Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives in the Capital of this country to pay tribute to one of California's most beloved public servants: Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard B. Iglehart, who passed away in Istanbul on July 2 while attending a State Department-sponsored conference. He was just 60 years old. He was a friend, a brother, a colleague, and he leaves behind so many wonderful people. He is survived by his beloved wife Judith Iglehart; his son, Matthew Iglehart; his stepsons, Christopher and Scott; his sister Barbara; his brother-in-law Hans; Alan Iglehart, a brother; six nephews and nieces, aunts and cousins, and his former wife, Dee Iglehart. I met Dick in Santa Clara Law School. Before that, he had gone to Piedmont High School and UC Berkeley where he was a Beta and played rugby. He served in the Army in Germany as an officer in the 3rd Armored Cavalry. After graduating, he went to Santa Clara Law School where I met him. He ended up being a career prosecutor who became the chief assistant district attorney in Alameda and also in San Franciso Counties. He became the chief assistant for the criminal division in the California attorney general's office under Attorney General John van de Camp. Dick also served as the counsel to the Assembly Public Safety Committee. He was a California district attorneys association lobbyist and was an Assembly Fellow. He worked unceasingly to rid California and the Nation of assault weapons. He was instrumental in helping pass legislation lowering the penalties on marijuana possession. He changed the laws, making it easier for child sexual assault victims to testify in court. He was an expert on sentencing procedures, the California three strikes laws, Proposition 36, and serial killers, and an early champion for using DNA as a testing in criminal trials. He taught at Hastings, and he also gave courses for continuing education of the bar. He lectured at the FBI Academy, Berkley Center for Study of Law and Society, and he often spoke at the local high schools. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is in the district that Dick is from so she can also pay tribute. While she is coming to the microphone, I will say that while we are here on the floor there is a memorial service in her district at Piedmont at the Piedmont Community Church.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much. We would like to say to the family, we love you, Dick. We will see you around and give a hug to our friends in heaven, and we will keep the torch burning. Christine Pelosi said Dick taught us to put a human face on the criminal justice system for terrified and traumatized victims and witnesses, while understanding that today's defendants could well be yesterday's or tomorrow's victims. Dick had the legal acumen, rock- solid integrity, and sense of humor that helped us address those sad realities, and to manage the pressure to succeed as prosecutors and grow as legal professionals. But Dick was more than just a boss ``he was a great big bear of a man who always stuck up for us young prosecutors, particularly the women, when judges of opponents tried to rough us up. Having his confidence in us made us all the more able to successfully prosecute the tough cases.'' Attorney Michael Weiss said: ``He asked me if I had ever thought about being a prosecutor. I told him that I had briefly entertained the idea. He told me that he had spent nearly his entire career in law as a prosecutor and that he couldn't remember a day when he didn't look forward to going to work.'' ``My days working for Dick were some of my best. And to this day, his words continued to inspire me: to find a quality in my work that makes it something I look forward to, everyday.''

