Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, as always, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, for his leadership and for bringing this legislation now for consideration. Mr. Speaker, sometimes our best efforts to restore wildlife populations create unintended consequences and that seems to be the unfortunate case with mid-continent light geese. According to biologists inside and outside of the Federal Government, the population of light geese has exploded over the past decade. This has caused substantial destruction to fragile Arctic and sub-Arctic habits. Indisputably, human actions are partly to blame for the growth of the light geese population. And for better or worse, human actions will be pivotal to the future control of these migratory birds. H.R. 2454, the Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act basically authorizes two emergency regulations that were proposed earlier this year by the Fish and Wildlife Service. These emergency measures were strongly supported by State wildlife management agencies and a broad assortment of private wildlife and conservation organizations, including Ducks Unlimited and the National Audubon Society. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of our Committee on Resources, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) have agreed to include an expiration date of May 15, 2001, or earlier if the service files its final environmental impact statement before that date, to limit the duration of this emergency action. I am also pleased to see that the Senate amended the bill to require the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop and implement a comprehensive management plan for mid-continent light geese and their habitats. We have also come to recognize in the version of H.R. 2454 that was reported to the Senate by the Committee on Environmental and Public Works included a second title that would have authorized a program for the conservation and management of neotropical migratory birds. But considering the changes that have been made to the bill in the committee and by the Senate, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the bill has been sufficiently narrowed to limit excessive light geese mortality while the Fish and Wildlife Service completes its environmental impact statement and develops a long-term comprehensive management plan. It is not ideal, but it is reasonable under the circumstances. And I do urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, sometimes our best efforts to restore wildlife populations create unintended consequences, and that seems to be the unfortunate case with mid-continent light geese. According to biologists--from inside and outside of the Federal government--the population of light geese has exploded over the past decade. This has caused substantial destruction to fragile arctic and subarctic habitats. Indisputably, human actions are partly to blame for the growth of the light geese population. And for better or worse, human actions will be pivotal in the future control of these migratory birds. H.R. 2454, the Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act, basically authorizes two emergency regulations that were proposed earlier this year by the Fish and Wildlife Service. These emergency measures were strongly supported by State wildlife management agencies and a broad assortment of private wildlife and conservation organizations, including Ducks Unlimited and the National Audubon Society. The Fish and Wildlife Service voluntarily withdrew these proposed regulations earlier this year after a Federal appeals court ruled that the Service needed to complete a full environmental impact statement (EIS). At that time, I joined the ranking Democrat member of the Resources Committee, Mr. Miller, In commending the Service for pausing to recognize the need to develop a full environmental impact statement. Mr. Speaker, it is vital for the Service to complete this EIS at the earliest possible date. More specifically, as part of this EIS, is it absolutely critical for the Service to thoroughly review all essential biological and ecological data concerning light geese. It is my understanding that additional census data and statistical analyses concerning lesser snow geese could shed new light on the status and trends of the light geese population. The Service should consider this data thoroughly as part of this EIS. Frankly Mr. Speaker, without the best available scientific data, we will never be able to address the problem of habitat degradation in the arctic and subarctic habitats. And without that analysis, Congress can never be sure that the management and population control strategies we authorize are necessarily targeted and free of excess light geese mortality. It also needs to be re-emphasized that Congress is legislating in this matter solely because all other administrative options available to the Fish and Wildlife Service--under NEPA or any other statute--have been exhausted. Regrettably, the only remedy remaining is a legislative fix. Fortnately, the bill has been improved during the legislative process. Nevertheless, I remain concerned about two provisions. First, the bill would waive all procedural requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Second, the bill authorizes the use of otherwise outlawed hunting practices, notably the use of electronic calling devices and un-plugged shotguns. I realize that we have agreed to move this bill due to the documented habitat loss and the absence of any administrative remedies. However, I continue to question whether it is ever appropriate for the Congress to pass legislation to waive NEPA or to authorize otherwise illegal, or certainly, unsportsmen-like hunting methods. I am pleased that the Chairman of the Resources Committee, Mr. Young and Mr. Saxton agreed to include an expiration date of May 15, 2001, or earlier if the Service files its final EIS before that date, to limit the duration of this emergency action. I am also pleased to see that the Senate amended the bill to require the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop and implement a comprehensive management plan for mid-continent light geese and their habitats. Certainly, in an ideal world it would have been far preferable to first require the Fish and Wildlife Service to complete the plan before authorizing emergency measures. But in light of the circumstances, it is my hope that an effective plan will make the need for future legislation regarding emergency management of these species unnecessary. We have also come to recognize that the version of H.R. 2454 that was reported to the Senate by the Committee on Environment and Public Works included a second title that would have authorized a program for the conservation and management of neotropical migratory birds. This title closely resembled legislation passed by the House on April 12, H.R. 39, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Surprisingly, this bill has not been scheduled for floor action this session. It is my understanding that the Senate agreed to remove this second title after the Chairman of the Committee on Resources assured the Senate that he will work with his leadership to ensure that H.R. 39 is brought to the House floor next year for a vote. I sincerely hope that Chairman Young can bring the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act before the House early next year, and I look forward to working with him to pass this important legislation. Let me close simply by restating my concern--and the concern of many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle--that it is unfortunate that Congress is compelled to authorize these emergency actions to control the light geese population. But considering the changes that have been made to the bill in committee and by the Senate, I am satisfied that the bill has been sufficiently narrowed to limit excessive light geese mortality while the Fish and Wildlife Service completes its EIS and develops a long- term comprehensive management plan. It is not ideal, but it is reasonable under the circumstances, and I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for extending me this time to say a few words in support of this great American. