Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a devoted soldier as well as an accomplished scholar and leader. Colonel Kevin Rice has served as the Installation Commander at the Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center and Presidio of Monterey since December 2000. Tomorrow, he earns a well-deserved retirement after serving his country honorably for the last 30 years. Throughout his service at the Presidio, Colonel Rice was instrumental in improving the standard of excellence in training our military linguists and in continuing the transition of Fort Ord, the Nation's largest base closure, to civilian use.

Colonel Rice was born in Henderson, Nevada and grew up there and in La Mirada, California. Kevin Rice attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and upon his graduation in 1973, was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Infantry. Colonel Rice is a graduate of the Chinese Program at the Defense Language Institute of Monterey which he would later lead, and he also successfully completed studies at the British Ministry of Defense Chinese Language School in Hong Kong and holds Master's Degrees from both the Naval Postgraduate School and the National War College.

Colonel Rice's military career in the U.S. Army is extremely distinguished and diverse. He started out as a mechanized rifle platoon leader and quickly rose through the ranks while applying his expertise in mechanized infantry, light infantry and airborne special operations units. Prior to his service at the Presidio, Colonel Rice held the position of U.S. Army Attache to the People's Republic of China. Throughout these assignments, he was repeatedly honored for his outstanding performance with awards ranging from the Meritorious Service Medal to the Army Achievement Medal.

I am extremely grateful to have worked with Colonel Rice on several military construction projects at the Defense Language Institute, including a new classroom facility--Collins Hall--as well as Video Tele-Training Facility. These base modernization projects illustrate Colonel Rice's leadership in making sure DLI, the world's largest foreign language school, employs the most advanced technology to continue as a center of excellence in the teaching of foreign languages.

Moreover, Colonel Rice has presided over the only dual service--Army and Navy--base housing modernization program in the Nation. When complete, the Residential Community Initiative at the Presidio will provide the Central Coast military community with 1,800 units of quality base housing, built to local code, and paid for by the military housing allowance known as the BAH. Without his continued efforts to move this huge undertaking through the bureaucratic process both inside the Pentagon and outside, the RCI wouldn't have come to fruition.

Colonel Kevin Rice and his wife, Kitty, have been active and highly regarded members of the local community who are leaving a lasting legacy of civic involvement and a wide circle of friends who will miss them both. I am

pleased to count myself as one of Colonel Rice's friends and wish him well in the next stage of life's journey.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding time to me, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for his kind remarks about our being co-chairs of the Congressional Tourism Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 20th anniversary of National Tourism Week. As cochair of the House Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus, I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), in proclaiming the 20th anniversary of National Tourism Week.

Tourism is the leading industry in America. In fact, it is the largest employer in America. I think oftentimes people do not think of it because it has never been defined as an industry, like the automobile industry, like the steel industry, like the electronics industry. This industry is made up of so many factors. It is made up of restaurants and museums and car rental companies and hotels and motels and sports arenas, ski shops, beaches, concert halls, parks, historic landmarks, campgrounds, and the list goes on and on.

If we put all of those together, we will have what we call the tourism industry. It is one of the most diverse sectors in the entire economy, with the single goal of making the United States the greatest place to travel, not only just to see, but to enjoy the incredible diversity and cultures of great America.

I do not think people just come to America from other countries to visit our beautiful spots, which obviously lure them, as we are lured to other beautiful places in the world. But they also come to know the culture of Americans and learn about how this country functions.

I happen to live in one of those towns, Carmel, California. I just got back from a trip to Europe; and everywhere I went, when I said where I lived in California, people knew where it was, though it is a small town of 4,000 people. I do not think it is just because Clint Eastwood was the mayor of my town. People have actually been going there for years and years. The city is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year.

But the point is that the mayor of Carmel told me that the number one request of the tourists of that town, of the city, was a copy of their zoning ordinance. So people are not just tourists for purposes of spending money and enjoying beautiful places; they are also thinking and they are looking and they are listening. In that way we are able to share this bounty of America and the bounty of the people.

The travel and tourism industry has faced unprecedented challenges in the last couple of years, first with the decline of confidence in the safety of air travel as a result of September 11, and then the struggling economy, which has diminished business travel budgets and decreased household discretionary income. If that were not enough, then we are more recently faced with the uncertainties of the war in Iraq, and SARS has taken its toll on this industry.

Congress has done something about it, though. It is not just enacting this resolution celebrating our National Tourism Week. We also last week had given a tax cut to the very wealthy in this country, and essentially the purpose of that tax cut was to leave money in people's hands so they would spend it.

I cannot think of a better way to spend it than for people to take their new money that they are going to get from the Federal Government in the middle of the summer and take their family on a vacation, or take friends, staff, and employees out to lunch or to dinner to thank them for working with them, and tell our friends how much we enjoy being their friend by celebrating in a place outside our homes, in a way that we can spend it with others.

Remember, these are also areas that are labor-intensive, where people are employed. It takes a lot of people to change beds, serve food, wash dishes, drive us around in buses, and so on. When we see these people, we should thank them for being in the travel and tourism industry. With that little bit of extra tax money, we should give them a bigger tip than we would have the year before. They need it, especially those families who lost the child care tax credits. Those poor kids are not going to be able to go to Disneyland, yet many people will be annually able to go to the very wealthy areas, Nantucket and so on.

