Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, and certainly our Democratic ranking member as well, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for providing this legislation now before the Members for consideration. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 101, a resolution which recognizes the 225th birthday of the United States Army. Mr. Speaker, from the establishment of the Continental Army in 1775, today's modern fighting force, considered to be the best land-based fighting force in the world, the Army has fought for our Nation through difficult times. In reviewing the history of our Nation's wars and other campaigns, one only begins to appreciate the enormous role the Army has played in our Nation's history. As an Army veteran in Vietnam and as a former member of the 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry Reserve Group in Hawaii, I have experienced a small part of the Army's history and know how difficult war can be. While we hope future generations may never have to experience any world wars like those of the past, we can all feel assured that our Army is ready to go wherever and whenever it is called. I want to share with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, some of the things that happened in World War II, one of the darkest pages of our Nation's history, of what we did to the Japanese-Americans. But despite all the problems that these patriotic Americans were confronted with, we had thousands of Japanese-Americans who volunteered to fight for our Nation. In doing so, the 100th Battalion and the 442nd Infantry Groups were organized to fight the enemy in Europe. I want to share with my colleagues some of the accomplishments these two fighting units made in World War II. Over 18,000 decorations were awarded to individuals in these two units for bravery in combat; over 9,240 Purple Hearts; 560 Silver Stars; 52 Distinguished Service Crosses; and, one of the things, that I have complained about for all these years, why only one Medal of Honor? I think this matter has been rectified, and I want to commend the gentleman from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, whose legislation in 1996 mandated the Congress to review this. I think my colleagues are very happy, as well as myself, in seeing this month we are going to witness 19 Congressional Medals of Honor will be awarded in a special ceremony that will be made next week, and among them the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Daniel Inouye, who originally had the Distinguished Service Cross, and now he will also be awarded the Medal of Honor. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to today's soldiers and all those who have gone before them. In addition, too, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay a very special tribute to the hundreds of thousands of Army wives and their children. I think this is perhaps one area that is sorely missing sometimes. Yes, we do praise our soldiers in harm's way, but also we have to recognize the tremendous sacrifices that wives and their dependents have to make, where the women have to become both the fathers and mothers in the absence of the fathers being away. I think this is something that our country certainly owes to all the Army wives, for the tremendous services and sacrifices they have rendered on behalf of our Nation. Our soldiers have never let us down, and when we call upon them, they are there to serve. I think my good friends have already made a comment on this, but I want to share it again because I think it is important. This is a special address that was given by the late General Douglas MacArthur to the West Point cadets at the Academy at West Point in 1962. It has been quoted, and I will quote it again. ``What is the mission of the Army? Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, and, that if we fail, the Nation will be destroyed.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to say happy birthday, Army, and with exclamation to all the Army soldiers and veterans, I say ``Huuah.''

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3605, the San Rafael Western legacy Act. This bill does not do all I would like it to do, but having seen the stalemate which has existed for decades, I believe it is time to move forward. Mr. Chairman, in the 105th Congress, as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, I went to Southern Utah more than once and spent some time traveling the area to better understand the national and local issues involved. As noted by my colleagues, this truly is a unique area which deserves protection. On that there is agreement. As we have seen this afternoon, the problem arises in what level of protection do we afford, and how much area do we protect. I do not see this bill as the end of wilderness protection in the State of Utah--rather I see it as a first step. I am glad to see that the Administration was able to reach a compromise with the Representatives from this area, and I urge my colleagues to support this compromise bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3535, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act. In the continental United States, there is obviously a strong feeling that shark finning is a wasteful, abhorrent practice which has no place in U.S. waters. It is seen as contrary to current effort to maintain ecological balance in our oceans, and wasteful in that less than 5% of a shark's mass is comprised of its fins, with the rest of the carcass thrown back into the water unused. Many feel that the trade-off between the loss of life for the benefit of a good-tasting soup, much of which is consumed in Asia, balanced against the amount of waste and the importance of the fishery is tipped significantly in favor of the fishery. I understand the economic incentives which drive this activity. A small cup of shark fin soup costs $100 in parts of Asia and is considered a delicacy just as much as chocolate-covered ants, snails, and horse meat are in other cultures. Most of the sharks caught and finned in Hawaii-area waters are a bycatch from long-line fishing boats which are targeting tuna and swordfish. But sharks are not the only bycatch or miscellaneous fish caught and then discarded as waste because they do not have the same market value as tuna or swordfish, and I do not find it particularly reassuring that we are addressing the blue shark problem and ignoring a problem of much greater magnitude with other miscellaneous fish. The killing of these fish just because they are unwanted should be of no less of concern to all of us. We should also be addressing that problem, but are not because we do not have adequate stock assessments of most stocks. Part of the blame for this lies with the National Marine Fishery Service for not requesting additional funding to carry out this research, but part of the problem lies with the Congress as well, for not funding this important work. Obviously the United States alone cannot adequately address the problem of shark finning, as many other countries participate in this fishery as well. The United States is responsible for only a very small percentage of this industry, and I hope the Administration addresses this subject through international treaty. In the Pacific, the management commission being developed by the Multilateral High level Conference would be appropriate. As introduced, this legislation did not address the issue of transshipment of shark fins through U.S. ports. The practice of shark finning in international waters by foreign fishing vessels, and then shipping the fins from U.S. ports to foreign countries, is significant. To partially address this problem, I offered an amendment in Subcommittee to prohibit this practice, and I want to thank the majority for accepting that amendment. I hope that our next step will be to address the issue of shark fins transshipped through U.S. ports as bonded cargo. In response to a question I asked the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council earlier this year, the Council reported that approximately 200 tons of dried shark fins are transported through U.S. Pacific ports as bonded cargo. There are groups in the Pacific that support a ban on shark finning; however, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, the entity tasked by law with management of the fisheries in the U.S. Central and Western Pacific Ocean, has repeatedly said that there is insufficient data on which to make that decision. While I do not agree with the Western Pacific Council on this one issue, I do wish to acknowledge the Council's work in including pelagic sharks in its management of pelagic fisheries dating as far back as 1987. To its credit, the Council has also taken aggressive conservation action in many other areas since it was established. I want to thank Congressmen Cunningham, Chairman, Don Young and Saxton, and Congressman George Miller for the active roles they have taken in moving this legislation forward, and I look forward to seeing the passage of the bill later today.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, which grants the president authority to extend permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with the People's Republic of China, and I urge our colleagues to adopt the measure. Mr. Speaker, as we all recognize, the decision before us is of historic dimension and is one of the most important actions taken by this Congress. The arguments for and against granting PNTR to China are exceedingly broad and complex. The stakes, too, are tremendous, as it involves the destiny of the most populous nation with one-quarter of planet's inhabitants, the future of America's economic strength and vitality, and perhaps the very stability of the world. 