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Santa Cruz Children's Learning Museum. This local hands-on museum is still in its early stages of development, yet it is a bright treasure in our community. The Museum strives to provide a place for children to explore, create and discover in a safe and nurturing environment. I am proud to honor this valuable local resource. One of the many goals of the Children's Learning Museum is to foster children's imagination and creative potential through programs in music, science, literacy, art, peace, unity and esteem. Some of these programs include the creation of a book entitled Louden Nelson: From Slavery to Philanthropy, only recently released. This book follows the history of the life of a freed slave, Mr. Louden Nelson, who was an advocate for children's education and donated much of his land for the creation and strengthening of the schools in Santa Cruz. Additionally, they have started an annual drumming circle in which parents and children gather with the community to learn drumming techniques and raise funds for the museum. The Children's Learning Museum also joined in the September 11th Peace and Unity Project by creating one out of the four peace-themed murals that were sent to the United Nations in the tragic wake of the events of September 11th. The Children's Learning Museum is planning many more events that create an inclusive community and encourage adults and children to learn from each other. Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the Santa Cruz Children's Learning Museum's annual Mayor's Breakfast in Santa Cruz County. There, I joined the mayor of Santa Cruz, my dear friend Emily Reilly, as well as the Santa Cruz City Schools Superintendent, Alan Pagano, in stressing the important of hands-on learning for children so they may access their full learning capability. The guests were also treated to Mexican folkloric dances by local school children, and a dramatic reading of Louden Nelson: From Slavery to Philanthropy was performed by the very talented Billie Harris. Most of all, however, was a feeling that the dedicated staff and volunteers who are working to expand the programs and offerings of the museum are a committed group: committed to education, committed to the community, and committed to the children. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the good work of the Santa Cruz Children's Learning Museum, and thank them for the chance to be a part of their annual Mayor's Breakfast.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a new piece of legislation--the ``Winning the Peace Act of 2003''. I am pleased to be joined by colleagues from both sides of the aisle--Representative Wolf of Virginia, Representative Hoeffel of Pennsylvania, Representative Leach of Iowa, and Representative Wexler of Florida--as original cosponsors of the bill. The ``Winning the Peace Act of 2003'' creates a much-needed institutional framework to deal with post-conflict situations, such as those the U.S. currently faces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The principle components of the bill are as follows: Creation of Director of Reconstruction Positions to provide a point person in the U.S. government to coordinate operations in post-conflict scenarios. Creation of a FEMA-like office within USAID to manage a database and serve as a clearinghouse for post-conflict reconstruction experts, and to provide support for post-conflict operations. Creation of a NATO unit to respond to post-conflict scenarios, and authorization of the President to make a U.S. contribution of personnel to the unit. Establishment of a U.S. post-conflict training center, building on existing training programs in the country. ` Creation of a Civilian Police Reserve to train and deploy American police officers interested in serving overseas in post-conflict environments. Creation of a ``Security Development Fund''--$300 million in a drawdown account to provide resources to cover immediate and unforeseen costs in declared post-conflict situations, and potential U.S. contributions to multilateral operations. The ``Winning the Peace Act of 2003'' is designed to fill a vacuum in U.S. foreign policy. It creates institutional mechanisms where only adhoc arrangements exist. It establishes a permanent source of funding instead of relying on the Congressional appropriations calendar, or emergency supplemental bills. Equally important, the bill lays the groundwork, through training and education, for a new cadre of post- conflict experts, both civilians and military, in the governmental and non-governmental sectors. The United States has faced post-conflict situations in the past--in the 1940s in Germany and Japan, and more recently in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, to name a few. We, along with our allies--countries and multilateral institutions--have observed and learned much in recent history. While it is true that no two situations are identical, it can be said there are always common challenges. The ``Winning the Peace Act of 2003'' addresses those challenges and will strengthen the capacity of the United States to pursue its foreign policy objectives in the future.