I am hoping that the tax bill will end up being a good bill and end up putting more money in the economy, getting the tourism industry back on its feet, and certainly continue to be the largest employing industry in the United States, and an industry that will take care of everybody, so the rising tide will raise all ships. That is what I think the tax cut is supposed to do.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I thank the gentleman very much. At the same time I recognize my staff, Tom Tucker, who came to me from being a concierge in a hotel, a great person to have as a staff member in the travel and tourism industry.

I thank the gentleman for his kind words and for yielding to me. I am delighted to be here.

I think in light of tonight's discussions, which really have wonderful populist appeal about issues of drug sales in America and about the practices of licensing telecommunications in this country, it is also appropriate that we focus a little bit on the politics, the big politics of the oceans, that is, that the meeting of land and water, of the two massive forces on Earth, takes place in coastal zones. Coastal zones are also where most of the people live, that is, where most of the voters are, most of the taxes are raised. That is where we find the most U.S. population, on the coast, which comprises about 17 percent of our entire land mass.

We also find that people are moving to coastal areas faster than any other place. There is an increase of about 3,600 people a day that move to the coastlines.

I think coastlines are also important from an economic standpoint if we think about that is where fishermen make their living, that is where tourism attracts people to swim in the oceans. The largest recreational areas in the United States are the publicly owned beaches of this country.

It is clear that the public takes special interest in our oceans; and as we have learned from our colleagues, even the inland colleagues in inland States, people in their districts think of oceans because they think of them as they consume seafood, and as places they would like to visit on their vacations, to go to the beach.

What do we do in Congress, because we understand that there are real problems with the oceans, not just ours alone but internationally, as well? In a recent report in the journal Nature, it stated that 90 percent of the large predatory fish are gone from the oceans totally, globally, all over the world.

Overfishing has led to fishery closures for rockfish on the west coast and groundfish on the east coast.

We find that because we have not really effectively monitored or stopped the toxic pollutants that come in from just runoff, where it rains on the land and that rain runs through agricultural land, it runs through parking lots, it runs through streets; and whatever is on those streets, what they call trace metals and pesticides, ends up going into the rivers and then down into the oceans, therefore affecting marine systems.

It is more difficult to trace than the Exxon Valdez, which was essentially one spot, a big contamination. These are subtle contaminations. But these contaminations are not just chemicals.

We have a way of transporting nature. Certainly we have learned about that recently with the way to transport virus, with SARS originating in China ending up affecting us in Toronto and other cities around the world.

The San Francisco Bay now has 175 nonnative marine species living in San Francisco Bay brought in by the ships that travel the oceans far and wide. Despite all these indicators that show that the marine ecosystems are unhealthy today, the question is, well, can we save them? Has it gone beyond repair?

The gentleman and I know that we have certainly laws that govern our coastlines and oceans; but those laws, as the gentleman said, are outdated. It is time to focus anew.

Fortunately, Congress has taken action to do that by creating a commission. With a bill that I authored with Senator Hollings in the Senate that President Clinton signed, and it went into effect when President Bush took office, President Bush appointed the commissioners. They are about to finish their work and give us a report sometime this fall.

As the gentleman mentioned, there is a separate commission appointed by the Pew Charitable Trust, which my friend and predecessor here in Congress, Leon Panetta, has been chairing when Christy Todd Whitman, the former Chair, went to work for the Bush administration as head of EPA. So we have both of these commissions coming to Congress with really strong recommendations on how we need to update our Nation's marine policies.

So the body of science, the body of politics, by the fact that the commissioners are from all walks of life that relate to the oceans, from the oil interests to the fishing interests to the museum and science interests, they have all been represented; and they all bring a constituency to the plate that is going to deliver these reports.

June 4, on Wednesday, the privately funded Pew Commission will make its report available to the public. Then sometime later in the year the Commission on Ocean Policy will produce its report.

I anticipate that both commissions will have recommendations that we as Members of Congress, recommendations that, as lawmakers, we can incorporate into legislation and change our ocean policy so that indeed we can have a sustainable ocean policy. I think the gentleman more than most Members, and probably more than anyone, really understands the proportionality of sustainability.

I think that word is used so often as to sort of guarantee success, but it is really one of compromise. Essentially, we do not cut out the economic interests in fishing. We more balance them so they can be sustained over time. It is not just, take it all right now and leave nothing for our children or generations ahead.

The whole idea of how we develop these balancing systems is very controversial, because we do have to regulate people that have never been regulated before, or we have to tell people they cannot fish in certain areas that they have been able to fish in without restrictions.

So this is more what they call an ecosystem-based management. We understand a little bit about ecosystems on land. We do not call them that; we call them zoning. We call them master planning for our communities; essentially, where do we want people to live in houses, where do we want the industrial area to be, where do we want to keep it an open space, where we should not go building because of hazardous conditions such as floodplain zones or earthquake zones and so on.

I think we are getting to a point, and I would love to hear the gentleman's reflection on it, that we really need to master-plan our oceans around these ecosystems and around avoiding conflicts of the sea.

We have seen in California, and Maine as well, where we had, before regulation, people who would make their living setting out crab pots or lobster pots at the same place people were dragging for seismic information for oil companies. They would catch the lines of the lobster pots or crab pots and pull them up, and so destroy the income of one fisherperson for the advantage of someone else who was also interested in a resource from the ocean. That is what I call the conflicts of sea. We just need to make sure we understand what people want to do and how they want to use the ocean, and make the regulations so they can use it wisely.

