Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Earth Day to remind us that Mother Earth giveth, but the 104th Congress taketh away. Look at the battle of this year: Tried to take away Medicare benefits, affordability of Medicare, tried to take away the school lunch program. And now on Earth Day we see that they are trying to take away the Endangered Species Act, but that is not all. Mr. Speaker, we have heard earlier today that the 104th Congress decided also to take away the public enjoyment of public lands and sell those to private interests. They want to sell the mountains to the ski resorts, the forests to the logging companies, the rivers to hydropower and to development. They want to sell wildlife refuges to oil and gas development and to hunters. They want to sell the minerals that belong to the people to the mining companies. Lastly, they want to take the Indian lands and sell those to the gambling interests. In addition to these takeaways from the U.S. public, because the public owns these lands, and give these to private interests, they also want to take away the money that has been derived from the sale of all these resources because we receive value for when we sell the land and water of this country and the grazing lands and so on. What do they want to do with that money? It is our money, sitting in a trust account here in Washington called a lockbox, known as the land and water conservation fund. The lockbox now has our money, $12 billion in there that cannot be spent. Should we tolerate this? I say no. Look what we can do. Look what happened with a little politics in this House last week, for a similar lockbox. In the transportation funds, the Highway Trust Fund, this House voted 284 to 143 to open that box and allow that money to be spent on the public interests. In fact, the leader of that movement, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, said, Congress imposes taxes on gasoline, on airline tickets and other transportation goods with the assurance that those funds would be spent on the infrastructure improvement, but the problem is that the accumulated surpluses of these dedicated user-generated trust funds are not being spend to build anything. They are just sitting in bank accounts. He went on to say, this is patently unfair to the American traveling public. Well, it is also unfair on Earth Day to the American public that enjoys the out-of- doors to lock up all of their moneys in a trust fund, $12 billion. My colleagues, the 1995 Republican budget resolution called for a moratorium on the land and water conservation funds. The total balance in that fund is $12 billion, as I said. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Good roads leading to bad environment sounds like the road to hell paved with good intentions.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to salute a man who did more to advance U.S. economic interests at home and abroad than any other in our nation's distinguished history. Ron Brown, whose other accomplishments include revitalizing the Democratic party and advancing race relations in America, died tragically 2 weeks ago on a trade mission in Bosnia. As Commerce Secretary, Brown was accompanied by 34 other brave Americans, one of whom was my constituent. Adam Darling, a 29-year Commerce Department assistant who offered to bike cross-country from his Santa Cruz, California home to promote Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, also lost his life on that terrible flight. I had the honor of saluting Adam's life last Friday, along with the First Lady, his family and friends at a touching memorial service. He will be sorely missed by all. Adam was on board, because as President Clinton put it, Ron Brown could see in him and the others ``the promise of a new tomorrow and he knew they needed someone to reach down and give them the opportunity to serve.'' Ron Brown was truly one of a kind. The son of a hotel manager, Ron Brown grew up in black America but bridged the gap between white and black from the earliest years of his life. Attending white private schools, Brown went on to be the only African-American in his class at Middlebury College, where he forged the desegregation of his fraternity. He later attended St. John's University Law School and subsequently worked as a prominent attorney in the largely white world of law. After that, Ron Brown became the first African-American chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As former National Urban League chief John Jacob said, ``Ron could accomplish anything, because he didn't believe he coundn't do it. As Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown worked tirelessly to promote our economic interests both here an around the globe. He firmly believed that free, but fair trade was one of the best ways of advancing our country's national interests as we move into the 21st century. It was for this reason that Ron Brown enthusiastically led his mission to Bosnia. He believed that the untapped possibilities of the war-torn region held untold possibilities for the United States. I personally have had the pleasure of working with Ron Brown on a number of occasions. Before his untimely death, he and I had been developing a unique initiative of sustainable development for my congressional district. We both eagerly looked forward to harnessing the creative energy of public and private enterprise to forget this new national model. I don't believe a day has gone by since the tragic accident that I have not mourned what this country will miss without Ron Brown, and the others aboard his plane. While the important work of the Commerce Department will surely continue, America will never recapture the potential that traveled aboard that flight. We can never replace the enormous possibilities that traveled with Ron Brown.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, for any parent, the death of a child is surely life's greatest tragedy. I can personally remember the profound grief and gloom that swept over my own father and family when my youngest sister Nancy was tragically killed following a horseback riding accident in Colombia, where I served in the Peace Corps more than 30 years ago. Even now, not a day goes by that my family does not sorely miss Nancy and regret the fact that she did not live longer, though we all know she led a magnificent life while she was with us. The same sentiment, I am sure, will be true for the family of Santa Cruz resident Adam Darling, who left this world last week with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 32 other brave Americans in an ill-fated flight over Bosnia. Adam died doing precisely what he wanted: Serving his country, while working to make the world a better place. The eternal optimist, Adam had once offered to ride his bike cross-country from his home in Santa Cruz to Washington, DC for then Governor Bill Clinton because he felt he could make a difference in the 1992 presidential race. After the election, he ended up in Washington working in the Commerce Department. When I arrived to be sworn in as a Member of Congress, Adam was there to meet me. He brought his father, the Reverend Darrell Darling from Santa Cruz with him to all of our Washington activities. According to Darrell, ``Adam Darling was a leader among his peers, his friends, his family and in his work. His leadership grew from a