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Clinica Mariposa, Planed Parenthood of Watsonville, CA. During a time when healthcare services are continually becoming more expensive, and information on reproductive health is becoming more restricted, Planned Parenthood provides invaluable services and resources to the Watsonville community. For nearly thirty years, Clinica Mariposa has offered education, outreach, and medical services to an ever-growing population that depends on these affordable services. Since the establishment of Planned Parenthood services in Watsonville in 1974, there has been a demonstrated commitment to affordability, cultural sensitivity, confidentiality, and high medical standards. All of these things contribute to the achievement of Planned Parenthood's goal of ``every child, a wanted child, every family a healthy family.'' It is frightening that in a country based on opportunity and equality, there are so many people who are without healthcare. Planned Parenthood has become a crucial part of the local healthcare network that provides a broad range of affordable services. Over the years, the growing health needs of the Watsonville community have been answered by Planned Parenthood and their ever-expanding services and facilities. By utilizing community-based satellites at farm labor camps and community agencies in addition to the Penny Lane location, Planned Parenthood fills a special role serving low-income residents regardless of their insurance status. In an atmosphere where the constitutionally established right to reproductive choice is being threatened, and access to comprehensive sex education is being limited, the presence and services of Planned Parenthood are critical now more than ever. The presence of Planned Parenthood in Watsonville has ensured that residents have the full spectrum of choices and opportunities regarding their health. In addition, through school based education programs, Planned Parenthood has worked to reduce unintended teen pregnancies by giving young people the information and skills they need to make healthy choices. The exceptional services that Planned Parenthood offers would be impossible without the dedication of the staff, the generosity of their many supporters, and the support of community leaders. I applaud the hard work of all those who have devoted their time and energy to the cause of affordable, high quality healthcare at the Watsonville Planned Parenthood.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 294, condemning the terrorism inflicted on Israel, expressing solidarity with the Israeli people, and calling on the Palestinian Authority to take immediate and effective steps to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure on the West Bank and Gaza. I also rise today to express my solidarity with all those who support the efforts towards peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the comments of the gentlewoman from California, Representative Capps. I wish to echo her reservations about this bill. The introduction of this resolution should have provided us the opportunity to restate the United States' commitment to peace, and our commitment to the President's roadmap, which lays out responsibilities for both the Israelis and the Palestinians in the pursuit of peace. The roadmap, like any negotiated plan, is imperfect. But it is supported by the President, it is supported by Israel, it is supported by the Palestinian Authority. It is the best plan that we have right now. Having said that, I am pleased that this resolution recognizes the plight of innocent Palestinians who have been caught in a cycle of terrorist attacks and government reprisals. It also recognizes the aspiration of Palestinians to create their own state, which will live in peace and prosperity with its neighbor Israel. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in Congress, with the Administration and with the communities in the Middle East to foster a true and lasting peace in the Middle East. I believe that peace must be the ultimate goal of the United States policy towards the region. Peace is in the national interest of Israel, the future security of a Palestinian state, and in the national security interest of the American government and its people.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, on June 17, I signed onto the discharge petition H.R. 303, and I rise today to express my continued support of the efforts to release this bill from committee. Concurrent receipt is an issue that warrants the attention of this House, the Senate and the President of the United States. Currently, veterans who have served our country nobly and suffered a service-connected disability receive a retirement check reduced by the amount of their disability compensation. With that reduction, the disability compensation becomes negated as it simply fills the hole left by the federal government in the veterans' retirement checks. American men and women who served in our Armed Services need not be slighted anymore after putting their lives in harm's way for the survival of this great democracy. This discharge petition will draw out those that believe the codes of valor and honor outrank fiscal tightfistedness. By releasing H.R. 303 from committee and allowing debate on the bill, we can begin to address the issue of concurrent receipt. The bill was introduced with bipartisan support, but the discharge petition lacks that same support. You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, that there are bills introduced everyday that are never intended to reach the House floor. This should not be one of those bills. This should not be one of those issues. In these times when we ask so much of our military community, the women and men of our Armed Forces need our help. The rising costs of prescription drugs and VA enrollment fees and a struggling economy only hamper the efforts of our veterans trying to continue their lives in the nation they spent their careers defending. Disabled veterans have paid their price, and I would urge this body to not make them pay twice.