Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, it does not, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman. Nothing changes by a biosphere.

Mr. FARR of California. I would say to the gentlewoman, it is my experience that you cannot create anything greater than what has already been created by the local planning process. In the gentlewoman's State, she may have less of a degree of planning process than our State does. That is why in our State when we have quality areas, they want to become biospheres, because it is almost bragging rights that says, as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] says, it becomes a tourist attraction for the area, like a national marine sanctuary does or a national park does. Those are much more restrictive because we actually write rules and regulations. The biosphere is a bottoms-up, applied-for process.

Mr. FARR of California. It has been done by treaty.

Mr. FARR of California. When we sign a treaty that authorizes it.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think this debate is an appropriate kind of debate but not necessarily comparing AmeriCorps with the veterans. I think we all support both. The irony is that the gulf war veterans may have sons or daughters that are in AmeriCorps, and in fact gulf war veterans may qualify as AmeriCorps volunteers, because it is a totally different program. It has to do with contribution to the community for remuneration and a credit toward, whether it is vocational training or academic training. I happen to represent an area in California, Fort Ord, the former Fort Ord, which still has a military property on it; and in that property, we have the center for the gulf war syndrome calls. Anyone who has been in the gulf war who thinks they may be qualified for benefits, these medical benefits, all of those calls from everywhere they are made in the world come to that building. That building gets them registered and into the process. It is a good process and it is working. The problem I think we have with veterans and not just gulf war veterans but veterans in general is that we are not allowing for collaboration. If one goes to a veterans clinic, the veterans cannot take their family and children to that clinic. We ought to be able to let them do that. If one is over 65 in this country and he is a veteran, he cannot take himself or his spouse to a veterans clinic. They have to go out to a Medicare process. The problem for medical care in America for veterans is not just limited in here, and we do not do more by isolating these moneys, by taking them out of a good project and saying we are going to put it in just to research in an isolated area. If we really want to help veterans, gulf war veterans and all, we would do a much better job of collaboration. Let me tell my colleagues on that same military base are a whole bunch of AmeriCorps volunteers that are helping clean up that base, and they are working with the community based organizations and they are doing a very good job. Yes, they are getting paid. I was a Peace Corps volunteer and I got paid for being in the Peace Corps. There is no free lunch in this process. But they are not getting rich on this. In fact, the author of this amendment has had six AmeriCorps volunteers in his district, of which four finished. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks who oversaw the program wrote a letter, and I would be glad to give it to the gentleman and submit it for the Record if he wants, that says, Without the assistance of AmeriCorps the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks would not be able to hire these young people lacking the funding to do so. The department can, however, provide raw materials, tools and supervision. The letter goes on to say, The AmeriCorps and public would lose the benefits provided to the natural resources and outdoor recreation projects, and the individuals who would have been selected as members would lose valuable opportunities. It goes on to say: ``I hope you will find that you will be able to fully support the continuation of the AmeriCorps as a viable program important to the American people.'' This is a letter to Senator Bond, and it is written by Bob Mayers, the Assistant to the Secretary of Operations, appointee of the Republican Governor of the State of Kansas. Lastly, I think what is very important here is that if we are going to make some tough choices, I think we made it last week, a week before that, when we had a very close vote, and I believe it was, as my colleagues know, half a dozen votes difference on the B-2 bomber, something that the Pentagon has not asked for, something that the Air Force does not want, and we voted to commit ourselves to building nine more. An estimated outlay or total cost in the end is about $18 billion. Now if my colleagues want to make choices, and my veterans are just like my colleagues' veterans, they understand these choices. They do not want us to take away programs from their sons and daughters, from their colleagues who may be wanting to go into the AmeriCorps who want to pay off student loans, who want to pay off education. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is, I think, a very injurious proposition, and this is a bad amendment.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the arts and against the Ehlers amendment which would abolish the NEA and provide insufficient and ineffective block grants to the States. The Ehlers amendment would eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. This is a move that even State arts agencies oppose. Why adopt an amendment that even the very organizations purported to benefit think it is a bad idea? NEA funding, on the other hand, allows artists and presenters to bring the arts directly to students and the community at large. I did some math on Mr. Ehlers' amendment. Assuming all States get an equal share of this funding, and each school district gets an equal share within the State, each California school district will receive $961 per school district. Even if a school district consisted of only one elementary, middle, and high school, $961 would barely purchase a set of colored pencils for each student. Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the Ehlers amendment failed.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I hope that those artistic surgeon's hands that saved the gentleman's liver are the ones that got some training from the NEA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, because the Committee on Rules has failed to allow this House to vote for the continued funding of the National Endowment for the Arts. Instead, it gives us the Ehlers amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to read that amendment, because it first abolishes the National Endowment for the Arts. This is a bad idea. Members might ask why, why is it bad for America? It is bad for the schools, it is bad for our communities, and most of all, it is bad for business, so bad that the presidents and CEO's of America's largest corporations have written the Speaker asking him to sustain the funding for the arts. Companies likes Pepsi-Cola, Dean Witter, Procter & Gamble, B.F. Goodrich, Chase Manhattan Bank have joined 70 other Fortune 500 companies in requesting the support of the NEA. Why? Because the structure of the NEA serves as a clearinghouse for giving grant money. Most importantly, creativity is America's greatest gift. Preserve creativity, preserve the NEA.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. This amendment will raise the funding level for the land and water conservation fund to a level consistent with the budget resolution that 333 of our colleagues supported. The budget agreement authorized these funds as an addition to the 602(b) allocations, so it wouldn't take money from other programs. The Appropriations Committee failed to include these funds in this bill. It seems contradictory to me that we will spend all of this time debating an amendment that was already agreed to overwhelmingly by this body. The land and water conservation fund serves as a primary vehicle for land acquisition to protect the natural, historic, cultural, and outdoor recreational resources that must be guarded and preserved so that they may be passed on to future generations. President Theodore Roosevelt said ``The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets, which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired in value.'' There is not a congressional district in the country that has not benefited from the parks, recreation facilities, wildlife areas made possible by this fund. For years Congress has denied allocating all of the money that is available to the land and water conservation fund from the revenues received from oil and gas leasing on the outer continental shelf. Last year, Congress only spent $138 million of the almost $900 million that was collected. This year the appropriators approved an additional $100 million but it is still less than one-third of the money available this year and only a trivial amount of the more than $10 billion of the accumulated unappropriated balance. Mr. Chairman, it is time that we use this money as it was intended. The Miller amendment must pass for two important reasons: first, it keeps us from violating the budget resolution and second, it is a positive step forward in the mission of the land and water conservation fund to protect our resources and promote recreation. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers amendment to declassify the size of the Intelligence Budget There is simply no reason to keep the size of the Intelligence budget hidden. Former CIA Directors, including John Deutch and Bob Gates, say that it would not harm National Security. This amendment would not reveal what we spend on individual programs, only on intelligence as a whole. Other countries, like Israel and Britain, already disclose their spending on intelligence. It simply serves no purpose to keep the size of the intelligence budget a secret. At a time when the rest of the Federal Budget is being cut, slashed, and squeezed, the American people ought to know how much of their tax dollars are going to intelligence programs. By maintaining needless secrecy, we do nothing for American intelligence while keeping secrets from the American people. Let's bring some sunshine to Government and some honesty to the American people support the Conyers amendment. Mr. Chairman, It is unnecessary after the end of the cold war to keep the budget secret. Keeping general information like the budget classified undermines the credibility of other information which really needs to be secret. If we really are serious about balancing the budget, how can we sign a secret, multi-billion dollar blank check every year, with such a minimal public discussion? Since almost all intelligence spending is hidden in the defense budget, the American people are not only kept in the dark about intelligence spending, they are misled about the real amount of defense spending through false line-items in the defense budget. We need budget integrity. Porter Goss, the current Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee was a member of the Brown-Aspin (later the Brown-Rudman) Commission that recommended disclosure of the aggregate figure of the intelligence budget. Why should his position change? The intelligence budget is the worst-kept secret in Washington anyway. Each year it is disclosed dozens of times in the press with no harm done to ``national security.'' Keeping this budget officially secret while watching it discussed openly in the press adds to a cynicism that the American public has about its government. No-one wants to foster a pessimism that discourages participation in our democracy. ``The President is persuaded that disclosure of the annual total budget for intelligence activities should be made public and that this can be done without any harm to intelligence activities.'' With an open intelligence budget, the Director of Central