keen and uncluttered mind, a character free of shame, given or received, and a thoroughly generous spirit. He was very realistic about both public policy and public service, and the limitations and temptations of both. Adam's realism never became cynical. When you decide to make a difference where there is risk, you can't calculate the cost or be guaranteed delivery from pain or loss. Bosnia is a land of grief and turmoil and none of us is immune.'' At the Commerce Department, Adam served as staff in the press office for several months before becoming a personal assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Commerce for 2 years. Adam was also instrumental in bringing state-of-the art science to Central Coast and the country. Just 1 year ago, he helped organize the first-ever link between classrooms across America and marine biologists working in the Monterey Bay. Ron Brown had recently asked Adam to handle press relations and advance planning for the economic development mission in Bosnia. According to his family, ``Adam saw it as an opportunity to make a significant contribution to a peace effort where it is severely needed.'' Rather than working hard to gain personal attention, Adam worked hard for the sheer pleasure of doing a job well and the satisfaction of knowing he had helped make someone else's life a little more livable. He was one of the many invisible government hands working in Bosnia to ensure the survival of a nation. Amazing acts of heroism, dedication, and humanitarianism exemplify the work done by those invisible hands. Without people like those who served, continue to serve and will serve their country by helping others, the world would be hard pressed to survive tragedies such as the Bosnia conflict. Adam too saw life as an opportunity to serve the world. Telling his family at the age of five that he would be President of the United States some day, a young boy made his commitment to bettering his country at any cost. During the few years he was afforded, Adam worked with the dedication and commitment of a President, and accomplished more for the good of humankind during his lifetime than many even attempt in 100 years. The loss of Adam Darling and the 34 others in Bosnia will be sorely felt by all and will remain in our hearts as a memorial to all who pay the highest cost possible in order to help the world by serving their country.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a woman who exemplifies the very best of the American spirit. Helen Mineta, a teacher of politics and government for more than 30 years, a friend, and an active member of the community, died March 18th in San Jose, CA. She was 77. The daughter of immigrant Japanese parents, Ms. Mineta persevered throughout her life against racism, overcoming numerous barriers. She bettered the lives of those with whom she came in contact in countless ways, as a teacher and as an advocate for Japanese-American rights. Helen Mineta graduated from San Jose State College in 1938 with dreams of becoming a teacher, but was told by her professors that no one would hire a Japanese person. Undaunted, she worked in the speech and drama department at San Jose State while studying commerce. She remained at San Jose State until the onset of World War II and the attack on Pearl Harbor caused Americans to lash out at Japanese- Americans. As a result of both racism and fear, Ms. Mineta and many other Japanese-Americans were placed in internment camps. Helen Mineta and her family were interned first at the Santa Anita Racetrack and then the Heart Mountain camp in Wyoming. Despite these hardships, Ms. Mineta managed to get out of the internment camp by obtaining a position as an executive secretary in a Chicago chemical corporation. Although forced to leave her family behind, she did not forget them. Ms. Mineta helped to educate her brother, Norman, who was without a school in the internment camp, by sending him books and questions to answer concerning them. Her hard work and tutelage reaped great benefits, for Norman was later to become our friend, the former congressman from San Jose. In the years after the war Ms. Mineta worked for her brother-in-law at the Japanese American Citizens League in Washington, D.C., fighting to help others deal with the same racism that had assailed her. She went on to receive another bachelor's degree from the University of California at Berkeley, and finally realized her goal of teaching at San Jose High School in 1958. But again tragedy struck as Ms. Mineta was about to receive a much dreamed about position at the United Nations. Her mother died in 1956 and she returned home to help her father. Helen Mineta remained actively involved in the community throughout her life, giving lectures on the racism she confronted and overcame during World War II and throughout her life. She was also instrumental in the fight to build the San Jose Center for the Performing Arts, bringing a valuable resource to the community. Her accomplishments were acknowledged by the University of California Alumni Club. In the end, though, many remember Helen Mineta as a dear friend who had a zest for life. She remained active and cheerful throughout her life despite the obstacles. She will be sorely missed. Ms. Mineta is survived by two sisters, Etsu M. Masaoka of Chevy Chase, MD and Aya Endo of Medford, NJ; two brothers, Albert Mineta of San Jose, and Norman Mineta of Alexandria, VA, and three nieces and four nephews. To them we send our deepest condolences.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of this farm bill. It is not perfect. Freedom to farm certainly deserves a lot of debate. But this bill is better than no bill. California farmers in my district are the most productive specialty crop growers in the world. They produce $2.5 billion worth of fresh vegetables a year without any Federal price supports or even Federal water. But even market-driven agriculture needs a national farm policy and a vision toward the future. Conservation, research, rural development and market promotion are areas that need a Federal partner. Mr. Speaker, I am happy that this farm bill is a major step in building this new national agriculture policy. This bill begins to draw the line, the green line, to stop urban sprawl from paving over prime ag lands, and I am particularly happy that this bill makes the Federal Government a partner with the States in efforts to protect prime farm land from urban sprawl. I am also glad that this bill allows the Secretary to provide seed money grants to private food programs that bring fresh, healthy food to low-income communities. I urge the support of this bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is not perfect legislation, but I feel that we should approve it because it addresses all of the areas of concern to rural America; from feeding the poor to making affordable improvements out in the rural areas. Mr. Speaker, let me say that in 1981, I managed my first farm bill. This is the fourth time that I rise to support a farm bill and it will be my last time that I do so. I stated then that it was a long, long way from the banks of the Rio Grande to Washington, DC. A poor boy shining shoes in the streets of Mission, TX, to managing a farm bill. It is with great pride now that I do so. This will be the fourth time I have managed a farm bill, this is the greatest number of anyone who has served in this House. I ask you to support this legislation, not because of myself or what I have done, but because it is the art of the possible. Legislating is the art of the possible. What is possible now may not be possible 1 hour from now. It addresses human needs. It addresses the issues of the poor. We are the best fed people in the world, in the history of the world, for the best amount of disposable income per family. We have the best quality food in the world. A lot of the costs that people complain about are for the many other areas in agriculture such as meat inspection and poultry inspection. That is not to say that agriculture programs are perfect. Now and then you have a fault, but the intent is to help farmers provide reasonable, safe, and affordable food. We have gone, I think, Mr. Speaker, a long, long way in helping ensure that we are the best fed people in the world in the history of the world. