Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, on November 1, 1995, I had the honor of introducing a resolution heralding the Monterey Language Capital of the World initiative. H. Res. 266 commends the Monterey Bay public-private partnership for its recognition of the unique language resources that are located in the 17th Congressional District and its strong commitment to promoting language diversity. Monterey is directly involved with 25 percent of the Nation's postsecondary learning in languages other than English. What Research Triangle Park is to applied academics, what Silicon Valley is to high technology, Monterey Bay will be to language learning. California's central coast has a rich heritage of professional language resources, including: the Defense Language Institute, the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, the AT&T Language Line Services, the Monterey Institute of International Studies, California State University at Monterey Bay, the University of California at Santa Cruz, Monterey Peninsula College, CTB McGraw-Hill, and American Global Studies Institute. One of my earliest initiatives after being elected in 1993 was to convene a higher education summit in the district. The participants-- CSUMB, USSC, Monterey Peninsula College, MIIS--all agreed to hammer out a language memorandum of understanding whereby the educational institutions agreed to share resources in language training. In order to make the Defense Language Institute a participant in the Language MOU, I secured passage of a provision in the fiscal year 1994 defense bill which allows civilians to attend the DLI. With a faculty of 900 and a student body of 3,000, DLI is the largest language training institution in the world. It has been located in Monterey since 1946, and teaches foreign languages to other Federal agencies like the FBI, NASA, and the DEA. For instance, when an American astronaut participates in a joint United States-Russian space mission, he has been trained in Russian at the DLA so that he can talk to his mission counterpart. The U.S. Naval Postgraduate School provides professional, service- oriented educational programs for the U.S. Armed Forces and foreign militaries, and has played host to students from more than 100 nations. While no foreign languages are taught at the NPGS, its students learn other languages at DLI and contribute to the multicultural fabric of Monterey. The AT&T Language Line Services, the largest provider of telephone- based language services in the world, provides around the clock interpretation for business, emergency service providers, communities and institutions across the United States and Canada, and the United Kingdom in 140 languages. It was created from the vision of a former San Jose police officer who saw the critical need for law enforcement officers to be able to communicate with the people they served. AT&T bought the service in 1989. Eighty percent of major hospitals in the United States and more than 45 percent of all hospitals subscribe to the service, as do the INS, the U.S. Coast Guard, the SBA, and most major insurance companies and financial institutions throughout the United States. In fact, at my suggestion the attending physician of U.S. Congress subscribes to the service in order to be able to communicate with any foreign speaking tourists who may require medical treatment while visiting the U.S. Capital. The Monterey Institute of International Studies has an extensive graduate school curriculum that includes the only master's degree in translation and interpretation in the Western Hemisphere. It was established in 1955 to teach modern languages in their cultural context. The programs at the MIIS are designed to develop bilingual professionals, integrating advanced foreign language education into professional programs in business, public administration and policy studies. California State University at Monterey Bay will house the new Center for Intensive Language and Culture and an Institute of Collaborative Human Services that will provide non-emergency telephone help, like 911, for non-English speakers. Working with the AT&T Language Line Services for simultaneous translation, CSUMB, which just opened this fall, will expand its basic language programs for teaching students enrolled overseas. It is these types of innovative, collaborative partnerships that reinforce Monterey's foundation as the language capital of the world. Monterey Peninsula College offers eight foreign languages, a significant number for a 2-year community college, including Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, and Russian. It is committed to maintaining a strong language department with emphasis on Pacific rim languages, in keeping with international economic trends for business and commerce. What is unique about this public-private initiative is that all the language resources interface with each other to create a seamless language web. For example, graduates of the MIIS work at the AT&T Language Line and at the DLI. CSUMB will enjoy employ faculty from the DLI and MIIS to teach language classes. Some NPGS students may be assigned to the DLI for specific language training classes. Moreover, there are very sound economic reasons to promote language diversity, particularly as they relate to the travel and tourism industry, the Nation's second largest employer which provides more than 13 million jobs. For instance, did you know that: $58 billion in Federal, State and local tax revenues were generated through travel and tourism in 1994; the typical American household spends $3,900 per year on travel; the World Tourism Organization projects that in the year 2000, more than 661 million people will travel internationally; and international visitor spending now accounts for over 14 percent of all travel expenditures in the United States, compared to five percent in 1983. What these statistics indicate to me is that we must compete aggressively for the international travel and tourism dollar and the international traveler--who is most likely multilingual. We can only do that by strengthening our commitment to language training and encourage language development in the citizenry of our own country. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor H. Res. 266 and to support your local language resources to ensure continued U.S. global leadership and enhance U.S. economic competiveness.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent last night during rollcall 774 because I was attending to certain representational duties at an event across town. Consequently, I was unable to cast my vote during rollcall 774, the motion to recommit House Joint Resolution 115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the motion.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, last July, Yitzhak Rabin addressed a joint session of Congress together with King Hussein of Jordan. He spoke of the many Israelis who had suffered from war, whose friends and family had died in violence. During his speech, he said: Today, we are embarking on a battle which has no dead and no wounded, no blood and no anguish. This is the only battle which is a pleasure to wage: the battle for peace. Alas, there is today both blood and anguish. Yitzhak Rabin was a great man and a great leader. He was brave, wise, and he cared very deeply about his fellow countrymen and women. Years ago, I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Rabin before he had become Prime Minister. I was struck by how much he cared about making the world a better place for his people. Indeed, it was his one goal, his only goal. His whole life was spent in the service of Israel. He fought in many battles for Israeli independence, and later became Chief of Staff of the Israeli military. He held many posts in the government, including Ambassador to the United States, Defense Minister, and a previous term as Prime Minister. During his final years, Yitzhak Rabin dedicated his life to an extraordinarily difficult journey: bringing peace to the Middle East. Difficult, because people have always found it is easier to solve differences through violence. Difficult, because there are always those who oppose negotiation, for in it they see their own concessions rather than the great good it brings to all. In his same speech before Congress, Mr. Rabin quoted from the poet Archibald MacLeish: ``They say: We leave you our deaths. Give them their meaning.'' Today, it is our task to give meaning to Mr. Rabin's death. We cannot let his years of labor towards building a new and permanent peace in the Middle East come to nothing. The arduous journey to peace shall continue, and we must help Israel in fulfilling it.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and particularly to the so- [[Page H 11890]] called Istook language that is in this bill. The reputation of an excellent nonprofit company in California has been sullied because of the inflammatory and the inaccurate information being circulated by proponents of the Istook amendment. There is an organization called HANDSNET which operates in California, which was supported heavily by Governor Deukmejian and operates a national on-line electronic communication network of 5,000 human service organizations. It is entirely supported by member fees and foundation and corporate grants. They recently received a $200,000 competitive grant from the Department of Commerce on the national infrastructure issues to support the training of national human service organizations to become more computer literate. The grant was matched by $200,000 additional foundation and corporate grants. What is being lost in this rhetoric is that HANDSNET is a carrier, a conduit vehicle, for distribution of information, not a publisher. Do not shoot the messenger; in this case, HANDSNET, just because they are delivering a message that you do not like. I ask for defeat of the rule.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, the amendment to H.R. 1833 that Ms. Lofgren and I had intended to offer this morning was narrowly drafted to protect the life and health of the mother and in those tragic instances of severe, fatal fetal abnormalities. While this is an emotional issue, we must remember that we are talking about real women's lives--in this case my former constituent, Tammy Watts, who lived in Monterey at the time she and her husband faced the painful choice to terminate her third trimester pregnancy. Tammy and her husband, Mitch, had been eagerly looking forward to the birth of their first child they had named the child, and bought the furniture, with all the dreams and joy of any expectant couple. The Watts' received the devastating news in her seventh month of pregnancy that their fetus suffered from a severe and fatal fetal anomaly, Trisomy 13. Their fetus already had enlarged and failing kidneys, no eyes, diseased and malfunctioning brain tissue, and a non- functional mass of bowels, intestines, and bladder growing outside the body. The Watts' were told by numerous doctors that there were no surgical or genetic therapies to help their fetus. For all the advances in medical science, the sad and painful truth that Tammy and Mitch had to face was that their fetus would not live, even if carried full term. As if the situation were not tragic enough, Tammy was told by her physicians that if she had continued the pregnancy and let the fetus die in utero, dangerous toxins could have been released into Tammy's body, presenting grave risk to her health and to her ability to have children in the future.