Floor Statements

I thank Mr. Huffman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the committee and Chairman Doc Hastings on bringing this bill to the floor.

I was instrumental in creating the Coastal National Monument along the California coastline. It had to be done by executive order because we couldn't get the bills out of committee. I just really appreciate the fact that the committee is concentrating on this, because a lot of these things that people kind of argue against they don't realize what the positive unintended consequences are.

What this bill does is it really talks about management of land. As the chairman pointed out, the substance of the bill allows the private enterprise, the agriculture to continue, and to have it in a way that is going to be cost-effective management. This is a win-win for the private sector and for the public sector.

In many cases, the Bureau of Land Management is a very effective land manager. It essentially, in the West, has a lot of the land that actually was never picked up by Forest Service. When you think of Forest Service, you think of timbering or mining and those kinds of things, or land that qualified for the National Park System as kind of the leftover lands of the westward expansion. They have a lot of land management responsibility and know-how.

The California coastline is the number one attraction and the number one engine. It is the whole engine of California. Most of the cities and stuff are all along the coast. So any time you add to ability to expand access--we sometimes forget in Congress that the number one activity of interest in this country is watchable wildlife. More people watch wildlife, whether it is in the movies or channels or buy gear to go out, than watch all the national sports. It is huge business and it is jobs. In the rural area, this is key to job development.

Since we've created the Coastal National Monument, we have had little towns and counties in the rural area that have been identifying the rocks, all of which have historical names from families or shipwrecks. Now it gives some attraction to it, some historical attraction, which people love to learn about. It has been a great educational tool to teach us about this 1,100-mile coastline in California sort of inch by inch.

This addition is going to be able to build more opportunity for job creation, as people want to hire people to give them access, want to buy pictures, want to buy books, want to buy art that's made from it.

So I really commend the committee on realizing that these things are responsible job development jobs, not just government ownership of land. When you say, well, it is taking it off the private tax rolls, remember, this is a private interest that wanted to sell it to a public system. Those lands will pay taxes in lieu of property taxes, PIL taxes. It will continue the economy of the area. But for the local area--this is pretty rural California, really rural--this will just be a huge economic boon tool.

I compliment Mr. Huffman. This is the first bill he has brought to the floor. I hope he brings more. He is a very able Member of Congress. He proved a great member of the California State Legislature.

Mr. Hastings, thank you for providing the leadership to get these bills to the floor so that we can have an opportunity to vote on them.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and remarkable public service of my friend, Scot McKay. Scot passed away on July 10th at the young age of 59. Scot was a visionary businessman, a respected citizen, a dear friend, husband, father, and somebody who made the world a better place to live in.

Mr. McKay was born and raised in Evanston, Illinois. He achieved remarkable success as a young businessman. He founded McKay Spoke 'n Sport and McKay Front Runner, acquired McKay Nissan which he expanded into Mazda and Suzuki, acquired Acura of Libertyville and, among others, was a partner of the Clean Plate Restaurant Group. In 2003, he moved his family to Carmel, California, where he quickly embraced the local community, buying, renovating and dramatically improving the Carmel Valley Athletic Club, developing and building his relaxation spa, revamping an iconic local radio station and most recently acquiring the Gardener Tennis Ranch, where I once lifeguarded. He turned it into a premier wedding and business retreat facility. Scot also served on the boards of directors of the American International Automotive Dealer Association and The Big Sur Land Trust.

Yet, for all of his accomplishments, he was proudest of his family. Being home each evening was a top priority and when asked about his life, he frequently spoke fondly of his children's recent accomplishments and family trips. Scot was well-known throughout his community for his friendly greetings and interest in knowing how he could help any cause. He grabbed onto life fully and made the most of his time here. His curious nature led him to explore a variety of experiences. His humor and charm will be remembered and the love he has shared with his family and friends will long endure.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House in remembering Scot McKay and extending condolences to his father and loved ones, especially his wife Heidi and his children Ashley, Jacob, Justin, Kyle, Paige, Matthew and Ian. I would like to express my gratitude for his selfless service to the people of Monterey County, and indeed to our whole Nation. He will be remembered for all the lives he touched. We will miss you, Scot.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to honor the career of Deputy Chief Cassie McSorley, who is retiring after 30 years of service to the citizens of Salinas. Since joining the Salinas Police Department in 1983, Deputy Chief McSorley has worked at all levels of the department, including uniformed patrol, DUI enforcement, field training, Narcotics, and Special Operations.