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for his kindness to me; his working with me. This is not perfect legislation. I have never said that any bill that I brought to the floor was perfect legislation. If there are flaws in this bill, they may yet be corrected in the future. We have reduced the budget deficit. Agriculture has reduced the deficit over $60 billion in the past 10 years. If every committee in the House had done that, we would not be worried about a balanced budget. We have reduced that, but we have done it quietly. We have done it with a scalpel, not with a meat ax. You should be proud of what agriculture has done and what we have worked for and what we will continue to work for. But for me today, this is my last hurrah. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], my chairman.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sorrow that I rise today to salute a man who, without question, represented the very best of California creativity and American ingenuity. David Packard, who revolutionized both the computer industry and modern-management practices died Tuesday in Palo Alto, CA. He was 83. For anyone familiar with computers in the 20th century, the name Hewlett-Packard is synonymous with innovation, and with excellence. Founded in 1939 in a Palo Alto garage by Mr. Packard and his good friend William Hewlett, the company is now a recognized leader in its field, employing more than 100,000 workers. The ``HP Way,'' Mr. Packard's standard for corporate practices and employee relations, is commonly cited as one of the best by business experts. In creating his company, Mr. Packard said, ``Get the best employees, stress the importance of teamwork, and fire them up with the will to win.'' Though many in business may take such words lightly, for Mr. Packard, they represented the only way to succeed. There were no conventional offices at Hewlett-Packard, not even for the most senior engineers. To stress collaboration and creativity, employees were grouped together in close proximity where they could freely exchange ideas. This respect for the H-P employee also applied in a number of other ways. Hewlett-Packard was among the first in the business world to provide catastrophic medical coverage, flexible work hours and decentralized decision-making. David Packard also took a keen interest in his global community and was a generous philanthropist. He established the Packard Foundation in 1964 to support community organizations, education, health care, conservation, population projects, the arts, and scientific research. But while the Nation and the world are remembering David Packard for his business and industrial achievements, the people of the Monterey Bay are remembering David Packard as an ocean pioneer--our nation's Jacques Cousteau. He recently said that ``I spent my entire business life in the technology field, and in my industrial career I have seen my share of revolutions in human understanding. I now realize that the ocean is the most important frontier we have.'' David Packard used this scientific vision and $55 million to help his daughter Julie develop and open the Montery Bay Aquarium--the world's best example of top science education as good business. David took his vision a step further and built a state of-the-art marine lab at Moss Landing to pioneer new deep ocean exploration technologies. All told, David and his late wife Lucile donated over $450 million to scientific research, education, health care, conservation and the arts. On a personal note, let me just say that I will sorely miss the many contributions of David Packard. A good family friend, he was one of those few people you cross in life who not only touches our hearts, but also inspires our minds. David was one of a kind. My thoughts and prayers go out to his four children, David, Nancy, Susan and Julie, his colleagues and his many, many friends.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, this is not a bill about life, this is a bill about politics. Think about it. The House passed this bill in its original version to ban partial birth abortions. The Senate changed it. The Senate said, ``You can make an exception to the ban in the case of the life of the mother.'' What is going on here? Congress is trying to be your doctor. I though this was the era of getting Government off our backs, not the era of getting Government more into your personal issues. Now it seems that we are imposing more Government regulations on a woman's personal life. It is ironic that this Congress honors this month of March as Women's History Month. We celebrate women overcoming obstacles in their lives, women having liberties, and women having freedom of choice. Now here tonight, in a male-dominated Congress, they want to take away a woman's right to decide what is right for her and for her baby. I have talked to constituents who have been forced to have this procedure to protect future fertility. I think we are foolish to think that we can handle this issue with our lawmaking process better than women can handle it in the medical arena. Everyone knows that we cannot save life or make life by ordering it. Do not pass laws that may prevent healthy women from ever, ever becoming loving mothers. Support women. Support womanhood. Reject this rule. Reject this bill. Honor women. Honor medicine. Honor choice. Do not make bad law.