Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I just learned yesterday that a bill was hastily prepared 2 nights ago by the staff of the Committee on Ways and Means and without the opportunity to seek comments and testimonies, even to appear before the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, the bill was marked up in full committee this morning. The bill passed today by a vote of 23 to 17, rejecting my good friend's, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), amendment that would have literally saved the U.S. tuna industry. I wanted to thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) for his eloquent remarks, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) for his support, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for his support. I especially want to note, the precious vote that also was received by my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for his support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the great spirit will enlighten my colleagues of the House, especially if this bill, H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Preference Act, if this bill passes by not excluding tuna as a duty-free import from Andean countries, it will essentially mean the loss of some 10,000 jobs to tuna cannery workers in California, Puerto Rico, and my district of American Samoa. Mr. Speaker, current trade policy with regards to canned tuna has provided significant benefits to certain Latin American countries, while at the present time has maintained an industrial tuna processing base in the United States. Since the enactment of the Andean Trade Preference Act, a number of tuna factories in the Andean region has increased to 229 percent, production capacity is up to 400 percent, direct employment is up to 257 percent, and U.S. exports have grown from about $15 million to $100 million annually. In addition, the U.S. tuna industry has invested over $20 million in new facilities and vessels. However, I must repeat, extending this agreement by providing duty-free treatment to canned tuna from Andean countries, especially Ecuador, will, in my opinion, destroy the U.S. tuna industry. I have heard the argument that Congress has included canned tuna both in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and NAFTA, and some have questioned why we are not doing the same for Ecuador and the Andean region. Well, the answer simply is that no other region, especially a country like Ecuador, once we allow duty-free canned tuna to be imported from the Andean countries, has the potential of literally wiping out or destroying the U.S. tuna industry. For example, Mr. Speaker, Ecuador alone has the production capacity now equivalent to 2,250 tons per day production. Using a 5-day workweek, this equates to a production capacity equivalent to 48.6 million cases of canned tuna per year. And using a 6-day workweek, Ecuador's production capacity is equivalent to 58.5 million cases of canned tuna per year. Now, the interesting thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is that U.S. consumption is only 45.3 million cases of canned tuna per year. What does that mean? Ecuador could produce enough canned tuna to flood the entire U.S. market. And brand names like Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee, brands that Americans have come to trust, would be eliminated from grocery stores. It is even questionable whether tuna from Ecuador is dolphin-safe. So serious are these issues that Mexico levied a 24 percent duty last year on canned tuna exported from Ecuador. Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that Ecuador levies a 20 percent duty on imported canned tuna from the United States. Now, I am all for free trade, Mr. Speaker; but I am also for fair trade. The fact of the matter is, more than 10,000 jobs in my district, Puerto Rico, and California will be lost if H.R. 3009 passes in its current form. Why? Because the minimum wage rate for workers in Ecuador is 69 cents per hour. This is why a company like StarKist Tuna Company and its parent company, the Heinz Corporation, have been pressuring Congress to allow StarKist to hire fish cleaners in Ecuador and pay Ecuadorans 69 cents per hour. Would this be considered cheap labor or slave labor, I ask, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, the Heinz Corporation, the parent company of StarKist Seafood Company, has lobbied for the inclusion of canned tuna as a duty-free import in the Andean Trade Agreement. But it must be made clear that the StarKist Seafood Company is also the only U.S. tuna processor that supports duty-free treatment for canned tuna exported from Ecuador. Put another way: StarKist is the only tuna processor willing, in my opinion, to sell out American workers in exchange for wages of 69 cents per hour to pay Latin American workers. As my colleagues may know, Mr. Speaker, American Samoa is the home of the largest tuna cannery facility in the world. One cannery facility is operated by StarKist, a subsidiary of Heinz Corporation; and the other facility is owned by the Chicken of the Sea, a company out of California. Today, these two companies employ more than 5,150 employees, or 74 percent of American Samoa's workforce. Approximately 80 percent of the private sector jobs in my district, Mr. Speaker, are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon the tuna fishing and processing industry. As Malcolm Stockwell, former vice president of StarKist Seafood Company recently testified, and I quote, ``A decrease in production or departure of one or both of the existing processors in American Samoa could devastate the local economy, resulting in massive unemployment and insurmountable financial problems.'' The chief executive officer of Chicken of the Sea has already noted that if the Andean Trade Agreement includes duty-free treatment for canned tuna, its operations in American Samoa would be forced to downsize by as much as 50 percent. StarKist has testified that if Ecuador is given the same trade preference as a U.S. territory, like my district, its production would almost immediately shift to low labor- cost areas. Now, let us talk about labor-cost areas. In fact, I just want to share another bit of information with my colleagues this afternoon. Right now, under the Andean Trade Agreement, fish loins are exported duty free to the United States; and companies like Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, and StarKist buy these fish loins from Andean countries, like Ecuador. But if canned tuna can also be imported duty free, what is to prevent these U.S. tuna companies from laying off 800 workers from Puerto Rico and closing their facilities in my district, as well as in California, and going and operating out of Ecuador and other Andean countries? Mr. Speaker, my people want to work. They do not want handouts. I do not know if my colleagues are aware of the fact that for the 40 years since the welfare program was implemented here in the United States, my leaders and our people have never wanted to have welfare applied to our territory. Why? Because we want to work. We do not want handouts. We want to work for what we earn. And if this happens, if this bill passes, with the destruction of the U.S. tuna industry, am I going to have to now come before the Congress and ask for subsidies in support of the 10,000 displaced workers as a result of this bad and poor legislation? Mr. Speaker, I specifically asked StarKist and H.J. Heinz executives what financial loss StarKist would incur if canned tuna was not included in the Andean Trade Agreement, and I was told StarKist would suffer no economic loss. In other words, StarKist is only in it for the lower labor cost among the Andean countries. I also wish to note that the minimum wage rate in my own district, in American Samoa, for a fish cleaner, is only $3.20 per hour, which is below the national minimum wage standard and which reminds me of these words offered by a good Senator from Idaho by the name of Senator Borah during the course of the Fair Labor Standards debate right here in this Chamber in 1937. Senator Borah said, and I quote, ``I look upon a minimum wage such as will afford a decent living as a part of a sound national policy. I would abolish a wage scale below a decent standard of living, just as I would abolish slavery. If it disturbed business, it would be the price we must pay for good citizens. I take the position that a man who employs another must pay him sufficient to enable the one employee to live.'' And Senator Pepper, from Florida, asked, ``Well, what if he cannot affords to pay it?'' Senator Bora responded, and I quote, ``If he cannot afford to pay it, then he should close up the business. No business has a right to coin the very lifeblood of workmen and women into dollars and cents. Every man or woman who is worthy of hire is entitled to sufficient compensation to maintain a decent standard of living. I insist that American industry can pay its employees enough to enable them to live.'' Quite frankly, I agree with Senator Borah, Mr. Speaker. StarKist, like any other industry, should pay its employees, whether in Ecuador or American Samoa, enough to live. StarKist should not be about the business of lobbying to suppress wages. Mr. Speaker, I want to share a bit of history also with the Members. At a time when the national debate right here in this Chamber was about whether or not we should have a minimum standard wage rate, and this debate took place in 1937, the Members representing our fellow Americans from the South did not like the idea that if business wanted to find cheap labor they would go to the South. Industries up in the North always took advantage of the fact that they could find cheap labor if they would go to the South. Well, when this minimum wage was finally passed in the Congress, and after a hot debate in this Chamber, guess what, there was no economic chaos. There was tremendous growth that came along with it, with the increase of wages of the working men and women in our country. When all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, tuna processing is the only industry holding together the economy of my district, the Territory of American Samoa. American Samoa's only advantage in the global marketplace is duty-free access to the U.S. market. And what price has American Samoa paid to have the U.S. trade privileges? As a territory of the United States, our men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice in military service to our Nation. American Samoa pledges its allegiance without question to this great Nation of ours. Ecuador and other Andean countries do not. American Samoa has been the backbone of StarKist's sales. Ecuador has not. In the past 25 years, StarKist and Chicken of the Sea have exported more than $6 billion worth of tuna from American Samoa to the United States. Thanks to American Samoa, StarKist is the number one brand of tuna in the world today. They call him ``Charlie, the Tuna.'' Well, I do not know about Charlie the Tuna these days with the way they are operating. Mr. Speaker, why is it that StarKist and its parent company, Heinz Corporation, are willing to allow tuna imports to coming into the U.S. duty free from other Andean countries, a position opposed by two other major U.S. tuna companies and even the entire U.S. tuna-fishing fleet? As StarKist testified at a recent Senate hearing, and I quote, ``StarKist will continue to can and sell tuna. However, the history of tuna canning in the United States and Puerto Rico has demonstrated quite clearly that StarKist will also take whatever action is required to remain cost competitive.'' Is this why StarKist and Heinz Corporation support a trade agreement that the entire U.S. industry opposes? Will StarKist and Heinz Corporation sell out America at a time when our Nation is in recession and our country is under attack? Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Members of this esteemed body will do what is right for America. I trust that in these difficult times Members of this body will protect U.S. industries and U.S. workers, particularly the tuna industry. I trust that we will stand united together to exclude canned tuna from this proposed bill, H.R. 3009. I would like to share with my colleagues some additional information that was submitted to me by my good friend, the CEO of the Bumble Bee Seafood Company out of California, in San Diego. Another note to my colleagues: The Andean Pact nations do not comply with many of the environmental regulations supported by the United States. For instance, one of the Andean Pact countries, Bolivia, does not adhere to the dolphin-safe position of the U.S. market. In addition, many of the Andean Pact countries refuse to take enforcement actions against them. The bill also penalizes the U.S. tuna industry for being American. Not only do we adhere to minimum wage standards and provide Social Security and medical insurance for our workers, we also enforce U.S. regulations regarding the environment and trade. The letter says, ``I support the U.S. initiative to battle the drug trade.'' We all know that, Mr. Speaker. But I think what is most important here is that I am making an appeal to StarKist Tuna Company and its parent company, Heinz Food Corporation, to join with the rest of the U.S. tuna industry to make the U.S. tuna industry a viable and credible industry in our country for the sake of some 10,000 workers who are about to lose their jobs if the Congress does the bidding of Heinz Corporation. I think this is most unfair, Mr. Speaker; and I will continue working on this issue in the coming weeks and months. I sincerely hope that there will be a reasonable and an equitable solution to this problem that we now have. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the full letter from the CEO of the Bumble Bee Seafood Company, to which I earlier referred. Bumble Bee Seafoods, San Diego, CA, August 22, 2001. Hon. Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, Rayburn Bldg., Washington DC. Dear Congressman Faleomavaega: I am writing on behalf of Bumble Bee Seafoods, the number one brand of canned seafood and number two brand of canned tuna in the United States. Bumble Bee, the only American company with a financial investment in the Andean tuna industry (in Ecuador), along with Chicken of the Sea and U.S. tuna boat owners, strongly oppose the granting of NAFTA status for canned tuna products to members of the Andean Pact as contemplated in S525. The U.S. tuna industry has been an essential part of the U.S. economy for close to 100 years. We currently provide more than 10,000 jobs in California, Puerto Rico and American Samoa. In addition, we support an even greater number of jobs in related industries and we underpin the existence of the U.S. high seas tuna fishing fleet that operates throughout the Pacific Ocean. From a consumer standpoint, canned tuna represents the third fastest moving product category in the entire U.S. grocery business and provides a high quality, affordable source of protein for 96% of U.S. families. As written, S.525 would significantly damage the U.S. tuna industry, threatening jobs in both the processing and fishing sector. More importantly, it would place our business into foreign hands and benefit countries that do not abide by the same environmental, labor and safety standards imposed on U.S. manufacturers. S525 penalizes the U.S. tuna industry for being American and does an injustice to the U.S. consumer. Let me give you some key facts: The Andean Pact nations do not comply with many of the environmental regulations supported by the United States. For instance, one of the Andean Pact countries, Bolivia, does not adhere to the dolphin safe position of the U.S. market. In addition, many of the Andean Pact countries refuse to take enforcement action against their flag vessels which have been found to be in violation of IATTC, (Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission) fishing regulations. These actions--or lack of action--threaten the conservation of the tuna stocks. U.S. Trade policy already provides beneficial access to the U.S. market for the Andean Pact countries through the sale of frozen tuna `loins'. The current import duty on tuna loins into the United states is less than one half of one percent, which is virtually zero. This trade policy has enabled the Andean Pact tuna industry to explode over the last ten years and supports our position that tuna should continue to be exempted from the Andean Trade Preference Agreement. Andean Pact Tuna Industry Growth--1990 to 2000 Number of tuna factories has increased from 7 to 23, up 229%; production capacity has increased from 450 to 2,250 tons per day, up 400%; direct employment has increased from about 3,500 to 12,500, up 257%; exports to the U.S. have grown from about $15 million to more than $100 million, up 567%; European exports are up even more significantly; the Andean fishing fleet has grown to the largest in the ETP and now represents more than 35% of the ETP catch. To put this capacity in perspective, there is enough production capacity in the Andean Pact countries to supply the entire U.S. market. This leads to the real risk of product dumping which will damage the domestic tuna industry. This Andean Pact product is manufactured utilizing labor costs of less than $0.70/hour and a cost structure that is subsidized by their various governments. This will force the closure of U.S. tuna processing facilities and will decimate the economies of western Puerto Rico and American Samoa where 85% of public sector employment is based on the U.S. tuna industry. The risk of product dumping has already been experienced by our NAFTA trading partner to the south, Mexico. Mexico recently imposed a 23% import duty on canned tuna products from one of the Andean Pact nations, Ecuador, due to product dumping. S. 525 is not reciprocal. The bill provides NAFTA duty benefits to the United States market while the Andean Pact countries continue to enforce trade barriers against the U.S. tuna industry by imposing import duties on U.S. produced canned tuna as follows: Ecuador, 20%; Colombia, 20%; Peru, 12%; Bolivia, 10%; Venezuela (a possible addition to the Andean Pact), 20%. This non-reciprocity also extends to other U.S. produced products that are essential to the processing of canned tuna such as empty cans, packaging and ingredients which are subject to import duties by the Andean Pact countries. The bill penalizes the U.S. tuna industry for being American. Not only do we adhere to minimum wage standards and provide social security and medical insurance for our workers, we also enforce U.S. regulations regarding the environment and trade. Providing NAFTA trade benefits to the Andean Pact countries awards them for not complying with these policies. S. 525 ignores the obligation we have to the U.S. consumer since the quality and food safety standards of many of the tuna processing facilities in the Andean Pact countries are not up to the same standards utilized by U.S. canned tuna processors. To support the U.S. initiative to battle the drug trade, Bumble Bee has already established tuna loining operations in one of the Andean Pact countries. Ecuador. We are the only American company that has invested in Andean Pact region-- close to $25 million--and we currently provide more than 2,000 jobs. Yet despite our presence in Ecuador, Bumble Bee does not support S. 525 due to the negative ramifications we have highlighted in this letter. In summary, S. 525 does not recognize the current tariff benefits on tuna products enjoyed by Andean Pact countries, ignores the tariff recently imposed on tuna products from Ecuador by our primary NAFTA trading partner, will lead to ``dumping'' that will in turn cause significant harm to the U.S. tuna industry and has significant potential to have negative consequences on the American consumer. We therefore urge you to exempt canned tuna products from the scope of trade benefits offered by S. 525. There is no justification for granting such trade benefits at this time. I would like to meet with you to discuss this matter in more detail. I can be reached by phone, e-mail or mail and am happy to travel to Washington to provide any other facts or information that can help you make an informed and responsible decision on this critical piece of trade legislation. Thank you in advance for your support. Very truly yours, Christopher Lischewski, President, Chief Operating Officer, Bumble Bee Seafoods.