Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Farr

Amendment No. 1: Add at the end, before the short title,

the following new section:

Special Transfer Authority, Fort Hunter Liggett, California

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gary Sage, who recently passed away. His contributions to both the City of Carmel as well as the international music community made him a truly commendable figure that will be greatly missed.

Born in Carmel, California, Gary was born into a musical family. His father, A. Lee Sage, and his mother, Emma Joanne Sage, played important roles in the founding of the Monterey Jazz Festival. The lineage of Gary's family can be traced back to Sir David of Wales, an ancient King who was purportedly the uncle of King Arthur. Gary is survived by his former wife Katherine Cameron Sage and his son Elijah Merlin David Sage who is continuing the musical legacy that his father left behind.

Gary proved his own musical genius as early as age fourteen, and is considered to be one of the best stride jazz pianists of the past few decades. He is also known as the preeminent piano restorer both in Carmel, and in the worldwide musical community.

Gary was approached throughout his life by such notable piano companies as Steinway and Sons for his expertise in piano restoration. He was of the few craftsmen who knew the intricacies of piano building and made the restoration and construction of pianos into an art form.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Gary Sage for the indelible impression he left in the music world. I join his community, friends and family in honoring Gary, and have no doubt that his contributions as a musician and as a craftsman will live on for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Col. Leda Jelinek who passed away June 7, 2004. She served the country as a distinguished member of the Army Nurse Corps for 30 years until her retirement at Fort Ord in 1971. Col. Jelinek is survived by her sister, Veva Fitzgerald of Monterey and many friends who loved her.

Born in Bonesteel, South Dakota, Leda entered nurse's training at the Hospital of St. Vincent's in Sioux City, Iowa. After completing the program with distinction, Leda began a long and remarkable nursing career. She was commissioned by the Army Nurses Corps in 1941 and subsequently served at a plethora of Army hospitals throughout the United States. In addition, she served in Korea, Germany and Japan. General George Marshall was one of her many patients on the VIP floor of Walter Reed Hospital in 1953. She was a Chief Nurse Anesthetist before her promotion to Major whence she became the Director of the Advanced Medical Specialist School at Fort Bragg. Upon her retirement and during her distinguished career Leda received the Army of Occupation Medal (Japan), American Campaign Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, World War II Victory Medal, Legion of Merit, the American Defense Service Medal and the Meritorious Service Medal.

Col. Jelinek was an ardent supporter of the Democratic Party and was a Jimmy Carter delegate at the National Democratic Convention of 1976. Former Congressman Leon Panetta had her as a campaign worker on numerous campaigns. She was affiliated with Monterey County Democratic Party and the Women's Democratic Club.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Leda's many accomplishments, and I commend her for her lifelong dedication to her community and friends. She was a remarkable figure, and her memory will live on in the many people whose lives she has touched. I join the Monterey Bay community, and friends and family in honoring this truly admirable woman and friend for all of her lifelong achievements.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for the opportunity to debate an important topic on foreign aid to Colombia under the Plan Colombia.

The amendment that I am going to offer today would cap the military personnel in Colombia. The gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) knows how much Colombia means to me as a former Peace Corps volunteer in that country, and I would like to debate this issue with my colleagues here on the floor.

In the original Plan Colombia, Congress placed caps on the number of personnel that would be allowed in Colombia, U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilian personnel. Those caps were put in place to prevent the growth of the U.S. military commitment in Colombia. I became very concerned when I

heard the administration had asked Congress to increase the manpower caps in Colombia to 800 U.S. military personnel and 600 contractors.

It has been pointed out to Congress just last week by General Richard Cody, who told the House Committee on Armed Services that the recent troop deployments in Iraq have taken a toll on U.S. readiness to deploy elsewhere and even to replace troops currently deployed in U.S.-led military combat in Iraq and in Afghanistan. To quote General Cody, ``We are stretched thin with our active and reserve component forces right now. Absolutely.'' Yet the administration wants to double the number of troops allowed under the manpower caps from 400 to 800.

Even General Hill of SOUTHCOM recently said before the Committee on Government Reform that rebuilding the social and economic system is needed in order to solve the problems in Colombia.

But today the administration has been calling Members' offices to ask them to oppose the Farr-Schakowsky-McGovern amendment, because the administration is dead set on working to expand the military aid, not the economic aid to Colombia.

After 5 years of spending almost $4 billion on Plan Colombia, is it not time that we reassess our policy? The Committee on Armed Services did that. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is to be commended for his work on the Committee on Armed Services, because he was able to get a reasonable ceiling on U.S. personnel in Colombia. He got bipartisan support and amended the defense bill to do just that. I am asking the same in the foreign ops bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes at this time.

I want to respond to the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Indiana. They say that Plan Colombia is working, and it is working under the existing caps. My point is that, as a person who lived in that country and worked in the economic development and the community development as a Peace Corps volunteer, is that I believe that Colombia has the capacity with our help to win this war on terrorism, to win this war on drugs, and it is the obscene amount of money that drug cartels dumped into the country that is doing it.

But you are not going to win that by putting all of the emphasis on the military side, and that is where the mission creep is. We have the most amount of money being spent on the military than we ever have, and we are winning the war. Now we need to spend money on the civilian side, on the economic side.

You cannot win this war. What you have to do is win the peace, and the peace will not be won until the investment is in Colombians to do the job for themselves.

My job in the Peace Corps was to work myself out of a job, and I think what we have lost track of here or lost sight of is that we are not really emphasizing how do we get these countries to do the job themselves. How do we get the contractors that are being paid American dollars, how do we get military that is our military to work themselves out of a job? Until we answer that and see that we are moving in that direction, I think we are asking the wrong question and we are quoting the wrong facts here.