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 158 recognizing the Peace Corps on its 35th anniversary. President John Kennedy created this international service organization 35 years ago to promote international goodwill. During his powerful inaugural speech the young President challenged Americans with, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'' The Peace Corps was part of this vision for how Americans could play a positive role in the developing world. In its 35 years, the Peace Corps has come to represent what is best about our country and our character as a people: our ability to forge a spirit of idealism with a commonsense approach to what works for people who need and want our help. My other returned Peace Corps volunteer colleagues and I know the value of volunteer service and the significance of this fine agency. I had the benefit of serving in the Peace Corps in Colombia in the early 1960's. That experience has led me to serve my community in local, State, and Federal government. Peace Corps taught me the value of service, responsibility, and commitment. Currently, there are nearly 7,000 Americans working as Peace Corps volunteers. They work at the grass-roots level in places far from their homes and families. Some volunteers do not see other Americans for months at a time. They are completely entrenched in their countries of service. They speak the language, eat their food, and share their culture. They put a face on America and its values around the world. Volunteers serve in many different programs ranging from the traditional education and health programs to promoting new sustainable programs to benefit agriculture, the environment, and economic development. Education remains Peace Corps' largest program. Over 40 percent of all volunteers teach English, mathematics, science, and business studies. They work in special education, vocational educations, and nonformal education activities for adults and at-risk youth. In addition to classroom teaching, volunteers work closely with local educators to share methodology, integrate relevant content and resource centers and teaching materials. In Cameroon, volunteers have helped develop a manual on teaching HIV/AIDS prevention in English-language classes. The manual has since been adopted for public use by the Ministry of Education. Teaching and prevention of HIV/AIDS to citizens in high-risk groups has played a major part in the health services provided by volunteers. In Thailand, volunteers have conducted surveys to help the country update its HIV/AIDS education materials. Other health services performed by volunteers include providing primary health care services to many of the world's women and children including maternal and child health activities, nutrition, community health education, and water and sanitation projects. Peace Corps is the leader in protecting the global environment. The focus of the environmental strategy is on community work, teaching conservation of national resources, and sustainable resource management. Much of the environmental work is in forestry management, reforestation, and watershed management. The fastest growing new project activity is environmental educations. Volunteers in Tanzania, home of the largest wildlife refuge are involved in projects ranging from codifying Tanzanian environmental law to ensure protection of exported birds to preparing a management plan for Ileje Forestry Reserve and teaching environmental education in the schools. Food production remains to be a priority for many nations in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the former Soviet Union. Rapidly expanding populations, changes in climate, and a series of natural and man-made disasters have created serious food shortages. With most people in developing nations still practicing subsistence farming, there is a critical need to introduce and apply sustainable agricultural techniques to village farmers. In Guatemala, volunteers are teaching farmers how to increase their family incomes and produce animal protein for dietary intake through the integration of fish and small animal production. The fastest growing program for volunteers is economic development especially in Eastern Europe. Volunteers promote local economic development through self-sustaining income and employment producing practices. Working with local community leaders, businesses, and trade associations, volunteers teach business management, commercial banking and related skills assisting local efforts to establish free market economies. In Poland, a volunteer has been instrumental in establishing 46 small businesses with no-interest loans from the local government with only a 6-percent default rate. The Peace Corps has become a powerful symbol of international humanitarianism. It is a goal which hundreds of people strive toward each year. Not just young college graduates, but people of all ages. In fact, 9 percent of Peace Corps volunteers are over 50 years old. The Peace Corps remains a popular calling; there is not one State in the country which has not sent a Peace Corps volunteer. In my State of California, over 20,000 people have volunteered to serve around the world. The Peace Corps has become a powerful symbol of America's commitment to expand hope, create opportunity, and encourage development at the grassroots level in the developing world. Volunteers embody and represent many of America's most enduring values, such as service, commitment to the poor, and friendship among nations. Returned volunteers, enriched by their experiences overseas, have brought to their communities throughout the United States a deeper understanding of other cultures and traditions. At a time when funding for foreign assistance programs is under severe constraints, it is notable that the Peace Corps continues to enjoy strong support in the Congress and among the American people. That is a tribute to the thousands of Americans--young and old--who have served over the past 35 years, often under very difficult conditions. And it is a tribute to the visionary but simple idea behind the Peace Corps; that the world will be a more peaceful place if we understand one another better and if we can help those in need improve their own lives and that of their families and communities. Join me in supporting House Joint Resolution 158, recognizing and honoring the Peace Corps' achievements and contributions and its volunteers over the past 35 years.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support on both sides of the aisle. I think this program is one that we can all be proud of, and in a time when people think that there is debate and rancor among the parties in Congress, I can tell that this is one area where we all agree that America has created a fantastic opportunity for its youth, for its people of all ages to be able to experience overseas living as minorities in another land. As a return volunteer, I reflect on my experience every day, and I appreciate the support Congress is giving it.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as one of the six returned Peace Corps volunteers now serving in the House, and I rise in support of House Resolution 158, recognizing the Peace Corps' 35th anniversary. Let me first take a minute to thank Chairman Gilman and the Ranking Minority Member Hamilton for bringing this measure to the floor. I also want to thank Mark Geran, who is the Director of the Peace Corps, who has been instrumental in the continuing success of the agency, as well as the other returned Peace Corps volunteers now serving in this country and serving in this Congress, my colleagues Representative Tony Hall of Ohio, Representative Tom Petri, Representative Mike Ward, Representative Jim Walsh, and Representative Chris Shays. President Kennedy created this international service organization 35 years ago to promote international goodwill. During his powerful inaugural address, he challenged Americans with, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and many of them, including myself at that time, responded to that call and joined the Peace Corps in the early 1960's. The creation of the Peace Corps was part of this vision of his. Today, there are currently 7,000 Americans working as Peace Corps volunteers. The average age in 1961, when President Kennedy made his call, was 22 years of age. Today, in 1996, the average age is 29 years old. Over 500 volunteers are over the age of 50. The educational