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. On this matter, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few observations. After examining the November 1999 trade agreement negotiated by the United States with China, it is abundantly clear that granting PNTR to China to facilitate its entry into the World Trading Organization (WTO) will bring innumerable trade benefits to America. Under the trade agreement, China must dramatically reduce tariffs, phase out quotas, and open up closed market sectors, while the U.S. simply maintains the status quo with no further trade concessions to China. It is truly a one-way deal in our favor. Ensuring that China and the U.S. trade on a level playing field, with WTO enforcement, should go a long way toward rectifying our present trade imbalance. On the other hand, if we fail to grant PNTR to China, Mr. Speaker, China will still enter the WTO but will not be obligated to extend WTO trade benefits to the U.S. This will significantly reduce U.S. trade and investment with China. I believe our economic competitors in Europe, Japan and Asia will welcome our absence in China, Mr. Speaker, and through the WTO take advantage of China's market-openings to our detriment. Although the trade incentives for extending China PNTR 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. For example, look at prominent dissident Bao Tong, who has urged the U.S. Congress to pass PNTR as it would hasten China's entry into the WTO, forcing adherence to international standards of conduct and respect for the rule of law. Bao has noted that the annual Congressional trade reviews have not been effective to improve human rights in China and other tools must be sought. Xie Wanjun, an exiled leader of Tiananmen Square democracy protests and organizer of the China Democracy Party, supports PNTR and the China trade deal. Xie states, ``The closer and economic relationships between the United States and China, the more chances for the United States to monitor human rights in China and the more effective for the United States to push China to launch political reforms.'' Longtime dissident, Ren Wanding, who has been jailed for 11 out of the last 21 years, states, ``If you really want China to change, then you should approve PNTR. If you want to isolate China and see it get worse, then it will get worse and worse.'' Mr. Speaker, these Chinese democracy activists, along with Wang Dan, Dai Qing, Zhou Litai and other prominent dissidents, urge that the U.S. extend PNTR to 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 new 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 thirst for U.S. engagement because America, and everything it represents, is the only nation with the power, the conscience, and the fortitude to push for true reforms and democracy in China. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to hear the pleas of the Chinese people for a brighter future. It is in their best interests, as well as ours, that we extend permanent trade relations to China by adoption of the legislation before us.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York, for his kind comments. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for his kind comments. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for his management of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, April 17, 2000 marked the 100th anniversary of the first raising of the U.S. flag in the territory that has since become known as American Samoa. As best we can determine, it was some 3,000 years ago that my ancestors first set foot on the Samoan Islands. As you know, Polynesian navigators did not use satellite navigation, or even sextants to guide them. They found their way across the vast Pacific by following the stars, the winds, and the seas. In 1768, the French explorer by the name of Louis Antoine de Bougainville, the second European to sight the Samoan Islands, became so impressed with the sailing skills of the Samoans that he named the islands L'Archipel des Navigateurs. For generations thereafter, the entire Samoan Island group was known to the Western world as the ``Navigator Islands.'' Captain Cook once made the remark that he had never been more impressed with the fact that from as far North as the Hawaiian Islands, and as far south as Aotearoa, New Zealand, and as far East as Rapa Nui or the Easter Islands that the settlements were made by Polynesians. I might also note, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, Columbus got lost trying to find the new world and mistakenly named the native inhabitants of the Islands of the Caribbeans as Indians, because he thought he landed in India. At the time of Columbus, we were transversing the islands of Oceania--islands that are thousands of miles apart but that form the base of our culture and our traditions. We had to be good navigators, Mr. Speaker, because Samoa is truly in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean. It is so remote that Europeans did not sight the islands until 1722. It is said that the Dutch explorer, Jacob Roggeveen, first sighted the Samoan Islands. I note here, Mr. Speaker, he did not discover the islands. He just sighted the islands because we were there already. Ironically, though, he miscalculated the location of the islands and they were not seen by another European for another 40 years. Even still, the experts did not believe it was possible for my ancestors to sail the great distances needed to travel between Samoa, the islands of Tahiti, the islands of Tonga, and the islands of Hawaii. But, as so often happens, the experts were proven wrong. In 1987, Mr. Speaker, I played a small part in demonstrating how my ancestors traveled between the island groups when I sailed on the voyaging canoe Hokule'a. Our navigator for this voyage was a native Hawaiian by the name of Nainoa Thompson, probably our first Polynesia navigator in about 300 to 400 years. Mr. Speaker, he led us unerringly from French Polynesia to the islands of Hawaii using no modern navigational equipment. We were guided only by the winds and the seas and the stars. We ate the fruits of the sea and drank what the good Lord provided through rain. Today, Mr. Speaker, the experts have reconsidered and Polynesia is once again experiencing a renewal of culture and tradition. You might be interested in knowing that the first real links between Samoa and the United States began as early as 1839, when, as part of a congressionally authorized trip, a U.S. Naval lieutenant by the name of Charles Wilkes visited the island of Tutuila and later reported favorably in support of an establishment of a structured relationship between the islands of Tutuila and the United States. It was 39 years later before a treaty of friendship and commerce with the people of Samoa was proclaimed ratified. For the next 20 years, there were disagreements between the United States, Germany, and Great Britain over the administration of the Samoa Islands. The three countries tried a condominium approach of administrations set forth in the treaty known as the General Act of 1889, but the effort failed miserably. In December 1899, a tripartite treaty between these same three countries divided the several islands of Samoa and the agreement was signed in Washington, D.C. Four months later, on April 17, 1900, by treaty of cession, the traditional chiefs of the islands of Tutuila and Aunu'u agreed to become a part of the United States in return for protection of their land and culture, and the United States flag was raised on what is now known as the United States Territory of American Samoa. In 1904, again by treaty of cession, His Majesty, the King of Manu'a, and his traditional chiefs from the islands of Ta'u, Ofu, and Olosega agreed to become part of the United States in return for the protection of their land and their culture. The United States has honored its end of these agreements, and the Samoan culture remains vibrant and strong in Samoa today. The United States has also protected the territory from foreign invasion when it was threatened in World War II. In fact, Samoa was a major staging area during World War II for U.S. troops. Samoans have also been active participants in this U.S.-Samoan relationship. In the early years of the relationship, American Samoa served as a naval coaling station for the United States ships in the Pacific. For decades, American Samoa served as a critical refueling and replenishing fort for military and commercial interests, enabling the United States to pursue its international and commercial policies. During World War II, when foreign powers were aggressively expanding spheres of influence in the Pacific, American Samoa was a staging area for some 30,000 Marines, and American Samoans served also as fellow Marines during World War II. To this day, I continue to receive warm letters from World War II veterans trying to look up a Samoan friend from that period and reminiscing about the warm welcome Samoans provided for them. American Samoans not only participated in World War II, but in every other conflict the United States has been involved in since World War I, with enlistment rates as high as any State or territory in our Nation. Our remote location has at times, even in recent decades, been of value to our Nation. Before the space shuttle, astronauts from Apollo 10, 12, 13, 14, and 17 all first set foot on soil in American Samoa before returning home. Our clean air has even been beneficial to our Nation. NASA has conducted laser tests between Earth and the moon from American Samoa, and the National Weather Service maintains in American Samoa one of four stations in the world used to establish how clean air really can be. Culturally, our songs and dances are known throughout the United States, and our local artists are developing their own following. Athletically, I feel we are up to the best. With a population of only 64,000 