I would really respect the gentleman's thoughts on those issues, because I think the gentleman has been very involved with the city of Portland. As I remember as a young adult studying in Oregon in undergraduate studies and visiting Portland, it was then, to use a phrase we used at home, a city known by its smell. We used to say that about Monterey because of all the canneries. In Portland, you had all of the wood pulp industries and the Willamette River.

We go to Portland today and it is certainly one of the most beautiful cities in America, and one of the best-managed from a transportation standpoint, from a livability standpoint. As far as aesthetics and trees, it is really an example of what we can do with leadership in providing a turnaround in an area. If we can do that for cities in America, we certainly can do it for oceans and nearby communities, near-shore communities under the sea.

Even then it is not off limits to people who want to access it on foot rather than by motor vehicle.

We have also shown, though, that where we have degraded that habitat to such a point where all known life forms have failed in those systems, they have gotten so polluted, some of those streams, but with good management techniques we have brought those streams back and made them clean; and they now have vibrant fish life.

The point is, we can turn this around. But when we are dealing with the entire ocean, we just cannot turn that around over time. If we have indeed taken all the large species, commercial species on the planet, it is going to take a long time of not fishing some of those species to allow them, the babies, to grow up to be big adults. Some of these fish live for over 100 years, so it is going to be, some places where we set up these marine reserves, we are going to have to put them off limits for fishing for a long time.

On the other hand, when we do clean up areas and set these reserves, they allow this sort of abundance to return; fish do not know where those boundary lines are. They hang out outside the boundary lines. Then that becomes an opportunity for the commercial activity to be done.

We have in our area a national marine estuary, the largest in California, known as the Elkhorn Slough. Right next to the Elkhorn Slough is one of the largest power plants in California, a Duke Energy gas-fired natural gas plant which used to burn oil and now burns natural gas.

That big industrial complex has worked out a management system with this fragile ecosystem so they can be co-partners in the sustainability of the ecosystem, not one preventing the other from happening.

It is a partnership that has been worked out and is constantly being updated as a sound management practice. Those are the kinds of examples I would like to set because I think so often people hear that if there is a problem, we are just going to shut down somebody or people are going to lose their jobs if we go about this. And I think what the reports are going to say is that this does not have to be a lose-lose or win-lose; it can be a win-win.

Let me elaborate a little bit on that. By treaty, we have created the special economic zones, and these economic zones on the oceans go out from the shoreline 200 miles; and why the United States, more than any other country in the world, has larger EEZ is because we have in our territory, in our trust islands in the Pacific, we are all very much aware of Guam and the Hawaiian Islands, but we go through the Marshall Islands and American Samoa, and each one of those islands having a 200-mile radius makes the United States interests in the ocean even greater than any other country in the world.

This is where I think we have to provide leadership in being able to provide these ecosystem-based management plans, and in order to do that, it is going to take an act of Congress. It is going to take new laws in this country.

As we stand here tonight, we are probably at one of the best moments in recent history to be able to have all this scientific knowledge flowing to us. With the release of the Pew report and the commission's report later on this year, Congress will be better informed on what it should do, what it needs to do more than ever before in history.

My hope is that we, in a bipartisan way, because certainly I do not think we need to have partisan fights about it. We had a lot of discussion here sort of on the takings issue on land ownership and whose responsibility it is, whether the government has a right to go onto someone's land to understand what kind of species or wildlife are living on their land. That does not happen in the oceans. The oceans are not owned privately. There are certainly not real estate developments in the ocean, other than oil leases, and those are leases from the Federal Government. So we are the manager.

It seems to me that we, in a collective way, can really provide not only a future for this planet, which breathes from the ocean, and where weather is all initiated in the ocean, but also provide a healthy management system so that our children and grandchildren can enjoy not only the oceans and the bounty of the seas, but also have health and safety, a life of being able to go to beaches that are safe and so on.

This is our responsibility. We are the trustees elected to develop the Federal law, given that trust by our voters and, I think, by the world, by the fact that we have so much of the ocean at stake, to really do sound management; and hopefully, we will take the recommendations of the Pew Foundation and the government commission and put them into law this year. Hopefully, the administration will enthusiastically support those recommendations and help us lobby them through Congress.

That interesting, cooperative solution is done by, in congratulations to the gentleman as a representative from Oregon, that the Oregon State University, along with the University of California in Santa Cruz, that is in my District; the Long Marine Lab, that is in my District; the Hopkins Marine Lab which is my district; and the University of California at Santa Barbara; and Stanford University are all participating in this consortium known as the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans, and in fact, they call themselves PISCO, and I understand they have a Web site. It is a pretty easy one. It is just www.piscoweb.org, and those publications are put up on that Web site as they come out.

Treaty of the seas, law of the seas, something our Navy is very interested in having ratified. The Senate failed to do that many years ago. I have suggested that the Senate ought to revisit that, particularly with the Navy's interest in it, and hopefully we can get it ratified so that we can be a partner with all the other coastal nations around the world.

I think what happens now, according to a spokesperson for the Navy that I talked to several years ago, was that we have dozens of Navy research vessels which are owned and operated by the Navy, but the operators are mostly contract marine scientists, marine biologists who go out and do the deep ocean exploration and near shore exploration. When we go into these economic zones of other countries we have to go there with their permission. These are military vessels, and without signing a law of the sea, we have no protocols for, if a country decides, well, we think you are spying on us or we think we do not like the work you are doing or you are not sharing it with us enough.