Deputy Chief McSorley was raised in Salinas and attended North Salinas High School before going on to earn a bachelor's degree in Administration of Justice from San Jose State University. She completed graduate studies at the University of San Francisco in Organizational Development. She joined the Salinas Police Department as a patrol officer and a member of the DUI enforcement team before being promoted to Corporal, where she served as a Field Training Officer and a detective in the Vice/Narcotic Unit. She quickly advanced from Corporal to Sergeant, and then to Lieutenant. In 2003, she became Deputy Police Chief taking on various additional law enforcement responsibilities and ran a successful police department securing the streets of Salinas that are plagued by gangs. On many occasions when required, Deputy Chief McSorley has assumed the position of Acting Salinas Police Chief without hesitation.

Her long history of service to the department has included her role in establishing the first in-house training programs and specialized training teams; her work on Salinas' first hostage negotiation team; and her help in establishing the curriculum for the first Crisis Intervention Team training and policy development for Monterey County enforcement agencies.

Deputy Chief McSorley has always been deeply involved in the Salinas community, from the early community policing initiatives in the 10/20 Block and Acosta Plaza to more recent endeavors. She volunteers for many local causes and has served on a number of non-profit board of directors, including the Salinas Rotary Club, Sun Street Centers, Partners for Peace, Salinas Police Activities League, and others. One of her other noteworthy accomplishments was founding the Salinas Police Department Relay for Life team, serving as team captain in 2001 and 2002.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House and the entire law enforcement community in California as I commend Deputy Chief McSorley for all she has done for this community. I extend my most sincere thanks and warmest wishes for her success and much success and happiness in her retirement.

Thank you for yielding.

I'm the ranking member on the Ag Appropriations Committee, and I'm very proud that the USDA was founded by Abraham Lincoln.

This bill essentially destroys agriculture in the United States because we grow food to feed people, and the USDA is responsible for both sides of that equation. This bill now just turns it into growers.

My growers are there for the purpose of feeding people, and now we knock out all the people that need the food.

This is ridiculous. This is not agriculture. This is not farming. This is destruction. This is divide and conquer.

When you take away the people that need the food, you take away the purpose of agriculture. The best way to give the food back is to defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 80th birthday of Alan Baldridge, a leading environmental conservationist, naturalist, educator and dedicated community activist in my Central California Coast district.

Alan Baldridge and his wife Sheila immigrated to the United States from England in 1962 so that Alan could work as a history and literature reference librarian in Portland Oregon's public library. Four years later, the couple moved to Pacific Grove, CA to allow Alan to take over the library at Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station. Through his tireless work as a librarian, Alan has been able to use his expansive scientific expertise to inspire and assist countless marine biologists and researchers. An expert on ecology, biology and conservation Alan wrote The Bird Year published in 1980; co-authored the definitive book on Monterey Bay birds, and co-authored Gray Whales in 1991 and 2006.

Alan's careful observation of seabirds and marine mammals made him not only an educator and librarian, but also a naturalist and local authority on the incredible array of animals that fly, swim and wash up on the shores of Monterey Bay. He has served as a naturalist on a number of Stanford alumni trips to the Sea of Cortex, Alaska and ice sheets off eastern Canada. Alan has readily shared his vast knowledge with countless members of the community, including scientists, students, government officials and reporters. Throughout his time in Monterey, Alan served as a liaison to the fishing community, and many records of rare seabirds first came to the attention of researches and birders alike through Alan's efforts to acquire and pass on information. Alan's other work as a Regional Editor for Audubon Field Notes/American Birds for Northern California, seabird editor for the Middle Pacific Coast Region for 12 seasons and member of the editorial board for the first three volumes of California Birds, made Alan an integral contributor to the birding community.

