Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished gentleman, and I know I speak for every Member in the Chamber in wishing him a very happy birthday. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a champion for democracy all over the world. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), our distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for his leadership and his statement. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my closing by commending the distinguished chairman of the committee for his cooperation on this motion to instruct. It is my understanding that the gentleman will not oppose, and I assume that means he will support the motion to instruct conferees, and for that I am very grateful because I think it is very important that whatever the content of the motion to instruct, that it have unanimous support, and while, as I said earlier, I would have gone further to cut off all military training to the Indonesian military, what is before us is what is allowed by the rules within the scope of the two bills that will be reconciled in conference. So I look forward to working with the chairman in conference under his leadership on insisting on the House language when, as I anticipate, we carry this motion to instruct today. In closing I just want to say again why it is so important. Our distinguished colleagues who have spoken here today have spent years toiling on the issue of East Timor. They are concerned because they are champions of human rights throughout the world, and as such East Timor has been an important issue. They have many Portuguese Americans living in their districts, and so, many of them have a heightened awareness, specifically of the sad situation in East Timor. They are aware of East Timor as it has been, and as it existed since the Portuguese left, leaving East Timor an independent country which was then immediately overtaken by the Indonesian military. In our foreign operations bill over the years we have asked and tried to persuade the Indonesian Government to work with Bishop Belo for a peaceful resolution of the situation in East Timor. As has been mentioned by my colleagues, in the past week Bishop Belo, a Nobel prize winner, a Nobel peace laureate for his work for promoting democratic reform and autonomy or independence, as the case may be--it is now independence in East Timor, self determination in East Timor has had his house burned to the ground. The people who sought sanctuary there had to flee. Never in the 400-or-so years of recent history of East Timor with all of the occupations that they have endured, including all the time the Japanese occupying that area, never were the religious institutions, establishments, treated in this fashion. My colleagues have gone into the number of people who have died, hundreds of thousands made homeless, hundreds of thousands evacuated in the last 10 days from East Timor. This is a moral blot on the world, as I said earlier, a challenge to the conscience of the world. Hopefully the world will rise to the occasion as we prepare to send in the U.N. troops. But as we talk about that, the form that this motion takes is to confine the military training of the Indonesian military to expanded in IMET, and I want to spend a moment on that. We have tried in our committee, those of us who have been working on this issue, to eliminate all military training by the U.S. military of the Indonesian military. Our military has said that we must go in there and train them, and they do not even want to confine it to Expanded IMET. Our military wants to train the Indonesian military. As a compromise we have included language that says if our military they trains them, it has to be on how a military functions in a civilian society and focus on respecting the human rights of people that they are dealing with there. We have asked the U.S. military over and over for the policy justification for our training of the Indonesian military. None has come forward. What has come forward though is the overwhelmingly enthusiastic support by our military of this training which I think that whether or not, and I believe that the Indonesian military was very, very involved in the massacre that occurred in East Timor, but even for a moment if my colleagues say there is a question about that, that they did not cooperate with the militia. What did they do to stop this massacre? A price in humanity has been paid in the last 10 days that could have been prevented. I think that I can say without any doubt that the U.S. military training of Indonesian military has been a failure, has been a failure. We fail to see also the policy justification for that military-to-military training. I have asked and my chairman has very graciously agreed for our committee to have hearings on U.S. military training worldwide. We had that hearing. In advance of that hearing on our bill, we had asked for an accounting of this military training worldwide. We received volumes, but really not volumes of information that was very useful. So today, surrounding this tragedy maybe at long last we will get enough awareness on the part of the Congress to examine what this program is about. I call to my colleagues' attention another point, and that is even though this body by its vote forbade the military U.S. training of the Indonesian military except for Expanded IMET, our military went around the intent of Congress and trained the Kopassus under another program. Not IMET, but the JCET program, trained the Kopassus which is guilty of many