people, there are approximately 16 Samoans playing professional football in the United States. I see a growing number of talented teenagers, boys and girls, becoming successfully diverse in a number of sports throughout our country. Over the last 100 years, American Samoa has moved from a decentralized form of government. Now we have an elected governor and a congressional representative in this great body. House Resolution 443 recounts the history of American Samoa's historical relationship with our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the senior democrat on the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for their support on this legislation and all those colleagues who agreed to be cosponsors. Samoans are a proud people, and American Samoans are very proud to be part of the United States. We hope we have given to our Nation as much as we have received. The resolution we are considering today recognizes that unique 100-year relationship between the two parties. I am honored to be American Samoa's representative here in the House of Representatives, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to stand here to extend my warmest congratulations and expression of appreciation to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), for his leadership in bringing this important legislation before our colleagues for their approval. I also want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and our good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is only appropriate that we honor one of the greatest spiritual giants of the world today, Pope John Paul II but not only because he is a spiritual leader to some one billion Catholics around the world but also for the fact that he stands as an example of a great Christian in teaching spiritual values which cut through political ideology, which is something that I have always admired about this great Christian leader of the world. Mr. Speaker, long before he became the Bishop of Rome, Pope John Paul II was known as Karol Jozef Wojtyla, a young boy from Poland. According to biography, Wojtyla's childhood was not happy. By the age of twelve, he had lost his mother, brother and sister. Before he was ordained to the priesthood, he lost his father. In the interim, World War II ravaged Europe. When the Germans began rounding up Polish men, Wojtyla took refuge in the archbishop of Krakow's residence. He remained there until the end of the war. In 1946, Wojtyla was ordained to the priesthood. He earned two master's degrees and a doctorate. In 1978, the Sacred College of Cardinals chose Wojtyla as the next pope after the death of John Paul I. Mr. Speaker, Pope John Paul II became the first pope to visit a synagogue and the first to visit the Holocaust memorial at Auschwitz. According to one report, in ending the Catholic-Jewish estrangement, he calls Jews ``our elder brothers.'' I would like to offer even a little gesture to our majority leadership by extending an invitation to Pope John Paul II to have a joint session of the Congress and have this great leader address us, because I think we all need his guidance and certainly some of the examples that he will share with us, and perhaps a few words or a sentence can be added into this resolution to extend that invitation to Pope John Paul II to address this great body and to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the committee, for his leadership in bringing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, a few years back I was privileged, along with my Asian Pacific colleagues on Capitol Hill, to attend a special White House ceremony where President Clinton signed an official proclamation declaring May, this month, as it is true each year, as National Asia Pacific Heritage Month. Tomorrow, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), who is currently the chairman of our Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, along with our other colleagues, will hold a special order commemorating the month of May which honors Asian Pacific Americans. I commend and thank the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) for his strong leadership of the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, which he has brought to the forefront and addressed many of the critical issues facing our Nation. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to participate in the special order tomorrow, as I have a prior commitment to give an Asian Pacific American Heritage Month speech at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and then at Fort Hood, Texas, this coming weekend. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Fort Sam Houston, Texas, where last week I delivered addresses to our service men and women at their Asia Pacific Heritage Month programs. I certainly want to extend my deepest appreciation to Major General William Boykin of the U.S. Army Special Forces headquarters and Brigadier General Thomas Turner of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne, both groups at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and also my good friend Major General James Peake, the commanding general at Fort Sam Houston, for their warm and gracious hospitality and the courtesies that were extended to me when I visited them earlier this month. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be here tonight to share with our great Nation a legacy of those Americans whose roots extend from the soils of nations in the Asia and Pacific region. Mr. Speaker, the Asian Pacific region is a dynamic area of the world where two-thirds of the world's population reside. Our Nation's trade with the Asian Pacific region is almost twice of any other region, including Europe. I recall Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii once elaborated or illustrated our trade with the Asian Pacific region and Europe in this fashion, he once made the comment that for every one or single 747 that flies between the Atlantic and the East Coast of our Nation four 747s fly between the Asian and Pacific region to our country. Asians, or Americans of Asian Pacific descent, over 10.5 million strong, are among the fastest growing demographic groups in the United States today. Over the last decade, the Asian Pacific American community has more than doubled and this rapid growth is expected to continue in the 21st century. By 2050 the Asian Pacific American population is projected to exceed 40 million people. As many of my colleagues are aware, the immigrants of the Asian Pacific countries are amongst the newest wave to arrive in the United States in recent years. However, they are merely the latest chapter in a long history of Asian Pacific Americans in our Nation. During this time of celebration, Mr. Speaker, it is only fitting that we honor our fellow citizens of Asian Pacific descent both from the past and the present that have blessed and enriched our Nation. I submit that Asian Pacific Americans have certainly been an asset to our country's development and it is most appropriate that our President and the Congress recognize these achievements by establishing a National Asian Pacific Heritage Month. The peoples of the Asian Pacific have contributed much to America's development. For example, in the fields of sciences and in medicine nothing exemplifies this more than Time Magazine's selection a few years ago of a Chinese American as its Man of the Year, Dr. David Ho, head of the prestigious Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at New York University Medical School. Dr. Ho's journey, starting as a 12-year-old immigrant from Taiwan to gracing the cover of Time Magazine, has given hope to millions of people around the world afflicted by the HIV virus. His story is a stirring testament to the significant contributions that Asian Pacific American immigrants have made to our Nation. As one of the foremost AIDS scientists in the world, Dr. Ho pioneered a treatment for the HIV infection with the usage of an anti-viral drug. This has fundamentally changed the approach of combatting AIDS, stated Time Magazine in honoring Dr. Ho. Dr. Ho's work is greatly responsible for containing the AIDS epidemic in America and today less than 1 percent of our citizens are infected. The rest of the world is not so fortunate, Mr. Speaker. Just recently, the Clinton administration announced that global spread of AIDS has reached catastrophic dimensions that threaten to overwhelm foreign governments, ignite wars and destabilize entire regions of the world. With 16 million dead from AIDS and over 33 million infected worldwide, the AIDS crisis has spread from Africa to South Asia to the former Soviet Union and even Eastern Europe. The global AIDS pandemic is now so serious that the National Security Council of the United Nations has declared it a national security threat even to our own nation. Against this backdrop, Dr. Ho's medical research is increasingly front and center stage in the worldwide battle to contain this destructive disease. By restoring hope to millions of patients around the world suffering from this deadly virus, Dr. Ho is a credit to our Nation and the Asian Pacific American community. Dr. Ho's scientific advances continue a long record of service by other Asian Pacific Americans. For example, in 1899 a Japanese immigrant arrived on the shores of this Nation. After years of study and work, this man, Dr. Hideyo Noguchi, isolated a syphilis germ leading to a cure for this deadly widespread disease. For decades, Dr. Makio Murayama conducted vital research in the United States that laid groundwork for combat in sickle-cell anemia. In 1973, Dr. Leo Esaki, a Japanese American, was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for his electron tunneling theories, and in engineering few have matched the architectural masterpieces created by the genius of Chinese