A long-time leading environmental activist, Alan has utilized his expertise in order to support conservation movements in the area. A leading advocate for establishing the Elkhorn Slough National Marin Estuarine Reserve, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, the Monarch Grove Sanctuary and an instrumental assest in raising funds for the construction of the Harold A. Miller Library of Marine Biology, Alan's dedication to protecting the marine environment of his community has been unrivaled.

After 23 years as librarian at Hopkins Marine Station, Alan retired in 1994. He and his wife Sheila continue to promote educational efforts to create an understanding of the marine environment of their community.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House in wishing Alan Baldridge well and to thank him for his invaluable and tireless work on behalf of his community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of U.S. Army Sergeant Javier Sanchez, Jr., 28, of Greenfield, California, who died when an improvised explosive device hit his vehicle on a combat patrol on June 23, 2013 in Sar Rowzah, Afghanistan.

Javier was a graduate of the Greenfield High School and joined the Army in August 2006 serving in Baumholder, Germany, Fort Irwin, California and most recently in Fort Drum, New York. Javier was an infantryman and had previously deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from 2007 to 2008 with 1-6 Infantry of the 1st Armored Division. In his current assignment Javier was with the Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team based at Fort Drum, New York.

He is a hero to his family, the city of Greenfield, the State of California, and the people of the United States and we express our deepest gratitude for his service to our country. As his uncle most recently stated, ``He always had this `country first' attitude and I think that's what made him sign up.'' In the face of war, this is the truest definition of courage and character, an example that all soldiers should strive emulate. His selfless act is one that will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the entire House, I would like to extend the nation's deepest sympathies to Javier's wife Cassandra Sanchez, his mother Margarita Sanchez, and his father Javier Sanchez, Sr. Sergeant Javier Sanchez, Jr. served his nation honorably, and sacrificed his life. He is an American hero.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 300--Brown (GA) Amendment 301-- Grayson (FL) Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 300 on Brown; ``yes'' rollcall No. 301 on Grayson.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Capps

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Sheila Stuart, a dear friend and long time community activist who recently died. Sheila was a remarkable woman who touched the lives of many throughout her years of tireless service to her community.

Sheila was born in Dublin, Ireland on April 24, 1918, the second of six children. Her father, a school teacher and principal, instilled in Sheila a life-long love of learning. At fifteen, after attending Dominican College for three years, Sheila went to work as a clerk to support her family. In 1945, she met and married John ``Harry'' Stuart. In 1947, the young couple had a son and a year later moved to London and then India, where Harry worked as a mechanical engineer building power plants. While in India, daughter Orla was born. The family left India in 1954, eventually finding their way to Santa Cruz, California, in 1956. They remained in Santa Cruz for the rest of their lives.

Sheila was an active participant in a number of community organizations. Harry and Sheila joined the Pasatiempo Golf Club where Sheila served as President of the Pasatiempo 18-hole Women's Club and won numerous trophies. In the late 1950's she began serving as both ``room mother'' at her son Orin's school and Cub Scout Den Mother. She was active in the League of Women Voters, as well as in the Santa Cruz Symphony, and Shakespeare Santa Cruz.

Sheila's interest in politics was fueled by her love for fellow Irishman John Kennedy. Sheila walked precincts for Kennedy, handing out pamphlets. She and the children drove to San Jose to watch Kennedy's motorcade and she often recounted how Kennedy turned and smiled directly at her when she shouted the Irish greeting, ``cead mile failte.'' Sheila continued her involvement in local politics working as Santa Cruz County Assessor for eleven years, where she assisted with the Homeowner's Exemption Program. An avid Democrat, Sheila said one of her greatest achievements was turning her conservative husband into a liberal Democrat! Sheila ran several campaigns in Santa Cruz including Robert Kennedy's 1968 Presidential Primary, Gary Hart's Presidential bid and two campaigns for Dianne Feinstein. She helped Leon Panetta in his first Congressional campaign and later volunteered tirelessly for a number of other candidates and issues. After her retirement, she became active in the Democratic Women's Club and The Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee, where she became the first Voter Services Chair and later DCC Co-Chair. She was also honored as the first DCC ``Democrat of the Year''.