atrocities in Indonesia and in East Timor. Our weapons were used against the people of East Timor. So let us do this today. It is a small baby step in the motion to instruct, and hopefully the strong vote that it has will be a vote about confining to expanded IMET, that the conference will agree to that. But in addition to that, we must take a close look at the policy justification for this military-to-military training, and when Congress says it shall not take place or it should only take place under certain circumstances, that our military understand a civilian government as well and that they do not find other ways to go around it. Since I have served on the Committee on Foreign Operations and on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have constantly been called by our CINCPAC the present one, Admiral Blair, his predecessor and that admiral's predecessor to talk about the glories of our training of the Indonesian military. I did not believe it then, and I am absolutely certain that it has not been effective now. Witness what happened in East Timor. So I am pleased to have the time to bring this motion to the floor. I thank my distinguished chairman for supporting the motion to instruct. I also thank him for giving us the forum to have the military training hearing that we had and hope now with all of this discussion that it will raise the consciousness of this body to the issue of IMET and military training, JCET, other military training, weapon sales and the military- to-military cooperation. I want to commend the Clinton administration for its leadership in these past days in getting us to a point where now a U.N. peacekeeping force can go in. I want to commend them for suspending the military-to- military cooperation; but it is important for this body to act, put into law this confining of the military training to human rights activities and the role of a military in a civilian society. With that, if I have any time left, Mr. Speaker, I would like to set aside 10 seconds, 10 seconds recognizing that we really do not have a 13th month here, 10 seconds of silence on behalf of all the people who have died in East Timor. This should be a grief to every person in the world, and I would ask for that 10 seconds.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, earlier I mentioned other initiatives in Congress, one of them being advanced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), a leader on this issue. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who has just returned from East Timor.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). He lives closest to East Timor, and I am very pleased to yield to him.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) who has fought this fight over the years for the people of East Timor.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, kings of countries, leaders of tribes and very wealthy people, when they have their birthdays, they give gifts to others. I understand that our distinguished chairman had his birthday over the weekend and I was wondering if the very distinguished chairman would yield 10 minutes to me of his time in observation of his birthday for which we are all very grateful.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is 11 o'clock a.m. in Washington, D.C. It is nighttime in East Timor; and families there and those who have been evacuated from East Timor are living with the suffering of the past week and longer, much of it perpetrated by the Indonesian military cooperating with the militias in Dili and the rest of East Timor. The motion to instruct conferees I have offered today moves that the House insist on its position restricting military training to Indonesia to expanded IMET only. The Senate bill contains no such restriction. Were it within the scope of my motion to instruct to cut off all military training to the Indonesian military, I would do so. But the constraints of the parliamentarian are such on my motion that I cannot. Just as a matter of explanation, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defense spends about $50 million a year on independent national military education and training. That is called IMET program. The program provides a wide range of training to over 125 countries around the world. The training ranges from sending foreign officers to some of our many military schools for extended periods to training in basic military tactics and techniques. In the past 10 years, with the changes in the world, Congress has insisted that the new programs be developed and carried out which deal with civil military relations and human rights awareness. These programs are called Expanded IMET and now take place in many countries with difficult problems, like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Indonesia. Indonesia receives $550,000 worth of IMET training in 1999 and 400,000 has been requested for 2000. The purpose of my motion here today is to insist that the restrictions on the limited Expanded IMET only stay in place for the year 2000, FY 2000. As I said, I would prefer to cut all IMET to Indonesia, especially made clear by the recent events there. However, this is not within the scope of the two bills, as I mentioned, as currently drafted. In fact, the President has suspended all military training and military-to-military contacts for the time being. Ensuring that Expanded IMET restrictions stay in place for all of FY 2000 will make that limitation a matter of law. I believe it is important to send a strong signal to the Indonesian