Yes, it is moving in the right direction. In fact, we would argue that, because of the way it is moving, there ought to be a greater emphasis, not a less emphasis, on local economic development, on fighting the war on poverty. There is only 20 percent of the budget that now goes to the economic side of it. That is the least amount of money since the war in Colombia, the Plan Colombia began. So the mission creep is on the military side, and I think the mission creep ought to be on the other side, on the economic side. Until we win the war on poverty, we will not win the peace, and until we win the peace, we will not have a stable country.

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

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

In conclusion, I would ask for unanimous consent that, at the end of this, we withdraw the amendment to keep this dialogue going. I think we can focus on really trying to do the right thing in Colombia, and I do not think that there is any difference on either side of the aisle that we want the Colombians to be able to have the capacity to govern themselves in a peaceful fashion.

They certainly, of all the countries that we are involved in, have a better infrastructure, a longer-running democracy, more communities established all over the country, have well-educated people, but they also have a massive amount of poverty. The biggest problem with the drug war is it has displaced millions of people who just do not have an adequate place to live or a job or the social services or the health services and educational services that are necessary.

That is my concern, that if we are putting more emphasis essentially into the military, we are going to have less emphasis, because there is only so much money you can spend on what I think is so essential, to having a lasting peace in Colombia. And that is, we have got to provide for the infrastructure, the social, economic infrastructure of all of the people that have been displaced, and we are moving away from that, from the ability to have alternative crops.

Remember, the crops that are growing and are being destroyed are way out in the boonies in the middle of the jungles. You are not going to reestablish a market crop in the jungles. You are going to have to reestablish a market crop in the areas.

And, remember, Colombia has been one of the leading agricultural countries in the world. We have all been drinking its coffee forever, and the quality of that coffee is the highest there is. We could do more by paying more for Colombian coffee, would be the best help in economic aid to that country of anything that I can imagine.

But I would like to make sure that, as we go into conference on this bill and into the defense bill, that we keep in mind that the war in Colombia is not going to be won by mission creep of the military. It is going to be won when we start tipping the scale, as the gentleman from Indiana said, to put more emphasis in the peace effort and less in the war effort.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Farr

Amendment No. 9: At the end (before the short title), add

the following:

united states military personnel in colombia

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for being a member of this great committee.

I want to compliment the chairman on the good work done in bringing this bill to the floor, but I also want to point out I think something that all of us on the committee, the committee that spends the money on agriculture in America and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, what we realize is a problem, and that is that we have in this great country of ours, we still have nutritional problems and people going to bed at night hungry.

One of the big difficulties in the way the budget process is set up in this country is that 80 to 85 percent of the money we spend goes to mandatory food programs. That leaves only about 16 percent or so that is discretionary. Why we need to have more input into how the Federal Government spends its money on food and nutrition is because half of the budget of the USDA is dedicated towards nutrition. So it is not a small program. It is more than half of the entire budget of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That is important. That is good. That is a good priority. But we still have areas where the demand is increasing.

Frankly, food and nutrition is so essential to life and we talk on the committee about problems we are having with obesity, what we ought to be doing with our nutritional programs, particularly in schools as we feed kids. The United States government has some specialized programs in the school lunch program and the school breakfast program, and we assist schools. Those are for kids who come from a low-income family, but essentially the school lunch program that all the kids eat is a public policy because it is run by the schools, and in that program alone you will notice that when I look through what America buys to feed kids, it is not exactly the same as what we have invested money in doing research on, in telling people what is healthy for Americans. That is, our nutritional voice does not meet our spending practices.

I am a big advocate for trying to get more fresh fruits and vegetables in schools. Schools have used the school lunch program and school breakfast program to provide for vending machines in schools, for finding other ways to raise money and have not really paid attention to the fact that the health of the children and the students is really dependent on how well they are fed and how good that health is. The committee has addressed a lot of these issues, but we are also faced with the same problems that other committees are and that is our discretionary funding is limited.

And what we have seen with that is the food stamps, as the economy goes up and down, and as the Members know, it has been sort of in a recession in the last few years, that means more people have been unemployed. Yes, we see people getting back on the employment rolls, and that is a good thing; but we still have had since 2001 a 45 percent increase in demand for the food stamp program.

We have taken a lot of steps in that area to try to streamline it and better manage the program through automatic debit cards, to swipe cards rather than having to go through the line and go through this ticket process of whether the stamps one is using are eligible to buy the product that they picked off the shelf, and the debit card allows it to show that right away on the computer and does not sort of put the recipient and the cashier in an awkward situation.

The WIC program, the Women, Infants and Children, we have a program in America to feed women who are expecting in prenatal conditions and in postnatal conditions, giving them nutritious food to feed the infant. It is a very successful program. It is one that America can be very proud of. But we see that may need an increase, meaning that people just do not have the resources to buy that kind of food, or it is not readily available in their neighborhood.

I have spoken of a school lunch and school breakfast program. We have a Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program called TEFAP. The money that has been flatlined for a number of years, we may need in the future to increase that.

We have the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. That is mainly the things we have seen, Meals on Wheels and other entities taken to senior citizens where the commodity foods are put into a local senior citizen nutritional program. The money has been frozen in that despite the fact that we have an aging population in America; and as that aging population increases, and it is going to increase tremendously because I was just told the demographics of California, the census data shows that by the year 2015, one out of every five persons over the age of 65 will live in the State of California, that is going to be a huge burden on the State. It could also be a great asset because these people have come with a lot of experiences; but on the other hand, as we know, the aging population is staying alive longer, and we are going to need more services, and those are usually expensive services. So these types of programs may be hurt in the future if they are flatlined.

