors, he brought the sorrow of death and destruction of the families and their enemies. To the small, friendly and secure rural towns of California, he brought the hatred and prejudice of the towns in the South. John was always a teacher, a prophet, a motivator for justice. Truly a religious leader.

That was not enough. He moved to education and a larger audience. He became a counselor of students and rose to statewide recognition in his field.

John was always pushing--pushing people to think about options, to change their lives to do better. He didn't just influence the students, he had an impact on his peers as well. He pushed his community to participate in the electoral process. He didn't just preach, he also practiced his compassion.

He was one of the first during the Vietnam War to adopt Vietnamese orphans. He didn't just tell people to vote for change, he ran for public office and got elected to the City Council.

John practices what he preaches--and he preaches what he practices. His special style makes him an ideal counselor fitting ones passions with ones work.

Public institutions will miss him because he makes those institutions do better. Teachers and students will miss him because he is the best of both. His friends will miss him because he makes friendship mean a lifetime of support. I'll miss him because he pushed me to push others. My public service as an elected county supervisor, state legislator, and now congressman, was made possible by John Baker's support and belief that ordinary people can rise to opportunity to do greater good. John personifies President Theodore Roosevelt's wise command, ``Do what you can, where you are, with what you've got.'' John's life and deeds are a model for how the torch should be passed to the next generation.

As John departs his position as Vice President of Student Services from Gavilan College, I wish him all the best in his retirement. He will be deeply missed.