Government at this time, despite the apparent progress on allowing a United Nations peacekeeping force into East Timor. The horrifying events of the past week have shocked the world. They have indeed challenged the conscience of the world. We know that thousands of people have been killed. The systematic nature of this mayhem where young men, Catholic priests and nuns, and U.N. workers were in fact targeted by the militias speaks volumes about the depths of this problem. I am indeed grateful that order seems to have been restored in East Timor, but at what cost and how many lives already lost? The terms of reference for the U.N. peacekeeping force are still under negotiation, as is the timing of their deployment. The Indonesian military is sending mixed signals about their willingness to cooperate with the U.N., and we need to keep the pressure on. The people of East Timor chose independence and democracy, and the consequences have been dire for them. Instead of a democratic spirit prevailing there, violence reigns. No one can say with certainty to what degree the Indonesian military was culpable, but it is increasingly clear that either the military was involved directly in militia activity in East Timor or they failed to confront it. Keeping the restrictions on Expanded IMET for Indonesia will at least put Congress on record as sending a signal to the Indonesian military that their behavior has been unacceptable. It also will send a signal to our own military that the suspension of the military-to-military contact program should remain in effect indefinitely. I again want to repeat that I would prefer to go further in my motion today. I believe that all assistance programs for Indonesia should be seriously reviewed. Disbursements to Indonesia under the structural adjustment program to the IMF should be halted, and the international bank loans that go directly to the government should be suspended. These measures are necessary to demonstrate to the Indonesian Government that we will not tolerate the undermining of democracy in East Timor. Others of my colleagues have motions to this effect, and I hope that they will come to the floor soon. If it had been possible from a parliamentary standpoint, we would have included many of those initiatives in this motion to instruct. But staying with what is within the scope of the two bills, I urge my colleagues to vote to support the motion to instruct conferees on this motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his excellent statement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), really the conscience of this Congress.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his fine statement. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations who fought this fight long before many of us were even in Congress or on this committee.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his very fine statement. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) who has been a champion on this issue in his service in the Congress and before.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), another champion of democracy. It is no coincidence that Massachusetts comes to this debate so strong with their commitment to promoting democratic values throughout the world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because I think it is an attempt to undermine the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. That bill is the best opportunity America has to end the corrupting influence of big money and to ensure that all Americans can participate and be heard by their elected officials without money as the motivator. Real campaign finance reform is needed to accomplish this goal. Every single one of us who comes to this body takes an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The biggest enemy to our constitutional democracy is campaign money. This city was built on a swamp over 200 years ago. It has returned to being a swamp, a swamp that is dirtied by the huge amount of special interest money that pours in here and stacks the deck against the typical American seeking a legitimate role in the political process. As far as this amendment is concerned, as a Californian, a State that is wealthy and supports its candidates, I urge my colleagues to vote against it. There will be no way we will have more women and more minorities in this Congress if we pass this legislation. This Congress will never look like America. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. The gentlemen are to be commended for their leadership in bringing hope to the House that we will finally break the bonds between the political process and big monied special interests. The Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill is the best opportunity America has to end the corrupting influence of big money and to ensure that all Americans can participate and be heard by their elected officials without money as the motivator. Real campaign finance reform is needed to accomplish this goal. Unfortunately, an election system based on wealth and money distorts the political process and adversely affects the civil rights of low- income Americans by allowing politicians and fundraisers to dismiss or ignore their voices and infringe on their voting rights. While first amendment concerns have been raised, civil rights concerns must be addressed first. The Shays-Meehan bill includes a ban on soft money at the Federal and State level; a ban on foreign money entering the system; tougher political advertising disclosure requirements; mandatory electronic filing and internet posting of a candidate's Federal Election Commission reports; and establishment of a Commission to study further reforms to improve our campaign finance system. When Washington, D.C. first was established as America's capital, it was built on a swamp. It is still a swamp, a swamp dirtied by the huge amounts of special interest money that pours in here and stacks the deck against the typical American seeking a legitimate role in the political process. I urge my colleagues to oppose all the poison pill amendments and substitutes designed to derail this measure. America needs real campaign reform in the political process. Let's support today's bipartisan campaign finance measure.