So the point of my raising this is that I am really excited to be a member of this committee. I think it is a tremendous committee that works in a very strong, bipartisan fashion. The chairman has been excellent. The staff has been excellent. The other members of the committee, we all get along very well and try to work out our differences. And what I am trying to point out in my comment today is that despite the good workings inside Congress and despite the fact that we are the wealthiest country on the Earth and the most agriculturally abundant and productive, I mean just in abundancy alone, one of the three counties I represent produces 85 crops.

When I talked to Members here in Congress and to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, I found that there was no other State in the United States that produced 85 crops alone. California, being the largest ag State, has the greatest variety in it, and what I would like to see our country do is move more into buying the fruits and vegetables and the things that we describe in our nutrition. Frankly, the things we see in all these fad diets that are going on right now, those are all about healthy foods and healthy fruits and vegetables, and if we use the government resources to purchase those more and get those into the school lunch program, into the WIC program, into the feeding programs, into the senior meals programs, and, frankly, into our institutional feeding. We feed the military. We feed hospitals. We feed big institutions like the Federal Prison System. If we could get our sister States and counties and cities to be able to work on their institutional feeding, we could do a much better job of getting the kind of food that is necessary to the people who need it, and we could have a better distribution of how agriculture functions in America.

So I want to compliment the committee on the direction it is headed. I think we have a few problems on the horizon. I think if we put our minds to it, we can address those.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of George W. Davis, a longtime member of the Watsonville community, who passed away June 7th, 2004 at the age of 83. George is survived by his wife of 60 years, Mildred Davis, his daughter, his sister, and numerous nieces and nephews.

George served in the Navy as a blimp pilot in 1941 during World War II. He transferred to the Watsonville airport following the war, starting his own construction business in 1948. Throughout the next decades, George built more than 100 area schools, including facilities at Cabrillo College, University of California at Santa Cruz, Aptos High School, Salesian Sisters and Moreland Notre Dame School. He also built numerous churches and other public buildings, including the Watsonville Youth Center. George's dedication to the youth of our community is outstanding, a commitment that we will cherish always. His accomplishments have shaped the Central Coast into the strong community it has become today.

Mr. Speaker, I am immensely grateful for the tremendous gift George gave to our community. His legacy will be cherished for countless generations. I would like to extend my condolences to his family and friends.

Mr. Chairman, today this House considers the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill. I rise to speak on the Commerce portion of the bill--and more specifically, the massive cuts in funding for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs.

Sadly, the bill we debate today cuts NOAA funding by 15 percent when compared to fiscal year 2004 levels. The decision to cut the funding of vital NOAA programs flies in the face of two in-depth oceans studies, The Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission Report, both released during the past year. These two reports document the crises facing our oceans--crises, as noted by the reports, which require attention now. Today. Unfortunately, instead of using the findings of the two reports to take steps forward, we will in fact be taking many steps backward if we decide to under-fund NOAA programs, especially those within the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Before I speak about some of the specific programs hardest hit, I want to thank CJS Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano for the commitment they made during full committee mark-up to work to increase the funding levels for conservation programs, particularly programs within the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, during conference with the Senate. I am grateful that they have acknowledged the importance of increasing the funding levels. I also thank Ranking Member Obey for stating his concerns regarding the NOAA funding cuts.

As a co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus, I helped to lead a bi- partisan letter than garnered a total of 59 signatures supporting a variety of NOAA programs, including state coastal zone management grants, coastal nonpoint and community resource grants, the national estuarine research reserve system, the coastal and estuarine land conservation program, the national marine sanctuary system, coral reef conservation, ocean exploration, fisheries research and observer programs, marine mammal protection, and invasive species initiatives, among others. This letter was not for parochial projects; it was for national programs for this Country's largest public trust resource--our oceans. Despite this letter, the bill in front of us today actually cuts the funding levels of many of the programs we specifically noted were important to protect.

Mr. Chairman, let me highlight some of the most severe cuts and briefly discuss the likely consequences of the cuts.

When combining the cuts from decreases in coastal zone management grants and coastal nonpoint pollution grants--both of which are important to state efforts to address threats to the coastal ocean-- many states will be left scrambling. For example, Florida will have a net loss of $345,000; Virginia a net loss of $620,000; and my state of California will lose $620,000. These numbers may not seem like high dollar amounts since we are used to dealing in millions; however, the states rely on these funds and it is unfortunate that we can't provide them.

Cooperative Fisheries Research programs have been dealt a huge blow-- going from an FY04 enacted level of $19.9 million to $5 million in the bill before us. Cooperative Research programs bring scientists together with the fishing community to foster trust and to conduct collaborative studies aimed at better understanding our fisheries resources. If we are serious about resolving over-fishing issues, we cannot afford to cut a program that brings together the critical players.

Lastly, I am deeply concerned by the funding levels for marine mammal protection. Under the funding levels put forth in the bill, the National Marine Fisheries Service will not be able to fund top priority studies as identified by the multi-stakeholder Take Reduction Teams; the agency won't be able to conduct research on marine mammal population trends, health, and demographics; and sadly, the National Marine Fisheries Service will not be able to carry out marine mammal education or enforcement programs. Another unfortunate aspect of the bill in front of us today is that funding for the marine mammal health and stranding response program was zeroed out last year and the funds were not restored in this year's bill. This program funds investigations of die-offs of large numbers of marine mammals, including a recent bottlenose dolphin die-off in Florida that involved more than 100 animals. Without the restoration of this program, we lose the opportunity to study marine mammals during die-off events.