Intelligence and others would be able to better justify the funding it receives from Congress. (A counter-argument might be, for example, that the CIA will not be able to publicly defend its budget because may of its successes are secret.) Only a handful of Members of Congress actually go look at the intelligence budget (as they are permitted to do). Declassifying the new budget request and the current fiscal year's appropriated amount for purposes of comparison would contribute to a more informed debate. Releasing the intelligence budget would help make it conform to the ideals for the framers of the Constitution. The Constitution states: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.'' In 1994, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearings disclosed almost a complete breakdown of the categories of intelligence spending, which added up to $28 billion. Three years later, we're still waiting to hear how this disclosure harmed ``national security. Similarly, the Brown-Aspin Commission Report recommended disclosure only of the aggregate intelligence budget and no further detail, then inadvertently specified the CIA's budget at $3.1 billion in a graph. (See attached article.) The Washington Post reported that the National Reconnaissance Office, the intelligence agency which manages spy satellites reported a surplus of $3.8 billion that has accumulated over the years from unspent money and bad accounting practices! This is partly the result of a lack of open discussion about intelligence spending. (See attached article.) While HUD, the Department of Commerce and [insert your favorite agency] are fighting for their life, isn't it only fair that the American people at least know how many of their tax dollars are going to intelligence?. Taxpayers for Common Sense writes: ``At a time when all federal programs are under increased scrutiny and must meticulously account for their spending, it is only fair that the overall level of spending on intelligence be available of the taxpayers. Taxpayers should know the amount spend on intelligence in order to make informed choices regarding the allocation of government funds.'' Other democracies such as Israel, Britain, Australia and Canada disclose their intelligence budgets. (FYI: Israel spends less than a billion shekels on the Mossad and the Shin Bet combined.) Larry Combest, the former Chairman of the Hose Intelligence Committee and last year's lone opponent of budget disclosure, was the vice-chair (with Senator Moynihan) of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. While Commission's report, released in March of this year, did not deal directly with the intelligence budget, it noted: ``Secrecy exists to protect national security, not government officials and agencies'' (page xxiii). ``[E]xpansion of the Government's national security bureaucracy since the end of World War II and the closed environment in which it has operated have outpaced attempts by Congress and the public to oversee that bureaucracy's activities'' (page 49). There are twelve ranking members who are so-sponsors of H.R. 753, ranging the ideological spectrum, including: Representatives John Conyers, Norm Dicks, John Spratt, Lee Hamilton, George Brown, Ron Dellums, Lane Evans, Sam Gejdenson, Henry Gonzalez, George Miller, Jim Oberstar, and Charles Rangel.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Conyers amendment to declassify the size of our Nation's intelligence budget. It makes no sense to keep the size of our intelligence budget a secret. It would not threaten our national security. Several former Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency and the bipartisan Brown- Aspin Commission have agreed that disclosure of the aggregate intelligence budget would not reduce our Nation's security. In fact, many other countries disclose the amount they spend on intelligence, with no impact on their own nation's security. But what such secrecy does do is keep our own citizens in the dark. At a time when so many programs are being drastically reduced in the name of deficit reduction, the American taxpayer isn't even told how much is being spent on intelligence programs. I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 753, the Intelligence Budget Accountability Act, which would declassify the aggregate intelligence budget. This is long overdue, and I urge adoption of the Conyers amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act to accomplish this important goal.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this bill with the amendment, accept that because it is essentially a bottom-up process and we all got here from local government, and this is where people who live on the land take care of it, both sides of the issue, environmentalists and non-environmentalists, have come to consensus. I think it is a good bill and we ought to support it.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I come before you today to pay tribute to a man who is well-known around the world for his pioneering work in the field of marine research, conservation and education. Jacques Yves Cousteau passed away this morning in Paris, at the age of 87. Jacques Cousteau was an inventor, an explorer, and a concerned citizen of our world. He invented a waterproof housing for an underwater movie camera in 1936, and in 1943, with French engineer Emile Gagnon created the Aqualung, which allowed divers to swim untethered underwater for several hours. Cousteau fought for the French in WWII, and the Aqualung was used by divers to locate and remove enemy mines after the war. In 1950 he purchased the ship Calypso from which to conduct his explorations of the world oceans, beginning the work for which he is perhaps best known: bringing the excitement of the oceans to the public. He showed people around the world the beauty of ocean ecosystems, exploring the depths with a sense of adventure, exposing the oceans as the last earthy frontier to be explored, as exciting and amazing as any exploration into space. He