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1583, which recognizes our former colleague from Indiana, the Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, by naming in his honor a Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in New Albany, Indiana. Mr. Speaker, ever since I was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1989, I have served as a member of the House Foreign Affairs/International Relations Committee. In that capacity, it was my distinct pleasure and honor to serve with and get to know our distinguished colleague, the former Chairman and Ranking Democratic Member, Lee Hamilton. Over the decade that I worked with Mr. Hamilton, he was always looked to by Committee members for bipartisan leadership, wise insight and steady guidance in crafting America's foreign policy. Mr. Hamilton's voice was one marked by moderation, thoughtfulness and balance, and he had the vision to look beyond momentary international crises to seek and preserve the long-term interests of our Nation. In a distinguished career in Congress which spanned 34 years, Mr. Hamilton, in particular, provided exceptional leadership in efforts to promote democratic reforms in the former Soviet Union and Soviet bloc nations, as well his strong support of balanced peace initiatives in the Middle East. Mr. Hamilton was also a major instrumental force in revamping our Nation's foreign aid and export policies, while championing the expansion of overseas markets for U.S. products. Mr. Speaker, all of us in Congress greatly miss our former colleague, Mr. Hamilton. We note, however, that he continues his tremendous contributions to our Nation's foreign policy by serving as the Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the respected international and world affairs think tank. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to adopt the legislation before us, which fittingly honors and pays tribute to a great American and one of the most respected leaders in our Nation's capital.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to commend our majority leader, and especially the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our minority whip, for his sponsorship of this important resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 227, now before this body for consideration. Mr. Speaker, I realize it is 1:30 in the morning, but this is certainly a very important issue that must be addressed by this institution. Certainly not taking anything away from the thrust of all the energies and the efforts that are made, not only by our President but by the Congress, concerning the tragedy that has just taken place in the past couple of days, but I must say that the United States Congress must express its firm opposition and strong condemnation of those in our country who advocate hatred, bigotry and racism against our fellow Americans whose cultural roots are from the Middle East, from South Asia, and especially our fellow American citizens who are members of the Muslim faith. In my desire in echoing the sentiments of my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), I, too, would like to express my sincere appreciation and commendation to you, our minority whip, for your leadership and certainly the outstanding service that you have rendered to our Nation. I, too, will sorely miss not only your handsome face, but just being here as a fellow colleague and a Member of this institution. I will always remember the gentleman as a true warrior, who has always advocated truly what freedom really means, the principles of human rights, and certainly the rights of working men and women all over America and their struggles and efforts in making ends meet and providing for their children. I thank the gentleman. I, too, would like to associate myself with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), as chairman of our Asia-Pacific Congressional Caucus expressing some concerns about the hate crimes that are now evident throughout some of our communities in America simply because our fellow Americans are Arab-Americans. We have taken also an understanding of what happened after the Oklahoma City bombing, and what was the first reaction by our local and Federal officials? It seems to me that all Arab-Americans were profiled. This is certainly not in good standing as far as I am concerned as far as what America should really be about. I thank my good friends, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra). I certainly appreciate the comments made earlier about this very important issue. In my youth, Mr. Speaker, I lived among people from various different cultural backgrounds. This, of course, was in the State of Hawaii, where you get to appreciate what it means to be going or living alongside or being with a student who happens to be of Filipino ancestry or Japanese or Chinese or Korean or Pacific Islander, or even those who are African-Americans. But I am always reminded, and seemingly also, Mr. Speaker, in the past couple of days, that a great many of number of our colleagues of the House have always used the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, as a reminder, and in a very similar fashion, of what happened in the past couple of days. Mr. Speaker, there is a very strong distinction that I want to share with my colleagues about what happened to Americans who happened to be of Japanese ancestry. The fact that it was our government that took some 100,000 Japanese Americans, born and raised here in this Nation, confiscated their properties, took everything that belonged to them, took them to what was known as ``relocation'' camps, I call them concentration camps, and, yet, despite all the bigotry that was heaped upon the Japanese in World War II, there were some 6,700 Nisei soldiers who volunteered from California, from all over the country, and especially from the territory of Hawaii, that organized two combat units known as the 100th Battalion of the 442nd infantry combat groups, and because of the racism President Roosevelt felt, as it was also with General Marshall, that maybe in their spirit of really wanting to defend the enemies of our Nation, sent them to Europe, which they did, they went to Europe. I want to share with my colleagues the results of their value and the courage that they displayed in defending this flag, despite the fact that their parents and their brothers and sisters were being placed in concentration camps throughout America. Mr. Speaker, 18,000 individual declarations were given to these men who died and fought for America, the Japanese Americans. Over 9,000 Purple Hearts were awarded. The 100th Battalion was sometimes known as the Purple Heart Battalion. Mr. Speaker, 314 percent, the casualty percentage of those Japanese Americans who fought so bravely on behalf of our Nation. Some 562 Silver Stars, medals, were honored. Ironically, only one Medal of Honor was given to these Japanese Americans and, thank God, in 1996 when Senator Cochran introduced a bill to review the whole efforts of why only one Medal of Honor was given, despite the fact that some 52 Distinguished Service Crosses were given to these Japanese Americans. But in view of the recent review that was made, and for which I am very grateful, the record has now been changed to 21 Medals of Honor were given to these Japanese Americans, including the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. I wanted to share this with my colleagues because I do not know if I would have been able to do what they did in World War II. Put yourself in their shoes. After spilling your guts out and being wounded and all that you have done for your country and you had to come back from Europe looking for your parents and brothers and sisters in a concentration camp. I do not know if I could do that, Mr. Speaker. But this is what these men did to defend the honor of our Nation. I say this with sincerity, because I want my colleagues to know that we are now at the shadow of getting the same type of attitude, the same type of concern of hatred and bigotry towards people who are totally innocent from what has happened. So just because it was the Japanese military that bombed Pearl Harbor, I sincerely hope, and I am sure that my colleagues will agree with me, that this should not be the case given to our fellow Arab Americans throughout this country. Yes, we should say never again that this should ever happen to our country, but always it seems that this happens all the time. I wish I did not have to be known as a Pacific American or a Chinese American or an African American. I never hear anybody saying I am a French American or British American or German American. Why is it that we have to do these labels? Is it not ironic that this is not French America, this is not British America, this is not Russian America, this is the United States of America. We are a united America. The strength of our Nation, Mr. Speaker, lies in its diversity, and I think this is what makes us so unique. This is what makes this country so powerful and so much a great example before all of the nations of the world, what truly freedom means and what democracy is all about.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, like our President, we as Members of this great institution all took a solemn oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both here and abroad. As copartners in this endeavor, our adoption of this resolution will join us with the Senate in sending an unequivocal message that the United States Congress firmly supports our President in taking all necessary and appropriate action, including the use of military force, to pursue and punish the persons and organizations who treacherously murdered thousands of innocent Americans this past Tuesday. Mr. Speaker I have seen my share of blood spilled in Vietnam, and it is always a most difficult decision for me to support this authorization to send our men and women in military uniform into harm's way. Given the terrible heinous attacks on thousands of innocent Americans this past Tuesday, I have no reservations that the President must be given this authorization to wage war against international terrorism. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that the President is successful in this endeavor, for I fear that the next chapter of terrorism will be even more horrific and will likely involve weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons and biological and chemical agents, which long have been available in the international black market. For the protection of our Nation and our way of life, I urge my colleagues to support the President by adoption of this resolution.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my personal welcome to Prime Minister Howard of Australia. I am sure the good people of Australia share with us this moment of tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend President Bush for his eloquent statement last night, before our Nation and the world, in the aftermath of the vicious terrorist attack that took the lives of thousands of innocent American citizens. Today I rise in absolute support of President Bush, the leaders of our Nation, and our national resolve to overcome this tragedy. I rise to mourn with those who mourn, to comfort those in need of comfort, and to express my deepest sorrow for the loss of innocent life and many seriously injured from this national tragedy. Mr. Speaker, America is strong, and with tremendous faith in Divine Providence, as President Franklin Roosevelt said and I quote, ``We will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again. With confidence in our Armed Forces, with the unbounded determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God.''