Mr. Chairman, our oceans are this Country's largest public trust resource. When are we going to start treating them as such in this chamber, including adequately funding ocean programs? Our job is to ensure a future in which our oceans remain vital components of our economy, our communities, and our lives. To do this, we must fund NOAA programs today.

Despite concerns by my constituents, many of whom are members of the more than 24 national organizations that signed a letter delivered to every member of the House urging a commitment for increasing NOAA funding, I am dedicated to moving this bill forward. Both the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee have given me their commitment to work diligently to increase the funding levels for the NOAA programs hardest hit by today's bill. I sincerely appreciate their commitment and look forward to working with them. However, in the future, I hope that this House will adequately fund NOAA programs so that we don't find ourselves depending on the good will of the Senate to increase the funding levels of programs that so many of our constituents care so deeply about.

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

I am rising today to discuss this bill because it cuts the NOAA funding by 15 percent and ignores essentially the two in-depth ocean reports released to Congress this past year. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, for a commitment that they made during the full committee markup to work to increase the funding levels for the ``National Ocean Service'' and for the National Marine Fishery Service during conference. I appreciate their acknowledgment that the levels need to be increased.

I also want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for stating his concern on the NOAA funding cuts. I am deeply concerned about NOAA. With the commitments in mind, I want to highlight the funding levels for some of the NOAA programs. The hardest hit, and I would reference a bipartisan letter that was sent to the Committee on Appropriations by 59 Members of the House, the Coastal Zone Management Grants and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Grants, both of which States heavily rely on. Florida, for example, loses $345,000; Virginia has a net loss of $620,000; California also has a net loss of $620,000. This may not seem like much when we are usually dealing in millions and billions, but to the States who rely on these funds for ongoing coastal zone management and nonpoint source grants, it is a great deal of money.

The Cooperative Fisheries Research Programs were cut also by $20 million. These programs bring the fishing community together with scientists to better understand fishery resources. This is a big issue that both of the ocean reports talked about, the fact that the right hand on science does not necessarily work well with the left hand on fisheries, and we need to make sure these two groups come together, and the fishermen understand the science, and the scientists better understand the economics of fishing so we can better meld these two groups together. We cannot do this if we are cutting the programs that bring people together.

Another area, the Marine Mammal Protection area, will be severely hampered under the House mark which, once separate lines are combined, equals roughly $4 million. The National Marine Fisheries Service will not be able to fund top-priority studies as identified by the multi- stakeholder take reduction teams. The National Marine Fisheries will not be able to design or implement fishery management plans that protect marine mammals. The agency will not be able to conduct research on population trends, health and demographics of marine mammals, and the National Marine Fisheries will not be able to carry out the education and enforcement programs.

The other program that was affected by this was the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program which was cut last year and that has not yet been resolved. The program funds our investigations of die- offs of large numbers of marine mammals, including the recent bottlenose dolphin die-off in Florida, which involved more than 100 animals.

If we combine the cuts in the State Coastal Zone Management Grants and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Grants, both of which are, as I said, relied on heavily by the States, you get these additional losses. So without these funds, we lose the opportunity to study and to work with the States in implementing good programs.

In my constituency, I have 24 national organizations which have signed a letter to every Member of the House, which describes deep concerns with the NOAA funding. They have fundamental problems with the cuts that NOAA received.

I believe the commitment made by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) to increase funding levels is sincere and they will work on that in conference. The NOAA programs such as the ones I have highlighted will ensure that our future in the oceans will remain vital and components of our economy and our communities and our lives will be sustained.

Lastly, because of the good work done by both the Pew Commission and the National Oceans Commission, we will be able to implement with these fundings some of the strong recommendations they made for healthy oceans.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letters for the Record:

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 8, 2004.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

Chairman, Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary

Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jose Serrano,

Ranking Member, Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary

Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano: As Members

concerned with our nation's diverse and productive coastal

areas, we are requesting your support for funding the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Our

oceans and coasts support more than 2.8 million jobs,

generate more than $54 billion in goods and services per

year, and are the most popular destinations for recreation

and tourism in the U.S.

Established by Congress in 2000, the Conservation Trust

Fund dedicates $560 million in FY05 for critical coastal

conservation programs within NOAA. We greatly appreciate the

Subcommittee's full use of this funding over the last four

years to provide vital support for high priority coastal

conservation initiatives and urge the Subcommittee to again

make full use of this fund in FY05.

On the eve of the release of the U.S. Commission on Ocean

Policy draft report, we ask for your assistance in meeting

the significant challenges and threats now confronting our

oceans. We recognize the Committee has extraordinarily

difficult choices to make this year; however, the continued

health and prosperity of our coastal communities depend on

our willingness to invest today to preserve our nation's

coastal legacy for future generations. We respectfully

request the Subcommittee seriously consider the funding

levels for the following programs.

coastal zone management

State Coastal Zone Management Grants--$80 million. These

funds, which are matched dollar for dollar, are critical to

support the efforts of 34 states and territories to reduce

the impacts of coastal development, expand public access,

reduce the damages from coastal hazards, restore and protect

critical habitats and support the nation's important and

diverse coastal communities.

Coastal Nonpoint and Community Resource Improvement

Grants--$10 million. We urge the Subcommittee to reject the

Administration's proposed termination of this program. This

funding is only a fraction of what is needed by states to

address polluted runoff, the most significant source of

pollution of coastal waters.

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)--$20

million grants, $15 million acquisition and construction.

This funding will enable NERRS to support the addition of a

new Reserve to the current system of 26 and fund the ongoing

coastal stewardship training, research and education programs

and construction needs.