experience of volunteers has grown; more volunteers with graduate degrees than ever before. Over 140,000 returned volunteers have served in the Peace Corps in more than 125 countries, in Africa, Asia, Eastern and Central Europe. They have also served in the South Pacific and in Latin America. The Peace Corps was formally established by Executive order on March 1, 1961. Volunteers were sent to Ghana, Colombia, and Tanzania, and over 850 volunteers were in the field by the end of the first year. Soon volunteers teaching in schools were joined by those working in agriculture, health and nutrition, forestry, and fisheries. In the 1980's, the Peace Corps was refined and developed new initiatives in response to the special needs of the developing world. In Lesotho, in Mali, and Niger, Peace Corps began the Africa Food Systems Initiative to assist farmers in need of innovative ways to increase food production. In the Caribbean, the Peace Corps has developed initiatives to stimulate job-creating small enterprises. The Peace Corps has undertaken a lot of new initiatives. The Peace Corps has plans to send volunteers to South Africa in response to a request for assistance from President Nelson Mandela. The Peace Corps has also resumed its presence in Haiti following the successful presidential elections. Currently the Peace Corps is investigating the feasibility of sending volunteers to the Middle East and to Cambodia. The agency plans on development of a Crisis corps to respond to natural disasters in developing countries. The story about that reached our office when volunteers were calling about the situation in Rwanda, saying that they had been there and served and spoke the language and knew the customs and the culture. They knew the history and the politics and they wanted to be able to go back. We did not have a facility in law to allow that, so we had to ask the State Department to make a special process for that, and that is what is now being developed into this Crisis Corps, so that indeed when we do have people that have the skills that are needed in countries with disasters, we can immediately get them there. The purpose of the Peace Corps' mission is to promote world peace. Peace Corps volunteers have made significant and lasting contributions around the world in agriculture, business development, education, environmental health, and youth development, and they have improved the lives of thousands all over the world. The Peace Corps has become a powerful symbol of international humanitarianism. The Peace Corps teaches volunteers the value of service and the value of commitment. The agency is an example of America's commitment to expanding hope, to creating opportunity and offering the volunteers an experience that they will remember for a lifetime. At a time when funding for foreign assistance programs is under severe constraints, it is notable that the Peace Corps continues to enjoy strong support in this Congress and among the American people. The agency is facing a strong future. In Friday's Washington Post it was quoted that the Peace Corps is the employer with the most job openings for graduates of the class of 1996. In fact, the demand for Peace Corps volunteers overseas far exceeds our ability to supply that demand, and I hope that in Congress we will appreciate that as we look at its budget next year and realize this is one area that is extremely cost effective. If we want to get a good bang for the buck, the Peace Corps is there and the countries want us to come. The annual survey by Black Collegian magazine stated that the agency plans to recruit over 3,000 graduates. That is the third highest employer in the country. So while the Peace Corps is promoting international goodwill, it is key in benefiting our domestic economy as well. Please join me and my colleagues in supporting this resolution to recognize the Peace Corps on the occasion of its 35th anniversary, and the contributions and achievements that its volunteers have brought home to America and are now achieving in countries all over the world.

Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the message in America is we want less guns in our communities. Every child is listening to that. Less guns, not more guns. Keep the promise to our children, vote ``no.''

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I represent a lot of agriculture, 2.4 billion dollars' worth of agriculture, and what we do in agriculture is we honor labor, and this Congress honors labor. We are always talking about productivity and how great American workers are. We have done that with the autoworker industry and the aerospace industry, and we ought to be doing it more with farm labor supply. We have got 18-percent unemployment in most rural counties in America. This is not an issue about labor shortage. This is an issue about wages. If my colleagues think people will not go out and do hard work, just look at all the people that flee to Alaska when they can catch salmon and have to work all day and night to do it because the wages they get out of that process is very high. I urge my colleagues to really honor American labor. Honor farm productivity by not allowing 250,000 foreigners to come in and say to this country, ``You can't do your own work.'' We produce quality agriculture in America, we can do it with our own labor. We do not need a foreign supply. Vote ``no'' on the Pombo amendment. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, during Rollcall Vote No. 68 on the previous question to House Resolution 384, I was on the same flight and detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring your attention to the crisis in funding for international family planning programs. The United States has traditionally provided developing countries with money to create effective, voluntary family planning programs. However, in the fiscal year 1996 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, family planning programs were cut by 85 percent, from $547 to $356 million. A recent study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit corporation for reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education, stated funding cuts will restrict 7 million couples in developing countries from using modern contraceptive methods. This will result in 1.9 million more unplanned births, 134,000 more infant deaths, and 8,000 more women dying in childbirth and pregnancy, including from unsafe abortions. In fact, due to the dearth of funding, there will be at least 1.6 million more abortions in developing countries in just 1 year. Family planning services offer often lifesaving health care services, including family planning, prenatal services, maternal and infant health programs, treatment of infertility, and the prevention of AIDS. The more we limit funds for family planning, the more we will spend on money for destitute children and health care for the sick. Long-term costs of the cuts may prove so disastrous that the United States will wind up spending more than it will save. Worsening population trends mean the United States may confront more international instability, greater depletion of important global resources and ultimately much higher levels of foreign aid assistance. International family planning funding must be restored. Not only is it a public health issue, but family planning is the answer to the question of