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on asking my colleagues to look at the bill. We have been looking at a lot of pictures today, but look at the bill. Mr. Chairman, we are lawmakers. That is what my colleagues were sent here to do. This law says whoever performs a partial-birth abortion. What is a partial-birth abortion? There is no medical description of that. We are making that up today. Whoever performs it shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both. This is a bad law. We need to vote it down, because we did not pass the rule to allow for a good debate and good amendments.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I am honored to be able to talk on this subject with my colleagues. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. First of all, let's look at the numbers: By the end of this year, an estimated 17,600 California women will be diagnosed. Four thousand four hundred California women will die. Breast cancer is an epidemic against our wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. During the 1970's and 80's the incidence increased in older women by 49 percent. Virtually all women are at risk for developing breast cancer during their lives. But October is not Breast Cancer Awareness Month to let everyone know how many women will die, it is awareness on how to survive. How can we protect ourselves and the ones that we love? Through two steps: (1) Early detection, and (2) Increased funding for medical research. Early detection can be achieved through screening with mammographys and clinical breast examinations. That means making mammographys available to all women regardless of cost. The recent cuts in Medicare and Medicaid will definitely have a terrible effect on poorer older women who are in desperate need for these tests. Increased funding is also needed. In 1993, the Department of Defense received an appropriation of $210 million for breast cancer research. The National Institutes of Health plans to spend $426 million for breast cancer research. In 1995, the funding was completely zeroed out. These amounts are not sufficient, and I will tell you why . . . No major treatment has been introduced. No proven prevention methods have emerged. The mortality rate has remained constant. We must work together to promote early detection and to achieve increased research funding in our fight against breast cancer. Let's extend awareness beyond October. We owe it to the women we love.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to resolve a major water resource problem in the Pajaro Valley of Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, CA. My bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into any contracts or agreements he deems necessary to assist the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency to implement the provisions of their Basin Management Plan for the resolution of the groundwater overdraft problems currently being experienced in the area. Mr. Speaker, the Pajora Valley is one of the most important agricultural regions in this Nation. Agriculture is the foundation for the local economy. The Pajora Valley is one of the Nation's major producers of strawberries and other vegetable and fruit crops. Last year, the valley produced crops with a value in excess of $460 million. For over 30 years, however, residents of the area have struggled to find a publicly acceptable solution to the problem of groundwater overdraft. Groundwater is the only major source of water for more than 30,000 acres irrigated in the valley. In 1984, the California State Legislature, and the citizens of the area, authorized establishment of the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency. The agency was directed to develop a comprehensive plan for the elimination of the groundwater overdraft problem and to find a long-term, stable water supply to preserve agriculture in the valley. In November, 1993 the Agency finalized the Basin Management Plan which presents a comprehensive strategy for solving the groundwater overdraft problem in a manner acceptable to local residents. The plan-- or BMP-- is a comprehensive and thorough document. It examined every viable option and provides a reasonable set of solutions acceptable to local residents. The BMP doesn't's look to someone else to finance or solve the problems of groundwater overdraft. Rather, it presents a series of near- and long-term measures to correct the problem. Further, the local resident will not send the bill to someone else. The BMP authorizes locally-imposed fees and other charges in order to finance implementation of the preferred alternatives. The local residents are committed to solving this problem, including paying their share of the costs. There is, however, one major impediment to successful implementation of the BMP. The Secretary of the Interior currently lacks authority to enter into contracts or other agreements to implement various aspects of the BMP. As a result, the agency is not able to take advantage of its entitlement to 19,000 acre-feet of water from the San Felipe Unit, Central Valley Project. Without a contract, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to secure the financing needed to build the facilities outlined in the BMP. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely vital that the groundwater overdraft problems of the Pajaro Valley be resolved as soon as possible. The future of the local economy is based on continued supply of high quality groundwater for the production strawberries and other valuable crops. The local residents have done their part. They have established a local water district, developed a sensible and cost-effective solution, and they are willing to pay for it themselves. Now it is time for the Federal Government to do its part. We should authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into such contracts or agreements as he deems appropriate to help the local residents solve this critical problem. Mr. Speaker, I urge prompt passage of this important legislation.