lectured, produced amazing underwater photography, and published many books. Two of his films, ``The Silent World'' (1956) and ``World Without Sun'' (1966) won Academy Awards for best documentary. His television program, ``The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau'' (1968-1976) also brought the marvels of his expeditions and the undersea world into American homes, as well as the lasting image of him, jauntily smiling from the deck of the Calypso, clad in his black rubber wetsuit. In 1974 he began The Cousteau Society, an organization whose membership now totals over 300,000 worldwide, to help raise public awareness of ocean issues and help promote wise management of our ocean resources. His work did not end at the shore, however, and he was active on many environmental issues, including the potentially devastating effects of overpopulation. He was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, and in 1989, was honored by the French with membership in the French Academy. He inspired many to love the sea, and to pursue careers in marine science. My district, the Monterey Bay area of California, has been particularly blessed in its connection to an incredibly diverse and abundant marine environment. Off our shores we have the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the largest marine protected area in the country, encompassing environments that vary from the rocky intertidal to the incredible depths of the Monterey Canyon. Around the bay we have 18 institutions with world class, ongoing research in the marine environment. Over 1.7 million people visit our Monterey Bay Aquarium each year, to witness the amazing life we have off our shores, and to educate themselves about ocean life and human impacts which threaten it. All ocean scientists, educators and managers owe a debt of gratitude to Jacques Cousteau for raising the public awareness and support of marine research and conservation. In a recent interview, Cousteau was asked the question ``Which area of pollution worries you the most?'', to which he responded ``I don't make a separation, I worry about the entire system. Our way of managing the Earth is wrong.'' I would leave you with the thought that we can no longer plead ignorance of our aquatic environments. Through the work of Jacques Cousteau, and thousands of other marine scientists, we are now more aware than ever of the amazing wonder and fragility of our ocean ecosystems. But our greatest tribute to this man, and this knowledge, should be the efforts we make to ensure the protection and wise management of our ocean resources.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have a clear choice tonight. We have a clear choice to continue along with cutting out the nuclear arsenal that the Soviet Union has built up. It would be foolish not to continue dismantling that. This program is the cooperative threat for reduction. It funds support of physical elimination of hundreds of nuclear weapons and silos and bombers and submarines from which weapons can be launched. If we do not dismantle them, they stay there, and if they stay there, what can they be used for? This is an easy vote. It is a vote against this amendment to support the dismantling. If they are there, they can be sold and used for purposes that would not be in our national interests. Continue our national interests by opposing this amendment.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think that the law that this Congress put into being is outrageous. It says that if she is a woman in the military serving in Washington, DC, and she needs medical services and the Government will not pay for them, she can use her own money. She can go down to local hospitals and go get that service, but if we put her in uniform overseas in foreign soil, she cannot get that service. If her health is at risk, she cannot get those services. It is outrageous. It says if she chooses to defend our Constitution, do not expect the Constitution to apply to her if she serves overseas. This is bad law. We ought to amend it. That is what this amendment does. I urge everyone to support it. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the debate on the Harman amendment. I think this debate is really not about abortion. I think it is about our national security. National security assumes that you will have personal security. Existing law puts women in uniform at risk with their own health care when they serve our country on foreign soil. This amendment corrects that injustice which prohibits these same women in uniform from access to health care when they are in service abroad, even if they use their own money. Think about it. Women in uniform have pledged to uphold the Constitution of this country, which grants those women choice in these procedures. But because of existing misguided law which access at home but not abroad when they serve overseas it is taken away from them. We must not discriminate against women simply because they serve in the defense of our country. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FARR of California. It has to do with sea grants.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I call for regular order and a point of order. This is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I object that this amendment is not germane to the bill.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have no opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin]. We are all oyster lovers.