American I.M. Pey. In the fields of business and commerce, the names of prominent Asian Pacific American and corporate leaders and legal scholars are too numerous to mention. One need only read our Nation's top periodicals and newspapers to document that Asian Pacific students, both in secondary schools and universities, are among the brightest minds that our Nation has produced. For example, a recent Stanford graduate, Jerry Yang, a Taiwanese American who cofounded Yahoo, the Internet directory, Yang's Internet company recorded $588 million in sales last year and is valued at over $11 billion today. Just last week, Mr. Speaker, USA Today announced its top 20 high school students around the Nation, and among the 20 top students that was announced by USA Today, Mr. Speaker, 13 were Asian Pacific Americans. In the entertainment fields in sports, American martial arts expert Bruce Lee captivated the movie audiences of this Nation destroying the stereotype of that passive, quiet Asian American male. Worldclass conductor Seiji Ozawa has led the San Francisco and Boston Symphony Orchestras through brilliant performances over the years. Mr. Speaker, a native Hawaiian by the name of Duke Kahanamoku shocked the world by winning the Olympic Gold Medal for our Nation in swimming 7 decades ago; followed by Dr. Sammy Lee, a Korean American who won the Olympic Gold Medal in high diving. Then there was Tommy Kono, a Japanese American from the State of Hawaii, also a Gold Olympic Medalist in weightlifting and, yes, perhaps the greatest Olympic high diver ever known to the world, a Samoan Greek American by the name of Greg Louganis, whose record in gold medals and national championships and international tournaments will be in the books for a long, long time to come. There is Japanese American Kristi Yamaguichi, and Chinese-American Michelle Kwan's enthralling ice skating performances at the Winter Olympics continued the milestone achievements by Asian Pacific Americans. In professional sports, we have Michael Chang blazing new paths in tennis, and Pacific Islanders Brian Williams and Michael Jones in world rugby, and many others. Of course, we cannot forget the tens of dozens of Polynesian Americans, like Samoan All-Pro linebacker Junior Seau of the San Diego Chargers, and former All-Pro guard Jesse Sapolu of the San Francisco Forty-Niners, former All-Pro tackle Dan Saleaumua of the Kansas City Chiefs, and All-Pro tackle Luther Ellis of the Detroit Lions, who have made their mark as stars in the National Football League. Yes, I am also impressed with dot you end, a Vietnamese American who won numerous college awards as a top linebacker, and will expect to play first string this year with the Dallas Cowboys. In professional boxing, which a fast rising Samoan challenger in heavyweight professional boxer Dat Nguyen, a Vietnamese American, who is now ranked number one in the world heavy-weight division by the International Boxing Federation. USA Today just 2 days ago gave David Tua as ranking number 3 overall in the world, just ahead of Evander Holyfield and Lewis Lennox. It is expected that David Tua will be fighting for the heavyweight title sometime in November of this year. Mr. Speaker, one of the brightest stars to emerge recently from our community is, yes, none other than Tiger Woods, a professional golfer who has identified himself not only as an African-American but as an Asian American, too, due to his mother being of Thai ancestry. In routing the field in the Masters Tournament a few years ago, Tiger made history. He continued making history this year by winning 6 PGA golf tournaments in a row, matching the second longest winning streak in history. Before Tiger Woods' career is finished, Mr. Speaker, this American will reinvent the game of golf. I recall when someone asked Tiger who he was or who he is in an article, he said he is part African-American, he is Native American, he is white, he is Asian American, and that makes him a pure golfer. Another professional golfer, Mr. Speaker, we must honor is Vijay Singh, originally from the island of Fiji and is now an American resident. This Pacific Islander showed great discipline and tremendous heart in winning this year's Masters Tournament despite grueling weather conditions and competition from the world's best golfers. The win was Vijay's second major victory establishing his place certainly among golf's elite. We also have Asian Americans who are making their mark, Mr. Speaker, in history, not in our country but even in the Far East. We have Samoan American Salevaa Atisanoe, who only weighs 578 pounds as a former sumo wrestler in Japan for 15 years; a wrestler by the name of Konishiki. He was the first foreigner in Japanese centuries-old sport to break through to the rarefied area of sumo's second-highest rank. Another Samoan/Tongan American, Leitani Peitani, known in Japan as Musashimaru, has now attained the last position in sumo wrestling known as Yokozuna, or grand champion. Along with him is a native Hawaiian by the name of Chad Rowen, or Akebono as he is known in Japan. He has scaled even greater heights in sumo by attaining the exalted status of grand champion. Until this Polynesian American arrived on the scene no foreigner had ever been permitted to assume this sacred position, as the Japanese associated the Yokozuna with the essence of Shinto's guardian spirits. The ascendancy to grand champion sumo status goes to the heart of the Japanese religion and culture, and it is a tremendous achievement by this native Hawaiian and certainly a credit, a tribute to the Asian American community. Mr. Speaker, in honoring the Asian American Americans that have served to enrich our Nation, I would be remiss as a Vietnam veteran if I do not honor the contributions of the Japanese Americans who served in the U.S. Army's 100th Batallion and 442nd Infantry Combat Group. History speaks for itself in documenting that none have shed their blood more valiantly for America than the Japanese Americans who served in these units while fighting enemy forces in Europe during World War II. The records of the 100th Batallion and 442nd Infantry, Mr. Speaker, are without equal. These Japanese American units suffered an unprecedented casualty rate of 314 percent and received over 18,000 individual decorations, many awarded posthumously for bravery and courage in the field of battle. Mr. Speaker, a total of 52 Distinguished Service Crosses, 560 Silver Stars, and 9,480 Purple Hearts were awarded to the Japanese American soldiers who fought in the 100th Batallion and 442nd Infantry. Given the tremendous sacrifice of life, however, it was highly unusual that only one Medal of Honor was given. Nonetheless, the 442nd Combat Group emerged as the most decorated group unit of its size ever in the history of the United States Army. President Truman was so moved by their bravery in the field of battle, as well as that of the African-American soldiers and sailors who fought during World War II, that President Truman then issued an executive order to desegregate the Armed Forces. I am proud to say that we can count Senator Daniel K. Inouye, a highly respected Senator, and the late Senator Spark Matsunaga of Hawaii as soldiers who distinguished themselves in battle with the 100th Batallion and 442nd Infantry. It was while fighting in Italy that Senator Inouye, then a young lieutenant, was shot in the abdomen and leg and had his arm shattered by a grenade while advancing alone and personally eliminating three German machine gun nests that had pinned down his platoon. The Senator lost his arm and spent 20 months recovering in Army hospitals before receiving the Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest medal for bravery awarded by our Nation. Last week, Mr. Speaker, Secretary of the Army Lewis Caldera and the Department of Defense announced they have completed a reevaluation of the exceptional heroism displayed by the soldiers of the 100th Batallion and 442nd Infantry. As a result, I am very proud to say that next month, on June 21, in a special White House ceremony, Senator Daniel Inouye from Hawaii and 18 of his fellow Japanese American soldiers shall be awarded this Nation's last military decoration, the Medal of Honor. Additionally, two other soldiers, a Filipino American and a Chinese- Hawaiian American, shall also receive Medals of Honor at the White House ceremony. For the past 12 years, Mr. Speaker, I have been complaining about this injustice, where anti-Japanese and anti-Asian prejudice prevented these American heroes from being properly recognized. On that point, Mr. Speaker, Senator Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii deserves tremendous credit and our Nation's gratitude for introducing legislation that passed in 1996 which mandated that the Pentagon review and re-evaluate the courageous exploits of the soldiers of the 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry. Finally, the records are being changed to reflect the legendary bravery of these Asian American warriors, and finally justice is being done. It took 50 years, Mr. Speaker, and today there are only seven survivors out of the 21 Medal of Honor recipients, but this is what makes America a great Nation, Mr. Speaker, I submit. I am pleased to see that this injustice has been corrected. Mr. Speaker, despite this change where we will now honor 21 Asian Pacific Americans to become recipients of our Nation's highest award in the field of battle, that of the Medal of Honor, there are complaints from some so-called experts that the only reason why we made these changes is because of political pressures, and that it is done because it was politically expedient. I say to such criticism, they are full of baloney. What I would say is also the word Awaha, in the Hawaiian language, a bunch of hot air. Let me share with my colleagues