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program--$60

million. Nowhere in the nation is the threat of ecosystem

fragmentation, sprawl and habitat loss more prevalent than

in our nation's coastal zone. In the first three years of

this program, CELCP funds have leveraged non-federal funds

and protected thousands of acres of coastal lands in 25

states.

marine conservation and ocean exploration

National Marine Sanctuaries--$40 million operations, $10

million construction. The National Marine Sanctuary Program

protects our nation's most unique and nationally significant

marine ecosystems and resources. Level funding for operations

in FY05 is critical to reducing staffing shortages,

supporting conservation, community outreach, research, and

education programs, and updating sanctuary management plans

as required by law. We support no less than the fully

authorized level for operation of sanctuaries and encourage

the committee to recognize the pressing need for higher

levels. In addition, we support $10 million for construction,

as the backlog in facilities maintenance remains a

significant operations liability at many sanctuaries.

Coral Reef Construction--$28.25 million. Coral reef

ecosystems are among the most diverse, biologically

productive, economically valuable, and threatened marine

habitats in the world. Increased resources are urgently

needed to reduce land-based pollution and address

overfishing, diseases, and other threats to coral reefs.

Funding for local action strategies will support on-the-

ground solutions, such as critical monitoring, mapping,

restoration, outreach and protection activities that reduce

threats to coral reefs.

Ocean Exploration--$13.9 million. Less than 5% of the ocean

has been explored or characterized to the same degree of

resolution as we have characterized Mars and Venus. Ocean

exploration is the vital first step in a new approach to

ocean resource management, improved marine science and

education, and a new vision for ocean stewardship. We urge

the Subcommittee to support last year's funding level to

demonstrate U.S. leadership in this important global issue.

sustainable fisheries, marine mammals and invasive species

Fisheries, Research and Observer Programs--$75 million.

Recent scientific reports conclude that too many of our

nation's fisheries are on the brink of collapse. Reducing the

backlog in research days-at-sea and increasing fishery

observer coverage and cooperative research efforts will give

managers baseline information critical to better managing our

fisheries. We commend the Subcommittee's efforts for increase

funding in these areas in FY04 and urge $25 million for

expanding stock assessments, $20 million for cooperative

research, including data collection and analysis, and $30

million for regional and national fishery observer programs

in FY05.

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)--President's request of $9.3

million. VMS is a satellite-based fishery enforcement system

that provides real-time catch data from participating vessels

in a range of fisheries. The President's request would allow

for the establishment and implementation of VMS systems and

placement of transponders onboard many of the estimated

10,000 boats in the U.S. commercial fishing fleet. VMS

programs augment existing enforcement efforts at

approximately 1% of the cost, enhance data collection, and

benefit fishermen by improving safety at sea and allowing

fishing right up until a quota is reached.

Marine Mammal Protection--$9.1 million. This funding will

help NMFS more fully assess and take measures to recover

depleted and strategic marine mammal species, such as common

dolphins, pilot whales and bottlenose dolphins, through take

reduction team activities as well as other research,

conservation and recovery efforts.

Endangered Species Act, Cooperative Agreements with

States--$4 million. This cooperative program makes funding

available on a competitive, matching basis to carry out

conservation activities at the state and local level.

Providing $4 million to the states in FY05 would support

local researchers, non-governmental organizations, and

volunteers to accomplish monitoring, restoration, science and

conservation of species at risk of extinction.

Invasive Species Initiative--$5.5 million. This funding

will be used by NOAA's Invasive Species reducing the

potential for invasive species to be introduced in US ports

and coastal waters, and to promote increased collaboration

among the many groups working to understand invasive species,

including NOAA, other agencies, and the scientific community.

Our oceans are a public trust whose stewardship is critical

to our economy, our environment, and our future. We greatly

appreciate your past support for these programs and your

consideration of our requests.

Sincerely,

James Greenwood, Wayne T. Gilchrest, Curt Weldon, E. Clay

Shaw, Jan Schakowsky, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Frank

Pallone, Jr., Sam Farr, Tom Allen, Dennis Cardoza,

Michael H. Michaud, Jo Bonner, Jeb Bradley, Timothy V.

Johnson, John Conyers, Jr.

Sheila Jackson-Lee, Chris Smith, Gene Green, John M.

McHugh, Bart Stupak, Susan A. Davis, Loretta Sanchez,

Anthony D. Weiner, Peter Deutsch, Jerrold Nadler,

Carolyn B. Maloney, Gary L. Ackerman, Eliot L. Engel,

Dale E. Kildee, Ed Markey.

Robert Wexler, Tom Petri, Eni Faleomavaega, Betty

McCollum, Kendrick B. Meek, George Miller, Ileana Ros-

Lehtinen, Raul M. Grijalva, Earl Blumenauer, Tom

Lantos, Tammy Baldwin, Alcee L. Hastings, Jim

McDermott, Jay Inslee, Adam B. Schiff.

Mike McIntyre, Mike Thompson, James Langevin, Lois Capps,

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sanders-Otter- Conyers-Paul-Nadler Freedom to Read amendment. This amendment curtails one of the most invasive provisions of the Patriot Law by prohibiting law enforcement from making sweeping searches and seizures of library and bookstore patron records.

We can all recall October 2001 when the PATRIOT Act was hastily passed by this body. Many of us, myself included, didn't have the chance to read this lengthy and complicated legislation in the few hours we had before the vote. I voted against the unseen legislation because I was concerned that its passage would amount to the blind abandonment of our civil liberties. As the details of the PATRIOT law came to light, it became all too clear that this law contained numerous infringements on our long-held civil liberties.

Today, we all know what is in the PATRIOT law, and our constituents know too. In my district, the local governments of Pacific Grove, Salinas, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville, CA, have all passed resolutions expressing their concerns with the anti-privacy and antiliberty portions of the PATRIOT Act. Supporting this amendment is an opportunity to respond to those concerns and rollback one of the most invasive provisions of the PATRIOT law.