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, as we gather here today in Congress it is nighttime in East Timor. Thousands of refugees are fleeing the country. East Timor is a country of 800,000 people, and nearly a third of them have had to flee since the election the other day. At that time, the people of East Timor voted overwhelmingly for independence; but instead violence rules in East Timor. And the world has not spoken out adequately, appropriately, sufficiently in any way to respond. In the course of 500 years of domination of other countries' cultures including the Japanese occupation of 50 years, never in that time were the religious institutions attacked. But in the last few days, the home of Bishop Belo was bombed, was set afire. This place was a refuge, a sanctuary for people who came for shelter from the violence and has been set afire by the militia and the military. Madam Speaker, how much more will have to happen there before we will act to cut off the funds from the IMF? Support the Capuano resolution that will come to the floor today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support Representative Filner's amendment to provide $35.2 million for health care benefits for Filipino world War II veterans who were excluded from benefits by the Rescissions Acts of 1946. These veterans have service- connected disability benefits and currently live in the United States. This is an issue of importance to the Filipino community both in San Francisco and around the nation. As I have testified before at previous House Committee hearings, one can not over emphasize the crucial role Filipinos played in the war. It is clear that the Philippines played a vital role in the outcome of the second world war. Countless Americans and Filipinos sacrificed their lives for their democratic beliefs. Historians credit the battle for the liberation of the Philippine Islands as the beginning of allied victory in the war. The courageous efforts of Filipino soldiers, scouts and guerrillas were central to allied victory in the Philippines, and therefore in the Pacific theater. Now in their time of need, they deserve our support. In 1941, President Roosevelt, by way of an executive order, brought the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines under the command of the U.S. Armed Forces and in 1945, soldiers known as new or special scouts came under U.S. military command. Because U.S. law at the time dictated that any person serving actively in the military and not dishonorably discharged would be considered a veteran for benefit purposes, these Filipinos would have been eligible for full veterans benefits. However, shortly after World War II ended, Congress passed the Rescission Act of 1946, which revoked the full benefits eligibility of these soldiers, even though other Filipino soldiers who they fought side by side with, eventually became eligible. This Rescission Act is a scar on the historical record of the United States. In a time of war, we asked for and received the commitment of these Filipino soldiers to serve under U.S. authority. We should honor their military service on America's behalf. While I appreciate the complexity of our federal budget and the benefits issue, it should be clear that this is a moral issue and an equity issue. I hope you will support giving these Filipino veterans the benefits that they deserve and support Representative Filner's amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the last vote, H. Con. Res. 180, I was detained in traffic while returning to the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for his leadership in bringing this very important amendment to the floor. I am very disappointed, and I joined my colleagues earlier in stating that disappointment, at the funding that is in the VA-HUD bill this year, because of the cuts in affordable housing. The amendment of the gentleman from New York, which funds $305 million for 50,000 new incremental Section 8 housing vouchers is an important one. Affordable housing is scarce and getting scarcer. As one who represents a very high-cost area, in terms of housing, this amendment is essential. The amendment will provide 50,000 individuals and families with affordable, safe and decent housing. The maker of the amendment very eloquently laid out the justification for the funding in his amendment, and I would like to join him in that. A previous supporter of the amendment spoke, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), said he was going to quote himself. And since he took that point of personal privilege, I am going to quote my mother. When my mother was First Lady of Baltimore in the 1950s, her project was affordable housing for working poor families. And she used to say then, and I recall it very well, how can we teach children about