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend President Clinton for supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA]. This act seeks to extend Federal employment discrimination protections currently provided based on race, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability to include sexual orientation under title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It does not create any special rights for lesbians and gay men. The bill prohibits employers from subjecting an individual to different standards or treatment because of that individual's sexual orientation. Hiring quotas are expressly prohibited. ENDA applies to Federal, State and local governments, including U.S. Congress. There are certain exemptions to this legislation which include small businesses, the Armed Forces, and religious organizations. ENDA ensures that all Americans will be able to keep their jobs based on their performance and quality of work, regardless of sexual orientation. The bill is designed to protect the rights of all Americans to participate in the job market without the fear of unfair discrimination. Professional skills and job performance should be the sole factors by which employers judge their employees. I am pleased that the President decided to endorse this very important piece of legislation. Currently, discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation is legal in 41 States. Forty-one States. It shocks me that this blatant discrimination continues in our society. Solid, upstanding citizens in all walks of life--businessmen and women, doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, and others--are subject to unfair treatment in the workplace simply because of their sexual orientations. The fact that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the quality of work product does not seem to matter in the face of this most onerous discrimination. Legislation such as ENDA is definitely needed. While the Federal Government is still trying to pass this bill, many local jurisdictions in my State of California have already enacted antidiscrimination laws. I am an original cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This bill is about ending discrimination in the workplace. Every American gay or not, deserves the right to equal opportunity. Discrimination continues to exist in our society and must be fought. We all must be willing to create jobs for all people who want to work and we must dedicate ourselves to end the hate which continues to plague our country.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I hear from my constituents that those of us serving in Congress should give the three-way test to all bills. The three-way test that my district holds me accountable for is the three E's, which stand for education, economy, and the environment. This bill fails on all three accounts. First, it hurts education. It eliminates the 6-month interest subsidy on student loans for new college graduates which will cost students $3.5 billion. It also caps spending for school lunch and child nutrition programs which help students meet the basic nutritional need. Second, it hurts the economy. It cuts $13.4 billion from agricultural programs without reinvesting any of those savings into research or trade, threatening our Nation's critical agricultural industry. It cuts the earned income tax credit which gives millions of Americans incentive to be productive members of our work force. Above all, it cuts programs that encourage trade, research, and development which have the serious impact on our economic growth. Finally, this bill hurts the environment. The Committee on Resources part of this bill are a fire sale on some of our most precious natural resources. It sells the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to the oil companies. It sells mountains to the ski resorts, and sells the rivers to the water developers. It sells the trees to the timber cutters. It sells the precious minerals to the mining companies. None of the funds that are derived from these sales get reinvested into the environment. It grabs it all and hides it. Mr. Chairman, this bill also eliminates dozens of programs from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, including those that study global warming and research on the ocean environment. This bill does not answer our fiscal problems. Congress has already cut the deficit by $130 billion and did so without hurting education, without hurting the economy, and without hurting the environment. It also did so without balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly, yet this bill does exactly that by increasing the cost of Medicare and giving tax relief to the very wealthy.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. My concern is I think you are using the fear tactic of lawsuits. There have never been lawsuits filed. We make some very controversial issues on this.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARR. As you know, the councils now set very controversial issues, and, as you know, in this piece of legislation they can include conservation and management measures necessary to minimize by-catch, that is, the TED's used in Louisiana waters. Those are very controversial. There has never been a lawsuit on that.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I think you have just pinpointed the exact difficulty: That nobody wants to deal with this issue. They have had the ability; it is permissible in law; they could have dealt with it if they wanted to.