Passing the Freedom to Read amendment would ensure that library or book store records relating to an American who is not the subject of an investigation will not end up in the government's hands without the benefit of the protections of the courts. I would urge my colleagues to stand up for the civil liberties that our country has always stood for and pass the Freedom to Read amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the CJS appropriations committee recommendation to eliminate funding for the SBA 7(a) program and in support of the Manzullo-Velazquez Amendment. The challenges for small businesses in this stagnant economic climate are formidable--rising health insurance costs, increasing energy expenses and dramatic outsourcing competition. The SBA 7(a) program is the only source of affordable, long-term financing for many of our nation's small businesses. It offers assistance to established small businesses and acts as a catalyst to energize and foment the entrepreneurial spirit that, as Americans, we must celebrate and nurture.

The 7(a) program not only serves as a lifeline to entrepreneurs, it also creates American jobs. Small businesses account for approximately 75 percent of the net new jobs in America. The SBA 7(a) program annually generates 360,000 jobs. If the Bush administration is truly serious about growing the economy and creating jobs on Main Street instead of offering tax cuts for Wall Street, they should not have zeroed out this program in their budget.

We must continue to fund this important program that is instrumental to fostering the entrepreneurial spirit. How can we deny our constituents the chance to realize the American dream and create their own business and be their own boss? Every job counts in this economy and the U.S. government has the obligation to foster free enterprise and small businesses by funding the SBA 7(a) program.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is very straightforward. In simple terms, the Farr-Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Paul amendment prohibits the use of funds in the bill from preventing States that have medical marijuana laws from implementing them.

As a result, the States have medical marijuana laws on the books they can implement, regulate and enforce them, just like now. States that do not have medical marijuana laws on the books remain subject to the overarching Federal law.

This amendment does not stop law enforcement officials from prosecuting illegal use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage the use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage the use of drugs in children. This amendment does not legalize any drugs. This amendment does not change the classification of marijuana. This amendment is recognized as States' rights to oversee the medical scope of practice of doctors in their States, to prescribe drugs as doctors see as necessary for medical conditions.

Today's Los Angeles Times points out that the Justice Department's medical marijuana war seems increasingly out of step with the whole country. Last fall, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling barring Federal officials from prosecuting doctors for their recommendations.

Just 2 weeks ago, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainstream religious groups supported doctors' rights to prescribe pot as a when- all-else-fails treatment for the seriously ill. The best way to thwart casual use of this drug is to let doctors prescribe it in closely circumscribed and regulated ways such as the States do.

Now, there are nine States that have passed these laws. The voters are speaking, and they are doing it more in every State. Just recently Vermont. Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have enacted State medical marijuana laws. Because of these State laws, thousands of patients are able to alleviate their pain and suffering without fear of arrest by State or local authorities.

The threat of arrest by Federal agents, however, still exists. In the past, the Federal Government has impeded research on medical use of marijuana, even though thousands of patients have testified, explained, and acknowledged that it helps relieve some of the debilitating symptoms, such as nausea, pain, loss of appetite associated with serious illness.

Despite Federal admonitions against marijuana, the American people support medical marijuana and pretty overwhelmingly. Most national polls show the support around 70 percent.

This amendment is not necessarily about the actual medical purpose of marijuana, though I know scores of doctors have attested to marijuana's medical benefits. In States where medical marijuana is legal, thousands of licensed physicians have recommended marijuana to their patients. This amendment is not about legalizing drugs, though some will argue that it should be.

No. What this amendment is about is States rights. In so many areas we trust States rights. And I think of us here in the United States Congress. We allowed States to draw our district boundary lines.

We allow States to set the fee we have to pay to run for office. We allow the States to create the primary procedures for getting elected to Congress. We allow the States to fashion Medicaid packages. We allow States to license doctors to practice. We trust the States to do what is best for their residents of that State. When it comes to health care policy or palliative care, the care of alleviating pain, nine States of the United States have determined that it is appropriate public policy to allow the use of marijuana as a prescribed treatment.

If Congress respects States rights in so many other areas, why does it not respect it with regard to medical marijuana?

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the Federal Government from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. It would end the DEA raids on medical marijuana patients and caregivers who are acting in accordance with state law. It would not--let me repeat--it would not prevent the DEA from arresting individuals who are involved in marijuana-related activities unconnected to medical use.

Here is the simple question posed by this amendment: Should the Federal Government arrest individuals who are trying to alleviate their own suffering or the suffering of others in compliance with state law?

I am only too familiar with the tension between DEA law enforcement and state and locally-sanctioned marijuana cooperatives in California. On September 5, 2002 in Santa Cruz, California--my district--dozens of heavily armed DEA agents stormed into the home of Valerie and Mike Corral where the cooperative garden of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), a medical marijuana hospice, is tended by collective members. They destroyed 167 plants, which would have been distributed--free of charge--to more than 200 seriously and terminally ill WAMM members. Although the Corrals did not resist, the agents pointed loaded rifles to their heads, forced them to the ground, and handcuffed their hands behind their backs. The DEA agents kept them handcuffed in their home for 4 hours before taking them 30 miles to the Federal courthouse in San Jose where they were eventually released without being charged. Meanwhile, Federal agents handcuffed the Corral's over-night guest, Suzanne Pfeil, a WAMM member who was disabled by polio, and detained two other members, one with AIDS and a caregiver. Pfeil happened to be sleeping when the raid occurred. Despite the fact that her leg braces and crutches were in plain sight, the agents demanded she stand, which she was unable to do with her hands cuffed. Pfeil's blood pressure shot up and she experienced chest pains. Agents then refused to call an ambulance. All this pain, confusion and fear--yet WAMM was operating with the full knowledge and consent of state and local authorities.