overpopulation. Global population now exceeds 5.7 billion people. If nothing is done to stem this growth, the Earth's population will quadruple to over 19 billion people by the end of the next century. Uncontrolled population growth not only causes extreme poverty, unemployment, and urban overcrowding, but it is having an enormously damaging effect on our environment and public health. In much of the developing world, overpopulation, caused mainly by the lack of access of women to basic reproductive health services and information, is contributing to impoverishment, malnutrition, and hopelessness. The damaging effect on the world's environment is resulting in resource depletion, tropical deforestation, extinction of certain plants and animals, and pollution of air, water, and land. Population growth is outstripping the capacity of many nations to make even slight gains in economic development leading to political instability. Overpopulation must be addressed by sustainable development programs. There are three key areas which will target overpopulation directly: international family planning, financial commitment, and technical expertise. Practically every major innovation in the population and family planning field can be linked to U.S. support. Modern technology has also been applied to the population field in the areas of mass communication, biotechnology, and biomedical research in the development of new contraceptives. Funding for international family planning is not about whether women in third world countries have abortions. The ramifications to funding cuts stretch from health counseling to global warming. Family planning directly deals with the protection of our environment, economy, and the health of women and children. We must work to maintain sustainable development programs to protect our environment, public health, and future. Please join me in the fight to restore this vital funding.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy today to be able to join a bipartisan coalition of marine sanctuary supporters in introducing the National Marine Sanctuaries Renewal Act of 1996. This bill will reauthorize funding for the National Marine Sanctuary Program which is set to expire on September 30, 1996. The country's 13 marine sanctuaries are the national parks of our oceans. They celebrate and preserve some of the Nation's most significant ocean resources. Like our national parks, our marine sanctuaries focus out attention on how important sound environmental stewardship is to our quality of life and the sustainability of our economies. The National Marine Sanctuary Program began modestly in 1975 off North Carolina's stunningly beautiful outer banks to protect the Civil War wreck of the world's first iron ship, the U.S.S. Monitor. The program expanded several years later to protect sensitive marine resources off the California and Florida coasts. The program reached its full maturity in the fall of 1992 with the designation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary embraces the entire coast of my central California coastal district. It is the largest protected marine area in the United States and second only to Australia's Great Barrier Reef in size worldwide. It encompasses more than 4,000 square nautical miles of open ocean along 350 miles of shoreline. It is unique among all marine preserves in being so accessible from shore. Most of my constituents don't pass a day without seeing sanctuary waters and are grateful that the sanctuary has protected their coast from offshore oil development. However, marine sanctuaries are not just about conserving resources. They are also about protecting coastal economies. The Monterey Bay Sanctuary is a key to my district's billion dollar tourism industry. Indeed, one of this Nation's premiere tourist attractions, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, is a thriving private business that showcases the extraordinary marine life of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary. The sanctuary also helps support a prosperous fish industry. All of this comes at a very modest cost. The entire sanctuary program costs less than $12 million a year to administer. It is truly a bargain for the taxpayers. But, like all government programs, the sanctuaries need to make the most of their funding. This bill helps them accomplish that by allowing the sanctuaries to develop, trademark, and market logos and other merchandise to help supplement their funding. I urge support of the bill.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty Act. This legislation would, in the name of ending the rule of Castro, cause even greater harm to the Cuban people and jeopardize our relations with many of our important allies. As were all Americans, I was outraged by the February 24 shootdown of two American Cessnas near Cuba. Simply put, there is no excuse for sending two MiG fighters against unarmed passenger planes. H.R. 927, however, is the wrong way to respond. The bill would not have prevented the tragic events of 2 weeks ago, nor would it significantly improve upon the additional sanctions already taken by the President as a result of the attack. We should not forget that we already impose a comprehensive travel and trade embargo against Cuba. Virtually no exports are permitted to Cuba, and travel is strictly limited. And American businesses are prohibited from conducting virtually any economic activity in Cuba. Economic indicators have shown that the embargo has had a dramatic effect on the Cuban economy. Sadly, however, virtually all of the suffering has been felt by the Cuban people. They have faced serious food shortages, as well as a lack of needed medicine and medical supplies, threatening their health and welfare. Presumably because this embargo has not let to a change in Cuba's leadership--even though it has hurt the people of Cuba--Congress has decided to take the embargo even further: to try to prevent any country from trading with Cuba. Specifically, provisions in this bill would permit Cuban-Americans to sue foreign companies if they use, or profit from, confiscated property from Cuba. This provision has been strongly opposed by many of our important trading allies, including Canada, Great Britain, France, and Mexico. They rightly see this as a violation of international law, and a violation of their sovereignty--an attempt by one country to force their foreign policy on another. Mr. Speaker, is it worth risking our relationship with our allies to try to strangle Cuba even further? I don't think so. If these provisions actually succeed in cutting off additional investment in Cuba, it seems unlikely that the results will benefit the Cuban people. Our embargo has already hurt Cuba's economy severely, yet has only caused more pain for the Cuban people with no change in Cuba's leadership. Given the results of this policy to date, expanding the embargo even more would seem unwise and ineffective, if not downright cruel. Interestingly, some have suggested that the provision will have no effect on foreign investment in Cuba. Why? Because the bill allows individuals to settle their cases against foreign companies out of court. Thus, foreign companies could still invest in Cuba. However, those few Cuban-Americans who held large amounts of property in Cuba could realize large financial gains from these settlements. The possibility that a few could be enriched by this bill, even as the people of Cuba suffer from the current embargo, concerns me even more. In any event, I cannot support legislation which, at the very least, threatens the future of our trading relationships, hurts our own economic security, and does nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Cuban people. Let us pursue a policy of more openness and greater engagement with Cuba, not less, if we truly wish to bring about greater change and help the people of Cuba.