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation which honors professional golfer Payne Stewart and expresses the heartfelt condolences of our Nation to Payne Stewart's family upon his tragic death. I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my good friend, for introducing this most worthy measure. Like many around the world, I was shocked and saddened by the events of October 25, 2 weeks ago, when the Lear Jet carrying Payne Stewart became disabled and crashed. The accident reminds us of how fleeting and uncertain life can be, no matter what our status is. Madam Speaker, although Payne Stewart has left this earthly existence, his legacy and what his life stood for will continue to live on in our memory and in the annals of sports and history. As a hacker who loves the game of golf, and all my colleagues on this side of the aisle who also love the sport, Madam Speaker, I fully appreciate and understand how difficult, demanding, and frustrating the sport of golf can be, especially at the rarefied levels of professional golf. Therefore, I deeply respect the tremendous achievements of Payne Stewart in winning 11 PGA tournaments in his shortened career, which include three major championships, the PGA in 1989, the U.S. Open in 1991, and the U.S. Open this year. Winning even one major championship is considered the pinnacle of excellence and the defining moment in a professional golfer's career. It is not surprising that an athlete of Payne Stewart's brilliance earned this honor several times. While Payne Stewart's shot-making and colorful knickers attire attracted a lot of attention, what most impressed me about Payne Stewart was the class and sportsmanship that he showed while competing. After his heartbreaking loss in the 1998 U.S. Open in the closing moments due to a bad break, a divot lie after a perfect drive in the fairway, many will remember that Mr. Stewart held his head high and refused to make excuses in response to those that accused him of choking. This year, he answered those critics by sinking the longest putt ever to win the U.S. Open. Madam Speaker, for the past several years, I had hoped, it was like a dream to me, that perhaps someday I might have the honor and privilege of playing a round with golfer Payne Stewart. He would wear his stylistic knickers for which he is so famous for, and I would wear my Samoan lavalava, an attire that looks somewhat like a skirt, but I call it the Samoan version of the Scottish kilts that Scotsmen wear when playing golf at St. Andrews. Since the game of golf originated, it is my understanding, in Scotland, I am surprised that the great golfer Colin Montgomery does not wear his kilt when he plays golf. I suspect that Mr. Stewart would have done the same if he had lived a little longer. In September at the Ryder Cup matches, after the competition had already been decided, Payne Stewart showed class and character again by conceding a winning putt to his opponent, Colin Montgomery, who he felt had endured vicious heckling and taunting all day from overzealous American fans. While the conceded shot ensured Payne's loss in the singles match, it was a heartfelt gesture of class by a true gentleman and a true American. The act of sportsmanship symbolized what Payne Stewart was all about, and endeared him to millions around the world. Madam Speaker, I urge our colleagues to join us in this measure honoring Payne Stewart, a great and generous man, a man of intense religious faith, a man of deep family commitment, a champion and fierce competitor, and a loyal and patriotic son of America. We send our condolences, deepest condolences to the family of Payne Stewart and to the families of all those who perished with them.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, the prospect of a ``Millennium Round'' of trade liberalization is inspiring heated debate both within the United States and the international community. While further liberalization could bring new opportunities for growth, there is much evidence that the costs of free trade have thus far outweighed the benefits for the majority of the world's people. Mr. Speaker, if the United States is to maintain its commitment to strengthening democracy domestically and abroad, and to improving the quality of life for all its citizens, it is imperative that a thorough review of WTO policies and procedures be undertaken. Too many questions remain about the effects of trade liberalization--as illustrated by our Nation's mixed experience with NAFTA--and the United States should not rush blindly into a new round of WTO negotiations. On this timely subject, Mr. Speaker, I recommend to our colleagues and the Nation an excellent article authored by Nora Connor, a Research Associate with the highly-regarded Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), which is based in Washington. WTO Faces Internal Discord, Public Opposition With the World Trade Organizations ministerial meetings just days away, trade officials are still arguing over the basic agenda for the Seattle event. An October meeting in Lausanne clarified differences among participants, but saw little progress toward resolving them. Though certain items were to be given priority for a possible ``Millennium Round'' of trade talks, consensus has proven elusive. WTO member countries remain divided on issues such as the impact of the organization on environmental and labor issues, as well as the prioritization of specific agenda items. In addition, WTO representatives will be facing raucous public opposition to a new round of trade talks. Numerous national and international groups have denounced the effects of previous free trade measures. These groups have planned large-scale protests to coincide with the ministerial, acting on behalf of labor rights, the environment, sustainable development, consumer rights, women's and children's issues, and the strengthening of democracy. Trade experts in many nations insist that a broad agenda addressing the liberalization of previously untreated sectors (including services and agriculture) is the only way to ensure that the new round can move forward. Proponents of a broad agenda assert that any delay in trade liberalization would result in missed opportunities for huge gains in global trade and income, and could open the way for protectionist ``backsliding.'' Advocates of further liberalization also insist that the process must move forward if developing countries are to benefit from increased market access, greater consumer choice and increased opportunity to attract foreign investment. Many anti-WTO protesters preparing to clog the streets of downtown Seattle say they categorically oppose any new round of trade talks. A petition outlining objections to a new round and calling for an exhaustive review of existing WTO agreements has been signed by over seven hundred groups worldwide. The signatories claim that trade liberalization has done little to benefit the world's poor. They also view the WTO as a threat to democracy, insisting that WTO policies have undermined elected governments' ability to prioritize national development, public health and safety issues, as well as interfered with consumer rights. These concerns are attracting widening publicity, and though they have been dismissed as instances of ``anxiety'' by U.S. Trade representative Charlene Barshefsky, and as ``attacks by extremists dedicated to spreading anarchy and defeating capitalism,'' by Financial Times contributor Guy de Jonquieres, popular opposition to the WTO could prove a significant barrier to further liberalization, particularly as the U.S. presidential race intensifies. Despite their opponents' accusations to the contrary, free trade advocates insist that they too have the best interests of the world's population at heart. WTO director-general Mike Moore has summed up the position of free trade supporters in saying that ``the WTO is about raising living standards . . . if living standards rise, environmental standards rise, families are better off and children normally have a better education.'' Moore's position is a prime example of the ``rising tide lifts all boats'' line: what is good for the economy is good for people. Macroeconomic indicators both support and contradict this thesis, depending on one's point of view. In many developing areas, including Latin America, foreign investment is up, and inflation is down. The Financial Times reported last month that global income has grown dramatically as a result of trade liberalization. The rising-tide rationale is also being applied to the next round of negotiations, with experts insisting that the poorest countries also will benefit from the removal of agricultural trade barriers. Yet others suggest that conditions are worsening in the majority of developing regions. In Latin America overall economic growth has been ragged with less than 3% annually, according to the United Nations Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), with some countries showing negative growth, job creation has slowed, and unemployment has remained fairly stable. Perhaps most telling, gaps in income distribution have sharply widened, suggesting that the free-market system contains inherent structural inequalities preventing some ``boats'' from rising despite general increases in trade, investment, and economic growth. In addition, WTO policies continue to force developing countries to compete largely on the basis of their only truly competitive advantage: cheap labor. This presents a problem, as it has historically, in that labor is performed by workers who are also humans with a need to consume. Countries that must lower labor costs as a means to greater efficiency and greater competitiveness must essentially manipulate their populations in the service of ``the market.'' UNCTAD reports that Latin American workers experienced declines in real wages of 20-30% since the Uruguay Round was implemented beginning in 1990. It seems clear that all workers have not benefited from new trade patterns. Perversely, however, shrinking wages can contribute to the appearance of economic growth in the form of increased ``efficiency.'' Similarly, the rapid increase of temporary and ill-paid service jobs in countries like the U.S. is hailed as improved flexibility in the labor market--even though it may undermine job security for countless workers, and even though significant decreases in wages can adversely affect consumption. Traditionally, the WTO has argued that labor and environmental matters--as well as the burden of ensuring equitable distribution of resources and profits--are best left to natural forces in member states, as they are not, classically speaking, trade-related. Yet the trade organization consistently has undermined member nations' attempts to regulate labor and environmental protection, with its dispute panel by categorizing many reforms as ``non- tariff barriers to trade,'' which may invite retaliatory sanctions. Issues that might be most effectively pursued by means of international cooperation, are instead reduced to bargaining chips. Developing countries, for example, suffer from environmental degradation just as developed countries do--sometimes even disproportionately, due to, for example, having to allow toxic materials to be dumped or incinerated in third-world countries, out of financial desperation. Yet efforts to enact environmental protection measures are often misguidedly opposed by poorer nations which cannot afford to implement similar measures, or lack the infrastructure to do so. Poorer countries perhaps naively believe that developed countries invoke stricter environmental measures as a ploy to protect their own domestic industries against overseas low cost competition. Labor issues have met a similar fate under free trade, with workers in neighboring countries often pitted against one another, rather than pooling their leverage in order to raise standards across the board. Supporters of free trade explain the suffering connected with trade liberalization by insisting that such sectors are experiencing the temporary hardships tied to a certain stage in a process of industrialization or development. Once these nations modernize their industries and stabilize their markets in order to become more competitive, the script reads, living standards will improve. But this attitude belies the supposed concern with the plight of the world's most poverty-stricken, implying that those who are suffering in the ``early stages'' of a country's development will just have to take one for the team. If the poor must wait for the day when free trade will deliver on all of its promises and bring about real improvements in poverty levels and standards of living, as its proponents claim it can do, it seems reasonable to ask that the WTO pause to assess the impact of its policies on those whose destinies are far from assured.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that this legislation has now been brought before the floor for consideration, and I certainly want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans, for his leadership and for bringing this legislation for the Members' consideration. Mr. Speaker, the Junior Duck Stamp Program has matured over a relatively short period of time into a valued conservation and education program that is enjoyed by thousands of schoolchildren nationwide. Merging conservation education with the arts has proven to be an effective strategy to increase knowledge and appreciation of migratory bird and their habitat within our schools. The Junior Duck Stamp Program has enhanced public awareness of the critical need to protect and preserve our Nation's diverse waterfowl and their essential wetland habitats. Moreover, this innovative program has helped promote a conservation ethic among America's young people which will be absolutely critical to ensure healthy wildlife and a healthy environment in the future. Mr. Speaker, an added benefit to the Junior Duck Stamp Program has been that it has also extended appreciation for wildlife and wetlands far beyond the classroom to the public at large through literally hundreds of annual art contests and exhibitions of art work at State fairs, wildlife refuges, museums and educational conferences. From the southern bayous of Louisiana to the prairie potholes of North Dakota to the tidal marshes along the Pacific Coast such public exposure has attracted and informed thousands of people annually who might otherwise remain unenlightened about the need to protect and conserve the wildlife and wetlands we enjoy today. Mr. Speaker, I do commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) for his introduction of this legislation. I especially appreciate his support and again the support of our chairman the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) in working with us to expand the eligibility of this program to now include the insular areas as well as the District of Columbia. This is a noncontroversial bill that deserves the support of this House, and I do strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the sponsor and the author of this legislation.

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 want to thank the gentleman from Guam for yielding me such time to express my support for this legislation. I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Saxton) for his leadership in managing this bill before the Members of the chamber. Mr. Speaker, the people of Rongelap Atoll, like those from Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, have been suffering for decades because of the nuclear testing activities of the United States Government earlier. Through the efforts of this committee, Congress passed legislation in 1996 which is assisting the people of Rongelap in establishing a resettlement plan. From the trust fund established in 1992, 50 percent of the annual income is dedicated to island rehabilitation, reconstruction and resettlement programs. The other half of the trust income is available to continue the resettlement program through the local government. This is working well, and I certainly hope that my colleagues will support the bill. Mr. Speaker, the people of Rongelap Atoll were victims of the most powerful nuclear explosion ever known to man at that time, the first hydrogen bomb explosion in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific in 1954, a 15 megaton explosion that was approximately 1,000 times more powerful, 1,000 times more power than the atom bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The people of Rongelap did not even know what had happened, other than the fact that they first observed a terrifying brilliant flash of light over 100 miles away, then the shifting winds that brought them a powder-like substance that they innocently washed themselves with, only to result in severe burns and rashes. The color of the ocean turned yellow. Severe vomiting and illnesses of all sorts soon followed; and as a result of this wrong our government had committed against the people of Rongelap, the health of these people has never been the same. Mr. Speaker, the records indicate our government did commit a grave wrong against the people of Rongelap. The U.S. officials responsible for this hydrogen bomb explosion knew, knew, that the winds had shifted at least 3 to 4 hours before the nuclear hydrogen explosion would take place. Mr. Speaker, our military officials knew that with the shifting winds, the nuclear fallout would be going directly towards the island of Rongelap and all the men, women, and children living in Rongelap were subjected to radioactive contamination. So now our government is making an effort to at least compensate in some fashion the residents of Rongelap Atoll. Mr. Speaker, no amount of money will ever restore these people back to normal health, but I do submit that I want to thank sincerely the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the ranking member, and thank again the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Saxton) for their leadership and efforts which are bringing this legislation forward to, at least with some sense of conscience, make available some kind of assistance to these people that were subjected to this serious nuclear explosion that our government made in 1954. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to provide financial assistance for coral reef conservation projects, and for other purposes. Coral reef ecosystems are the marine equivalent of tropical rain forests, containing some of the planet's richest biological diversity and supporting thousands of species of fish, invertebrates, algae, plankton, sea grasses and other organisms. The reef itself is composed of the massed calcareous skeletons of millions of sedentary, living animals (the corals). Coral reef communities are both exceptionally productive and diverse. Although coral reefs cover less than 1 percent of the Earth's surface, fully one-fourth of all ocean species live in or around the reefs of the world, including 65 percent of marine fish species. Southeast Asian reefs alone support an estimated 5 to 15 times the number of fish found in the North Atlantic Ocean. Reefs surrounding the Pacific island of Palau contain 9 species of sea-grass, more than 300 species of coral and 2,000 varieties of fish. Coral reefs have great commercial, recreational, cultural and esthetic value to human communities. They supply shoreline protection, areas of natural beauty, and sources of food, pharmaceuticals, jobs and revenues through activities such as education, research, tourism and fishing. Coral reef ecosystems provide the main source of animal protein for more than 1 billion people in Asia. Studies indicate that coral reefs in the United States and around the world are being degraded and severely threatened by human and environmental impacts. Land-based pollution, over-fishing, destructive fishing practices, vessel groundings, and climate change all affect coral reef ecosystems. Of particular concern is the effect of multiple impacts on coral reef health. With increases in ocean temperatures, development in coastal areas surrounding coral reefs, and continued over-fishing, more and more reef ecosystems are showing signs of profound stress. These indicators include widespread bleaching events, when corals lose the ability to grow, and evidence that coral diseases such as black band disease, white band disease, and aspergillosis are increasing in frequency and extent. Since 1994, under the United States Coral Reef Initiative, Federal agencies, State, local and territorial governments, non-governmental organizations, and commercial interests have worked together to design and implement management, education, monitoring, research, and restoration efforts to conserve coral reef ecosystems. The year 1997 was recognized as the Year of the Reef to raise public awareness about the importance of conserving coral reefs and to facilitate actions to protect coral reef ecosystems. On October 21, 1997, the 105th Congress agreed to House Concurrent 8, a resolution recognizing the significance of maintaining the health and stability of coral reef ecosystems by promoting comprehensive stewardship for coral reef ecosystems, discouraging unsustainable fisheries or other practices harmful to coral reefs, encouraging research, monitoring, assessment of, and education on coral reef ecosystems, improving coordination of coral reef efforts and activities of federal agencies, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, and industry, and promoting preservation and sustainable use of coral reef resources worldwide. The year 1998 was declared the International Year of the Ocean to raise public awareness and increase actions to conserve and use in a sustainable manner the broader ocean environment, including coral reefs. Also in 1998, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13089 which recognizes the importance of conserving coral reef ecosystems, establishes the Coral Reef Task Force under the joint leadership of the Departments of Commerce and Interior, and directs Federal agencies whose actions may affect United States coral reef ecosystems to take steps to protect, manage, research and restore these ecosystems. The bill would make it the policy of the United States to (1) conserve and protect the ecological integrity of coral reef ecosystems; (2) maintain the health, natural conditions, and dynamics of those ecosystems; (3) reduce and remove human stresses affecting reefs; (4) restore coral reef ecosystems injured by human activities, and (5) promote the long-term sustainable use of coral reef ecosystems. The purposes of this legislation are to (1) preserve, sustain, and restore the health of coral reef ecosystems; (2) assist in the conservation and protection of coral reefs by supporting conservation programs; (3) provide financial resources for those programs; and (4) establish a formal mechanism for collecting and allocating monetary donations from the private sector to be used for coral reef conservation projects. The bill establishes a Coral Reef Restoration and Conservation Program through the Secretary of Commerce. This program will provide funding for projects that: (1) restore degraded or injured coral reefs and their ecosystems, including developing and implementing cost- effective methods to restore or enhance degraded or injured coral reefs; or (2) for the conservation of coral reefs and their ecosystems through mapping and assessment, management, protection, scientific research, and monitoring. These projects would be funded 75 percent by the Federal Government, and 25 percent by the non-Federal partner. The non-Federal partner's share could be an in-kind contribution. The bill also authorizes a national program through the Secretary of Commerce to further the conservation of coral reefs and their ecosystems on a regional, national or international scale, or that furthers public awareness of and education about coral reefs on these broader scales. The activities under this program should supplement the programs under existing federal statutes. For the past two centuries, abandoned vessels have damaged coral reefs to the detriment of our nation. Often times the owners of the vessels are unable or unwilling to pay for the damage these vessels cause. Section 8 of this bill is designated to address this problem by prohibiting the documentation of vessels the owners of which have abandoned vessels on U.S. coral reefs and the vessel either remains on a reef, or was removed from the reef using certain Federal funding, which has not been re-paid to the United States Government. The bill also establishes legal liability to the United States for persons who destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any coral reef in the United States. The amount of liability is set at the cost to respond to the activity, including the costs of seizing and forfeiting the vessel causing the damage. The vessel causing the damage to a U.S. coral reef may be seized with the amount of liability constituting a maritime lien on the vessel. Costs recovered under this section would be used as reimbursement for past costs incurred under the section, and to restore the damaged coral reef, prevent future threats, or for educational purposes. The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate within 90 days regulations necessary to implement the provisions of the bill. Finally, the bill authorizes $20,000,000 to be appropriated for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005, and establishes percentages of appropriated amounts for the programs contained in the bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have entitled my remarks tonight to my colleagues and to my fellow Americans as Indonesia's Shameful Military Occupation of East Timor and West Papua New Guinea, or also known as Irian Jaya. Mr. Speaker, this week the House of Representatives considered legislation, House Resolution 292, expressing its position with regards to the tragic crisis in East Timor, Indonesia. I want to commend the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations of the House, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for bringing to the floor this important measure regarding the recent dire developments in East Timor. I would further deeply commend the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for introducing the resolution and their considerable work on it. I am honored to be an original cosponsor of House Resolution 292. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for introducing H.R. 2895, a bill that will cut off all U.S. bilateral and multilateral agreements with Indonesia if the Indonesian government fails to implement and support the United Nation's supervised plebescite which resulted in a vote of over 78 percent of the voters of East Timor in favor of total independence from the government of Indonesia. The bill of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) has strong bipartisan support by both Republicans and Democrats, and I am honored to have also been an original cosponsor of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, like many of our colleagues, I am greatly disturbed and saddened by the brutal, violent response of the pro-Jakarta militia and Indonesian military to the overwhelming force for independence demonstrated by the courageous people of East Timor. However, I am not at all surprised at the rampant killings, Mr. Speaker, as the Indonesian military has routinely used violence as a tool of repression. Although the Timorese struggle for self-determination has received much publicity, Mr. Speaker, scant attention has been paid to the people of West Papua New Guinea who have similarly struggled to throw off the yoke of Indonesian colonialism. As in East Timor, Indonesia took West Papua New Guinea by force in 1963. In a truly pathetic episode, the United Nations in 1969 sanctioned a fraudulent referendum where only 1,025 delegates that were handpicked and paid off by the Jakarta government were permitted to participate in a so-called independence vote. The rest of the West Papua New Guinea people, well over 800,000 strong, Mr. Speaker, had absolutely no voice in the undemocratic process. Since Indonesia subjugated West Papua New Guinea, the native Papuan people have suffered under one of the most repressive and unjust systems of colonial occupation in the 20th century. Like in East Timor where 200,000 East Timorese have died, the Indonesian military has been brutal in West Papua New Guinea. Reports estimate that between 100,000 to 200,000 West Papuans have died or simply vanished at the hands of the Indonesian military. While we search for justice and peace in East Timor, Mr. Speaker, we should not forget the violent tragedy that continues to play out today in West Papua New Guinea. I would urge our colleagues and our great Nation and the international community to revisit the status of West Papua New Guinea to ensure that justice is also achieved there. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the events of the past weeks, the Indonesian government should be condemned in the strongest terms for allowing untold atrocities to be committed against the innocent, unarmed civilians of East Timor. I commend President Clinton for terminating all assistance to and ties with the Indonesian military. United Nations estimates that there are over 300,000 Timorese, in excess of a third of the population of East Timor, have been displaced and it remains to be seen how many hundreds, if not thousands, have been killed in the mass bloodletting and carnage by the Indonesian military and its militia. Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago, the United Nations Human Rights Commission voted for an international inquiry into the atrocities committed in East Timor. The call for an international war crimes tribunal to punish those responsible for the atrocities should be heeded, even if it implicates the top military leadership of Jakarta. I strongly supported the intervention of the United Nations-endorsed multinational force in East Timor, and I am heartened at their arrival in Dili last week. Although only 5,000 of the 7,500 troop peacekeeping is presently there in East Timor, they have already had a significant effect in stabilizing the situation and restoring order in Dili. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the government of Australia for its leadership with the multinational force and recognize the important and substantial troop contributions of Thailand to the peacekeeping effort. While I believe America's role in the peacekeeping mission should have been greater, certainly the contribution of the U.S. airlift and logistical support has been invaluable. If Australia, Thailand and our allies call upon us and it is necessary that the United States play a more substantial role in the peacekeeping effort, I submit, Mr. Speaker, even if it means the contribution of a small contingency of ground troops which could easily be drawn from our reserves of the U.S. Marines in Okinawa, after all, Mr. Speaker, is this not the very reason why we have troops located in the Asia-Pacific region, and that is to provide stability and order in that region of the world? Mr. Speaker, with Indonesia being the fourth largest nation and the largest Muslim country in the world, which sits astride the major sea- lanes of communications and trade, certainly we do have a substantial national interest in preserving stability in Indonesia and Southeast Asia as well. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join my colleagues in adoption of legislation that touches on all of the foregoing concerns. It is appropriate that the House finally speak as a body in addressing the tremendous evil perpetrated against the free citizens of East Timor by the Indonesian military. Mr. Speaker, we and our colleagues must do all we can to assist the recovery of the Timorese people and to support their struggle for freedom, economic self-sufficiency and democracy. Mr. Speaker, if I may borrow the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who said in part, ``I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the isness of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal oughtness that forever confronts them.'' As a nation and as a world we have watched as East Timor and West Papua New Guinea have struggled for independent and self-determination. As a government, we have known the ambiguities of colonialist history. Indonesia, a former Dutch colony, was granted independence by the Netherlands in 1949. In its own act of colonial aggression, Indonesia then demanded all former territories of the Dutch East Indies and the Portuguese Colonial Empires, including West Papua New Guinea and East Timor. When Indonesia's demands were not met, the Indonesian military troops slaughtered and murdered some 100,000 West Papua New Guineans and also slaughtered and murdered over 200,000 East Timorese. The world stood in silence while the slaughter continued. Mr. Speaker, we have known the isness and the oughtness of what now confronts our collective conscience. Like Conrad notes in the book, the Heart of Darkness, and I quote, ``The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much.'' Mr. Speaker, ``when you look into it too much,'' the world ought to be a better place than what it is. Mr. Speaker, I know much has been written and said about what now confronts us in the conflict of East Timor. As Mahatma Ghandi once said, and I quote, ``I have nothing new to say. The principles of truth and nonviolence are as old as mountains.'' Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it serves us well to be reminded of the principles of goodness espoused by those who have lived the struggle and overcome. So today, I speak not as a representative with something new to say, but as a human being who wants to associate himself with a brotherhood and sisterhood of good. To the people of East Timor who seek to be free, I add my voice of support and condemn the government of Indonesia for denying East Timor its inalienable right to self-determination. To the good people of West Papua New Guinea, who also seek to be free from Indonesian colonial rule, I rise to share some 36 years of your pain and your suffering and of the slaughter and the murderings of your people by the Indonesian military. Mr. Speaker, there is consensus that the Island of New Guinea was settled by a people from West Africa. In 1883, the Island of New Guinea came under colonial rule and was partitioned by three western powers. The Dutch claimed the western half while the British and the Germans divided the eastern half. In 1949, the Dutch granted independence to the colonies of the former Dutch East Indies, including the Republic of Indonesia, but the Dutch retained West Papua New Guinea and in 1950 supposedly prepared the territory for independence. Indonesia, however, under the leadership of military Dictator Sukarno sent troops over and militarily occupied West Papua, and to this day West Papua continues to exist under military rule. Mr. Speaker, in 1962, the United States mediated an agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands, minus West Papuan representation, of course. Under terms of the agreement, the Dutch would leave West Papua and transfer sovereignty to the United Nations Temporary Executive Authority, known as UNTEA, for a period of 6 years, after which time a national election would be held to determine West Papua's political status. But almost immediately after this agreement was reached, Indonesia violated the terms of the transfer and took over the administration of West Papua from the UNTEA. In 1969, Indonesia orchestrated an election that many regarded as a brutal military operation. In what came to be known as an ``act of no- choice,'' where 1,025 elders under heavy military surveillance were selected to vote on behalf of 809,327 West Papuans on the territory's political status. United Nations Ambassador Ortiz-Sanz, who was sent to West Papua to observe the process, issued the following statement, and I quote, ``I regret to have to express my reservation regarding the implementation of article XXII of the Agreement relating to the rights, including the rights of free speech, freedom of movement and of assembly of the inhabitants of the area. In spite of my constant efforts, this important provision was not fully implemented and the Indonesian administration exercised at all times a tight political control over the population.'' Mr. Speaker, despite Ambassador Ortiz-Sanz' report, the United Nations sanctioned Indonesia's position and on September 10, 1969, West Papua became a province of the Indonesian military rule. Mr. Speaker, there is some speculation surrounding the extent of U.S. involvement with respect to the West Papua/Indonesian settlement. In late 1961, a Robert H. Johnson of the National Security Council staff wrote a letter to Mr. Bundy, the President's Special Assistant for National Security Council Affairs, concerning the conflict between Indonesia and the Netherlands. Mr. Johnson wrote in part, and I quote, ``The U.S. has a general interest in eliminating this irritant in international relations involving two free world countries. But its more basic interests are two: (a) to eliminate this issue from Indonesian politics where it has diverted the country from constructive tasks, has been used by Sukarno as a means of frustrating opposition to himself, and has been exploited by the large local Communist party'' and by the Soviet Union ``(b) to avoid a military clash because such a clash would probably strengthen Communist forces