Sheila is survived by son Orin and daughter-in-law Arlene of Sutter Creek; daughter Orla of Santa Cruz; grandchildren Jason, Nicole (Ian), Courtney (Ryan), and Trevor; three great-grandchildren, Sophia, Colton and Cayden, numerous nephews and nieces in Ireland and Canada, and many dear friends.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House in honoring Sheila Stuart and the remarkable life she led and in extending our condolences to her family and friends. The civic activism that Sheila Stuart embodied is the lifeblood of our democracy and our nation owes her a debt of gratitude for her efforts.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

I think the gentleman might be well intended with his thought of what this amendment does, but it's exactly the opposite of what the industry wants.

The gentleman is a relatively new Member to Congress and does not represent a coastal area in his district. But if he were here during the nineties and early 2000, the reason we have a National Ocean Policy is because Congress set up a commission to study the conflicts of the sea brought to us by users of the ocean. That was the petroleum industry. That was the fishing industry. They were in conflict.

We had one agency saying, You can drill for oil, and others were saying, No, those are protected fishing grounds. Crab pots were being swept up by seismic boats going out and looking for oil and other geological issues. We had the Navy not corresponding with buoys. We had just tons of conflicts all within our 200-mile ocean exclusive economic zone, and the industry begged for some kind of collaboration of getting together.

Congress put together a commission; and on that commission Lawrence Dickerson, who was Diamond Offshore, chairman of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and chairman of the National Ocean Industries Association, was appointed by President Bush to sit on that commission. The recommendations of that commission, a commission that Congress created, were to create a national ocean policy. Congress actually introduced bills. The bills were introduced by Republican Members. Congressman Jim Greenwood carried the bill. Others carried the bill. The Resources Committee would never even give them a hearing. Admiral Watkins was chair of the committee, who was first President Bush's Energy Secretary, and also former CNO. All of these Republicans were asking for a national ocean policy.

Now we have it, and the gentleman says let's ignore it, let's ignore it. Let's not allow it to even be involved. This is a setback. If you want to absolutely have fast track in permitting, then do it under planning. That's the way we plan for our military with the quadrennial review. There isn't anything--health plans. Everything we do, transportation plans, you name it, it's around a big plan. We don't spend any money until the plan is in place.

Now we are in the process of having that plan, which the industry supports, and the gentleman wants to say, no, don't do anything, ignore it. You bring us back to conflicts at sea. You bring back regulatory fights. If you want to delay decisionmaking, then don't have a plan like we have.

This amendment destroys the ability to get the job done.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that the national ocean policy is the recommendation of a commission that we created, bipartisan commission, appointed by President Bush, to recommend how we might avoid the conflicts of sea. The national ocean policy is that, to have a policy so that when we do activities in the ocean, we know whether those activities are consistent with a policy.

I think the gentleman is completely wrong in thinking that disrupting that policy planning is going to get a faster and more equitable way of drilling for oil. I think he's totally wrong in that, and the administration would probably veto the bill if it's in there. I don't think that it is an amendment that's going to do good. I think it's going to do harm, and I would oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because I can't believe--I am kind of excited that you want to get more money--but I can't believe the Republicans are suggesting that the Treasury of the United States ought to be robbed of another $11 billion that goes to deficit reduction so it can be spent on the Gulf States because in legislation we just passed we give the Gulf States something no other States get: we give them in law now $150 billion over the next 60 years in revenue earmarked for the Gulf States. And what this amendment says is that's not enough; we want $11 billion more. What gall.

Most of us, if we were doing this, would be accused of doing an earmark. And certainly you don't do earmarks anymore in the House of Representatives. So what is it that $150 billion isn't enough for four States and you need, now, before you even have spent that money, to put into law another $11 billion?