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment which essentially maintains the Sea Grant International Program authorization without limitation on the countries with which we can collaborate through the year 2000. We are now becoming more and more aware of how our oceans and Great Lakes are truly international. We just heard of the issue of the zebra mussels which obviously is not just a United States issue, it is a Canadian issue. The very nature of the marine environment dictates that ocean resources are seldom, if ever, conveniently contained within one nation's boundaries. On May 19 and 20 of this year, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] hosted an advisory committee on the protection of the seas here in this Capitol. I attended that with Vice President Al Gore, with the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]; Secretary of Defense, William Cohen; Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton; and fellow Representatives including the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]; the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], and others, as well as representatives from agencies and countries from around the world. We were all here to discuss the importance of oceans in the world's security. We must recognize that the need for international collaboration and conservation is indeed international, and our goal is of sustainable efforts. My amendment would extend the authorization through the year 2000, with the hope that in the intervening years we will dedicate money to this program and revisit it in the 3 years to judge whether it has merit. It also opens up the program to be used to collaborate with any country which we believe would be advantageous to us to work with for marine resources issues. I want to make it clear that this program provides for international collaboration on research, education, and conservation, and that funding is only allowed to go to institutions of higher education, laboratories, and institutes in the United States and U.S. territories. I will be glad to answer any questions on my amendment. I know of no opposition, and I would ask for an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following document: Annex IV potomac declaration: toward enhanced ocean security into the third millenium The Vice-President of the United States of America, Hon. Al Gore; Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich; Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence of Portugal, Senhor Antonio Vitorino; Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell; Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr. Nay Htun; 215 governmental and other participants from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Russian Federation, the Seychelles, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States of America, including 18 ministers and deputy ministers; representatives of the following intergovernmental organisations: United Nations; UNEP; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); the World Bank; the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO; the Organisation of American States (OAS); and the Commission of the European Union; as well as members of the European Parliament and legislatures from Brazil, Philippines, and the United States; representatives of ACOPS and other non-governmental organisations (NGOs); and representatives of the scientific community and private sector adopted the following Declaration: the conference Recognising that: Continuing intensification of human activity in coastal and marine areas will adversely affect marine and coastal ecosystems world-wide and threatens the well-being of the human population. The natural resource base of world fisheries is threatened by over exploitation, habitat degradation, introduction of alien species and loss of biological diversity. Human security is threatened by unsustainable food production, increased public health hazards and unemployment, which may contribute to escalating human conflicts. Humans themselves have entered into conflict with the very environment which supports them. It is vital to take immediate action to strengthen environmental security if global human security is to be sustained; Climate change threatens to affect ocean levels and temperature, the land and peoples living in low elevation coastal regions, and species dependent on oceans and land touched by oceans. The oceans play an essential role in the planet's climate, though the mechanisms are poorly understood; and Sustainable development, including conservation of the marine environment, can actually increase environmental, food and economic security and therefore provide a foundation for political security. Recommended that: 1. Policies and action by all economic and social sectors adversely affecting the marine environment and resources should be made compatible with sustainable development in order to promote environmental, food and economic security, and to prevent conflicts over natural resources between and within states. Consciousness of the fact that poverty is a root cause of environmental problems must guide policy making. Wasteful consumption patterns must also be addressed. 2. Management of marine and coastal ecosystems, carried out within the framework of integrated coastal and watershed areas management and responsible fisheries, should be based on the full application of the precautionary principle and ecosystem approach, thus achieving the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and its components in marine and coastal ecosystems. 3. Scientific research should be increasingly directed towards the understanding of the marine and coastal ecosystems thus providing a basis for policies and action for their conservation and sustainable use. Such research would profit from greater and improved access to data which has been declassified or derived from national security systems, and should include use of innovative techniques for measurement of basic parameters. The possibilities of satellite monitoring of the marine environment should be exploited to the full. 4. International cooperation for the protection of the marine environment and the sustainable use of marine resources must be expanded following the framework of active implementation of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, and other relevant conventions and agreements in the fields of environment, fisheries and marine transport, among others. All governments that have not done so, should ratify UNCLOS, as amended in 1994, given