within Indonesia. The loss of Indonesia could be as significant as the loss of mainland Southeast Asia and would make defense of the latter considerably more difficult. If the above analysis is correct, we must conclude that it is in our interests that a solution be devised which will lead to accession of West New Guinea to Indonesia.'' Mr. Speaker, in other words, it was our national policy to sacrifice the lives and future of some 800,000 West Papua New Guineans to the Indonesian military in exchange, supposedly, for Sukarno and Sukarto to become our friends, and yet organize the most repressive military regimes ever in the history of Indonesia. Mr. Speaker, this event is perhaps the worst example of what the United Nations did by sanctioning this act of no choice against the people of west Papua New Guinea. Mr. Speaker, I call upon the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to take appropriate action to correct this shameful act of the United Nations took against the people of West Papua. The United Nations should call and supervise a real pleviscite like the one given to people of East Timor. Mr. Speaker, in his 1990 statement before the United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid, Nelson Mandela of South Africa said, ``It will forever remain an indelible blight on human history that the apartheid crime ever occurred. Future generations will surely ask, what error was made that this system established itself in the wake of the adoption of a Universal Declaration on Human Rights.'' ``It will forever remain an accusation and a challenge to all men and women of conscience that it took as long as it has been before all of us stood up and to say, enough is enough.'' Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but feel similarly about our own stance towards West Papua during the height of the Cold War and our continued stance at present. Geo-politics aside, since the Indonesian government seized control of West Papua, the Pupuans have suffered blatant human rights abuses, including extrajudicial executions, imprisonment, torture and, according to Afrim Djonbalic's 1998 statement to the United Nations, ``environmental degradation, natural resource exploitation, and commercial dominance of immigrant communities.'' Sadly, Mr. Speaker, a U.S.-based company mining copper, gold, and silver in west Papua New Guinea allegedly shares in the exploitation and abuse of Papuan lands and its people. In West Papua, New Guinea, Mr. Speaker, Freeport-McMoRan, an American company in partnership with the Indonesian leaders and leading Australian and British mining companies, operates the world's largest gold mine and the world third largest copper mine in West Papua, New Guinea. Conservative estimates suggest that the copper reserves of Freeport are worth well over $23 billion. The gold reserves are worth around $15 billion. As it currently stands, the Indonesian government has approximately an 8.5 percent share in Freeport mining and Freeport pays Indonesia more money than any other company in the entire country. Mr. Speaker, from 1969 to 1971, Freeport built a 63-mile road from the southern coast of West Papua to the Ertsberg Mountain, moving 12 million tons of earth. As Mr. Wilson describes it in his book called Conquest of Copper Mountain, ``At one point, we literally had to chop off the top half of a mountain.'' Draft author James Lang in Irian Jaye case number 157, notes that, in 1967, Freeport signed a contract with the Indonesian government to mine for copper in 10,000 hectares, not acres, Mr. Speaker, hectares, of land belonging to the indigenous Amungme tribal people. Yet, to date, this report was in 1996, Mr. Speaker, Freeport's control has extended over three times as much land, and the company has no policy of commitment or royalty distribution to the local community. With the construction of a new city for its employees, Freeport mining company will take an additional 25,000 hectares of land from the Amungme tribe. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Freeport recently opened a new mind and Grasberg just two kilometers from the Timika site. Resting on 2.6 million hectares, again, Mr. Speaker, not acres, hectares of land acquired from Indonesia in 1991, the new mine will increase its output to 900 million pounds of copper and 1.1 million ounces of gold, making it the world's single biggest mining operation. In 1977, Mr. Speaker, the Amungme Tribe put in a claim for compensation for their lost land which the Indonesian government promptly and simply rejected. As spokesman for the Free Papua Movement summarized the situation, and I quote, ``Since Freeport signed contracts in 1967, it has regarded this land as not belonging to our people . . . the Indonesia Constitution considers it state land and any companies made by the Amungme people'' are declared ``as terrorist action.'' Mr. Speaker, Mr. Robert Bryce, contributing editor for the Austin Chronicle, noted in Mother Jones, this is an article in 1996, ``Freeport's Grasberg mine is essentially grinding the Indonesian mountain into dust, skimming off the precious metals, and dumping the remainder into the Ajkwa River. The pulverized rock (called `tailings') has created a wasteland in the river valley below. By its own estimates, the company will dump more than 40 million tons of tailings into the river this year alone,'' Mr. Speaker. ``The mine's tailings have already `severely impacted' more than 11 square miles of rainforest, according to the 1996 Dames & Moore environmental audit. The report, endorsed by Freeport, also estimates that over the life of the mine some 3.2 billion tons of waste rock, a great part of which generates acid, will be dumped into the local river system.'' ``At present,'' Mr. Speaker, ``the company mines 125,000 tons of ore each day. The company intends to increase that amount to 190,000 tons per day. At that rate, Mr. Speaker, Freeport will dump enough tailings in the Ajkwa River to fill Houston's Astrodome every 3 weeks.'' Mr. Speaker, from the University of Chicago, Mr. Marina Peterson writes in a stated report in 1996, ``Specific allegations have been made to Freeport's direct association with human rights abuses undertaken by the Indonesian government on Freeport land. Freeport facilities are policed both by Freeport security and the Indonesian military; Freeport feeds, houses, and provides transportation for the Indonesian military; and after any incidence of indigenous resistance against Freeport, the military responds while Freeport looks on. ``In 1977, when West Papuans attacked Freeport facilities, the Indonesian military bombed the natives using U.S.-made Broncos and a Freeport employee sent an anonymous letter to Tapol on August 6, 1977, writing `any native who is seen is shot dead on the spot.' The Obliteration of a People,'' dated 1983. Although Freeport likes to shift blame onto the Indonesian government, Press reports that `One recent Western traveler was told by a Freeport security employee that he and his coworkers amuse themselves by shooting randomly at passing tribesmen and watching them scurry in terror into the woods and Amnesty International reported that the military used steel containers from Freeport to incarcerate indigenous people.'' Mr. Speaker, it might be fair at this point to note that West Pupuans differ racially from the majority of Indonesians. West Papuans are Melanesian, believed to be of African descent. In 1990, Nelson Mandela reminded the United Nations that when ``it first discussed the South African question in 1946, it was discussing the issue of racism.'' I cannot help but wonder, Mr. Speaker, if what we are now discussing is the issue of racism in West Papua New Guinea. As Mahatma Gandhi said, ``Till we are fully free, we are slaves.'' Mr. Speaker, ultimately I believe in the goodness of people and in the goodness of the Members of this body. I believe that, as we are made aware of human suffering and gross injustice, we will rise to say enough is enough. It was not so long ago that Nelson Mandela stood before us in a joint session of Congress, some 9 years ago as I recall, Mr. Speaker, and commented on our stand against apartheid. ``The stand you took established the understanding among the millions of our people that here we have friends, here we have fighters against racism, who feel hurt because we are hurt, who seek our success because they, too, seek the victory of democracy over tyranny.'' Mr. Speaker, let the people of West Papua know that here, too, they have friends, here, too, they have fighters against racism, who feel hurt because they are hurt. Let them know that we seek their success because we, too, seek the victory of democracy over tyranny. Let us go out this evening with that determination, Mr. Speaker. Again, I love to share with my colleagues another quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. who said in part, ``I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war, that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere have dignity, equality, and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the alters of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land. I still believe that