Many people who oppose medical marijuana say that there is only anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness. But these anecdotes cannot be simply dismissed; they are the stories of real people who are suffering. Just this morning in Roll Call, there was a powerful example of this. Talk show host Montel Williams discussed his struggle to live with excruciating pain caused by multiple sclerosis. Montel Williams, a former Marine and decorated naval officer, who made anti-drug PSA's for the White House drug czar's office, explained in this article that marijuana is the ``only'' drug that allows him to function on a day-to- day basis. Now if he is using marijuana with his doctor's advice and is following state law, why on earth should we waste Federal resources trying to prevent him from alleviating his own pain? And taking it a step further, if someone else is growing that marijuana for him and is following state law why should we take that medicine away from him by interfering with the grower?

The answer most opponents of this amendment will give is that marijuana simply is not a medicine. But this had become an absurd claim. First of all, both the Netherlands and Canada have enacted medical marijuana laws, with marijuana available at pharmacies in the Netherlands. In the United States, nine states have medical marijuana laws that allow doctors to recommend marijuana to their patients. And in those states, hundreds of doctors have recommended marijuana to thousands of patients.

Even our Federal Government has acknowledged the therapeutic benefits of marijuana. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine conducted a study funded by the White House Office of National Drug Policy. The principle investigator from the study said upon its completion, ``We concluded that there are some limited circumstances in which we recommend smoking marijuana for medical use.'' An even stronger endorsement came from the DEA in 1988. Then, Administrative Law Judge Francis Young, after an exhaustive, 2-year study of marijuana, called for its rescheduling on the grounds that ``marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.'' He concluded, even 60 years ago, that marijuana offered a ``currently accepted medical use in treatment.''

Over the past year, medical marijuana has gained even wider acceptance. It has been endorsed by the American Nurses Association, whose 2.6 million members care for the Nation's most seriously ill patients; by the United Methodist Church, the Nation's third largest religious denomination; by the New York and Rhode Island Medical Societies; and by many other health care organizations. Other longtime supporters of medical marijuana include the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the American Public Health Association.

Do opponents of this amendment honestly believe the American Nurses Association, the New York State Medical Society, United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and others are supporting this issue because they hope to legalize marijuana for all purposes? Of course that isn't the reason. These organizations support legal access to marijuana for medical purposes because they know one simple fact: it helps sick people.

Other opponents of this amendment say that they will not support medical marijuana until more research is complete. The problem is that the Federal Government has effectively blocked research. To cite just one example, in July 2001, the University of Massachusetts applied to the DEA for a license to manufacture marijuana for medical research. This is the same kind of license a company called GW Pharmaceuticals applied for in England a few years ago. While GW Pharmaceuticals has now concluded Phase III trials and is nearing market approval for its marijuana spray, the DEA--3 years later--has not even bothered to deny the University of Massachusetts' license. Of course, they have not granted it, either. They have just let the application sit in limbo.

Antoher application to the Federal Government, requesting permission to import just 10 grams of marijuana for research has languished for 10 months. Does our government think 10 grams of marijuana is going to increase the drug problem in this Nation? Of course not. The Federal goal seems to be to purposely to block research that would prove--or disprove, once and for all--that marijuana has therapeutic benefits.

But let's assume for a minute that all of the obstacles to research were suddenly removed. That does not get us past the immediate question: Should the Federal Government, over the course of the next year, while research is proceeding, arrest patients and caregivers who are complying with state law in order to alleviate their own suffering or the suffering of others?

Another objection raised by opponents of this amendment is that passing it would send the wrong message to children. It would make children think that marijuana is not dangerous. Let me tell you something. Children know how dangerous marijuana is already. Allowing seriously ill patients to use it will not change that. And associating the use of marijuana with AIDS and chemotherapy is not likely to increase its appeal. On the other hand, if you deny cancer, AIDS, and MS patients the opportunity to use this drug to alleviate their pain-- while permitting the medical use of powerful addictive drugs like vicodin and oxycontin--the only message you are sending to children is that you are intellectually dishonest and completely lacking in compassion.

The truth is, where medical marijuana is legal, there has been no increase in marijuana

use among teens. In fact, in my home state of California, teen use of marijuana has dropped 34 percent among 7th graders, 44 percent among 9th graders, and 21 percent among 11th graders since the California medical marijuana initiative passed in 1996. The same Institute of Medicine study described earlier noted, ``there is no evidence that the medical marijuana debate has altered adolescents' perceptions of the risks associated with marijuana use.'' Listen closely today to hear whether opponents of this amendment back their warning about sending the wrong message to children with any evidence demonstrating that medical use has caused a change in attitude about recreational use; I doubt there will be any with any scientific weight.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is reasonably drafted and built on scientific evidence, judicial review, and medical studies. It reflects the grass roots demand and legislative will of nine of our United States. It is time for Congress to recognize the powerful dynamics of this issue and adopt my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I thought the author of the amendment has the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the comment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I am going to read here that in the State of California, teen use of marijuana has dropped 34 percent among seventh graders, 44 percent among ninth graders and 21 percent among eleventh graders since the California medical marijuana initiative passed in 1996.

Also, I would like to point out that this is not such a radical amendment. It only affects the States that have State laws, that have the enforcement. We have not heard from law enforcement opposing this. We have heard from the American Nursing Association, the United Methodist Church, the New York Medical Society, the Rhode Island Medical Society, the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar Association, the American Public Health Association and the Episcopal Church. They all support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think we have to stop and listen and look at what is going on here. What we are talking about is regulations that went into effect 7 days ago. These are new regulations. There was no oversight by Congress. We are providing the opportunity here to give that oversight and to do the checks and balances.