and with the American people, Mr. Speaker, why the U.S. Army and the Department of Defense has properly upgraded these Distinguished Service Cross recipients to the Medal of Honor. For example, Staff Sergeant Rudolph DaVila, of Vista, California, in the Army's breakthrough from a beachhead in Anzaio, Italy, in 1943, he singlehandedly saved 130 riflemen from German machine gun fire by silencing several gun positions. Private Barney Hajiro of Waipahu, Hawaii, charged uphill in eastern France in 1944, where he destroyed two German machine gun nests and killed two snipers, a member of the 442nd Infantry. Private Mikio Hasemoto, Hawaii-born, killed in action December 1, 1943, in Italy, a member of the 100th Batallion. Private Joe Hayashi of Pasadena, California, killed in action. He led attacks that took strategic hills near Tendola, Italy, a member of the 442nd. Private Shizuya Hayashi of Pearl City, Hawaii, charged with his automatic rifle near Cerasuolo, Italy. He killed nearly 20 Germans and took four prisoners, a member of the 100th Batallion. Second Lieutenant Daniel Inouye, now a United States Senator, April, 1945, he destroyed three German machine gun positions, staying on the field to direct his troops, after his right arm was shattered by an enemy grenade, a member of the 442nd Infantry. Tech. Sergeant Yeiki Kobashigawa of Waianae, near Lanuvio, Italy, where he had a companion, destroyed two German machine gun defense emplacements, a member of the 100th Battalion. Staff Sergeant Robert Kuroda, a medal awarded posthumously, killed in action in October, 1944, a member of the 442nd Infantry. Private First Class Kaoru Moto of Makawao, Maui, who died in 1992. Alone, he wiped out a machine gun nest and later crawled 100 yards under fire to capture prisoners, a member of the 100th. Private First Class Kiyoshi Muranaga, killed in action. His mortar fire forced the Germans to withdraw an 88 millimeter Howitzer threatening his platoon. A shell from a German gun killed him, a member of the 442nd Infantry. Private Masato Nakae, Hawaii. He died in 1998. When his submachine gun was damaged, he picked up a wounded comrade's rifle to hold off the advancing enemy with rifle grenades. Also throwing hand grenades, he forced an enemy retreat; a member of the 100th Batallion. Private Shinyei Nakamine of Hawaii, killed in action, age 24, while attacking machine gun nests, a member of the 100th. Private First Class William Nakamura, killed by a sniper in 1944 in Italy during a bitter firefight in which he pinned down German gunmen to allow his platoon to withdraw, member of the 442nd Infantry. Private First Class Joe Nishimoto of Fresno, California, killed in action 8 days after the heroism in France for which he is honored. Fiercely attacking alone he forced enemy withdrawal and broke a 3-day stalemate; member of the 442nd Infantry. Sergeant Alan Ohata of Hawaii, died in 1977. Eight days off the ship, he and a companion advanced through fire and killed at least 51 attacking Germans; a member of the 100th Battalion;. Tech Sergeant Yukio Okutsu from Hilo, Hawaii, destroyed two machine gun nests, captured a third at Mount Belvedere in Italy; a bullet bounced off his helmet; member of the 442nd Infantry. Private First Class Frank Ono who died in 1980. In 1944 in Italy he silenced a machine gun, killed a sniper, defended a position with hand grenades, and helped rescue his wounded platoon leader; a member of the 442nd Infantry. Sergeant Kazuo Otani of Rivers, Arizona, killed in action, multiple acts of bravery while his platoon was pinned down in an open field; a member of the 442nd. Private George Sakato of Denver, Colorado. His squad was pinned down in France. He led a charge that destroyed a stronghold; a member of the 442nd Infantry. Tech Sergeant Ted Tanouye, killed in action 2 months after his arrival in Italy. He led men to capture a hill, refused aid for a wound, then led a long-odds night attack to break a 2-day German resistance, member of the 442nd. And there was Captain Francis Wai, posthumously awarded for his actions of bravery in the fight for freedom in the Philippines. Mr. Speaker, I do not consider these acts of heroism as politically expedient. Mr. Speaker, I include these two articles as part of the Record, these newspaper articles. The articles referred to are as follows: [From the USA Today, May 12, 2000] 21 On Medal of Honor List (By Martin Kasindorf) President Clinton yesterday upgraded the World War II decorations of 21 Asian-American heroes to the coveted Medal of Honor, including at least 10 men from Hawaii. For ethnic groups whose fighting ability and even patriotism were once doubted by the nation's leaders, the action 55 years after the war is the final stamp of commendation. Clinton signed documents accepting Pentagon recommendations of higher honors for men who had received the Army's second- highest medal, the Distinguished Service Cross. Seven are still living. Eleven were killed in action. Nineteen names on the list are those of Japanese Americans who fought in Europe with the racially segregated 442nd Regimental Combat Team or 100th Infantry Battalion. Among those receiving the medal: U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, 75, who lost his right arm in battle as a platoon leader with the 442nd in Italy. Another medal recipient, Francis Wai, an infantry captain, was of Chinese and Hawaiian ancestry. A UCLA football star before the war, Wai was killed during Gen. Douglas MacArthur's 1944 liberation of the Philippine island of Leyte. Recipient Rudolph Davila, 84, of Vista, Calif., is of Filipino and Spanish ancestry. Presentation of the medals at an outdoor White House ceremony on June 21 will bring to 462 the number of Medals of Honor awarded for the highest gallantry in World War II, in which 15 million Americans served in uniform. Only two fighting men of Asian or Pacific island ancestry, Army Pvt. Sadao Munemori and Sgt. Jose Calugas of the Philippine Scouts, previously had received the blue-ribboned medal for that conflict. Asian-American veterans say the additional Medals of Honor validate a long drive for justice. Suspecting that wartime prejudice had limited their recognition, veterans of the 442nd and 100th persuaded U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, to sponsor 1996 legislation that ordered a Pentagon search for Medal of Honor candidates among Asian Americans and Pacific islanders. The law was patterned on an Army study that led to the 1997 award of Medals of Honor to seven black World War II soldiers. No blacks had won the medal during the war because of a biased ``racial climate,'' the Army admitted. At least four of the Asian Americans named yesterday to receive the Medal of Honor were originally recommended for it by their commanders. They got the Distinguished Service Cross instead. The Asian-American medal study provoked controversy. When Army historian James McNaughton described the project in 1998 to the Legion of Valor, a group whose members earned the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross and Air Force Cross, he was beset with protests about race-based ``political correctness.'' Former Legion of Valor President Mike Gilroy now says: ``I think there probably would be a concern about it being a politically motivated thing, but it needs to be done.'' The citations of those being upgraded speak of astonishing acts of courage: enemy machine guns and tanks silenced by men who charged at point-blank range; wounded comrades carried to safety through galling fire. hard to believe The living recipients, making no claims of past discrimination, were quietly delighted when aides to Army Secretary Louis Caldera phoned them with the news. ``It was hard to believe it,'' Shizuya Hayashi, 82, of Pearl City said. ``During the war, we didn't think about medals. We just wanted to do our job. I was surprised they gave us medals.'' Under Akaka's bill, the Army reconsidered 104 Asian Americans and Pacific islanders who had won the Distinguished Service Cross. The Navy reopened the files of the single Asian American who had won its equivalent medal, the Navy Cross. A Navy decorations board ruled that Cmdr. Gordon Chung-hoon didn't merit higher commendation. Historians at the Army's Presidio of Monterey in California unearthed the old citations of 47 Japanese Americans, one Korean American, one Hawaiian-Chinese America, 54 Filipinos and one Filipino American. Davila, who served in the Third Army in Europe, is the lone Filipino American. Army lawyers determined that 23 Filipinos who got the Distinguished Service Cross from MacArthur were ineligible by law for the Medal of Honor. They had served in the Philippine Army or constabulary, not the U.S. Army. But 25 Philippine Scouts, attached to the U.S. Army, were considered for the top-ranking medal. None were recommended for it by the Army's three reviewing boards of senior generals, headed by Gen. Eric Shinseki before he became Army chief of staff in June. heavily decorated units Their dominant share of the new Medals of Honor won't surprise wartime admirers of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team and the 100th Infantry Battalion. After months of initial suspicion by military leaders, political lobbing by Japanese Americans in Hawaii won the community's young men the right to serve in 1942. The 1,300- member 100th and later the 4,500-member 442nd were organized in Hawaii and fought in France and Italy. One-third of the units' enlistees volunteered from Mainland relocation camps where 110,000 Japanese Americans had been interned by presidential order. At least four of those named yesterday for the Medal of Honor left the camps to go to war. The Asian-American units, which were commanded by whites, were thrown into the thickest fighting. Casualties were heavy. Their loss of 650 men killed and 8,836 wounded marked the highest casualty percentage among Army formations. At the same time, the 442nd and 100th were the most decorated units of their sizes in Army history. A partial medal count, updated yesterday: 20 Medals of honor, 48 distinguished Service Crosses, 560 Silver Stars, 4,000 Bronze Stars, 9,468 Purple Hearts.