we shall overcome.'' That quote, by the way, Mr. Speaker, was part of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech that he made when he accepted the Nobel Prize for the promotion of peace in 1964. Mr. Speaker, I was in high school then. It was a little high school in the State of Hawaii. It was named Kahuku High School. My high school is among the smallest in number in the State of Hawaii, but Kahuku High School never lacked in size and fierceness when it came to football players. I was in high school, and our Nation had just elected a new President. I remember well the most profound statement that, to this day, is quoted by people and leaders throughout the world. It was President Kennedy who did not mince his words when he said it in his inaugural address, and I quote, ``Let every Nation know that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty.'' Mr. Speaker, there are close parallels between our country and the colonies of East Timor and West Papua New Guinea. Our Nation was founded under the yoke of British colonialism. East Timor was formerly a colony of Portugal, and West Papua New Guinea was a colonial possession of the Dutch or the Netherland. But there is a slight difference, however. Unlike the 13 colonies that eventually won its independence from England, immediately following the withdrawal of Portuguese and Dutch influence from East Timor and West Papua New Guinea, respectively, the Indonesian military became the new colonial master of these two colonies. So when we talk about colonies, Mr. Speaker, our Nation has a very real sense of appreciation what colonies are like: a constant fear of military rule by a military dictatorship, absolutely no freedom of expression, one's family and friends are not free to meet and to congregate, and even the right or privilege to petition the government for wrongdoings. One can forget about the privilege of voting freely for people of one's choice to represent you. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, just kiss goodbye to democracy. Mr. Speaker, our Nation currently is the most powerful, the most prosperous, and the only superpower remaining now since the fall of the former Soviet Union. There are those who argue that we should stop being the policeman of the world. But if we do not assist territories like East Timor and West Papua New Guinea should we let countries like China, Iran, and Iraq to take our place? We have actively supported the concept of regional security organizations like NATO. Why not revive the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization to serve similar functions that NATO currently provides in Europe? Mr. Speaker, let us give heed to President Kennedy's challenge to the world and to all our fellow Americans. Let us support the cause of freedom and democracy wherever and whenever any people who live under repressive military governments seek our help. I commend the people and the good leaders of East Timor for their long-last struggle to become a free people after some 25 years of military rule. Now I challenge my colleagues in the United Nations to do the same for the people of West Papua New Guinea who continue to live in fear of Indonesian military rule for the past 36 years, and that repressive rule still continues.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman and Mr. Gedjenson, for bringing to the House floor this important measure regarding the recent dire developments in East Timor. I would further deeply commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Asia-Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Lantos, for introducing the resolution and their considerable work on it. I am honored to be an orginal co-sponsor of House Resolution 292. Like many of our colleagues, I am greatly disturbed and saddened by the brutal, violent response of the pro-Jakarta militia and Indonesian military to the overwhelming vote for independence demonstrated by the courageous people of East Timor. However, I am not at all surprised at the rampant killings, Mr. speaker, as the Indonesian military has routinely used violence as a tool of repression. Although the Timorese struggle for self-determination has received much publicity, Mr. Speaker, scant attention has been paid to the people of West Papua New Guinea who have similarly struggled in Irian Jaya to throw off the yoke of Indonesian colonialism. As in East Timor, Indonesia took West Papua New Guinea by force in 1963. In a pathetic episode, the United Nations in 1969 sanctioned a fraudulent referendum, where only 1,025 delegates handpicked and paid-off by Jakarta were permitted to participate in an independence vote. The rest of the West Papuan people, over 800,000 strong, had absolutely no voice in the undemocratic process. Since Indonesia subjugated West Papua New Guinea, the native Papuan people have suffered under one of the most repressive and unjust systems of colonial occupation in the 20th century. Like in East Timor where 200,000 East Timorese are thought to have died, the Indonesian military has been brutal in Irian Jaya. Reports estimate that between 100,000 to 300,000 West Papuans have died or simply vanished at the hands of the Indonesian military. While we search for justice and peace in East Timor, Mr. Speaker, we should not forget the violent tragedy that continues to play out today in West Papua New Guinea. I would urge our coleagues, our great nation, and the international community to revisit the status of West Papua New Guinea to ensure that justice is also achieved there. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the events of the past weeks, the Indonesian Government should be condemned in the strongest terms for allowing untold atrocities to be committed against the innocent, unarmed civilians of East Timor. I commend President Clinton for terminating all assistacne to and ties with the Indonesian military. U.N. estimates are that over 300,000 Timorese, in excess of a third of the population of East Timor, have been displaced and it remains to be seen how many hundreds, if not thousands, have been killed in the mass bloodletting and carnage. Yesterday, the U.N. Human Rights Commission voted for an international inquiry into the atrocities committed in East Timor. The call for an international war crimes tribunal to punish those responsible for the atrocities should be heeded, even if it implicates the military leadership in Jakarta. I strongly supported the intervention of a U.N.-endorsed multinational force in East Timor and am heartened at their arrival in Dili last week. Although little more than half of the 7,500 troop peacekeeping force is presently on the ground, they have already had a significant effect in stabilizing the situation and restoring order. I especially commend the government of Australia for its leadership role with the multinational force and recognize the important and substantial troop-contributions of Thailand to the peacekeeping effort. While I bleieve America's role in the peacekeeping mission should have been greater, certainly the contribution of U.S. airlift and logistical support has been invaluable. If Australia, Thailand and our allies call upon us and it is necessary that the United States play a more substantial role in the peacekeeping effort--even if it means the contribution of a small contingent of ground troops which could easily be drawn from our reserves of U.S. Marines in Okinawa--we should not shirk our duty. Mr. Speaker, with Indonesia being the fourth largest nation and the largest Muslim country is the world, which sits astride major sealanes of communication and trade--certainly we have substantial national interests in preserving stability in Indonesia and Southeast Asia, as well as preventing a U.N. initiative from turning into a catastrophic humanitarian disaster. By its simple presence, Mr. Speaker, the international peacekeeping force in East Timor may well lend a hand in stabilizing not just that island but the fragile democracy that ostensibly governs Indonesia at this precarious point in that nation's development. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us addresses these concerns and I would urge our colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), our ranking member, for allowing this amendment to be brought before the floor. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of the proposed amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) to H.R. 2506 to require the Agency for Health Research and Quality to submit a report to Congress by January 2001 on telemedicine. Mr. Chairman, I represent a group of Americans living in a remote area, far from the modern hospitals or other major health facilities. The people of my district get sick and are injured just like anyone throughout the country. One big difference, Mr. Chairman, is that, if a person's serious injury or illness cannot be treated by a local physician, he may just have to wait awhile before he or she can be transferred to the nearest major hospital, which is about a 5-hour plane ride from Samoa to Honolulu. To make things more complicated, Mr. Chairman, there are only two flights per week between American Samoa and Honolulu. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, the cost of transporting a patient in a gurney, along with an attending nurse or physician 2,300 miles to Hawaii and back is quite significant, which leads to the very reason why I fully support this amendment for telemedicine. Mr. Chairman, presently health and medical care needs in rural America and distant U.S. insular areas are simply overwhelming the available resources. Telemedicine can work to lessen the costs and, at the same time, can dramatically improve the quality of and access to needed health and medical care. Telemedicine can be a very valuable tool to medical facilities in rural areas. We now have the technology to assist rural America, but the infrastructure is not always in place, and the costs are still somewhat of a concern. This amendment will require that we devote some of our resources to determining how best to move forward with this emergent technology to provide improved medical care for rural America. Again, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for his initiative by introducing this necessary amendment, and my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership and assistance by allowing this amendment to be included in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say basically, in response to my good friends, the gentlemen from Oregon and California, with regard to their concerns on this legislation, I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), our chairman, that we have worked very, very closely in trying to alleviate some of the problems and concerns that the Members have addressed earlier. I think the situation for us to bear in mind is that we have to start somewhere. The fact is that 10 years ago, the technology and getting the proper mappings, maybe it needs putting a little stronger wording in the language of the legislation to get the Fish and Wildlife Service to be responsive to the concerns that we have here in the Congress. I think as a whole the legislation should move forward. I think at the proper time in conference if the concerns are still not addressed, certainly the chairman is very sensitive to this issue, and I, for one, would certainly like to see that legislation pass. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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 have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I do want to commend my good friends, the gentlemen from Oregon and from California, for giving their expressions of concern to the legislation, especially coming from Pacific coastal States like Oregon and California. But I want to assure my good friends that the ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), is very conscious and very understanding of the situation, and Members will note also that the committee report points out those very concerns that we have. But at the same time, I want to say to my friends from Oregon and California that our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) nevertheless would like to see this legislation move forward, and that at an appropriate time, if things still are not being able to be worked out, both with the majority as well as with the administration, then of course we will not have the legislation. But I think the most difficult situation for us to consider now is that we have to start somewhere. If, rather, the option is that we kill this bill, then we might not have any legislation at all. I think that would be a terrible situation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respectfully ask my colleagues to support this bill, given the reservations expressed in the committee report. It does have the support of the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and other members of this committee. I would like to urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for his statement in support of this legislation. I want to say to the gentleman, as a former member of our Committee on Resources and certainly a champion of the oceans, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I believe that they have worked very well in alerting the Members of the importance of our oceans, and I know and sincerely hope that my good friend, the chairman of our subcommittee, that we will be taking up the legislation concerning oceans some time in the near future. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for her eloquent statement. She certainly has been one of the outstanding leaders certainly of this body concerning the environment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of our Committee on Resources, and also the ranking Democrat of our Committee on Resources, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), for their support and their assistance in making this legislation be brought before the floor. And I especially want to thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), for his efforts in bringing this bill, the reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act this year. Many of the provisions of this bill were developed cooperatively with the administration, and I appreciate the majority's willingness to work constructively on these issues and produce sensible legislation. Mr. Speaker, our national marine sanctuaries are precious for their biological wealth and ecological complexity, yet regrettably we have only now begun to comprehend their true significance and understand how some of our own activities such as global warming, marine debris, water pollution, and overfishing may be causing irreparable damage to these areas. To paraphrase the noted marine biologist and National Geographic Society's explorer in residence, Dr. Sylvia Earle who is now heading up the society's sustainable seas expeditions to explore our national marine sanctuaries, she said and I quote, ``With understanding comes appreciation, and with appreciation comes protection,'' end of quote. Mr. Speaker, with this legislation Congress again acknowledges that it appreciates the incredible asset that is our system of national marine sanctuaries. We have known for years that the marine sanctuaries program has been underfunded. Importantly, this legislation provides for substantially increased funding levels to support fuel operations, exploration, and research. Clearly it is our intention to get more dollars out to the sites, especially to those sanctuaries in the Pacific which have been little increased in their budget allotments over the past few years. I look forward toward working collaboratively with the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to fully fund these authorized levels. Increased funding and other helpful improvements contained in this bill should strengthen the future of this entire system of marine-protected areas. However, Mr. Speaker, I and the other members, Democratic members of the Committee on Resources, continue to be troubled with the inclusion of title II of this bill. The problem is not with the substance of the provision. We support the reauthorization of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, but we contend that it rightfully belongs in another bill, one to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act. Mr. Speaker, since its inception, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System has always been part of the Coastal Zone Management Act. In fact, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System reauthorization is also included in H.R. 2669, the chairman's bill, the legislation of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act. That bill was reported from the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans on August 5, which is last month. Unfortunately, the bill of the reauthorization has not yet been scheduled for markup and it is my sincere hope that we will be able to provide a markup for this legislation in the near future. Mr. Speaker, I worry that tacking the Reserves provision onto the marine sanctuary bill will remove any incentive for the majority to pursue reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. This procedure sends a strong signal that the majority may have no intention whatsoever of moving the Coastal Zone Management Act bill in this Congress. I have heard this very same concern raised by several State coastal managers who are greatly concerned about what this move means to the Coastal Zone Management Act program funding for this year. I am very concerned that our committee cannot report this as a clean bill to the Coastal Zone Management Act. This statute was reauthorized by unanimous vote only 3 years ago by my good friend in the Republican majority of the Congress. It authorizes a widely popular voluntary Federal/State partnership program that embodies many of the very same principles of government that the majority usually extols. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuary Program. In addition, I support the reauthorization of the National Estuarine Research Reserves, but urge that it be included as part of the Coastal Zone Management Act, where it belongs, in statute as well as in practice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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.)