The regulations are anti-American because they only affect us. They do not affect Cubans. We are the ones that cannot do this. Our government is telling us that we cannot be compassionate Americans. We cannot send seeds, cannot send clothing, cannot send fishing equipment, cannot send soap to people in another country. And we are going to have to have a police force that goes out and enforces that? That is not a compassionate America.

We cannot be a country that says that we can leave no child behind when we cannot even send hygiene products to this country. We cannot. Americans cannot. We can send to every other kid in the world something that we cannot send to Cuba. That is not leave no child behind.

What are we afraid of? What are we so afraid of that we have to make these regulations so restrictive that we Americans just cannot send a goodwill package to people? How are we going to have friendships? How are we going to instruct about democracy? How are we going to talk about this great country?

This country is turning into the ugly American, the really ugly American by making these really dumb and anti-American restrictions; and we in Congress should lift them by voting for this amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Farr

Amendment No. 6: Insert before the short title at the end

the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Charles B. ``Sonny'' Towner, Jr., who passed away on June 2, 2004. A dedicated member of the Santa Cruz community, Charles is survived by his wife Ellen, and will be greatly missed.

Charles led a life of public service, first serving in the 6th Aircraft Repair Unit Floating during World War II. Following the war, Charles returned to California to sell sporting goods, becoming a prominent businessman in the Bay Area for over 30 years. Continuing his public service, Charles also became the business manager for the Cambrian School District in San Jose for ten years. During this time, Charles was an active member of the Camden High School Booster Club and volunteered for the Cambrian Park Little League and Pony League.

Following his retirement in 1990, Charles continued his commitment to his community, as he volunteered with the Trinity Presbyterian Church, Santa Cruz Gardens School Volunteer Program and the California Grey Bears.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deepest sympathy to Charles' family and honor him by celebrating his life and contribution to society. As a prominent member of the Santa Cruz community, Charles Towner, Jr. will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the great young leaders I have had the privilege to know and work with. Rafael Lopez of Watsonville, California, will be leaving his post as founding Executive Director of First 5 Santa Cruz County to attend Harvard University and pursue a Master's degree in Public Policy and Administration.

Rafael is a native of Watsonville, where his family worked as migrant agriculture workers. One of the many noteworthy facts about his life is that he was the first in his family to graduate from both high school and college. Rafael graduated from Watsonville High School and attended Vassar College in New York and the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he earned a degree with honors in American Studies and was awarded a Distinguished College Service Award. Rafael's resume reflects his deep commitment to his community and our nation: an internship with a Member of Congress, staff member of the UCSC Chicano Latino Research Center; Coordinator for Residential Education at Merrill College, UCSC; working with groups such as the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, the El Andar Foundation, the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, the City of Watsonville, the County of Santa Cruz, the list goes on and on.

Most recently, however, Rafael has truly shown what it means to be a community leader. In 1999, he ran for a seat on the Watsonville City Council in a special election, and won with over 70 percent of the vote. At the time, Rafael was the youngest person in Watsonville's history to serve on the council, and he approached this position with a passion and commitment that reflected his love of his hometown. As in all things in his life, he felt called to serve his constituency to the best of his ability, and reached out to those he served in an unprecedented manner.

Shortly after his election victory he was tapped as the founding Executive Director of First 5 Santa Cruz County, a countywide program implemented through the passage of the California Children and Families First Act (Proposition 10). Once again Rafael rose to the challenge of working with and implementing a program aimed at serving children from zero to five years old and their families out of whole cloth. While the act itself does provide many specifications for how each county's commission would operate, it also provides the flexibility necessary for each commission to implement the act in a way that helps its constituency best. For Rafael and the commissioners, this included grant funding to large and small programs; countywide analysis with partners such as the United Way on the state of families and children in Santa Cruz County; and perhaps most groundbreaking is the upcoming implementation of guaranteed health care for all children from zero to eighteen. This last program has been the vision of many individuals and organizations in the county, and is the result of a unique and exciting partnership, but without a doubt Rafael's energy, focus and passion for this program shines through.

Mr. Speaker, there are few individuals who have left as large an impact on the Pajaro Valley and Santa Cruz County as Rafael Lopez. I am honored to know him, and equally saddened to see him go. I would like to take this opportunity to wish him and his wife, Rosa Ramirez, all of the best in success and happiness as they enter this new stage in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I, like others, rise in support of the bill. I think the authors of this bill, particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), have done a great job, but this is the only bill we have before Congress which allows us to have a debate on FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

It would be a better bill if we put an amendment in there, but the Committee on Rules has not allowed that amendment, and that is wrong. It is really wrong because this is the only place where we can address that issue. The administration should address it. They have been silent. They sit by and allow FERC to continue to do nothing.

FERC is a regulatory agency. This is where the consumers can go to get some protection. That is the only agency in the Federal Government that can do anything about it; and when they do not act, we have nowhere to turn.

This is an agency that ought to have money withheld from it until it answers the questions. That is something that we do in the legislative process all the time. And since the administration has failed to hold them accountable, Congress should. We are asleep at the switch. When that switch was asleep at FERC, a regulatory agency, they allowed all of these companies to just screw California.

Mr. Speaker, it took $9 billion of taxpayer money to pay these bills. This is absolutely absurd. It is more than absurd. It is obscene, it is criminal and it ought to stop now. The Eshoo amendment should be debated. It is a shame on the Committee on Rules that they did not make it in order.