There are always efforts to do that, but nonetheless, if there is a problem, we have no way of getting out of the problem because we are not a signatory to the treaty which lays out a protocol for what we can and cannot do with these research vessels, and that, if indeed there is a question, how we can resolve those disputes.

So we could conceivably get into a military situation because of a seizing of one of our research vessels which has nothing but scientists aboard, and that should be avoided. We need to sign the law treaty as soon as possible.

The Oceans Caucus.

Quite all right. Coastal caucus is just as well.

Let me say something. I think that before our lifetimes are over we are going to see the ability to rent a vehicle where a person can drive under the sea. They can drive in the sea.

And that will really open up this massive amount of territory on this planet to people who have never been able to see it before.

The technology of getting people down in the water is merging at a very fast rate. Remember, it is much more difficult to go deep than it is to go high. When you go into outerspace, you are just going from zero atmospheric pressure, from 14 pounds atmospheric pressure to zero. When you are going down, it gets harder and harder. And as you have seen, when these researchers have put a little Styrofoam coffee cup with your name on it and put it out in those research vessels, it comes back literally the size of a thimble. That is what the pressure is. So it is much more difficult to get down into the ocean. But they are developing technology where you can go down to 4,000 feet in civilian clothes without a lot of training to essentially allow people who are not scientists to be able to get access to the oceans.

We need underwater artists, we need poets, we need music writers, we need the rest of society to be able to explore the oceans, as well as our marine scientists; and so I thank the gentleman for his leadership in scheduling this Special Order tonight and for inviting me to speak.

What is interesting about tourism is, why do people go into the outdoors? It is really to experience the outdoors. And how is that? It is not just the beautiful shapes of mountains and trees and natural forms; it is also the wildlife.

We were able to successfully recover a sea otter herd. The sea otter was thought to be extinct. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a marine scientist discovered them off Big Sur, kept them a secret, because there were no laws in place to protect them; but now that they have been protected by Federal law, the sea otter population has come back. It has, unfortunately, had some setbacks this year with disease, and perhaps with too many boats in the habitat; but that sea otter population on the California coastline is now a multimillion dollar industry, watching sea otters. And who makes money off of that? Certainly they do not. But people who make T-shirts, who make mugs, who make jewelry, who take photographs, who provide boat trips, who do interpretive studies.

The point is that the wildlife can be one of our most viable economic industries if we manage it well. And that is what this is all about; it is trying to have a planet. Here we are discussing so much of how do the people on this globe get along, but the people cannot survive on this globe without nature getting along and at least us understanding how not to just take from nature but also to give back and to manage appropriately so that we can have sustainable oceans, sustainable lands, and hopefully sustainable populations of people that will get along living in peace and being able to enjoy this planet. I think that is what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Charles Hilger, a talented artist and dedicated historian, upon the occasion of his retirement as the Director of the Santa Cruz Museum of Art and History (MAH). For twenty years, Mr. Hilger has dedicated his time and energy into building a museum that has become a significant cultural anchor for the Santa Cruz community as well as a quality destination for tourists and visitors. Mr. Hilger's expertise and enthusiasm will be missed by associates and visitors alike.

Mr. Hilger's participation in the art world has stretched to nearly all facets of the Santa Cruz community. Mr. Hilger's passion for art was evident when he was honored as the 1989 Santa Cruz ``Artist of the Year.'' Over the past twenty years, Mr. Hilger transformed a small exhibit of art featured at the public library into the museum we enjoy today, now located at the McPherson Center. He personally recruited a highly professional staff and a dedicated team of docents and volunteers to aid him in managing over 150 installations, representing many diverse expressions of artists from around the world. Despite earthquakes, economic hardships and various other calamities, Mr. Hilger never lost sight of his goal to provide an institution that could educate many generations about the beauty and mystery in the world of art.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I would like to honor the accomplishments of Charles Hilger and express sincere gratitude for his commitment to the community. I wish Mr. Hilger and his family well as he enjoys his much-deserved retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the rights of women around the world, including those of servicewomen who are stationed abroad. The Sanchez amendment is about restoring rights and healthcare access to our servicewomen abroad, and not about the ideological debate on abortion.

This Congress has professed tremendous leadership in advocating on behalf of those who have selflessly chosen to serve in the military. However, the health, safety, and rights of our servicewomen do not seem to be a top priority. In no way should the healthcare options of any serviceman or woman be compromised. Unfortunately, the system currently in place makes servicewomen stationed abroad second-class citizens who are subject to different and inferior healthcare parameters than their male counterparts. In supporting our Armed Services we cannot allow the very rights and liberties that they are fighting for to be compromised by refusing to allow servicewomen to choose to have safe and timely medical procedures at military hospitals.

It is unacceptable that a servicewomen would be forced to compromise her privacy and wait for space on a military transport, in order to obtain a time-sensitive procedure like an abortion. Our female soldiers should be cared for in a safe and timely manner by a military hospital, whose very purpose is to provide healthcare for serviceman and women. Moreover, this amendment clearly states that these abortions would be paid for by private funds, and that no doctor or staff would be forced to participate in these procedures.