love and respect and dignity if we do not even provide them with a decent place to live? It was true then, and it is even truer now in this time of unprecedented economic prosperity for our country. With the stock market going past 11,000, with unemployment at record lows, with inflation practically nonexistent, it has been demonstrated that a rising tide does not lift all ships. When we have people who work full time making the minimum wage who cannot afford a decent place to live for their families, then it is important for us to have adequate funding for the Section 8 voucher. Our budget, Mr. Chairman, as we have said over and over again, our federal budget should be a statement of our national values, and we have to make some important choices as we consider spending. We have to be fiscally responsible. We all agree to that. But we also have to get back to basics. What is more basic than a decent place to live for America's families? Especially those who toil at a wage which I wish would be higher, but it is not, and it creates a need for some public intervention in the form of the Section 8 voucher. So I believe it is a statement of the values of the American people to prevent homelessness. I think it is a statement of values of the American people that America's children have a decent place to live. I think dignity and respect are important values for the American people and that funding in our Federal budget should reflect that priority that the American people give it. And that dignity is that which comes when a family can have a decent place to live; where children at school can say I am going home now. And home does not mean a homeless shelter or something worse. Home means home, and in many cases homes that would be provided by the Section 8 vouchers. So I thank and commend personally, politically, civically, officially, and in every way the gentleman for his important amendment and urge my colleagues to support the Nadler amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler-Shays-Crowley amendment, and I commend the gentlemen for their leadership in bringing it to the floor in a strong bipartisan way. This is a very important amendment, Mr. Chairman, because what this bill does is cut by $10 million the funds available for the HOPWA program. That means that 6,500 people who now receive this funding who are housed under the HOPWA program will be put out on the street. This is a cut. It is not additional money that we would like to see in the bill. That does not seem to have a market with the Republican leadership but merely attempts to maintain the funding from last year. I rise in support of this amendment and commend the makers of it with some pride of authorship of the underlying authorization bill, the HOPWA bill that was passed in the Congress years ago. The cosponsors were the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and Congressman Schumer of New York as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),--me--of San Francisco. All three of us saw the need in our communities for this special program. We worked with the religious community which was ministering to the needs of the poor, homeless, and especially people with AIDS and came up with this legislation, and what it does, HOPWA funds assists low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families by providing rental assistance, utility payments to prevent homelessness, assistance in short-term facilities. These funds also help construct, rehabilitate, acquire, and operate housing and provide supportive services. Those supportive services are a very important part of it. Evidence shows that the capacity of HOPWA programs to deliver services is growing and should not be undermined. The housing provided by HOPWA dollars provides the quality of lives, improves the quality of lives and the access to life-extending care. What is important to note about the HOPWA funds, Mr. Chairman, is that they are a good investment. Because of the HOPWA program, we save $47,000 per year in reducing unnecessary hospitalization and use of emergency health care per person, $47,000 per person per year. So in cutting this funding we are increasing the cost to the taxpayer. Now we all care about, and as an appropriator myself, I know we are all responsible for our own bills, but we also have a responsibility to the taxpayer in general and in cutting in our own bill it is foolish to think that there is any saving to the taxpayer when this would increase, per person, $47,000 per year times 6,500 people who would be literally put out on the street, and this all takes place within the context of a bill, a VA-HUD bill, with despite the excellent efforts of the distinguished chairman from New York whom we all respect and the distinguished ranking member whom we hold in high esteem, despite their best efforts this bill has problems, and they translate into putting people on the street. I said before that our budget should be a statement of our national values. I ask my colleagues is it a statement of their national values to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans while putting those most vulnerable people with AIDS and HIV out on the street where stress contributes to their condition instead of saving money by reducing dependency on emergency rooms and hospital care and keeping people at home, also including families of people with HIV/AIDS. So again I commend the makers of the amendment, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for their leadership and urge our colleagues to support this important amendment, and I hope that the distinguished leadership of the subcommittee will find a way to have this money, at least this $10 million, at the end of the appropriations day for us.