Could you answer that question?

No, you have the time. I reserve the balance of my time.

I will yield to the gentleman for a question. Explain to me what is broken that needs $11 billion more, right now, with the $150 billion that you've already been given, or will be given.

You've lost the coastline why?

And those are the States that have also instate waters and onshore and offshore drilling?

Which are very lucrative revenues for the State.

That's onshore, not offshore. We actually have caps with offshore, and we have banned further offshore drilling, both State and Federal waters.

The Republicans have been very big on deficit reduction and very much against earmarks. And now, with this amendment you're proposing it seems to fly in the face of the policy of your own party that you want to take out of the Treasury $11 billion that could be applied to deficit reduction and give it to the Gulf States, which already have $150 billion over the next--in revenue coming to you, earmarked for you. That is far more than California or other States.

Well, I'm on the Appropriations Committee, and if this were brought up in the Appropriations Committee, it certainly would be an earmark. And it is a process that should be in the appropriations process and not added to this bill, where you create an $11 million earmark for four Gulf States.

Well, I think the chair of your committee, Mr. Hastings, who knows this, that only about 40 percent of the money that comes in for the Land and Water Conservation account, of the revenue that comes from the offshore drilling, only 40 percent of it is given back to the States for land and water conservation purposes. That other 60 amount just goes into the Treasury. That's where this money goes, and what you're doing is getting something that none of the other States have.

If we want to revise the percentage of money that goes into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, I'm all for that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues Representatives Calvert, Capps, Costa, Hunter, Matsui, McNerney, Royce, Thompson and Walden to honor Sara Hope Murphy or ``Sally'' to her friends, who recently retired from Wine Institute, where she was the chief public policy advocate for the California wine industry.

Sally is one of the bravest people we know. Her retirement was the result of a diagnosis for ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease. It all started because she was having troubling speaking. Unfortunately now, the disease has left her unable to speak at all. But in true Sally fashion, she has not allowed that to silence her. Many of you received her letter announcing her leaving, which was characteristic of Sally. It was right up front and center, and very frank.

Sally has a long association with the United States Congress. She first came to Capitol Hill to work for Congressman Lou Frey of Florida. She then spent 10 years on the staff of Thad Cochran in both the House and the Senate. She worked for Congressman Henson Moore and then left the Hill to work for Pacific Telesis Group and Sprint.

However, the crowning glory of her career was going to work for Wine Institute. Her Members, the winery owners, are so pleasant and she was impressed with how they--many of whose families had been in the business for four or five generations--so love what they plant, nurture, and produce.

The people she worked with at Wine Institute are some her closest friends: Bobby Koch, its president, Vikki Watkins, Susan Gregory, and Sheila Credle of the Washington office. She loves her former colleagues in the home office in San Francisco and those in Sacramento and in the states as well; all of them made every day a joy for Sally to go to work.

Currently there is no cure for ALS, but Sally decided early on not to be defeated. Despite the daily struggles, she has refused to give up in her fight. She finds strength in her husband Billy, who has been a stalwart help to her.

To us, Sally was the perfect embodiment of the wines she represented. Her presence brings life to any gathering of friends and fills every conversation with laughter.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to rise and celebrate the accomplishments of Sally Murphy and to offer her our prayers and support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Andrew ``Andy'' A. D'Arrigo, on the occasion of his recognition by the Grower-Shipper Association with the E.E. ``Gene'' Harden Award for Lifetime Achievement. Andy is a remarkable American whose hard work and innovation has helped to shape the Salinas Valley and build one of the largest and most innovative family-owned produce companies in the world.

The son of Italian immigrants, Andy was born in Stockton, California, in 1924. His family later moved to the Salinas Valley where his father Stefano and uncle Andrew began a small produce business in 1932. The advent of new ice and refrigeration technologies sparked a boom in California's produce industry and the D'Arrigo brothers stepped into this opportunity and helped push the envelope even further. Andy essentially grew up in the produce business. Indeed, the D'Arrigo Brothers iconic ``Andy Boy'' featured Andy's face and name. In his spare time, Andy was an active Boy Scout, even earning Eagle Scout status in high school. During WWII, Andy served in the Navy. Once out of the service, Andy earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of California at Davis and soon after married his wife of 64 years, Phyllis.