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for the time they spent personally working on the really difficult issues which needed to be resolved in bringing this bill to the floor. I certainly also want to commend and credit our colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), for all the time they have devoted in working out the details of this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Chairman, this bill encourages the continuation of State and local funding for conservation programs. Generally, the State governments will have to continue local funding at existing levels to be eligible for Federal funding. This ensures that there is substantial local support for these programs. Mr. Chairman, the bill also provides funding for Federal and Indian land restoration and for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. Again, the additional funding for the PILT program is done to assist local governments who have lost some of their tax base through the increase of Federal lands. While I would have liked to see more than $20 million per year go to the restoration of American Indian lands, I am very appreciative that we are recognizing this need. Grants will be awarded by the Department of the Interior on a competitive basis, and no single tribe can receive more than 10 percent of the allocation in each fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, I can understand and appreciate the concerns of the members of the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations subcommittees, and their desire to allocate our funds each year. But given the 315 cosponsors of this legislation and the support garnered by the transportation bills, I can only suggest that, as a body, we are really ready to address certain needs more proactively. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, and I want to commend Chairman Don Young and Congressman George Miller for their leadership and the enormous time they spent personally working on the really difficult issues which needed to be resolved to bring this bill to the floor. I also want to credit our colleagues Mr. Dingell, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Vento, Mr. John and Mr. Tom and Mark Udall for all the time they devoted to working out their details on this bill. For decades Congress has been struggling to balance our nation's desire to preserve the natural beauty of our country, against our desire to develop and expand our economy, and provide for our growing population. Many of us would like to see additional land set aside for the public as we are concerned that if we don't take steps now to preserve the land available, there won't be much left to preserve, and the land that will be available will be prohibitively expensive to acquire. This legislation puts us in a position to set lands aside for parks, forests, agriculture and other public uses. It is my understanding that the Department of Commerce is concerned with certain provisions of Title I of this bill because of certain existing authority of the Department would be effectively transferred to another federal agency. I do not believe it is the intent of this legislation to alter any existing authority regarding the management of our commercial fishery resources and I hope this intent is clarified either in the Senate or in Conference Committee. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 701 is opposed on both the left and the right. One environmental group, for example, opposes the bill because it threatens our coastal environment with incentives for new offshore oil and gas leasing in some sensitive coastal areas. Even with the proposed managers' amendment to address this issue, they have concerns. On the other side, the bill is opposed by the so called ``budget hawks'' because it will earmark money every year for the acquisition and maintenance of public areas. This will not be all for federal land, mind you, as a sizable portion of the funding will be available for state and local governments to preserve important lands. In response to these arguments, I can only say that I often hear the statement that we need to send funding and control of that funding to the state and local governments. This bill does that, yet the same people who generally support state's rights are now saying that we can't trust state and local governments to use wisely the money that Congress provides. I also know that there are others who say we can't trust the state and local governments, but it's for just the opposite reason. This bill strikes a delicate balance--federal agencies will get some of the money, as will state and local governments. No one is going to force any government to spend the money. If any local government believes it is better off leaving private lands private so it can continue to collect property taxes on those parcels, no new land will be acquired. Additionally, no one is going to be forced to sell private land to any level of government. The bill balances this also so there will only be willing sellers. But I don't want to dwell on land acquisition, as the bill does so much more. Mr. Chairman, this bill encourages the continuation of state and local funding for conservation programs. Generally, a state or local government will have to continue local funding at existing levels to be eligible for the federal funding. This ensures that there is substantial local support for these programs. The bill limits the amount of funding which can be used for administrative purposes to no more than two percent, thereby ensuring that the money is used for the purposes intended. The bill establishes a Coastal Impact Assistance and Conservation Fund to help coastal states mitigate the various impacts of offshore drilling and other OCS activities, and provides for the conservation of coastal ecosystems. Given the number of Americans that live close to our coasts, the number of people who continue to move to these areas, and the number who travel there for vacations, we need to do a better job of preserving our coastal areas, or they will lose those qualities which we now find so attractive. Most of us, I think, support the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and even though it is authorized at $900 million per year, appropriations have averaged only one-third of that. This lack of funding is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee, for it is we as a body who set the funding levels with which they must operate. This bill is our chance to fully fund this popular program. H.R. 701 also provides additional funding for wildlife conservation and restoration. There will be $350 million dedicated to the ``Pittman- Robertson'' wildlife conservation and restoration program, which provides for the conservation of all animals. The bill also balances benefits to urban and rural areas. To ensure our urban areas benefit, funding is dedicated through the Urban Parks and Recreation program to be administered by the Department of the Interior. The Historic Preservation Fund is another popular program which benefits all our districts. We are not now adequately funding this program, and even with the $100 million per year dedicated from the CARA fund under this bill, it is still not enough, but it is a good start. For those concerned about our loss of farm land, this bill provides $100 million per year from the CARA fund for the protection of prime farm, ranch and forest lands by limiting the non-agricultural uses to which these lands could be put. There is money in this fund to provide incentives for private landowners to aid in the recovery of endangered and threatened species. This should be welcomed by those who believe the Endangered Species Act is too protective of every species but the human species. The bill also provides funding for federal and Indian land restoration and for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. Again, the additional funding for the PILT program is done to assist local governments who have lost some of their tax base through the increase of federal lands. While I would like to see more than $20 million per year go to the restoration of American Indian lands, I am very appreciative that we are recognizing this need. Grants will be awarded by the Department of the Interior on a competitive basis, and no single tribe can receive more than 10% of the allocation in any fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, I can understand and appreciate the concerns of the Members of the Budget and Appropriations Committees and their desire to allocate funds each year. Perhaps in theory we should not have to enact legislation like this bill and recent major transportation authorization bills. But, given the 315 cosponsors this bill has, and the support garnered by the transportation bills, I can only suggest that as a body we are ready to address certain needs more proactively. Perhaps several years down the road, we will want to adjust the priorities we are setting today. Perhaps as our economy changes we will want to use our OCS money differently. But for today, I believe this compromise bill will set the standard not only for our country, but for other countries too. For if we expect other countries, most of which are not in as good an economic position as we are, to preserve their forests and other natural areas, we should be taking the lead. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend and reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act. Since its creation in 1984, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has been very successful in establishing public and private partnerships to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants using Federal funds matched by private donations. On average, the Foundation has brought in more than two private sector dollars for every Federal dollar appropriated. With these funds, the Foundation has financed more than 3,500 on-the-ground conservation projects throughout the United States and abroad. Together with partnerships and challenge grants, the Foundation has provided $441 million for conservation projects. Their record is impressive. To fund these projects, the Foundation has entered into partnerships with a wide range of State and local agencies, academic institutions, conservation groups, and businesses. In a time of diverse interests and an ever increasing strain on our natural resources, the ability to forge productive and workable partnerships between all sectors of society is of paramount importance. The Foundation possesses this ability, and makes unparalleled use of it to award grants in five major categories: conservation education, wetlands and private lands protection, neotropical migratory bird conservation, fisheries conservation and management, and wildlife and habitat management. In the past, legislation to reauthorize the Foundation generated unnecessary and misguided criticism. Such criticism has been surprising considering the noncontroversial nature and mission of the Foundation and its solid history of bipartisan support in Congress. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation represents one of Congress' finest conservation innovations, and embodies what we should strive to achieve every day--the intelligent and economical conservation of our fish, wildlife and plants. This legislation is very similar to legislation introduced by the late Senator John Chafee and passed by the Senate by unanimous consent. It is strongly supported by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation as well as both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time, I will submit additional comments describing the legislation and explaining the changes it makes to existing law. In closing, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is an important element in our national effort to build partnerships to conserve our common natural heritage. I urge my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. Objectives of Legislation This legislation makes several significant changes to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's (Foundation) establishment legislation. First, it expands board membership from the current number of 15 to 25. Second, the bill expands the Foundation's jurisdiction to include additional agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce to further the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plants and natural resources. Third, it authorizes annual appropriations through fiscal year 2006 to the Department of the Interior for $30 million and to the Department of Commerce for $10 million. The Foundation's current authorization expired on September 30, 1998. Section-by-Section Analysis Section 2 would amend the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act by providing authority for the Foundation to accept and administer private gifts of property in connection with the work of agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce. Under current law, the Foundation is only authorized to accept and administer private gifts of property in connection with the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA. Section 3 would increase the Foundation's Board of Directors from 15 to 25 members, including the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (Administrator of NOAA). Section 4 would authorize the Foundation to have its principal offices in the greater Washington D.C. metropolitan area. This section would also establish conditions for the Foundation to acquire and convey property (dependent upon agency approval) and invest and deposit Federal funds. Section 4 would revise provisions relating to agency approval of acquisitions of property and of conveyances and grants. It also would set forth limitations relating to the Foundation's conveyances of real property and overhead expenditures. Section 5 would authorize appropriations of $40 million per year to implement the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act Amendments of 2000 through fiscal year 2006 of which $30 million would go to the Department of the Interior and $10 million would go to the Department of Commerce. This section would also authorize the Foundation to accept funds from a Federal agency under any other Federal law to further its conservation and management activities. In addition, it would prohibit grant recipients from using Federal appropriations under this Act to engage in activities relating to lobbying or litigation. Section 6 would clarify that nothing within this Bill authorizes the Foundation to perform activities that are within the jurisdiction of the National Park Foundation by Public Law 90-209 (16 U.S.C. 19e et seq.).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am pleased to rise today with my good friend from New Jersey, the Chairman of the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee, Mr. Saxton, to introduce bipartisan legislation to authorize a coral reef conservation program. For many people, coral reefs are distant marine environments that they might never come in contact with unless they are fortunate enough to go on a tropical vacation. For too long now, as a Nation we have enjoyed the biological wealth provided by coral reefs, but failed in our obligations to devote the resources necessary to protect these vital treasures. While these precious ecosystems appeared to be in balance until not long ago, today human activities have significantly altered that balance--much to the detriment of the corals, and much to the demise of people who depend on coral reefs to sustain their communities and economies. Unlike many other members of Congress, I come from a place where the coral reefs are essential to the very fabric of everyday life. Until recently, those of us from the Pacific islands have literally lived off our reefs and the surrounding local lands. We have recognized for generations that coral reefs form the fundamental building block of an intricate marine food chain, providing nutrients, food and habitats for a tremendous diversity of fish and other marine animals. And intuitively, we have all come to appreciate that without healthy coral reefs, our abundance of marine resources might soon come to a sudden end. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that we have discovered that the coral reefs we depend on are under numerous threats. These threats come from many sources, including polluted run off, increased siltation, mining, and destructive fishing practices, notably the use of dynamite and cyanide, to name only a few. We have even come to appreciate that the decline in coral health could be linked to global climate change, and events such as El Nino. But with recognition of the problem, and with increased resources to address it, we can begin to reverse the degradation of our coral reefs and achieve a sustainable balance towards the long-term conservation of these important marine ecosystems. Several recent activities, including the initiation of the International Coral Reef Initiative, the development of U.S. Coral Reef Initiative and the International Year of the Coral Reef, were all good beginnings. And just last week, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force published a national action plan to conserve coral reefs. It is vital that we continue this positive momentum. As the Senior Democrat on the Subcommittee on Fishery Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, I have enjoyed working collaboratively with Chairman Saxton and his able staff to address my concerns and issues raised by other Democrats in order to develop this consensus legislation. The legislation we introduce today addresses many of the priorities I consider essential to any comprehensive coral reef conservation bill. Perhaps most significant, the legislation would codify the Coral Reef Task Force established under Executive Order 13089 to give this panel the authority it needs to address the myriad of problems confronting coral reefs today. Importantly, this legislation would require the Task Force to initiate fundamental baseline research and management activities, most notably, the mapping of all coral reef resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The bill would provide to the Task Force, through a National Program coordinated by the Department of Commerce, up to $5 million per year for 4 years to initiate this and other baseline activities, especially the development of comprehensive coral reef monitoring and assessment programs. It is expected that scientists and resource managers will gain from this previously unavailable information new insights regarding how human activities and other environmental factors are contributing to the degradation of coral reef ecosystems, and optimistically, how this degradation might be reversed. To ensure the continued comment from a broad range of interests involved in the management of coral reefs, it is anticipated that those Regional Fishery Management Councils established under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act which have corals within their jurisdiction, would be involved. Of equal significance, this legislation would also authorize a coral reef conservation grant program to assist States and local communities in the protection, conservation and sustainable use of their coral reef resources. The bill would provide up to $10 million per year for 4 years for coral reef conservation grants and it is expected that these grants will help improve local capabilities, raise local public awareness, and promote the long-term conservation and restoration of coral reef ecosystems. I am also pleased that this legislation would ensure the equitable distribution of grant funds to applicants in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribean Sea. Allow me to close by simply saying that while this bill is not perfect, it is a fair and honorable compromise. The bill would establish a targeted, focused and locally-driven coral reef conservation program; importantly, a program grounded in science and built upon the ground-breaking and successful work of the Coral Reef Task Force. I commend Chairman Saxton for his leadership and commitment to coral reef protection, and I thank my Democratic colleagues on the Fisheries Subcommittee who have worked with me throughout these negotiations.