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 2778. This important legislation would ensure that American soldiers now serving in the former Yugoslavia receive the same tax benefits as other soldiers in combat zones. Our troops serving in Operation Joint Endeavor face special dangers and challenges unique to their mission, including mine clearance and monitoring the withdrawal and redeployment of armed groups. Though they are not serving in conventional combat conditions, their work is no less dangerous. Clearly, they should not be treated any differently than other American soldiers who serve overseas in an area of potential danger. Unfortunately, without this bill, our troops in Bosnia would not get the same tax benefits as soldiers serving in a combat zone. This legislation will correct this discrepancy and ensure that the young American men and women enforcing the Dayton Peace Accords in the former Yugoslavia are treated the same as soldiers serving in equally hazardous areas. I am glad to see Congress take action on this issue, and I urge the prompt passage of the legislation to correct this oversight.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I said at the opening of debate on this bill that I would vote against it if it was not changed to address California agriculture's needs for conservation, research, and rural development. Nothing that has happened in the past 2 days has changed my mind. The bill is still broken. The California farmers in my district are the most productive specialty crop growers in the world. They produce over $2.5 billion worth of fresh fruits, vegetables, and horticultural crops without any Federal price supports or other direct Federal support--lettuce, artichokes, strawberries, flowers, and over 100 other crops. They have succeeded by embracing the full benefits, and potential risks, of the market. They are the models for American agriculture. And I believe American agriculture must move in their direction to remain viable into the next century. But even market-driven agriculture needs a national farm policy with a vision toward the future. Conservation, research, rural development, and market promotion are all crucial to future success and sustainability of market driven agriculture. H.R. 2854 is a broken bill because it ignores these crucial goals of American farm policy. While I do not like this bill's transition program--its too expensive and makes payments regardless of a farmer's production or the market prices, it still moves agriculture toward the market. And I can support that. But I can not support this bill if it does not also address the conservation, research and rural development. I am particularly concerned that it does not address the loss of farmland to urban sprawl. I have coauthored legislation to help the States address the troubling loss of farmland to urbanization--over 1,000,000 acres a year at current rates. Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill or this morning's conservation amendment for farmland protection--not to mention research or rural development. The de la Garza-Stenholm-Clayton amendment is the best option that we can vote on to fix this broken bill and give the conference some tools to add the kind of vision that the 1996 farm bill needs. Vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be here during rollcall vote No. 40. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise with a great deal of concern on this amendment. This is an amendment that those of us in the environmental community ought to be embracing. But it has some very serious reservations. In fact, I have a letter here signed by the Sierra Club, the American Farmland Trust, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Working Group Humane Society of the United States, Friends of the Earth, the Isaak Walton League of America, the Land Trust Alliance, the Union for Concerned Scientists, Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, the Soil and Water Conservation Society, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, U.S. PIRG, and the Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, all addressing Members of this body, asking them to vote against the bill because of this provision that is from it. I have some concerns as I have been working closely through the year, only I think we have a lot of mutual interests. One of my biggest concerns in America is the erosion of good, prime, agriculture land. America seems to be doing urban sprawl better than it can do agriculture policy. So what we want to do, rather than get government highly involved in this, is to allow--we have in America these agriculture land trusts created in countries and States throughout the United States. Those are private, nonprofit entities that go out and buy from willing sellers, willing sellers, development rights that are on agriculture land, so that the agriculture land remains permanently in agriculture. I have been trying to get that amendment into the bill and had a very difficult time because it is always sort of delayed. The Senate policy allowed that amendment in there, and this amendment does not. So, therefore, I reluctantly have to oppose the Boehlert amendment. I do so because I believe that this amendment undermines efforts both here in the House and in the Senate to protect farmland from urban sprawl. I have coauthored legislation with my good friend from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, to help the States address the troubling loss of farmland to urbanization--over 1,000,000 acres a year at current rates. The States have taken the lead in helping farmers keep this land in agriculture and out of the grasp of urban sprawl and the Federal Government should help the States with their efforts. States like New York, California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Michigan, and many others. A version of our bill was added to the Senate farm bill by Senator Santorum. Before Tuesday, the Boehlert amendment would have included most of the Senate conservation title--including farmland protection. But Tuesday night, the Boehlert amendment was cut down to a size more acceptable to the environmentally leaning Republican leadership. Farmland protection was dropped from the bill. This amendment will hurt the Senate farmland protection provisions in conference. I believe that a vote for the de la Garza-Clayton fund for rural America amendment is better for farmland protection, better for the, environment, better for rural economies, and better for farmers. I cannot support this bill if it lacks adequate funding for conservation, research, and rural development. And I cannot support this bill if it does not help State farmland protection efforts, or undercuts the Senate farmland protection amendment in the conference--as I believe the Boehlert conservation amendment will.