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, at this time of profound sadness and tragedy in our Nation, I rise with my colleagues in strong support of the resolution before us to condemn the treacherous attacks against our Nation and upon the thousands of our fellow citizens. My heart and deepest condolences also go out to all the families whose members are missing loved ones as a result of these despicable acts. For those firemen and law enforcement officers, pilots and stewardess, who have made the ultimate sacrifice and those who continue to risk their lives in order to save others, our Nation stands forever grateful for their services and tremendous sacrifices. Mr. Speaker, our Nation mourns its sons and daughters who have died in this senseless tragedy, and our country must stand more united than ever before. We must support the President in using all means and resources to identify, to pursue, and to punish the persons and organizations responsible for these attacks. Mr. Speaker, a noted expert on counterterrorism, Professor Yonah Alexander of the Potomac Institute, has long advocated that the world's democracies must develop an effective strategy to face this terrible challenge against international terrorism. Professor Alexander notes, and I quote, ``The only light at the end of the tunnel is for a number of nation states and responsible governments to take concerted action against terrorism. Terrorism against one is terrorism against all, regardless of the blood spilled. It is the same red blood. To combat terrorism, no country can deal with this unilaterally without cooperation and support from others.'' Unless a global antiterrorist strategy can be worked out, Professor Alexander concludes that the existence of civilization itself is seriously at risk. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of yesterday's disaster, I want to commend Secretary of State Colin Powell and President Bush in their efforts to call upon all the leaders of the world for a coordinated international response to terrorism. This is no longer a national or a regional issue. This matter should and must require the support of all freedom- loving nations of the world. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I certainly commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his leadership and for his sponsorship of this resolution, House Resolution 233, and I endorse the resolution, and also recognize the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on International Relations. I also acknowledge the support of the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. Madam Speaker, the resolution celebrates the unique bilateral relationship that the United States shares with its other neighbor, Mexico. It also acknowledges the pivotal role that Mexico plays in addressing issues that are of concern to both the United States and Mexico. And finally, the resolution welcomes President Fox to the United States. Since assuming office in December of last year, President Fox has done much to build a new Mexico, a Mexico which tolerates diverse political views, which is accountable to its citizenry; and it is certainly a remarkable effort on the part of his leadership, and the fact that after 70 years, for the first time, a new political leader has come before the voters of Mexico and been elected, someone other than the party that has been presiding over Mexico's politics for the last 70 years. Largely as a result of the efforts of President Fox's administration, Mexico's government now embraces divergent viewpoints, its press corps has become increasingly vigilant and vocal, and Mexican political society has become more vibrant and quite robust. Oftentimes in collaboration with the United States Government, President Fox's administration has also recorded unprecedented victories in the fight against drug cartels and smugglers of illegal immigrants from other countries. President Fox's administration continues to face significant challenges, including tensions in Chiapas, a softening economy, and entrenched corruption in some segments of the government, and accounting for Mexico's past human rights violations. Madam Speaker, I commend President Fox for his outstanding leadership and real sense of commitment to address the social and economic problems currently confronting some 29 million indigenous Indians now living in Mexico. The indigenous Indians of Mexico have suffered tremendous hardships economically and socially, mainly due to negligence and indifference by previous administrations. President Fox is the first among Mexico's top leaders to seriously address the needs of indigenous Indians, especially the crisis that occurred in Chiapas in the Yucatan Peninsula whereby the needs of indigenous Indians of that region of Mexico have not been properly addressed by Mexican authorities. How ironic that during the 1860s when Mexico fought a revolution against French rule, the gentleman who led the revolution against French rule and who later became Mexico's first president after the revolution was an indigenous Indian by the name of Benito Juarez. Over 100 years later, the issues affecting the lives of the indigenous Indians of Mexico have finally been brought to the attention of President Fox. I sincerely commend President Fox for his sensitivity and true sense of compassion in establishing national policy that will allow indigenous Indians to seek opportunities not only for higher education, but better health and better living conditions. Madam Speaker, although these challenges are daunting, I firmly believe President Fox and his administration have the determination, the skill and the knowledge to address these issues successfully. I urge my colleagues to join me in pledging their support to President Fox, his administration, and Mexico's national parliament in their continuing efforts to address these and other issues of mutual concern. Madam Speaker, as indicated earlier by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), President Fox will address a joint session of Congress tomorrow. To President Fox and his delegation I say, ``Bienvenidos a los Estados Unidos,'' welcome to the United States. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1071, a bill to increase authorization for the National Sea Grant College Program. The idea of the Sea Grant College Program was originally suggested by Mr. Athelstan Spilhaus. In a 1964 editorial he wrote, ``Establishment of the land grant colleges was one of the best investments this Nation ever made. That same kind of imagination and foresight should be applied to exploitation of the sea.'' In 1965, Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island introduced legislation to establish sea grant colleges on campuses nationwide as centers of excellence in marine and coastal studies. With the adoption in 1966 of the National Sea Grant College Act Program, Congress established an academic industry government partnership intended to enhance the Nation's education, economy and environment in the 21st century. Today, Mr. Speaker, more than 54 percent of our Nation's population lives along the coast. But funding for the National Sea Grant College Program is only 3 percent of the equivalent Federal funding for the Land Grant College Program. Like many Members of Congress, I am fully supportive of the Land Grant Program. But the point to be made is that the Land Grant receives $900 million a year in Federal funding for this program. The Sea Grant receives approximately only $60 million. Is it not time for us to consider this disparity and increase funding for the National Sea Grant College Program? Mr. Speaker, in support of increasing funding, I ask my colleagues to consider these facts. Since 1960, the square mileage of coastal urban lands has increased by over 130 percent. Between 1996 and 2015, U.S. coastal population is expected to increase by the equivalent of 5 major cities or 25 million people. Every day approximately 1,300 acres of coastal lands are developed into urban lands. Every week there are more than 14,000 new housing starts in the coastal areas of our Nation. Every year more than 180 million people visit the Nation's coasts, affecting coastal infrastructure and resources. Simply put, the Nation's investment in coastal science has lagged behind coastal population and development. Simply put, the Federal Government cannot by itself meet the tremendous demand for environmental knowledge and services, nor can it maintain expensive in- house staff, facilities or technologies. Universities are critical to the development of the scientific and human resources base needed to address coastal issues. The National Sea Grant College Program engages the Nation's top universities through a network of some 30 Sea Grant programs and 200 affiliated institutions located in coastal and Great Lakes States and Puerto Rico. Sea Grant taps the talents of the pre-eminent university scientists who conduct mission-critical research and development in state of the art laboratories and facilities. Sea Grant utilizes a highly effective network of extension and communications professionals to transfer research results to users. Sea Grant has a 30-year track record of success and relevance. Sea Grant is nonregulatory and maintains a reputation for objectivity and credibility in its research and outreach. There is no other Federal program that has the combination of university-based capabilities, outreach structure, flexibility, cost- effectiveness and emphasis on coastal resource management. Given the importance of the coast to the Nation's economic and social well-being, it is for this reason I am introducing H.R. 1071, a bill to increase authorization for the National Sea Grant College Program from a mere $63 million to $100 million per year. Many of my colleagues have joined me in supporting this modest increase. As many are aware, the National Sea Grant College Program has a broad base of bipartisan support. The 105th Congress passed reauthorization for the program without a single dissenting vote in either Chamber. I believe this is largely due to the fact this is a shoestring budget. Sea Grant continues to expand its capabilities in areas of national interest. The Sea Grant Program is looking to the sea to find new pharmaceuticals and medicines, and maybe even a cure for cancer. Sea Grant is on the cutting edge of marine science and aquaculture research. As a member of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, I have always been troubled by the fact that the U.S. has to import over $9 billion worth of seafood and shellfish from foreign countries. I am convinced if we are committed to more resources to the National Sea Grant Program, we might be able to create new growth and economic development and become a world exporter rather than importer of seafood and shellfish. I am also convinced if we can find the means to devote billions of dollars to space, we can certainly find a way to add $37 million a year to the National Sea Grant Program. Mr. Speaker, if we can find a means now to go to Mars, and we believe what is beneath the ocean, I believe it is time to improve the Sea Grant Program. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1071--a bill to increase authorization for the National Sea Grant College Program. The idea of a Sea Grant College Program was originally suggested by Athelstan Spilhaus. In a 1964 editorial, he wrote: Establishment of the land-grant colleges was one of the best investments this nation ever made. That same kind of imagination and foresight should be applied to exploitation of the sea. In 1965, Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island introduced legislation to establish Sea Grant Colleges on campuses nationwide as centers of excellence in marine and coastal studies. With the adoption in 1966 of the National Sea Grant College Grant Act, Congress established an academic/industry/government partnership intended to enhance the Nation's education, economy, and environment in the 21st century. Today, more than 54 percent of our Nation's population lives along the coast. But funding for the National Sea Grant College Program is only about 3 percent of the equivalent federal funding for the Land Grant College Program. Like many Members of Congress, I am fully supportive of the Land Grant College Program. But the point to be made is that Land Grant receives nearly $900 million in federal funding per year. Sea Grant receives approximately $60 million. Isn't it time for us to consider this disparity and increase funding for the National Sea Grant College Program? Mr. Speaker, in support of increased funding, I ask my colleagues to consider these facts: Since 1960, the square mileage of coastal urban lands has increased by over 130 percent; Between 1996 and 2015, U.S. coastal population is expected to incresae by the equivalent of 5 major new cities, or 25 million people; Every day, approximately 1,300 acres of coastal lands are developed into urban lands; Every week, there are more than 14,000 new housing starts in coastal areas; and Every year, more than 180 million people visit the Nation's coasts, affecting coastal infrastructure and resources. Simply put, the Nation's investment in coastal science has lagged behind coastal population and development. Simply put, the Federal Government cannot by itself meet the tremendous demand for environmental knowledge and services, nor can it maintain expensive in- house staff, facilities, or technologies. Universities are critical to the development of the scientific and human resource base needed to address coastal issues. The National Sea Grant College Program engages the Nation's top universities through a network of 30 Sea Grant programs and 200 affiliated institutions located in coastal and Great Lake States and Puerto Rico. Sea Grant taps the talents of pre-eminent university scientists who conduct mission-critical research and development in state-of-the-art laboratories and facilities. Sea Grant utilizes a highly effective network of extension and communications professionals to transfer research results to users. Sea Grant has a 30-year track record of success and relevance. Sea Grant is nonregulatory and maintains a reputation for objectivity and credibility in its research and outreach. There is no other Federal program that has the combination of university-based capabilities, outreach structure, flexibility, cost- effectiveness, and emphasis on coastal resource management. Given the importance of the coast to the Nation's economic and social well-being, I introduced H.R. 1071--a bill to increase authorization for the National Sea Grant College Program from $63 million to $100 million per year. Many of my colleagues have joined with me in supporting this modest increase. As many are aware, the National Sea Grant College Program has a broad base of bipartisan support. The 105th Congress passed reauthorization for the program without a single dissenting vote in either Chamber. I believe this is largely due to the fact that on a shoestring budget, Sea Grant continues to expand its capabilities in areas of national interest. Sea Grant is looking to the sea to find new pharmaceuticals and medicines--and maybe even a cure for cancer. Sea Grant is also on the cutting edge of marine science and aquaculture research. As a member of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, I have always been troubled by the fact that the U.S. imports over 9 billion dollars' worth of seafood and shellfish per year. I am convinced that if we committed more resources to the National Sea Grant College Program, we might be able to create new growth and economic development and become a world exporter, rather than importer, of seafood and shellfish. I am also convinced that if we can find the means to devote billions of dollars to space, we can certainly find a way to add $37 million a year to fund the National Sea Grant College Program. For now, Sea Grant funds on average less than $2 million per State program. Due to limited resources, many geographic regions are not represented--including the Western Pacific--which alone has a huge Economic Exclusive Zone. Some States like Mississippi and Alabama share funding while other eligible States and territories like Pennsylvania, Vermont, and American Samoa have no institutional Sea Grant programs. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that it is time for Congress to address the issue of increased authorization for the National Sea Grant College Program. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1071.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Shark Protection Act of 2001. Last year Congress passed and President Clinton signed Public Law 106-557, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act. The goal of that law is to prohibit the activity known as shark finning--the catching of live sharks, removing their fins, and throwing the carcasses back into the water, retaining only the fins. The practice of shark finning had been prohibited in all U.S. waters except in the Pacific Ocean. Last year's bill prohibited in the U.S. Pacific removal of shark fins and discarding of the carcasses, having custody of shark fins without the corresponding carcasses on board a fishing vessel, and the landing of shark fins without the corresponding carcasses by any vessel. I had hoped to also prohibit vessels from being in U.S. waters with shark fins on board and the selling of shark fins without the corresponding carcasses in last year's bill, but that was not practical for two reasons. Article 17 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea grants all vessels a right of innocent passage through the territorial seas of other member states. A prohibition of the loading and unloading of shark fins without the corresponding carcasses is permissible under subsection (g) of Article 19 of the Convention, but it appears that any attempt to restrict passage of vessels solely transiting our waters would be in conflict with this international treaty to which the United States is a party. I believe Congress can, however, prohibit the offering for sale, selling, and purchasing in interstate or foreign commerce of shark fins without the corresponding carcasses anywhere within our national jurisdiction, and that is what this bill does. This might arguably be included as a prohibited act under Section 301(1)(G) [16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(G)] of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which makes it unlawful for any person to ``ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, purchase, import, export, or have custody, control, or possession of, any fish taken or retained . . .''. I am concerned that the definition of ``fish'' found at Section 3(12) of Magnuson-Stevens [16 U.S.C. 1802(12)] includes only whole fish (including sharks), but not parts of fish. The bill I am introducing today would clarify this point by prohibiting the selling of shark fins without carcasses. Mr. Speaker, the practice of shark finning is continuing to this day in the Pacific. Earlier this year, after passage of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, a non-fishing vessel entered the port of American Samoa with shark fins on board. This ``cargo'' was not seized based on the ``innocent passage doctrine'' noted above. As long as shark fin soup is so popular in many parts of Asia that people are willing to pay $100 for a bowl of the soup, the problem will continue. We need an international ban on shark finning. Public Law 106-557 initiated a process to accomplish this, and I look forward to receiving from the Administration a report later this year on this important area, as required under that law. I want to do all I can to stop the wasteful practice of shark finning, and I urge my colleagues to join me by supporting this bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 55, which would deny Normal Trade Relations (NTR) with Vietnam, the world's 13th largest nation with a population of 80 million people. I urge our colleagues to vote against the measure. Mr. Speaker, the decision before us is much like the debate we had recently over trade relations with China. In the case of Vietnam, as with China, many opponents of NTR focus on the serious human rights violations committed by the Communist government. These are valid and compelling criticisms, as in Vietnam the practice of religion is routinely restricted and political freedom is brutally suppressed, especially public dissent. However, these human rights abuses, as well as our concerns over minimum labor standards and environmental protection, will not be addressed by America continuing to turn its back to Vietnam. I believe engaging with Vietnam by support of Normal Trade Relations and the