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, August 11, President Clinton will present Dr. Edgar Wayburn, longtime environmental activist in the San Francisco Bay Area, with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The White House ceremony marks yet another milestone along the trail of a lifelong pursuit of environmental wisdom. In spotlighting Edgar Wayburn's achievements, the President is also underscoring the critical importance of environmental conservation in an era of scarce water, warming climates, sprawling populations, overcrowded parks, disintegrating habitats, and declining species. Indeed, Dr. Wayburn, the honorary president-for-life of the Sierra Club, has devoted most of his 92 years to the goals of preserving the world's wild areas and enhancing the natural environment for the benefit of future generations. In following this trail, he has always marched in the company of this own extraordinary wit and humor--and in the company of his extraordinarily supportive wife, Peggy, a force of nature in her own right. Even in the context of his long commitment to the environment, however, Alaska came to occupy a special place in Dr. Wayburn's world view. More than 30 years ago, he and Peggy visited the northernmost state for the first time. Alaska has literally never been the same since that visit. Dr. Wayburn and Peggy were so captivated by the glories of the Alaskan landscape that he has devoted a generous share of his life to preserving its majestic vistas, lofty mountains, and free-flowing rivers. The national campaign that flowed from that first visit, and the hundreds of visits that followed, culminated successfully in the enactment of the Alaska Lands Act, which President Carter signed into law in 1980. It remains the largest public lands legislation in the history of the U.S. Congress. Everyone associated with that epochal event will readily grant Dr. Wayburn the lion's share of the credit for playing such a critical and essential role in protecting the vast and varied landscapes of Alaska. Today, some 104 million acres remain wild largely because of the epiphany that occurred during Dr. Wayburn's first trip to ``the last frontier.'' Not content with his heavy lifting on behalf of the Alaskan wilderness, Dr. Wayburn was simultaneously engaged in the struggle to create and expand Redwood National Park in Northern California. He worked closely with our former colleague, the late Philip Burton, who led the long struggle that eventually brought forth the eternal preservation of a pristine example of ancient forest. Few of us living in Northern California at the time will soon forget the fractious debate that ricocheted through the streets of our communities and the halls of Congress. The noise grew most thunderous when the advocates of local jobs and forest preservation stood toe-to- toe in verbal slugfests. At all times during this difficult journey, Dr. Wayburn was steadfast in his recognition of the lasting importance of the inspiring redwoods. Today, these giants have a permanent home in a coastal habitat of 75,000 fog-shrouded acres. Redwood National Park is also listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and Biosphere Preserve and is visited by thousands of people every year from the United States and abroad. In San Francisco, Dr. Wayburn demonstrated a similarly high standard of leadership in orchestrating the creation of Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). As a result of Dr. Wayburn's visionary insights, an almost continuous greenbelt now stretches down the Pacific Coast from Pt. Reyes Seashore to Sweeney Ridge. In the 1960s the very notion of an urban national park was an alien concept to Congress and the National Park Service (NPS); but thanks to the tireless labors of Phil Burton and Dr. Wayburn along with the support of the local community and local environmentalists, GGNRA finally emerged in 1972 as a protected niche for a new kind of NPS administrative unit. Today, GGNRA, with more than 22 million visitors annually, is the most visited site in the NPS system. Within its boundaries are redwood forests, beaches, dramatic headlands, marshes, abundant wildlife, historic forts, islands in the Bay, and a world-famous prison--and all of this incredible diversity lies within easy reach of one of the largest metropolitan populations in the United States. It exists today as a living testament to those who never give up on their dreams--and to the tenacity of Dr. Edgar Wayburn in particular. Most recently, in February, Dr. Wayburn joined us in supporting the introduction of legislation to permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to expand efforts to conserve open space, provide urban recreation and park opportunities, and protect marine wildlife. The bill, the Permanent Protection of America's Resources 2000 Act, would be the single largest annual commitment of funds to environmental protection in our history. It is a bi-partisan, albeit challenging, effort and Dr. Wayburn's support for the legislation is invaluable. And now, at last, shortly before his 93rd birthday, Dr. Wayburn will be standing in the White House to receive one of the highest honors that our country can bestow. It is a tribute that is long overdue but richly deserved. Dr. Wayburn, we thank you and salute you on this momentous occasion.