In defense of women's reproductive freedoms, and our servicewomen stationed abroad, I support the Sanchez amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, earlier in the year, Department of Defense (DOD) approached Congress with a request to exempt itself from several fundamental environmental laws in order to strengthen military readiness. At the time this request shocked most of us, because the readiness of our military is the best in the world but that the state of some of our natural resources are not. Things went from bad to worse when the House Armed Services Committee reported out a bill that went way above and beyond what DOD had originally asked for.

H.R. 1588, the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization bill, contains provisions that fundamentally change the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), two major pieces of legislation that directly affect my home district in California. There are many species listed under ESA in my home district. These include the California condor, which has been through an intense reestablishment program, the San Joaquin Kit Fox that lives on Fort Hunter Liggett, steelhead trout that breed in our rivers and streams, and the snowy plover which nests on our beaches.

The continued existence of many of these species relies on the designation of ``critical habitat,'' which is basically the homes and breeding grounds that are necessary for their survival. For example, the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander has only six breeding ponds on which the whole species depends. Without the designation of these breeding ponds as critical habitat, the salamander would be left without a vehicle for bringing them back from the brink of extinction.

This bill aims to make critical habitat designation only when it is ``necessary'' and not when its ``prudent and determinable'' as the law currently states. I ask you when would it be ``necessary'' to designate critical habitat? I'm not sure because ``necessary'' is not defined in the bill. So basically, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce would be able to make a decision with no set criteria. The Bush Administration has clearly stated its belief that critical habitat provides no protection, and as such this provision could result in many species without homes and breeding areas such that the Santa Cruz long- toed salamander would have no ponds, the snowy plover would have no open beaches, and the marbled murrelet would have no trees.

H.R. 1588 not only guts ESA, but it also puts whales and dolphins in jeopardy by changing the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The intent of the MMPA is to prohibit the ``harassment'' of marine mammals. The language in H.R. 1588 weakens the definition of ``harassment'' not just for DOD related activities but also for all people who use our oceans and coasts. The waters of Monterey Bay in my home district are home to sea otters, sea lions and harbor seals and serve as a migratory route for majestic humpback and blue whales. These animals are important economic resources because people visit my district to see them. Likewise, people travel to see the orcas in the waters of Puget Sound, Washington, the whales in the Gulf of Maine, and the manatees along the coast of Florida.

Current MMPA language aims to protect these animals from being harassed, from being injured, and from being killed. But H.R. 1588 drastically weakens this protection and would allow an increasing number of harmful interactions such as: oil and gas exploration and high intensity sonar testing. Such increased harassment and harm to marine mammals would go largely unchecked by wildlife agencies and left unmonitored and unmitigated.

Struggling sea otters are currently dying at record levels in the State of California. They are listed both under ESA and MMPA. Our sea otters need these laws to protect what's left of their population; without them they will go extinct in California.

Consideration of fundamental changes to these laws should be taken up during re-authorization of ESA and MMPA when there is ample time for hearings and discussion, and not under the guise of national security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about the fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization bill. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense approached Congress with a request to exempt itself from several of the fundamental environmental laws in order to strengthen our military readiness.

At the time, this kind of shocked many of us because we saw that our readiness of our military was among, if not is, the best in the world, but that the state of some of our natural resources is certainly not the best in the world.

Then things went from bad to worse. The Committee on Armed Services reported out a bill that went way beyond and way above what the Defense Department had originally asked for. H.R. 1588, the Defense authorization bill this year, contains provisions that fundamentally change the Environmental Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act and, most importantly, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, two major pieces of legislation that directly affect the coastal communities of the United States and particularly my District in California.

There are many species listed under the ESA in my home District. There is the California condor. We have done a good job of trying to restore that condor into the wilderness. In fact, the Secretary of the Interior has been out to release those birds and has personally seen the effect of being able to reestablish a threatened species. There is the San Joaquin kit fox. There is the steelhead trout that are in our coastal streams, and the snowy plover, which is a shore bird that nests on our beaches.

The continued existence of many of these species relies on the designation of what they call the critical habitat which is basically the homes and breeding grounds that are necessary for survival.

For example, the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander only has six breeding ponds on which the whole species depends. Without the designation of these breeding ponds as critical habitat, the salamander would be left out without a vehicle for bringing it back from the brink of extinction.

I might point out, many people thought the sea otter was extinct. In

1950 we saw a small group of sea otters, and today that population has grown to about 1,000. It is threatened, but on the other hand, what it has done is increased tourism because people come out and look for that creature.

So this bill that the Defense Department is asking for aims to make critical habitat designation only when it is necessary and not when it is prudent and determinable as the law now currently requires.

When would it be necessary to designate a critical habitat? I am not sure necessary is defined in the bill. So basically the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce will be able to make a decision with no set criteria.

The Bush administration has clearly stated its belief that critical habitat provides no protection, and as such, this provision could result in more species without homes and breeding areas, and the list goes on and on.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act not only guts that, but it puts whales and dolphins in jeopardy by changing the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and my colleagues have already heard from several Members who have spoken on it. The intent of the Act is to prevent the harassment of marine mammals. The language in this bill weakens the definition of harassment, not just for DOD-related activities but also for all the people who use our oceans and coasts.

The waters of Monterey Bay in my home District have been designated by the Federal Government as a national marine sanctuary. It is the home to sea otters, sea lions and harbor seals and serves as a migratory route for the majestic humpback and blue whales. These animals are important for economic resources because people visit the coastline to see watchable wildlife. They go to see the sea birds, the sea lions, the whales and so on.