that it is an historical international agreement which establishes global maritime boundaries and provides a framework for balancing governance of marine resources, conservation, and traditional freedoms of navigation for trade and naval movements. Binding agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change should also be ratified by all governments as soon as possible. Moreover, initiatives such as the Global Plan of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Sources and the International Coral Reef Initiative, should also be actively supported. Degradation of the marine environment, not yet covered by international agreements, such as the problems posed by hazardous organic substances, should be addressed as soon as possible in an integrated manner. Regional cooperation for the protection of the marine environment and sustainable fisheries should be strengthened and coordinated. 5. It is of paramount importance to deepen our current understanding of the root causes of the environmental issues in terms of market failures, inadequacies in policy and governance, and deficiencies in information. A profound interdisciplinary study, bridging social and physical sciences and integrating seas and associated land catchment areas, is required at a national, regional and global level. This should lead to practical measures to address the root causes of the problems themselves. Initiatives such as the recently proposed GEF Global International Water Assessment (GIWA) should be supported. 6. In order to preserve the availability and health of the world's fisheries, effective conservation measures based on the FAO Code of Conduct of Responsible Fishing and the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish, should be put into place. Harvesting capacities should be controlled, management institutions established, fish habitat protected and the necessary scientific knowledge and data pursued. Major efforts should be made to strengthen decision making in regional fisheries organizations or arrangements. 7. Data gathering systems should be put in to place so that the information and knowledge is available for wise decision- making, especially in the coastal zones. These observation systems should be used to ensure continuous benefit. Governments should actively support global oceanic observation systems at a national, regional and global level. Scientific research and information should be directed towards wise decision-making in marine and coastal areas. 8. The end of the cold war and diminution of the risk of global conflict has opened up new possibilities for utilizing national security systems formerly devoted to military activities for peaceful purposes and, in particular, for enhancing the capacity for environmental protection and for sustainable development. The military establishment should share with other societal sectors its enormous scientific and technological capabilities in order to improve our understanding of the functioning of the coastal and marine ecosystems, a condition to enhance environmental security of marine and coastal areas. Each nation should initiate a review of their sensitive data and information, as pioneered by Russia and the US, for declassification and use in diagnosing environmental problems and expanding our knowledge base. 9. Environmental considerations should be incorporated into all sectors of government, while empowering environmental ministries to actively promote this development. Civil society should also be empowered through greater access to environmental information and more active participation in decision- making. This is of particular relevance for local communities which have traditionally inhabited coastal zones and made use of marine resources. 10. Concerted national and international efforts should be undertaken to introduce environmental studies into all levels of formal school curricula at a global level, in order to eliminate environmental illiteracy, increase environmental awareness, and promote deeper environmental ethics. Up-to- date scientific knowledge about the oceans should be popularised and disseminated to the public both through formal education and creative communication channels such as arts, music, and multi-media. In support of this effort, the year 2000 should be declared as the ``Year of Environmental Awareness'' by the UN General Assembly at its forthcoming Special Session. 11. Efforts should be directed at national, regional, and global levels for mitigation and adaptation to global climate change, as it is likely to threaten the lives and livelihood of millions of people via sea-level rise, changes in ocean salinity, temperature, and production of fisheries and other aquatic life. Climate change affects the economic, environmental and food security of nations. Therefore multilateral and bilateral cooperation should be enhanced to reduce the negative effects of climate change. 12. Given the urgent and imperative need to fully implement the above recommendations, a concrete action plan should be developed to elaborate problems and root causes, and to propose specific actions by ACOPS, and to recommend appropriate organisations and parties to bear responsibility for the implementation of the measures. Such an action plan could be presented to the ACOPS/GLOBE Conference (Stockholm, January 1998) and could be adopted at its ministerial segment. The Conference will inaugurate the 1998 International Year of the Oceans. 13. The Potomac Declaration should be submitted, through the host country, to: the Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, to be held in June 1997; to appropriate United Nations Agencies and regional organisations, including regional economic integration communities; appropriate government agencies; legislative bodies, including GLOBE, Asia Pacific Parliamentarians for Environment and Development, and the International Parliamentary Union; appropriate representatives of the private sector; and local authorities and non-governmental organisations.