Bilateral Trade Agreement will not only create new and fair business opportunities for America but, more importantly, will bring about significant political and social progress in Vietnam. Committing the Vietnamese Government to enact market-oriented reforms will enhance respect for the rule of law, ultimately leading to a more democratic society that respects and protects the rights of its citizens. Additionally, this will lay the foundation for Vietnam's eventual entry into the World Trade Organization, further reinforcing Vietnam's obligation and duty to conduct itself as a civilized and responsible member of the international community. In supporting Normal Trade Relations for China last week, Mr. Speaker, I found particularly persuasive and enlightening the voices of those Chinese dissidents who have been persecuted and imprisoned for years--individuals who are among China's harshest and most vocal critics. Prominent Chinese democracy activists such as Bao Tong, Xie Wanjun, Ren Wanding, Dai Qing, Zhou Litai and Wang Dan have urged the United States to extend China Normal Trade Relations as it would hasten China's entry into the WTO, forcing China's adherence to international standards of conduct and respect for the rule of law. Moreover, they argue that closer economic relations between the U.S. and China allows America to more effectively monitor human rights and push for political reforms in China. Mr. Speaker, the wisdom of these courageous Chinese dissidents also applies in the case of Vietnam. For a year, Hanoi's leaders have delayed signing the Bilateral Trade Agreement with us precisely because they fear economic reform and U.S. engagement will undermine the socialist foundation and monopoly on power of their Communist regime. Mr. Speaker, the Communist leadership in Hanoi is right to be fearful. Normalizing trade relations between our nations will allow America to engage--promoting democracy and spurring political, social and human rights progress in Vietnam that in the long-run cannot be controlled nor stopped. I strongly urge our colleagues to engage the people of Vietnam, and oppose the legislation before us.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 50, which would deny extension of normal trade relations (NTR) to the People's Republic of China. I urge our colleagues to vote against the measure. Mr. Speaker the decision before us is one of the most important actions taken by this Congress. The arguments for and against granting NTR to China are exceedingly broad and complex. The stakes, too, are tremendous, as it involves America's relationship with the world's largest nation, a nation composed of one-fifth of humanity. I commend my colleagues and deeply respect their commitment regardless of their position on the issue before us, for there are valid and compelling arguments to be made on both sides. For those who oppose NTR for China, I agree that China continues to be plagued with serious problems--from human rights abuses, to trade imbalances, to growing military and security concerns. However, none of these problems will be resolved by attempts to isolate and disengage from China by denial of NTR status. If anything, isolating China will only encourage it to turn inwards, making matters worse and likely resulting in increased violations of human rights, lessened respect for political and social progress for China's citizens, and heightened paranoia of other nations' intentions resulting in expanded Chinese military spending. It is important for the U.S. to remain engaged with China and granting NTR status that will assist China's entry into the World Trade Organization is one very major way to achieve that objective while gaining WTO protections for our trade interests. Additionally, China's membership in the WTO will further open up China to the international community and force its compliance with WTO multinational standards and rules of law. With WTO enforcement, this will ensure China and the U.S. trade on a level playing field, which should go a long way toward rectifying our present trade imbalance. Although the trade incentives for extending China NTR are obvious and apparent, Mr. Speaker, the most important consideration for me concerns what will best promote democratization and continued political, social and human rights progress in China. On that point, Mr. Speaker, I find most persuasive and enlightening the voices of those Chinese who have been persecuted and are among China's most ardent and vocal critics--individuals who would be expected to take a hard line stance against the Beijing government. Prominent Chinese democracy activists such as Bao Tong, Xie Wanjun, Ren Wanding, Dai Qing, Zhou Litai and Wang Dan have urged the United States to extend China normal trade relations as it would hasten China's entry into the WTO, forcing adherence to international standards of conduct and respect for the rule of law. Moreover, they urge that closer economic relations between the U.S. and China allows America to more effectively monitor human rights and push for political reforms in China. Joining their voices are other Chinese leaders who have opposed Beijing's communist control, including Hong Kong's Democratic Party Chairman Martin Lee and Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian. Both Lee and Chen have called for normalization of trade relations between the U.S. and China and WTO accession by China. Mr. Speaker, we should listen to the wisdom of these courageous Chinese, whose credentials are impeccable and who clearly have the interests of all of the Chinese people at heart. They know that it is absolutely crucial and vital for continued political, social and human rights progress in China that the U.S. maintain and expand its presence there through trade. The Chinese people plead for the U.S. to remain engaged and not turn away from China because our nation is the only one with the power, the conscience, and the fortitude to push for true reforms and democracy in China. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to heed the best interests of the Chinese people as well as the American people by normalizing trade relations between our nations and opposing the legislation before us.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to thank the original sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), for his leadership and for bringing this legislation to the floor. I would also be remiss if I did not express my gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, for his support, and also the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, for his support in bringing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, as a former student of Brigham Young University, it was my privilege to know many students who are Americans of Navajo descent. If I could, I would like to say a fond hello in Navajo, Yateeh. Mr. Speaker, I am honored as an original cosponsor to speak today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 174 to authorize the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol to be used later this month for a ceremony to present Congressional Gold Medals to the original 29 Navajo Code Talkers, a ceremony that is certainly long, long overdue. Mr. Speaker, the idea of using an Indian language as a code was first tried during World War I by the Canadians. The Canadians used Choctaw Indians in their effort, but the experiment was not successful. The failure of this effort is attributed to the Indians knowing very little English and there being no equivalent terminology for the military terms. The next effort to use an Indian language for a code during wartime was made by the Americans in World War II. The origin of this effort is credited to Phillip Johnston, who was the son of missionaries who did a lot of work among the Navajo Indians. Mr. Johnston brought their idea to the U.S. Marines in California. Because of the bad experience during World War I, still our government was very reluctant to be receptive to this kind of an idea. Eventually the supporters of the Code Talkers prevailed, at least enough to conduct a test. Two Navajos were sent into one room, and two were put in a second room without visual contact. A message was given to the Navajos in the first room, and they were instructed to translate the message and send it to the other room. The three-line message was encoded, transmitted and decoded in 20 seconds. Encoding and decoding the same message by machine took 30 minutes, and the viability of using the Navajo for military encryption became readily apparent. Nevertheless, there was still some resistance to using American Indians to transmit military messages. An authorization was given to recruit only 30 Navajos for a pilot program. Recruiting potential Code Talkers and getting them through military training was not easy. Most Navajo did not speak English, and they were all coming from a very different culture. Parts of their training, such as long runs in the hot sun or surviving in the desert with one canteen of water, came quite naturally to them. Other parts of the training, such as certain aspects of military discipline and the maintenance and repair of radio transmitters and receivers, were somewhat alien to them. In constructing a code, the Navajo had to take several things into consideration. The code would have to be memorized. It would then be used in periods of conflict when tensions were running high and transmissions could be difficult to hear clearly because of static, close-by rifle fire and explosions. With those constraints in mind, the Navajo used four basic rules in developing this code: 1. Each code word must have some logical connection to the actual word; 2. Each code word should be unusually descriptive or creative; 3. Each code word should be short; and, 4. No code word should be easily confused with another. While developing the code, the Navajo were placed in battle simulations, and transmissions were monitored by military code breakers and Navajos who did not know the code. No one broke the code during these tests. Mr. Speaker, the first 30 Code Talkers were sent into battle, and the pilot program was a success. Eventually 350 Code Talkers were employed in battle, including the battles of Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. At Iwo Jima alone, the Navajo Code Talkers passed over 800 error-free messages in a 48-hour period. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that thousands of lives of our soldiers, sailors and marines were saved due to the outstanding job our Navajo Code Talkers made as part of our war effort during World War II, especially in places I had previously mentioned. About 4 years ago, Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to travel with the late Senator John Chafee from Rhode Island to represent the Congress at a special ceremony whereby our government had authorized construction of a parliamentary building for the Solomon Islands Government as a gift from the people of the United States to commemorate one of the most fierce battles that took place in the South Pacific, the battle of Guadalcanal, where thousands of Marines lost their lives, and the late Senator John Chafee was among the few 19-year-old Marines who fought in that terrible battle. It was a moving experience for both Senator Chafee and I to visit the remnants of that terrible conflict. The Navajo Code Talkers were a critical part of our success in winning the war in the Pacific. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that 29 of the original Code Talkers will be recognized later this month for their work. Because of the secrecy placed on the program, the valor the Navajo displayed during World War II was not recognized for decades. Their code was finally declassified in 1968, and it was only declassified then because electronic equipment had been developed that would be sufficient to meet military needs. The Navajo Code Talkers were also used in Korea in the 1950s, and even in Vietnam in the 1960s. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Udall, for his leadership in bringing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2131, which reauthorizes the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998. I want to commend the author of the legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), and the chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their leadership in moving consideration of this important measure which facilitates debt reduction in Third World countries by supporting their efforts for conservation of fragile tropical forests. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act basically allow less-developed nations that owe loans to the United States to restructure their debt repayment, funneling savings into a tropical rain forest protection fund which provides for the conservation and maintenance of native forest resources in each participating country. According to the World Wildlife Fund, Mr. Speaker, in recent years up to 42 million acres of tropical forests have been devastated annually throughout the world. Indeed, approximately one-half of the planet's tropical forests no longer exist. In the Asia-Pacific region alone, it is estimated that 88 percent of original forest lands have now been destroyed. Mr. Speaker, these careless actions have a dramatic negative impact on the environment that is global in nature. The destruction of tropical forest lands on this scale destroys the Earth's ability to recycle carbon dioxide, significantly contributing to greenhouse gases and climate warming. Perhaps more importantly, we sacrifice and lose the rich and unique biodiversity of these tropical forest ecosystems which, incidentally, contain over half of the world's plant and animal species. Mr. Speaker, tropical forest plants have been used for centuries by indigenous native peoples to treat illnesses and disease. Most of the Earth's 265,000 flowering plants are located in tropical regions, and less than 1 percent of these plants have been scientifically tested for effectiveness against disease. I am appreciative of the fact that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) had alluded earlier about a win-win situation for the reauthorization of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, over the years, as a classic example, it has been my privilege to know one of the world's leading ethnobotanists, Dr. Nafanua Paul Cox, for the tremendous work that he has done in saving rain forests and tropical forests in the South Pacific region. I say this personally, because of his efforts over the years, he has sent hundreds of herbal plant medicines that were used by my people for centuries and now the latest discovery by the National Institutes of Health, a certain drug that has come out of this research conducted by Dr. Cox is a substance called protrastin that may have very positive effects in curing HIV. I am talking about AIDS. That is all because of the preservation of these plants. Mr. Speaker, we must preserve these tropical resources that may hold the key to curing cancer, even AIDS and other deadly diseases afflicting humanity. If rare tropical plants are not protected, their genetic codes and potential benefits will be lost forever to mankind. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. I thank my good friend from Ohio for his management of this legislation and especially the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 160. Madam Speaker, I am deeply disturbed by the Government of China's recent arrests and detentions of American citizens and U.S. permanent residents of Chinese ancestry. Prosecutions of Americans by China's State Security Ministry and agencies have been rare since the Korean War. With the recent outbreak of detentions, however, it is troubling that China may now feel it acceptable to target American subjects--as long as they have Chinese blood. In particular, I find it deplorable that those detained have been held virtually incommunicado for months--denied any contact with immediate family members and even their attorneys. Given the lack of due process and the hidden, clandestine proceedings, it is no wonder that China's charges of espionage and other serious violations against the detainees are viewed as false, and any confessions produced as resulting from torture. In an effort to address these matters, Madam Speaker, I commend Mr. Smith, Mr. Lantos and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for introducing House Resolution 160. I am honored to be a co-sponsor of the measure. In addition to calling upon the Chinese Government for the immediate and unconditional release Dr. Li, Dr. Geo and other American scholars of Chinese ancestry who have been detained, this important legislation urges President Bush to appoint a special envoy and make the detainees' release a top priority in U.S.-Sino relations. I cannot agree more Madam Speaker, as American citizens and U.S. permanent residents, when they go overseas, must be protected and not be subject to arbitrary harassment and detention on unsubstantiated charges, whether by China or any other nation. I strongly urge adoption of the legislation by our colleagues.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 154, a resolution honoring the continued commitment of the Army National Guard combat units deployed in Bosnia and recognizing the sacrifices made by these units. Madam Speaker, as our country moved away from the cold war, we made a conscious decision to lower the size of our active duty forces. At the same time, as a matter of policy, we maintained our goal of fighting two simultaneous wars. The only way we could achieve both goals was to increase our reliance on our national guard and military reserve units. For years, national guard and reserve units were thought of safe as ways to fulfill military service obligations or collect a little extra money every month. For decades that was true. Each drilling reservist or national guardsman reported for duty one weekend a month and two weeks per year, and that was all we asked of them. That whole concept of being a reservist changed during the 1990s, a decade in which our reserve and guard units were called to active duty time and time again including places such as the Middle East, Africa, and of course Bosnia. Every time we as a nation call up a reserve unit, the vast majority of the members of that unit are pulled away from their families and jobs here in the United States. In addition to the personal sacrifices these individuals make, often times there is a monetary sacrifice as well. With everything we ask of our reserve and national guard personnel, they truly do deserve special recognition, and I am pleased to stand before our nation today and say thank you. To every member of a national guard unit, to every reservist, to their families, and to every employer who hires or employs a member of a guard or reserve unit, I say thank you for your support of our nation. As the only super-power, the United States is expected to provide leadership in distant locations throughout the world. We have done this unilaterally, and as members of multi-national forces. When the nation has called, our citizen-soldiers have responded and continue to respond. We all owe them a debt of gratitude, and again I say thank you.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of John Joseph Moakley, former Congressman from the ninth Congressional district of Massachusetts. Joe Moakley was first sworn in as a representative in 1989. We know him most recently for his long service on the Committee on Rules--he was chairman of that committee from 1989 to 1994, and continued to serve as the ranking member from 1995 until this year. As my colleagues have noted before me, Joe Moakley never forgot his roots. Even as Chairman of one of the most influential committees in the U.S. Congress, he always had time for constituents in need, and junior Members of Congress who didn't understand the intricacies of House operations. He was known for his ability to diffuse tense situations with a humorous comment, and was welcomed and appreciated by all for his direct yet respectful manner. As my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have noted, we all thought of him as a fair chairman and an honest human being. I began my elected service in the House of Representatives in 1989, and it was in that year that six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter were murdered in El Salvador. Congressman Moakley was appointed as the head of a special task force directed to investigate the murders and the response of the Salvadoran government. It was this task force which first reported the connection between these murders and several high-raking military officers in El Salvador. This report was of sufficient gravity that it resulted in the termination of U.S. military aid to El Salvador. The end of the civil war in that country is often attributed to his work in this area and the change in U.S. policy which resulted therefrom. Joe Moakley did not have to take on any of this extra work. It didn't help him get elected, he didn't get paid any more money--he did it, I believe, because he felt a need to right a wrong, and this is how I will always remember him. We here in Washington are all missing him very much right now. I know his surviving family and other relatives will miss him even more. To them I say Joe Moakley was as good as they come. He was a true public servant in every positive sense and I stand today to honor this gentleman of all time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation before us, H.R. 2052, which, among other things, condemns the National Islamic Front Government of Sudan; calls for increased diplomatic peace efforts including the appointment of a Special Envoy; supports the famine relief efforts of Operation Lifeline Sudan; and requires foreign companies doing business in Sudan to publicly disclose their activities if they seek access to U.S. capital markets. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tancredo, for introducing this important measure. I also wish to recognize the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, the Ranking Democrat of the House International Relations Africa Subcommittee, for his longtime leadership and extensive work to bring peace to Sudan, as well as other nations in the region. I further commend the Chairman and the Ranking Democratic Member of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos, for bringing this matter to the floor. I am honored to join my colleagues in support of this bi-partisan legislation. Mr. Chairman, we must do all that we can to stop the senseless tragedy in Sudan. Although the civil war has gone on for four decades, since 1983 the conflict has heightened and resulted in an humanitarian disaster. The Government of Sudan is responsible and must be condemned in the strongest terms of committing genocide against its own people. By aerial bombardment of civilians, mass slavery, rape, unspeakable war crimes and obstruction of humanitarian relief efforts--over two million Sudanese have died at the hands of the government in Khartoum. These atrocities have been compounded by the displacement of four million other Sudanese, who have been driven from their homes. Mr. Chairman, last month Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Sudan, committing the United States to make peace in that nation a priority. The legislation before us will significantly assist those efforts by holding the Government of Sudan accountable for its humanitarian violations and calling for their immediate end; urging U.S. leadership of multilateral and bilateral peace processes in Sudan; and encouraging disinvestment in foreign firms doing business in Sudan, particularly those oil companies whose activities are directly contributing to the escalation of war in Sudan. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge our colleagues to adopt this important legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of H.R. 643, legislation which would reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act. I would certainly like to compliment and commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who also happens to be the author of this piece of legislation, a dear friend and a colleague, and certainly also would like to commend the chairman of our Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and our ranking Democrat, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for their support in bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago when the annihilation of the African elephant population was predicted, if not expected, to occur by the close of the 20th century. Such was the devastation, that by the end of the 1980s the population of African elephants, which once had ranged over virtually the entire Sub-Saharan region of the African continent, was reduced to small remnant populations suffering from widespread poaching and other conflicts with the needs of the growing human population. In response to this conservation crisis, the Congress of the United States passed the African Elephant Conservation Act in 1988, and the fate of this flagship species has been improving ever since. Grants initiated under the African Elephant Act have been responsive, effective, and successful in supporting conservation activities throughout Africa. As a result, many range states today have taken great strides in reducing poaching, which was at one time approaching epidemic proportions. Grants have also supported activities to confront and fight the illegal trade in wildlife and to build conservation capabilities to the village level, where there is still much more that needs to be done. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 643 is a straightforward reauthorization of this act. The administration fully supports this legislation, and I commend the staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service for their cooperation in working with us to improve this legislation. As a result, the few refinements that were adopted during consideration by the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans should stimulate greater public involvement, help create new partnerships and ensure fair and equitable support for local conservation activities. In closing, Mr. Speaker, great progress has been made in recovering African elephants from the precipice of disaster. That is an achievement for which we can all be proud. Yet future progress is contingent on the United States maintaining its strong leadership and support for this very successful and effective international wildlife conservation effort. Again, I commend my good friend from Maryland for sponsorship of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to compliment my good friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), for his eloquence and for his substantive remarks concerning this important issue of the Asian elephant. I realize that perhaps some of the members of the public are wondering, in the midst of the $1.3 trillion tax cut, Social Security, the health care problems, the hundreds of billions going to defense and all this, why are we talking about elephants. I would like to compliment again both the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for his sponsorship of the Asian Elephant Conservation Act, and my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), for his leadership in not only the subcommittee, but for bringing the reauthorization of the African Elephant Conservation Act. I recall that, and maybe this is something unique in our Nation and something that we ought to be grateful for, I recall years ago when there were problems with the dolphins. It was amazing, Mr. Speaker, that it was not government that brought this to the attention of the Congress, it was not business, it was the children of America. They were concerned about the slaughtering needlessly of some 200,000 dolphins a year by fishermen, and if they wanted to get after the tuna, they had to slaughter these mammals that are so beautiful. Beautiful creatures that the Lord has made as part of our environment. Mr. Speaker, I think the same could be said about elephants, and I think we need to compliment and, again, thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for their leadership in bringing these two pieces of legislation for consideration. Again, I want to urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. I want to thank also the members of our staff, from this side of the aisle, Mr. Dave Jansen and Mr. Jeff Petrich, for their staff expertise and the understanding of this piece of legislation for where we are now, in bringing this bill for consideration by the Members. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 700, a bill to reauthorize the Asian Elephant Conservation Act. I certainly would like to commend my good friend, the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), for being the author and the sponsor of this legislation, and certainly for his continued leadership in protecting the world's imperiled wildlife heritage. I also thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), our current chairman of the subcommittee, for his leadership in bringing this legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, unlike African elephants, the plight of Asian elephants was not widely known until 1997, only 4 years ago. Sadly, we have learned that the population of Asian elephants, at one time flourishing throughout Southern and Southeast Asia, is now fragmented into populations scattered across 13 countries, most of which are shrinking. In addition, Mr. Speaker, domesticated use of Asian elephants for transport and other industrial activities has removed animals from traditional areas and further stressed wild populations. With so many changes to the natural habitat, domesticated uses are now one of the several factors which are a threat to the future viability of Asian elephants in the wild. This issue needs to be addressed in a manner which addresses traditional cultural values and the continued survival of the species. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Asian Elephant Conservation Act has helped address these threats. Grants initiated under the act have provided valuable financial assistance to impoverished areas to support a wide range of conservation activities. Most notably, the development of conservation strategies and education tools to address the growing frequency of elephant-human conflicts, a scenario which often proves deadly for the elephants, the local villagers, or both, has been especially effective. The grants have also supported important ecological studies, construction of anti-poaching camps, and provided conservation training in several range States. Progress, albeit slow, has been made. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 700 is a bill which was ordered reported by the Committee on Resources by unanimous vote. In addition, the administration fully supports this legislation, as do many international conservation organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Everyone agrees that the technical amendments to the existing act contained in H.R. 700 will only improve the effectiveness of the grant program throughout southern and southeast Asia. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately there are still many remaining challenges to overcome if we hope to sufficiently recover stable and ecologically viable populations of Asian elephants throughout the animal's historic range. Yet, that is a global conservation challenge that the United States should not shy away from. Conservation assistance made available under the Asian Elephant Conservation Act is desperately needed, and again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)