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great concern about the debate we are about to have. Most people do not understand what this debate is all about. It is about the rules that allow the amendments to come to the floor. It is as simple as that. The issue here is whether you will have an open rule which allows any amendments to be brought up, or will you have a closed rule or a modified closed rule, which allows very few or no amendments. What alarms me, and I wish the alarms would go off in this building for the people who are sitting here in the gallery, those who are watching, those who are wandering around, it is that this building represents democracy in the United States. It says this is the great hall where people can debate all issues. But I will tell you, on this farm bill, which is one of the most important bills we have to debate in Congress, because agriculture touches every State, and it touches each differently; some States grow sugar cane, some States grow peanuts, some States grow coffee, some States grow artichokes, some States grow wheat, some States grow corn, some States grow cows, some States grow pigs and sheep, but no State does it all. So this is the bill that touches America and the greatness of America, and yet the process we are using denies public access. It denies the debate that we ought to have, that says look, there were 74 amendments presented to the Committee on Rules, and only 15 of them were allowed to come to the floor; 15 allowed to come to the floor on a bill that has never had public input. This process is denying people access to their government, and that may be denied on the Senate side, but the Constitution protects this hall and this House. That Constitution says that this is the people's House. You have to reject rules like this, because what is going to happen is the end product is not going to be trusted by the people. It is not just the laws we make and we put into the books, it is the confidence that we have to build with the American public that what we are doing here is right and just. This is a controversial bill. People do not understand commodity programs. This is not a freedom to farm act, this is how we regulate commodities. Indeed, if we are going to have any trust in that, we will have to build that trust by open rules, not closed rules. It is said about sausages, if we are talking about the farm bill and what goes into sausages, that if you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either of them being made. Mr. Speaker, reject this rule. It is anti-everything this House stands for under our Constitution.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, since 1976, February has been celebrated as Black History Month, but the origins of this event date back to 1926, when Dr. Carter G. Woodson set aside a special period of time in February to recognize the heritage, achievements, and contributions of African-Americans. It is with great pleasure that I rise to recognize a resident of my district who has made an outstanding contribution to both the African-American community, and the central coast region in general. Rev. Herbert Hoover Lusk, Sr., a native of Memphis, TN, has served as a minister and professional community organizer in the City of Seaside, CA for over 30 years. Widely known for his speaking ability and leadership skills, he has been an instrumental figure in the growth and development of the city of Seaside. Reverend Lusk received his formal education at Henderson Business College in business administration, 1951, and the Right School of Religion, 1955, both located in Memphis, TN. Later, he received his bachelor of science degree in human relations and organizational behavior from the University of San Francisco, 1984, and his master of science degree in management and school administration from Pepperdine University. As an organizational planner and administrator, Reverend Lusk founded Operations Shoe-Strings, Inc. Of Seaside 25 years ago, along with Operation Tobacco Education and Operation Second Chance. These organizations are designed to provide essential services to aspiring youth, their parents and other interested community residents. Reverend Lusk has served as minister and pastor of the Bethel Missionary Baptist Church of Seaside, CA since 1961. During this period he has designed and organized church educational programs, a day-care and pre-school program, assisted in community organizational efforts and developed and administered successful proposal and grant-funding efforts. He is also vice-moderator of the St. John District Association, which consists of the States of California, Nevada, New Mexico, and parts of Africa. In February of 1993, Reverend Lusk participated in the first African American national conference ever held on South African soil. In addition, he has served as either a leader or member of such community organizations as the Monterey Peninsula Ministerial Alliance, the Seaside Chamber of Commerce, the Seaside Club International, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP], the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Baptist Convention U.S.A. and the National Alliance for Black Observation Day. As a result of his inspirational leadership and tireless efforts Reverend Lusk has been widely recognized for his achievements. Among the many awards and honors bestowed upon him are the Outstanding Services Award of the Anti-Poverty Council, Monterey Peninsula--1971, the NAACP Man of The Year, 1971, the Seaside Chamber of Commerce Award, 1978, the Elvirita Lewis Foundation Award, 1980, the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Award, 1985 and the California Legislative Resolution Commendation that I sponsored in 1988. Mr. Speaker, I have known Reverend Lusk for many years. He has demonstrated time and time again a tenacious commitment to bettering the lives of the less fortunate in Seaside and surrounding central coast communities. His zeal and enthusiasm have inspired cooperation and commitment for the betterment of the community. As we celebrate our 1996 observance of Black History Month, we celebrate an America that is richer and more culturally aware because of the undertaking and accomplishments of people like Reverend Lusk.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think to a lot of people it is a very confusing time. It sounds like the Government subsidizes sugar. There is no taxpayer subsidy here. This is essentially a battle of economic interests. It is a battle that Americans ought to know about because it is either going to say we are going to err on the side of making candy and soft drinks cheap, and I wonder what is the national congressional policy on why we ought to have cheap candy in this country. The other side is you are going to err on the side of what we have done historically, and that is to support farmers. Now, there are different kinds of farmers in this country. It is not all sugar cane. We have beet growers all over this country who support our local economy. These people need this program. So if you are going to take a vote tonight, you are going to either err on the side of farmers and support America and support what we have been doing over the years, or you are going to err on the side of business that wants to make candy cheap. I think that you ought to err always on the side of the farmers. Oppose this amendment.