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, Senate bill 613 would amend provisions of law requiring certain contracts made with Indian tribes to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The current law, commonly referred to as Section 81, was enacted in 1872 in response to concerns that Indian tribes were being taken advantage of by non-Indian attorneys in bringing claims against the United States for treaty violations. Numerous contracts were signed between attorneys and Indian tribes which provided for exorbitant attorneys' fees. For decades, the Bureau of Indian Affairs interpreted Section 81 as applying solely to such tribe-attorney contracts. During the 1980's, several Federal Court cases ruled the Secretary of the Interior was required to approve any contract that was found to be, and I quote, ``relative to Indian lands.'' End of quote. Because of the ambiguity of this phrase, more and more contracts were submitted for Secretarial approval. Today, the Secretary of the Interior is asked to approve contracts for everything from construction of a new building to the purchase of tribal office supplies. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is overwhelmed by these unnecessary requests and the process severely hinders economic development on Indian lands. Madam Speaker, Senate bill 613 would eliminate the current requirement that tribes seek approval for contracts between Indian tribes and attorneys, unless the tribe's constitution requires such approval. The bill instead provides that only contracts that encumber Indian lands for 7 or more years be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Additionally, this bill explicitly leaves in place the National Indian Gaming Commission's authority to review and approve Indian gaming agreements. Madam Speaker, I am concerned about one provision of the bill which affects the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes. This bill requires that contracts which continue to be approved include remedies for breach of contract, disclosure of tribe sovereign immunity, or express waiver of the right to assert immunity as a defense. Recent Supreme Court cases have strongly affirmed that notions of sovereignty that existed when the Constitution was formed have lost none of their relevance in the subsequent two centuries. A most basic component of sovereignty is the right to decide for itself when and under what circumstances a sovereign will be sued. These provisions would force Indian tribes to address, disclose, or waive their sovereign immunity in basic contracts, where a State or the Federal Government would not be required to do so. Madam Speaker, I also note that this bill defines the term ``Indian tribes'' using the definition from the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. That definition of the tribe includes, and I quote, ``any Alaska native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Act.'' End of quote. Senate bill 613 has no application on Alaska, and the Alaska Corporation does not possess ``Indian lands'' as such lands are defined in this bill. It is unfortunate that the Senate has not been more careful in the drafting of Senate bill 613. There is no reason to confuse the matters by references to tribes and the corporations in Alaska, especially since the bill has no impact or application to the State of Alaska and the treatment of the Native Alaskans. However, Madam Speaker, since this bill does have the support of the administration and the National Congress of the American Indians, I urge support of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve 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. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first I would like to certainly commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), my good friend, for his sponsorship of this legislation. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1749 would designate 23.3 miles of Wilson Creek in Avery and Caldwell Counties, North Carolina, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Approximately 2.9 miles would be designated as scenic, 4.6 miles as wild, and 15.8 miles as recreational area. The Forest Service deemed the creek, which is rich in aquatic and plant life, eligible and suitable for wild and scenic status since 1990. There is a great deal of local support in this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

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. Madam Speaker, I certainly want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), my good friend, for sponsoring of this legislation. This legislation would permit the Lower Sioux Indian Community in Minnesota to lease or sell certain lands the tribe currently holds in fee status without further approval by the United States Government. This provision would apply only to lands held in fee by the tribe and not lands held in trust by the United States for the tribe's benefit. Current law and regulations established to protect Indian lands from alienation have been, in some instances, interpreted in a very restrictive manner. The Lower Sioux Indian Community has had trouble leasing and selling land which is not held in trust but in fee status without receiving prior approval of the Secretary of the Interior. This legislation would allow the tribe to make decisions and use land it has purchased and holds in fee status in the same manner as any other landowner, without having to commit to additional congressional or Secretarial approval. Madam Speaker, although no formal administration views have been received by us on this legislation, I have been told informally by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that they do support the legislation, provided it does deal solely with lands held in fee status. Not all tribes have encountered problems like this, Madam Speaker, when selling or leasing fee land. However, we need to address the problems faced by the Lower Sioux Indian Community of Minnesota, and I do urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Minge) in response to this bill. (Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the legislation before us, H.R. 1838, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which seeks to promote stability between Taiwan, the People's Republic of China, and the United States. At the outset, I would note that at the heart of the relationship between Taiwan and the United States lies the Taiwan Relations Act, which for over two decades has effectively laid and preserved the foundation for peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. When the security of our friends in Taiwan was threatened by China in spring of 1996, I joined with our colleagues in Congress in strongly supporting the Clinton administration's decision to send the Nimitz and Independence carrier groups to the Taiwan Strait to maintain peace. China's missile tests, military exercises, and threatened use of force contravened China's commitment under the 1979 and 1982 Joint Communiques to resolve Taiwan's status by peaceful means. The joint communiques, in concert with the Taiwan Relations Act, lay the framework for our ``One China'' policy, which fundamentally stresses that force shall not be used in resolution of the Taiwan question. Mr. Speaker, the graphic response of the United States in 1996 sent an unequivocal message to Beijing, as witnessed by the world, that America would not stand by idly while Taiwan was threatened with China's military might. The formidable U.S. military presence in Taiwan's waters, along with the explicit warnings of grave consequences for Chinese use of force against Taiwan, concretely demonstrated our Nation's determination and resolve to aid Taiwan in the event of attack. In my view, Mr. Speaker, our actions that were taken then during the heat of the Taiwan Strait crisis continue to speak volumes today about America's unquestioned and unshakeable commitment to Taiwan's security, much more than any policy statements we might adopt today. Mr. Speaker, under the existing policy of the Taiwan Relations Act, our Nation and Taiwan have formed a close partnership that already encompasses military relations, meetings of high-level officials, and extensive transfers of high-tech defense weaponry. As we examine the legislation before us, I ask our colleagues to question whether it actually enhances the security of Taiwan above and beyond what has, what is, and will be provided to Taiwan for its legitimate defense needs under existing policy. Mr. Speaker, the United States is firmly and unequivocally committed to the protection of Taiwan's people and democracy, and certainly no nation knows this better than China. I am not persuaded that the legislation before us is necessary nor that it serves to enhance stability in the Taiwan Strait.

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.)