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 80th birthday of the legendary Bert Muhly. Bert is the quintessential professorial type of guy: articulate, caring and wonderful in his style and manner. It is safe to say that Santa Cruz, California would not be the Santa Cruz it is without the Herculean efforts and goodwill of Bert. His fingerprints are all around Santa Cruz. As a member of the Santa Cruz City Council, his activities have included the following: member of the State Democratic Central Committee; Co-chair of the California 16th Senatorial District Committee; and Santa Cruz County Chair. He has also contributed to presidential, gubernatorial and congressional campaigns, such as those of yours truly. Bert and his family are well-fed people because they host more issue- oriented, potluck dinners than any other family I know. He always has a place for you at his table to talk about issues such as global warming, social injustice, globalization and corporate imperialism. I don't believe that anyone in Santa Cruz County has housed, clothed and fed more Democrats than Bert, and on his birthday, that total will only continue to rise. Bert is the personification of the phrase ``think globally, act locally.'' He believes firmly in the effectiveness of petitioning government when a citizen wants to register a complaint with local elected officials. He has made Santa Cruz a sanctuary for the establishment of sanctuaries and has filed more petitions to the local, State and Federal governments than is humanly imaginable. They probably had to build an extra wing onto the Library of Congress simply to accommodate his prodigious works. While a voluminous petitioner, Bert is also a fantastic and extensive speaker. When Bert was mayor of Santa Cruz, the clerk of the city council changed the meeting's ``minutes'' to ``hours.'' A humble man, he always downplays the fact that he was mayor by saying that ``half the people on Pacific Avenue Mall are former mayors.'' But his efforts have never been confined to Santa Cruz, and he has accumulated a generous amount of frequent flyer miles traveling back and forth from Central and South America. Bert has not been elected governor of California yet, but he certainly is a viable candidate in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Colombia. He has devoted an enormous amount of time spreading his own and America's goodwill to the impoverished and less fortunate, and without a doubt, he has changed the lives of many. An incredible wit and humor, Bert has been the smiles and strength behind the voice of the good fight in Santa Cruz for many years, and he has taken that fight to other countries. On behalf of this House, I wish Bert Muhly a happy birthday: a scholar, a father, a husband, a visionary, a friend and always young at heart.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I have long been a strong advocate that tax policy ought to be consistent with good land use policy. Inheritance tax is neither. California has seen the break-up of agricultural real estate holdings, and the dissolution of small businesses to pay inheritance taxes. Although repeal of the tax at this time is not good fiscal policy, we have no choice with this up or down vote but to support good land policy. Agricultural land should not be subdivided merely for tax purposes. It has been argued that the repeal of the estate tax will only benefit a few Americans. This is certainly not the case for Californians. The estate tax affects the lives of many of my constituents, whether they are families trying to hold onto their farms, small businesses working to keep their doors open, or children protecting the legacy of their parents. Having said this, I regret that the repeal of the estate tax comes at a time when the Republican-led Congress is driving this country further and further into debt. Republicans in Washington have turned a $5.6 trillion surplus, left by the Clinton administration, into a $3.6 trillion deficit, a total loss of $9 trillion for Americans and their families. I also regret that the Republican-dominated House does not allow Democrats to offer sensible, bi-partisan alternatives. I, like other Democratic Californians, support an alternative where family farms and businesses would be subject to capital gains tax if they decided to sell their farm or business. I am confident that we could have agreed on a sensible compromise, such as this one, if the Republican leadership had allowed members a full and open debate. In the final analysis, however, repealing the estate tax will help family farms stay in the family. It will help California maintain a policy of sensible growth and curb the sprawl that comes with subdivision of property. It will help small businesses stay afloat and survive the passing of generations. Nevertheless, we should all keep in mind that if we are concerned for future generations, we should be very wary about increasing the public debt. We need to act in a fiscally responsible way if we want to leave a prosperous future for our children.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the ongoing campaign to undermine the constitutionally established right to privacy, which threatens women's access to safe and comprehensive reproductive healthcare. The latest attack on these rights is H.R. 760, The Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. The proponents of this legislation have consistently used vague language and shock tactics in an attempt to undermine the basic tenets of the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart. In 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its decision, Roe v. Wade, which gave women a constitutionally protected right to an abortion. The Court allows a state to ban abortions after fetal viability (the point at which a fetus may survive independent of a woman, but not independent of technology), but only if the state provides exceptions for the protection of a woman's life and health. In 2000, in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court