Likewise, the people travel to see the orcas in the waters off the Puget Sound in Washington or the whales off the gulf of Maine or the manatees along the coast of Florida, and we all know as Members from those Districts we do everything we can to protect those.

Currently, the Marine Mammal Protection Act language aims to protect these animals from being harassed, being injured and even from being killed, but the bill drastically weakens this protection and would allow an increasing number of harmful interaction, such as oil and gas exploration, high intensity sonar testing, and such increase in harassment and harm to marine mammals would go largely unchecked by wildlife agencies and left unmonitored and unmitigated.

Struggling sea otters are currently dying at record levels in the State of California. We do not know the exact cause, but we are going to be looking for that and hopefully trying to remedy it.

This bill does not help us with those remedies. We ought to take pride in the fact that the military has led in a lot of our environmental areas. The navy has been the first and most remarkable agency at recycling at sea, of taking all their garbage on ship and treating that. The navy painted their ships with safe paint. So the military has been a good environmental steward. There is no need to change that position with the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the public service and personal commitment of Nancy Lukenbill to the Monterey County government of the State of California. She joined the Monterey County workforce on October 6, 1969 as staff clerk in the Office of the Monterey County Clerk where she began a career of service that lasted 34 years. She has provided the County with dedicated and reliable work, characteristics in line with the quality of her person. Her poise and helpfulness moved her quickly up the ranks and she became the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors of Monterey County in January of 1976, a position she has held until her recent retirement.

Nancy's attention to detail and extraordinary intelligence make her a treasure trove of Monterey County stories over the last 34 years. She starred in my County Supervisor TV commercial, displaying her on-camera hair-dos that attest to her stylish and tremendous personality. Her office was a place of comfort for Supervisors and county employees, and never letting her personal politics intrude, Nancy's discretion around politicians made her stand out as the resource for impartial information. She was the pulse, the heartbeat of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors because supervisors would come and go, including yours truly, but for 27 years, Nancy was the rock. She was the go-to person if you needed something done. Everybody knows she makes the County function, and the County has been fortunate to have her for so long.

Instrumental in bringing the 21st Century and the Internet to the Board's office, Nancy constantly appealed to her wholehearted conviction that local citizens have the untouchable right to access the business of their County electeds. However, with all of the technological advancement, she never lost touch with the County scribe's necessary skills from when she first signed up for the job. She always took shorthand notes of County meetings despite the presence of videotapes and tape-recorders. This makes her one for the ages.

The County has enjoyed her loyalty and her impeccable work for almost 34 years, and she will be sorely missed. On behalf of this House, I want to commend Nancy Lukenbill on her commitment to the people of Monterey County

and her commitment to public's right to access their government. Monterey County is a far better government because of her service. I join all the Supervisors she served under in wishing her husband Larry, her son Lance and her grandchildren a great new life together and thanking her for making the job of Clerk of the Board an exemplary one.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Ralph W. Thompson III for his ongoing contributions to the Monterey Peninsula in my Central California district. On May 19th, 2003, the Monterey County Bar Association will honor Mr. Thompson with the Chief Justice Phil Gibson award. The award is named in honor of the late California Supreme Court Chief Justice and Carmel neighbor of my parents, Phil Gibson. Chief Justice Gibson served from 1939 to 1964 and was know for his comprehensive reorganization of the California court system and for his lonely stance against the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII. The award recognizes service in the legal profession that follows in the tradition of integrity and innovation set by Chief Justice Gibson.

Mr. Thompson has practiced law in Monterey, California, for many years. He is a graduate of Loma Linda University and California Western School of Law. He also holds a California teaching credential. His professional career has included stints with the U.S. Treasury Department, the Monterey County District Attorney's Office, and various teaching positions with Monterey Peninsula College, Golden Gate University, and the University of California. But the bedrock of Mr. Thompson's career has been his stellar legal practice helping the people of Monterey County.

Mr. Thompson enjoys the very highest reputation amongst his peers. He is known for his high ethical standards, fair client representation, and universal courtesy. He is also an innovator in his field, having founded one of the leading mediation and arbitration practices in Central California. He has served in numerous professional leadership positions, including president of the Monterey County Trial Lawyers Association, the Monterey County Bar Association, and a member of the Consumer Attorneys of California Board of Governors.

Beyond the professional achievements, Mr. Thompson has been a leader in the community. He has served in leadership roles with Legal Services for Seniors, the American Cancer Society of Monterey, the Monterey Bay Center for the Arts, Rotary, and the Pacific Grove Unified School District. The totality of this service, both professional and public, warrants the recognition of the Gibson award as well as this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, which honors Asian Pacific Americans throughout our history.

From the early reaches of our Nation's history to the present day, Asian Pacific Americans have played a crucial role in the development of the United States. Asian Pacific Americans have contributed to explorations of places as far away as the depths of outer space, and places as near as the inner vessels of the human body. They have served as generals in our military, builders of our great transcontinental railroads, and athletes without peer.

But I rise today not to merely tout the accomplishments of this storied group of people, but to speak specifically about the uplifting account of two amazing families, one Asian Pacific American and one Caucasian. I want to relate to my colleagues the amazing and unique friendship that developed between the Tanimura and Antle families over impossible odds.