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to wish the Chair of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], a happy birthday, and I also want to thank the Chair of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans for his very kind comments on the passing of my father. Mr. Chairman, we see that there is strong bipartisan support for this effort, and I want to tell Members why. I think that America believes and understands that it may be the land masses of the world that separate the peoples, but it is the oceans that bring us together. I co-authored the reauthorization of the Sea Grant program basically because I believe it is a great program, one that enables important efforts in marine resource conservation to be properly managed. When we think about our oceans and our coasts and the Great Lakes, they are tremendous resources and of great importance not only to our economy but also to our social and to our cultural vitality. But our population, over half of which lives on 10 percent of the land defined as coastal, puts incredible pressures on these environments. We harvest the fish and other living organisms. We alter the physical environment. We fill in wetlands. We dredge our harbors. We bulkheaded our shorelines. We pollute. We introduce alien species into our ecosystems. We are adding substances to the atmosphere that increases the ultraviolet radiation and alter the globe's climate. We should see it as a priority to have high-quality, competitive, peer-reviewed science to better understand these dynamic resources, our effects on them, and to propose ways to minimize negative impacts while enhancing economic benefits. Hand in hand with this must come programs to get this information out to the public and user groups with the goal of wise, sustainable use. For nearly 30 years this is exactly what the Sea Grant program has been doing, and it is doing it in a fiscally responsible way. Federal funding for Sea Grant must be matched by non-Federal contributions. Over half of the funding of Sea Grant programs come from non-Federal sources. Funded at about $50 million annually, we need to support its reauthorization.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of implementing a code of conduct for U.S. arms transfers. The spread of weapons is one of the most serious threats to our Nation's security today. Unfortunately, our own country has contributed to this proliferation. Tens of billions of dollars of weapons are sold by U.S. arms manufacturers to countries around the world, and today the United States is a leading supplier of military equipment to foreign nations. Many of these weapons sales are made to governments that are hostile to the United States or to their own people. There is nothing to prevent many of these countries from using American weaponry to suppress democracy or violate human rights within their borders. And let us not forget United States military engagements in Iraq, Panama, and elsewhere where our own troops have been threatened by opposing armies armed with American-made weapons. We should not stand for a policy that sacrifices the lives of our own soldiers for the sake of making a buck. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has been a tireless advocate for creating a code of conduct for arms manufacturers which would end this senseless and dangerous practice. The code of conduct would not outlaw arms sales, but require that arms exports be made only to those nations that are democratic and respect the human rights of their own people. Weapons sales to any other countries would require approval by the President and Congress. Let us stop putting the lives of innocent people at risk. I urge my colleagues to support creating a code of conduct for U.S. arms sales.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, as the House of Representatives debates the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, I wish to raise several issues that I believe deserve our close attention. We must not neglect foreign affairs. As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I have seen first hand the tremendous need of people in other countries for basic assistance, and the enormous value of even our most modest assistance programs overseas. Unfortunately, our foreign assistance budget has suffered severely in our efforts to balance the budget. Development aid, disaster assistance, hunger and malnutrition programs, educational assistance, conflict resolution, and medical aid have all been cut drastically over the past several years, with serious consequences for the poorest and neediest people of the world. I especially urge that we maintain our support of the United Nations. Although our country's many complaints about the United Nations receive the most attention, we rarely hear of the United Nation's tremendous good work: peacekeeping, assistance to children, conflict resolution, nuclear non-proliferation, and development assistance are just a few. Part of our support must include repaying our enormous debt to the United Nations, and I urge my colleagues to work to meet our unpaid U.N. obligations. I also urge that we keep our focus on Latin America. Although the area has made great progress in democratization and free elections, less attention has been paid to the increasing problem of human rights abuses. Colombia and southern Mexico are just two areas where increasing militarization has led to greater violence and has put serious political and social pressure on local governments. We should give close examination to this problem and determine ways that the United States can help these countries demilitarize and reduce the level of violence. Unfortunately, as in past years, this year's bill has become a battle over a woman's right to choose. I must express my strong opposition to any amendments to this bill that would restrict the reproductive rights of women or, in an attempt to do so, limit or end all funding for international family planning. Earlier this year, a majority of the House recognized the importance of family planning to the health and welfare of our planet and voted to maintain U.S. family planning programs. Let us not go back on our own commitment to these important programs. I thank my colleagues in the House and look forward to working with them to address these important issues.