struck down a Nebraska ban on partial birth abortions because it did not contain an exception for the protection of the health of the woman, and utilized a vague definition of which procedures would be banned. Disregarding 30 years of established Supreme Court precedent, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 contains the same flaws as the ban ruled unconstitutional in Stenberg v. Carhart. H.R. 760 fails to provide an exception to protect the health of the mother. Rather, this legislation presumes that the authors' findings overrule those of the Supreme Court. The very text of this bill audaciously promotes ignoring the Supreme Court ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart. The definition of the banned procedure in H.R. 760 is vague and could be interpreted to prohibit some of the safest and most common abortion procedures that are used before viability during the 2nd trimester. This legislation could have been written using precise, medical terms, and exemptions for procedures that are used pre-viability. However, the bill's unclear definition reveals the broad anti-choice agenda that this bill promotes. The Supreme Court's decisions have clearly, and correctly protected a woman's right to make personal, and sometimes difficult decisions regarding her reproductive health. In addition to a legal obligation established by the Supreme Court, we have a moral and ethical obligation to protect the health of the mother. Every woman deserves the honest, accurate, professional advice of her doctor, a right that is endangered by H.R. 760. There is no place for Congress in the very private relationship between doctor and patient. Furthermore, this ban is opposed by many groups of healthcare professionals who take their responsibility to preserve the health of their patients very seriously. These organizations include: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nurses Association (ANA), and the California Medical Association (CMA). Let me assure you that I grappled with the issue of partial birth abortion and determined that this procedure should be used only when medically necessary to protect the life and health of the mother. My decision to oppose legislation banning this procedure was based on my personal conversations with one of my constituents who faced this terrible situation and relied on the medical judgment of her doctor to make the only medically sound decision that preserved her ability to have children in the future. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose H.R. 760 and vote against this harmful and unconstitutional legislation.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a devoted soldier as well as an accomplished scholar and leader. Colonel Kevin Rice has served as the Installation Commander at the Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center and Presidio of Monterey since December 2000. Tomorrow, he earns a well-deserved retirement after serving his country honorably for the last 30 years. Throughout his service at the Presidio, Colonel Rice was instrumental in improving the standard of excellence in training our military linguists and in continuing the transition of Fort Ord, the Nation's largest base closure, to civilian use. Colonel Rice was born in Henderson, Nevada and grew up there and in La Mirada, California. Kevin Rice attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and upon his graduation in 1973, was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Infantry. Colonel Rice is a graduate of the Chinese Program at the Defense Language Institute of Monterey which he would later lead, and he also successfully completed studies at the British Ministry of Defense Chinese Language School in Hong Kong and holds Master's Degrees from both the Naval Postgraduate School and the National War College. Colonel Rice's military career in the U.S. Army is extremely distinguished and diverse. He started out as a mechanized rifle platoon leader and quickly rose through the ranks while applying his expertise in mechanized infantry, light infantry and airborne special operations units. Prior to his service at the Presidio, Colonel Rice held the position of U.S. Army Attache to the People's Republic of China. Throughout these assignments, he was repeatedly honored for his outstanding performance with awards ranging from the Meritorious Service Medal to the Army Achievement Medal. I am extremely grateful to have worked with Colonel Rice on several military construction projects at the Defense Language Institute, including a new classroom facility--Collins Hall--as well as Video Tele-Training Facility. These base modernization projects illustrate Colonel Rice's leadership in making sure DLI, the world's largest foreign language school, employs the most advanced technology to continue as a center of excellence in the teaching of foreign languages. Moreover, Colonel Rice has presided over the only dual service--Army and Navy--base housing modernization program in the Nation. When complete, the Residential Community Initiative at the Presidio will provide the Central Coast military community with 1,800 units of quality base housing, built to local code, and paid for by the military housing allowance known as the BAH. Without his continued efforts to move this huge undertaking through the bureaucratic process both inside the Pentagon and outside, the RCI wouldn't have come to fruition. Colonel Kevin Rice and his wife, Kitty, have been active and highly regarded members of the local community who are leaving a lasting legacy of civic involvement and a wide circle of friends who will miss them both. I am pleased to count myself as one of Colonel Rice's friends and wish him well in the next stage of life's journey.