George Tanimura, a second-generation Japanese American, grew up spending his weekends working on his father's lettuce farm in Castroville, California, in my congressional district. Both of George's parents died before he completed high school, so George, the oldest of 12 siblings, along with his brother Charlie, managed the farm. The family business was kept afloat during the troubled times of the Great Depression, only to be devastated by the forced internment of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor. While brothers Charlie and John joined the U.S. Army, George and his other siblings were inhumanely forced into internment camps. By the time the Tanimura family was released after World War II, it had lost all its previous land holdings. Slowly and painstakingly the Tanimuras regained their agricultural footing, farming onions and lettuce on 20 acres of land.

The Antle family migrated west from the Oklahoma Dust Bowl in the late 1800s, arriving in Salinas, California, to find work in the iceberg lettuce industry. Bud Antle joined his father Lester as a lettuce packer in Salinas. In 1942, after years of hard work, Bud and Lester created their own lettuce-packing company, Bud Antle, Inc. The company grew quite rapidly, starting with 60 workers and quickly increasing to 300 workers.

The Tanimura family soon began growing lettuce only for Bud Antle, Inc. It was a natural marriage of lettuce growers and lettuce packers, and the Tanimuras and Antles soon became close friends. The Antles treated the Tanimura family as equals in a time rife with discrimination. In turn, Bud's son Bob worked closely with the Tanimura family and quickly learned the industry. In 1982, after years of trusted friendship, these two families formed Tanimura & Antle, one of the largest lettuce producers in the world.

The story of the Tanimuras and the Antles is one of uplift beyond all possible odds. Both families built their companies from the ground up, and with an understanding of and appreciation for human rights when such a concept was in short supply. I commend these two families for serving as a heartening reminder of all that is good about America. I can think of no finer time to recognize their mutual achievements than during this special Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Mr. Speaker, this week our Nation will celebrate the 20th Anniversary of America's leading industry--the industry you all use-- but never consider as an industry. It's called the Travel and Tourism Industry.

The Travel and Tourism Industry is present in every Congressional district in the US. It's our restaurants, our museums, rental car companies, hotels, sports arenas, ski shops, and beaches.

Travel and Tourism brings in over $1.5 billion to the economy of my district alone. There are 18 million Americans employed directly or indirectly by the tourism industry, and it is one of the few industries that creates a multi-billion dollar trade surplus.

As Co-chair of the Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus, I've worked with my colleague Mark Foley of Florida to educate this body on the importance of tourism to this Nation's economy and to our districts' local economies.

The Travel and Tourism Industry has suffered many setbacks over the last two years including 9/11, the War in Iraq, SARS, and our struggling economy. All this hurt an industry which requires people to have confidence. So I encourage all Americans to take this opportunity to get out there. Take a trip, go to dinner, or visit a park or museum. Enjoy this great country of ours and share it with others.

Let's honor the 20th Anniversary of National Travel and Tourism Week.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 870, a bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to extend the availability of funds to carry out the fruit and vegetable pilot program.

We hear a great deal about the importance of teaching our children good nutrition as well as about the epidemic of obesity and poor eating habits among American children. This morning's USA Today even had several articles about nutrition and obesity throughout the paper, this is a very important issue and one that is near and dear to my heart and that of my district. However, for all the press, talk and concern, we do far too little about it. THe first year of the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program is nearing its end, but remaining funds need to be used to extend the program until the end of the 2003-2004 school year so we can get the necessary information as we begin to debate child nutrition reauthorization later this year.

The 2002 Farm Bill authorized funds for a pilot project to test the feasibility of offering free fruits and vegetables to students during the school day. One hundred six schools implemented the project this school year in Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan and the Zuni Tribal Organization in New Mexico. The program sought to determine the best practices for increasing both fresh and dried fruit and fresh vegetable consumption in elementary and secondary schools. Schools reported tremendous successes and the final USDA report on the project concluded that 80 percent of students in participating schools were very interested in the program, and 100 of the schools participating believe that it is feasible to continue the pilot if funding is made available. I feel it is incumbent upon Congress to continue this pilot. Consumption of fruits and vegetables increased, while anecdotal evidence showed a decline in soda sales from vending machines in schools. Making existing funding available for pilot schools to use this upcoming school year will extend the success of the project.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge your support for this legislation today, and ask you again to support additional consumption opportunities as we debate child nutrition reauthorization in the upcoming Session. We must do more to encourage their purchase in our schools and to promote their consumption on an individual level.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 160, a bill to remove the economic sanctions against Iraq. For too long, the sanctions have drained the Iraqi society and its vital economic energy. In their wake, we find a country whose standard of living has declined significantly, its middle class has all but disappeared, and its infrastructure is in total disrepair.

Now that dictator Saddam Hussein, the inspiration for the sanctions regime, has been defeated, there no longer remains any justification for its continuation. I hope that the lifting of the sanctions will lead to a prosperous Iraq economy which will benefit the people and bring them back into the world of free and open commerce.

I think that this bill, which signals the commitment of the United States to reconstruction in Iraq, is a good step in the right direction. I trust that the United Nations will respond positively to this initiative.

The removal of sanctions, however, will not alone bring prosperity to Iraq. Before there is prosperity, there must first be security. It is my firm belief that the United States, by intervening militarily in Iraq, has assumed the responsibility for the safety and the security of the Iraqi people.