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, in the original bill of the gentleman from Alaska, there was this language. And, in fact, it was not even as weak as perhaps my amendment is, because my amendment says ``to the extent practicable.'' The problem that I think the gentleman recognizes is there is only one body that really can deal with it and has the total jurisdiction and that is the councils.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for dedicating his service here in Congress to revising this trend and introducing H.R. 39 to help preserve our fisheries for fishers and fish eaters for many generations to come. However, there is a flaw in the bill. It was made in committee after its original introduction by the gentleman from Alaska, and my amendment corrects that flaw and brings it back to the way it was first presented to the committee. Mr. Chairman, in essence what is happening with many of our fishery stocks in America in our offshore waters is that the habitat of those fishing stocks are being destroyed and there is no requirement for the councils that manage these fish stocks to look into habitat protection for fish stock protection. Indeed, in my district alone, the famous Monterey area which people know about because of Steinbeck's writing about the sardine industry, we lost 30,000 jobs in California. We have an industry, the Monterey sardine industry once supported Cannery Row and it died out 50 years ago because of overfishing. California alone has lost 30,000 jobs since 1978. In a recent report by Governor Wilson on the future of California's ocean resources says that the total California catch declined 18 percent between 1991 and 1992. These losses forced the Governor to declare a state of emergency in 1994 for California's north coast fishing communities. True, California has had a bumper salmon season, but this does not make up for years of decline. My amendment does one simple thing. It simply requires the regional fishery management councils to include measures to minimize, to the extent practicable, fishing impact on fish habitat. We all know too well that healthy fisheries depend on healthy habitat. Fishery biologists and other scientists point out the loss of wetland and river habitat as the major cause for decline in many commercial fisheries. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 39 will help address this problem, helping to slow some of the inland harm to commercial fisheries. But the fishing industry itself has a part to play in protecting the fish habitat. The way the bill is currently drafted, it says that the councils may take steps to minimize impacts on fishing habitats. This is essentially the same as current law which, while it does not mention the subject, would still allow councils to take steps if they chose to. The problem is that the councils have done nothing to address this under current law. Since they are not required and they will not be required, there is no indication they will address the problem at all. Thus, the councils could go on ignoring fish habitat issues under this bill. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fix this problem by requiring conservation measures necessary to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on the impact of habitat caused by fishing. It would require the councils to look for ways to minimize the impacts that fishing gear and fishing practices have on the habitat. This might include time or area closures or restrictions of particular types of gear. If the councils find that such measures are practical, my amendment would require the councils to include them in their plans. Contrary to what my colleagues might hear, my amendment will not allow any lawsuits because the Magnuson Act, and H.R. 39, do not include citizen suit provisions. Thus, my amendment would provide no basis for lawsuits; certainly, no more basis than any other mandatory provisions in H.R. 39. Contrary to what my colleagues might hear, my amendment would not give one kind of fisherman a weapon to reallocate fishing shares, because the Magnuson Act requires the councils to allocate fish access to fisheries in a fair and equitable manner. Finally, it may look like environmental interests are driving this amendment, but there is clearly an environmental component to it. Even if the fish habitat impacts raise no environmental concerns, economics would still argue for my amendment. The decline of a fishery because of fish habitat loss helps kill jobs, helps kill coastal economies and consumer choice. Mr. Chairman, I am offering my amendment because it has broad support from people who make their living catching fish, including such organizations as the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen; the Golden Gate Fisherman's Association; the North Pacific Fisheries Association; the Alaskan Marine Conservation Council; the Unalaska Native Fisherman's Association; the New Jersey Alliance to Save Fisheries; King and Sons, Inc., the largest shipper of American lobsters in the world; Trout Unlimited; the Maine Lobsters Association; the Maine Fish Conservation Network; and the Center for Marine Conservation. Mr. Chairman, I believe that councils should be required to take those practical steps needed to minimize the impacts. I ask for an aye vote on my amendment.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, they could have dealt with it and have not. We have to, as lawmakers, make that responsible decision to say that this is important enough that they have to deal with it where it is practicable to deal with it.

Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to point out a couple of issues here. One is, this makes it possible, to the extent practicable, to regulate. It is also a bill that is very much supported by the fishery groups, by the people making their living in the water. They understand there is this controversy going on, and they need to have a forum where that controversy can be resolved. I agree with the chairman we do not want this resolved in Washington. That is why we are delegating the responsibility to the commission so that they can resolve it on a case-by-case basis on the issues, on the fish that they are responsible in law to regulate. This bill makes the inclusion of the issue that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] just brought up, the by-catch measures, mandatory. That is going to be as controversial as anything in the bill. Indeed, if you are worried about issues raising for lawsuits, that one you could argue is even more so than what I am trying to do. I urge these Members to take a look at those that are sponsoring this amendment, a broad range of fishery groups on both the East Coast, the West Coast, and fishery groups that make their living at the sea, and they want this conflict of the sea resolved. We think this is the best way to do it. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to compliment the gentleman from Alaska, Chairman Young, for bringing this measure to the floor, but I also want to talk for a moment just about why it is essential that we adopt amendments like this and the one we just adopted. Since 1976, the United States has had exclusive jurisdiction over the, out to 200 miles, what we call the exclusive economic zone. That means that all of the activities, whether they be mining or fishing, sports or commercial, are regulated within that zone. We are the only elected body that has responsibility for that, because all of that property is under public ownership. I think that the big debate on this whole bill is how we move forward in the 21st century being able to sustain a very vital activity which is labor intensive, and for every coastal community in the United States that has been historically the reason for that community existing, and that is its offshore fisheries. We have seen, and, as I said before, I represent the Monterey Bay area, which was once the sardine capital of the world. We lost all that. The canneries shut down. We had massive unemployment. The fishermen stopped fishing. It was a really depressed area. Why did it happen? It was because nobody took account of what was in balance, of trying to keep the fisheries in balance. What this amendment is all about is it essentially is a statement by those of us, Members of the U.S. Congress, who have taken the oath of office to manage these resources in a practical, reasonable manner, so that they are indeed this word that we use all the time now, sustainable, so that future generations can go out there and fish as well. We have to manage it. The debate is on how you manage it. We have given that responsibility to these fishery councils. Do they manage every kind of fishery in the ocean? No. Do they get into certain commercial fisheries? Yes. Why do we have those councils? Because we need to have some local forum, where the debate about that particular fishery can be held and rules can be set. The season can be set, limited entry, if that is the issue, can be set, in a way in which we have been able to delegate the responsibility for looking at that fishery. What these amendments are all about is giving that council a little bit more authority, saying look beyond just the fishery at hand, the ability for us to make money on a catch this year. Let us look at trying to sustain this over a period of time; and, indeed, if you are disturbing the hatchery, the very thing that is providing the commercial catch, you are going to wipe out that fishery. As the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] said, our Nation has jurisdiction over more ocean territory than any other country in the world, and is now a net importer of fish because we have lost so many of our fisheries. This importing of fish is essentially creating additional Federal trade debt. So these amendments I think are very responsible amendments. We are the only ones in the United States, the only elected officials, that can deal with this issue, because we have exclusive jurisdiction over the economic zone of the oceans out to 200 miles, and these councils are wisely, as this bill states, the responsibility for managing those zones for a particular type of fishery. I think if these councils have enough responsibility and enough jurisdiction to do it wisely, indeed, we can sustain these fisheries for generations to come. The fishermen that are there today and the fisherwomen there today, their generations and their grandchildren can go into that industry. If we do not protect these fisheries, they are going to be a one time wipe out and nobody will be employed, and the processors will be shut down, the truckers will be shut down, and the commercial activity of fishing will be lost. That would be senseless, for the U.S. Congress until 1995 to wipe out one of America's most effective and historic industries. So I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment here that was adopted unanimously in the Committee on Resources and I ask that it be inserted into this bill. Mr. Chairman, the amendment essentially requires NOAA to keep open the Ocean Applications Branch, which is a small office that is moving toward privatization to fully develop its own privatized funding. The Navy's Fleet Numerical Meteorological and Oceanographic Center in Monterey is the leading global marine forecasting center and provides all the military's ocean forecasting data. The center provides real time oceanographic data from a variety of satellite and terrestrial observation posts. This information is used to generate up-to-the-minute marine analysis and weather forecasting for over 1,000 private and public center users, and I ask that this amendment be adopted. Mr. Chairman, I think there is no controversy on it. It has been unanimously agreed to in the policy committee.