After the death of his father in 1951, Andy took over the West Coast operations of the D'Arrigo Bros. Company. The business had been built on shipping produce east from California. Under the D'Arrigos' leadership, it introduced new crops to the American menu, including broccoli, broccoli rabe, and cactus pears, to name a few. Under Andy's leadership, the company grew into a full-service, vertically integrated, produce supplier--growing, marketing, and shipping fresh fruits and vegetables across North America, and beyond. In acknowledgement of the agricultural expertise of the D'Arrigo family, three generations of the D'Arrigo family, including Andy, have been elected president and other leadership positions of the Western Growers Association, the Grower-Shipper Association, and other agriculture industry organizations.

The D'Arrigo family has always believed in giving back to their community. Over the years they have supported organizations such as Natividad Hospital, the United Way, the Boys and Girls Club, the American Cancer Society, the National Steinbeck Center, the Rancho Cielo Youth Campus, the YMCA, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, among others. As adoptive parents themselves, Andy and his wife are strong supporters of the Salinas based Kinship Center adoption services center, including its special needs counseling clinic that bears the D'Arrigo name.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House in commending Andy D'Arrigo for helping Americans eat better food and the people of the Central Coast live better lives.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of this amendment. Look, the way the program works now, it's the most expensive food in the world. This keeps the buying of American food, shipping it on American flagships. It preserves all of the American jobs. But it also frees up money to allow countries to learn how to fish, how to be able to go out and buy food and also develop the markets.

As a return Peace Corps volunteer, this is a really smart investment. And for those fiscal conservatives here, this is a much better amendment than keeping the status quo. I urge its support.

Madam Speaker, there are so many reasons why my colleagues should reject H.R. 1797, the misnamed Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

I am sure my Democratic colleagues that oppose the bill will be able to speak to many of those reasons, but I want to focus on an issue that will shock the American people, once they find out what this bill really does.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will force, let me repeat that, force a woman to carry an unviable fetus to full term and delivery. Even when doctors agree that it is impossible for the fetus to survive outside the womb, if it is over 20 weeks, if H.R. 1797 passes, it will have to be carried to full term and delivered. By making the woman carry this fetus to full term and deliver it even though it will never survive, we are adding to the unimaginable pain of having a child that will not survive outside the womb. Instead of being allowed to grieve for months, this legislation would only prolong the inevitable heartbreak she will experience. The Republican majority may be completely fine with subjecting women to repeated and unnecessary heartbreak, but I am not!

Not to mention the unnecessary pain and physical discomfort throughout the pregnancy for the woman. She is forced to go through all the trials of a normal pregnancy and the tremendous pain of childbirth, just so the Republican Majority can once again intrude into the lives of women and impose their will on them. This should be a private, personal decision between the woman and her doctor.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1797 is simply outrageous. No one should be able to force a woman to carry an unviable fetus to term and then deliver it against her will. This bill has so many provisions that are just a continuation of the Republicans War on Women. And they claim there is no war on women. How can they say that when they try to pass bills like this?

Madam Chair, I rise today to express my appreciation for the House Armed Services Committee's acceptance of my amendment on the importance of foreign language and cultural education in the military. While the concept of military-to-military engagement is not new, it has an increasing level of importance in our contemporary operating environment. While most military training focuses on servicemembers being able to engage with the enemy, it is equally important to educate servicemembers on cultures and foreign language so that when we partner with foreign militaries and engage in capacity building, we can speak their language and understand their culture.

The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Odierno, and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral Stavridis, have argued that the future of our defense strategy requires strong relationships with capable partners. Unfortunately, there is a language and cultural capability gap in the Department of Defense, an organization that operates globally to accomplish its mission yet has less than 10% whom speak a second language. Effective partner capacity building requires the kind of relationships that cannot be built through using an interpreter alone.