Mr. FARR

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

Mr. FARR. I think what happens now, according to a spokesperson for the Navy that I talked to several years ago, was that we have dozens of Navy research vessels which are owned and operated by the Navy, but the operators are mostly contract marine scientists, marine biologists who go out and do the deep ocean exploration and near shore exploration. When we go into these economic zones of other countries we have to go there with their permission. These are military vessels, and without signing a law of the sea, we have no protocols for, if a country decides, well, we think you are spying on us or we think we do not like the work you are doing or you are not sharing it with us enough. There are always efforts to do that, but nonetheless, if there is a problem, we have no way of getting out of the problem because we are not a signatory to the treaty which lays out a protocol for what we can and cannot do with these research vessels, and that, if indeed there is a question, how we can resolve those disputes. So we could conceivably get into a military situation because of a seizing of one of our research vessels which has nothing but scientists aboard, and that should be avoided. We need to sign the law treaty as soon as possible.

Mr. FARR. Let me say something. I think that before our lifetimes are over we are going to see the ability to rent a vehicle where a person can drive under the sea. They can drive in the sea. And that will really open up this massive amount of territory on this planet to people who have never been able to see it before. The technology of getting people down in the water is merging at a very fast rate. Remember, it is much more difficult to go deep than it is to go high. When you go into outerspace, you are just going from zero atmospheric pressure, from 14 pounds atmospheric pressure to zero. When you are going down, it gets harder and harder. And as you have seen, when these researchers have put a little Styrofoam coffee cup with your name on it and put it out in those research vessels, it comes back literally the size of a thimble. That is what the pressure is. So it is much more difficult to get down into the ocean. But they are developing technology where you can go down to 4,000 feet in civilian clothes without a lot of training to essentially allow people who are not scientists to be able to get access to the oceans. We need underwater artists, we need poets, we need music writers, we need the rest of society to be able to explore the oceans, as well as our marine scientists; and so I thank the gentleman for his leadership in scheduling this Special Order tonight and for inviting me to speak.

Mr. FARR. What is interesting about tourism is, why do people go into the outdoors? It is really to experience the outdoors. And how is that? It is not just the beautiful shapes of mountains and trees and natural forms; it is also the wildlife. We were able to successfully recover a sea otter herd. The sea otter was thought to be extinct. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a marine scientist discovered them off Big Sur, kept them a secret, because there were no laws in place to protect them; but now that they have been protected by Federal law, the sea otter population has come back. It has, unfortunately, had some setbacks this year with disease, and perhaps with too many boats in the habitat; but that sea otter population on the California coastline is now a multimillion dollar industry, watching sea otters. And who makes money off of that? Certainly they do not. But people who make T-shirts, who make mugs, who make jewelry, who take photographs, who provide boat trips, who do interpretive studies. The point is that the wildlife can be one of our most viable economic industries if we manage it well. And that is what this is all about; it is trying to have a planet. Here we are discussing so much of how do the people on this globe get along, but the people cannot survive on this globe without nature getting along and at least us understanding how not to just take from nature but also to give back and to manage appropriately so that we can have sustainable oceans, sustainable lands, and hopefully sustainable populations of people that will get along living in peace and being able to enjoy this planet. I think that is what this is all about.

Mr. FARR. Quite all right. Coastal caucus is just as well.