I applaud the gentleman from Michigan's initiative on the economic front. We must also pay attention to the security front.

As we continue to assist Iraq in its reconstruction, I think we need to establish here in Congress an institutional framework for postconflict resolutions and for postconflict operations. Part of that institutional framework would be to strengthen the U.S. Government's ability to respond to authority gaps left by failed or otherwise collapsed states.

I propose to draft legislation for the creation of an integrated security component in NATO, which would train and equip special units which would provide for the security of the civilian population serving as an interim police force.

I urge my colleagues today to support H. Con. Res. 160, and I look forward to working with the sponsor and other interested Members of Congress to develop this postconflict legislation to close the security and justice gaps so that Iraq and countries emerging from conflict can achieve the economic prosperity to which they, and we, aspire.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Paula J. Peterson, the Monterey District Park Superintendent for California Department of Parks and Recreation. She is retiring after more than 30 years of dedicated service with the State of California, and in recognition thereof, she is deserving of special public recognition and the highest commendations.

Paula attended Chico State University where she received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Recreation Administration in 1971, and a Master of Arts degree with distinction in Recreation Administration in 1977. She then embarked on her distinguished state service career with the California Department of Parks and Recreation in 1972 as the first full-time, female civil service State Park Ranger in the history of California at Big Basin State Park in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Based on her experience and performance, she continued to receive be promoted through ranks, ultimately attaining her current position.

Paula Peterson has played a lead role in interpreting and protecting the cultural and natural resources of California. Her outstanding leadership and organizational skills have touched the entire state park system.

Paula was responsible for the first publication of the ``Defensive Tactics for Instructors'' handbook in 1980. She coordinated the first Hispanic Heritage Week observance in Monterey in 1990. She received the 1996 Monterey District Safety Award after leading and maintaining an excellent District safety program. She was the recipient of the Department's 1999 Olmsted Award for Leadership and Vision based on her ability to motivate and inspire others to positive action; and her long-term commitment to park ideals and values.

Paula blazed the trail for other woman in the peace officer ranks within the State Park System and has been a positive and strong role model. She is commended for her extraordinary commitment and dedication and represents the highest ideals of the State Park professional.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of their careers, few people are fortunate to be associated with an individual whose personal and professional accomplishments have been an inspiration to so many. Because of Paula Peterson, I can count myself among the fortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to express my grief for the deaths of Guillermo Gaviria Correa and Gilberto Echeverri Mejia. For their deaths, and the loss of eight other hostages that died with them, I wish to give my sincerest condolences to their families, to the people of Antioquia whom they served, and to the whole of Colombia.

Dr. Gaviria Correa, the governor of the Department of Antioquia, and his Peace Commissioner, Gilberto Echeverri Mejia, were killed by the guerilla group known as the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) on May 5, 2003. They had been held captive by the FARC since April 21, 2003, the day their group was kidnapped while marching for peace to the town of Caicedo.

Guillermo Gaviria was a leader in the non-violent movement in Colombia. At a time when Colombia is being ripped apart by violence, when many Colombians are motivated by rough justice and revenge, he proposed a different approach--non-violence. Inspired by basic Christian teachings, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Guillermo Gaviria set out to change the way Colombians address the problems that face them.

He did not just seek to change the nature of the debate, he put his ideas into action. As governor of Antioquia he established the ``Peace Congruent Plan'', a plan which would: Face the causes of the armed conflict and the social violence through solutions reached among representatives from different communities ideologies and beliefs, and build social culture and a government based on participation.

Shortly after becoming governor, Guillermo Gaviria initiated a series of popular marches and demonstrations against the war. Each carried a motto, such as ``Break the silence, the mothers, wives and daughters of the kidnapped are doing it''. He organized ``solidarity caravans'' and peace demonstrations in every corner of the Department.

He challenged the FARC to stop attacking civilians. He challenged the paramilitaries to stop looting. He challenged both to leave civilians out of the conflict--``we won't be part of the war, but part of the peace.'' At every point, he remained faithful to his non-violent and religious creed: ``Let us hate the sin but not the sinner''. Governor Gaviria was a light to his people.

It is a tragedy for all of us that this light was extinguished. He was a unique figure in Colombia, a figure of hope, a figure of a brighter future. Colombia desperately needs people with great vision and great courage. Guillermo Gaviria was one of these people. How many more like him are there? How many have been killed in the incessant violence that plagues this beautiful country?

It pains me in particular to see the passing of Guillermo Gaviria and Gilberto Echeverri, two great hopes of the Colombian people. Antioquia is my second home. I lived and worked there as a Peace Corps Volunteer. The course my life has taken is closely tied to my time in and around the barrios of Medellin. I saw first-hand the extent of the challenges that the people of Medellin have to face. I also saw how industrious and dedicated they are. Guillermo Gaviria was a tribute to this ``paisa'' spirit. Antioquia has lost a dear native son.

In the wake of this tragedy, all Colombians must dedicate themselves to honoring the memory and vision of Guillermo Gaviria and Gilberto Echeverri. President Uribe, himself a ``paisa'' and former governor of Antioquia, can take the lead by continuing support for Governor Gavina's vision of a non-violent Colombia.

I look forward to working with the President in promoting this vision, one that Colombians, after so many years of violence, desperately deserve. Promoting and advancing non-violence is the best way to honor the memory of Governor Gaviria, and the best way to bring peace to a terribly troubled nation.