Our military's ability to understand cultures and languages in Iraq and Afghanistan has taken a long and costly road. That road's most valuable lesson is that our military personnel need the capacity to understand foreign cultures and languages before they are deployed. The ability of our junior and senior military leaders to build partnerships and partner capacity requires training in culture and languages not only in times of conflict but also in times of peace.

Two world class military installations in my district provide this critically needed education to all the Services. The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center and the Naval Postgraduate School educate military personnel in the languages and cultures of our partners. Investment in language and culture enhances readiness for military intelligence, Special Forces, and general-purpose forces at a low cost. This capability enables servicemembers to connect with our

partnering countries at the unit level where the mission is executed.

America's strategic challenges, including a pivot to the Pacific region that has more than 70 countries and more than 100 regional and national languages, will generate additional requirements for language and put additional strain on the current capacity for skilled foreign language analysts, Foreign Area Officers, military intelligence personnel, and attaches. We must meet the demand and respond proactively.

Madam Chair, again, I am appreciative of the committee's support of foreign language capability and cultural understanding in the military and look forward to working with them in the future to ensure our military is resourced to meet the strategic demands of the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Private First Class Royden L. ``Roy'' Diaz, who passed away on May 24th, 2013. Roy was the Salinas area's last Bataan Death March survivor and one of two remaining survivors from the 194th Tank Battalion. Of the 105-strong C Company, 194th Tank Battalion, only 47 men made it home alive. He and the other members of his unit are heroes and their great deeds should never be forgotten.

Roy was born to Ben and Ida Diaz on October 23, 1916, in Monterey County, California. A graduate of Salinas High School, he spent a significant portion of his time working on his family's ranch in the Salinas Valley.

Interested in earning a little extra money, Roy enlisted in 1936 in the California National Guard's 40th Divisional Tank Company, headquartered in Salinas. On February 2, 1941, Roy's tank company was activated for federal service and re-designated C Company, 194th Tank Battalion. After preparation and mobilization training, his unit was sent to the Philippine Islands on September 8, 1941.

Two months later, the Japanese forces launched overwhelming attacks against the defenses of the Philippine Islands. After fierce fighting and bloody battles, tens of thousands of American and Filipino soldiers were surrendered to the Japanese on April 9, 1942.

Roy and the other prisoners were forced to march for days in the scorching heat through the Philippine jungles. The Japanese guards chased off, bayoneted or shot any Filipino civilian who tried to give water or bits of food to the passing lines of prisoners. Those prisoners who fell-out were bayoneted, shot, or beaten to death. Thousands of soldiers died along the way. Others were wounded or killed when unmarked enemy ships transporting prisoners of war to Japan were sunk by U.S. air and naval forces. Those who survived faced brutal hardships of the Japanese POW camps and, at one point, four hundred soldiers a day were dying.

By the time Japan surrendered and the U.S. Army liberated the Bataan Prisoners of War, two-thirds of the American prisoners had died in Japanese custody. Miraculously, Roy survived. He survived hardships that few have ever seen and even fewer can even imagine. After the Japanese surrendered and the prisoners were recovered, Roy returned to Salinas, California, for a short while working as a salesman for Glazer Brothers and then at Spreckels Sugar Company, but eventually went back to his family's livelihood--farming at his Corral de Tierra ranch where his parents raised him.

Roy loved life. He appreciated it more than most probably ever do. He loved hunting and fishing in the local area and in the Sierra Nevada area. He loved working in his garden and competed at the Monterey County Fair for his vegetable garden and sunflowers where he won many ribbons. He also loved dancing with his wife of 57 years, Lorraine and enjoyed their many trips to Reno, Nevada. He loved the California Rodeo where he met his wife at the Colmo Rodeo Parade.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues in the House of Representatives all join me in remembering one of the last Bataan Death March survivors, Roy Diaz, whose service to our country ensures that our American democracy and our freedoms remain as strong today as they were 70 years ago when Roy was a young Army soldier.