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

Mr. FARR. We have also shown, though, that where we have degraded that habitat to such a point where all known life forms have failed in those systems, they have gotten so polluted, some of those streams, but with good management techniques we have brought those streams back and made them clean; and they now have vibrant fish life. The point is, we can turn this around. But when we are dealing with the entire ocean, we just cannot turn that around over time. If we have indeed taken all the large species, commercial species on the planet, it is going to take a long time of not fishing some of those species to allow them, the babies, to grow up to be big adults. Some of these fish live for over 100 years, so it is going to be, some places where we set up these marine reserves, we are going to have to put them off limits for fishing for a long time. On the other hand, when we do clean up areas and set these reserves, they allow this sort of abundance to return; fish do not know where those boundary lines are. They hang out outside the boundary lines. Then that becomes an opportunity for the commercial activity to be done. We have in our area a national marine estuary, the largest in California, known as the Elkhorn Slough. Right next to the Elkhorn Slough is one of the largest power plants in California, a Duke Energy gas-fired natural gas plant which used to burn oil and now burns natural gas. That big industrial complex has worked out a management system with this fragile ecosystem so they can be co-partners in the sustainability of the ecosystem, not one preventing the other from happening. It is a partnership that has been worked out and is constantly being updated as a sound management practice. Those are the kinds of examples I would like to set because I think so often people hear that if there is a problem, we are just going to shut down somebody or people are going to lose their jobs if we go about this. And I think what the reports are going to say is that this does not have to be a lose-lose or win-lose; it can be a win-win.

Mr. FARR. Let me elaborate a little bit on that. By treaty, we have created the special economic zones, and these economic zones on the oceans go out from the shoreline 200 miles; and why the United States, more than any other country in the world, has larger EEZ is because we have in our territory, in our trust islands in the Pacific, we are all very much aware of Guam and the Hawaiian Islands, but we go through the Marshall Islands and American Samoa, and each one of those islands having a 200-mile radius makes the United States interests in the ocean even greater than any other country in the world. This is where I think we have to provide leadership in being able to provide these ecosystem-based management plans, and in order to do that, it is going to take an act of Congress. It is going to take new laws in this country. As we stand here tonight, we are probably at one of the best moments in recent history to be able to have all this scientific knowledge flowing to us. With the release of the Pew report and the commission's report later on this year, Congress will be better informed on what it should do, what it needs to do more than ever before in history. My hope is that we, in a bipartisan way, because certainly I do not think we need to have partisan fights about it. We had a lot of discussion here sort of on the takings issue on land ownership and whose responsibility it is, whether the government has a right to go onto someone's land to understand what kind of species or wildlife are living on their land. That does not happen in the oceans. The oceans are not owned privately. There are certainly not real estate developments in the ocean, other than oil leases, and those are leases from the Federal Government. So we are the manager. It seems to me that we, in a collective way, can really provide not only a future for this planet, which breathes from the ocean, and where weather is all initiated in the ocean, but also provide a healthy management system so that our children and grandchildren can enjoy not only the oceans and the bounty of the seas, but also have health and safety, a life of being able to go to beaches that are safe and so on. This is our responsibility. We are the trustees elected to develop the Federal law, given that trust by our voters and, I think, by the world, by the fact that we have so much of the ocean at stake, to really do sound management; and hopefully, we will take the recommendations of the Pew Foundation and the government commission and put them into law this year. Hopefully, the administration will enthusiastically support those recommendations and help us lobby them through Congress.

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

Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for his kind words and for yielding to me. I am delighted to be here. I think in light of tonight's discussions, which really have wonderful populist appeal about issues of drug sales in America and about the practices of licensing telecommunications in this country, it is also appropriate that we focus a little bit on the politics, the big politics of the oceans, that is, that the meeting of land and water, of the two massive forces on Earth, takes place in coastal zones. Coastal zones are also where most of the people live, that is, where most of the voters are, most of the taxes are raised. That is where we find the most U.S. population, on the coast, which comprises about 17 percent of our entire land mass. We also find that people are moving to coastal areas faster than any other place. There is an increase of about 3,600 people a day that move to the coastlines. I think coastlines are also important from an economic standpoint if we think about that is where fishermen make their living, that is where tourism attracts people to swim in the oceans. The largest recreational areas in the United States are the publicly owned beaches of this country. It is clear that the public takes special interest in our oceans; and as we have learned from our colleagues, even the inland colleagues in inland States, people in their districts think of oceans because they think of them as they consume seafood, and as places they would like to visit on their vacations, to go to the beach. What do we do in Congress, because we understand that there are real problems with the oceans, not just ours alone but internationally, as well? In a recent report in the journal Nature, it stated that 90 percent of the large predatory fish are gone from the oceans totally, globally, all over the world. Overfishing has led to fishery closures for rockfish on the west coast and groundfish on the east coast. We find that because we have not really effectively monitored or stopped the toxic pollutants that come in from just runoff, where it rains on the land and that rain runs through agricultural land, it runs through parking lots, it runs through streets; and whatever is on those streets, what they call trace metals and pesticides, ends up going into the rivers and then down into the oceans, therefore affecting marine systems.

Mr. FARR. The Oceans Caucus.

Mr. FARR

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

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding time to me, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for his kind remarks about our being co-chairs of the Congressional Tourism Caucus. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 20th anniversary of National Tourism Week. As cochair of the House Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus, I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), in proclaiming the 20th anniversary of National Tourism Week. Tourism is the leading industry in America. In fact, it is the largest employer in America. I think oftentimes people do not think of it because it has never been defined as an industry, like the automobile industry, like the steel industry, like the electronics industry. This industry is made up of so many factors. It is made up of restaurants and museums and car rental companies and hotels and motels and sports arenas, ski shops, beaches, concert halls, parks, historic landmarks, campgrounds, and the list goes on and on. If we put all of those together, we will have what we call the tourism industry. It is one of the most diverse sectors in the entire economy, with the single goal of making the United States the greatest place to travel, not only just to see, but to enjoy the incredible diversity and cultures of great America. I do not think people just come to America from other countries to visit our beautiful spots, which obviously lure them, as we are lured to other beautiful places in the world. But they also come to know the culture of Americans and learn about how this country functions. I happen to live in one of those towns, Carmel, California. I just got back from a trip to Europe; and everywhere I went, when I said where I lived in California, people knew where it was, though it is a small town of 4,000 people. I do not think it is just because Clint Eastwood was the mayor of my town. People have actually been going there for years and years. The city is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. But the point is that the mayor of Carmel told me that the number one request of the tourists of that town, of the city, was a copy of their zoning ordinance. So people are not just tourists for purposes of spending money and enjoying beautiful places; they are also thinking and they are looking and they are listening. In that way we are able to share this bounty of America and the bounty of the people. The travel and tourism industry has faced unprecedented challenges in the last couple of years, first with the decline of confidence in the safety of air travel as a result of September 11, and then the struggling economy, which has diminished business travel budgets and decreased household discretionary income. If that were not enough, then we are more recently faced with the uncertainties of the war in Iraq, and SARS has taken its toll on this industry. Congress has done something about it, though. It is not just enacting this resolution celebrating our National Tourism Week. We also last week had given a tax cut to the very wealthy in this country, and essentially the purpose of that tax cut was to leave money in people's hands so they would spend it. I cannot think of a better way to spend it than for people to take their new money that they are going to get from the Federal Government in the middle of the summer and take their family on a vacation, or take friends, staff, and employees out to lunch or to dinner to thank them for working with them, and tell our friends how much we enjoy being their friend by celebrating in a place outside our homes, in a way that we can spend it with others. Remember, these are also areas that are labor-intensive, where people are employed. It takes a lot of people to change beds, serve food, wash dishes, drive us around in buses, and so on. When we see these people, we should thank them for being in the travel and tourism industry. With that little bit of extra tax money, we should give them a bigger tip than we would have the year before. They need it, especially those families who lost the child care tax credits. Those poor kids are not going to be able to go to Disneyland, yet many people will be annually able to go to the very wealthy areas, Nantucket and so on. I am hoping that the tax bill will end up being a good bill and end up putting more money in the economy, getting the tourism industry back on its feet, and certainly continue to be the largest employing industry in the United States, and an industry that will take care of everybody, so the rising tide will raise all ships. That is what I think the tax cut is supposed to do.

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.