Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a chance to do that in the year 2001. The Andean Trade Pact, which gives these preference trade agreements to the Andean countries, will be up for renewal, and we will be able to have the ability to negotiate on that. I look forward to some hard, tough negotiations. Hopefully, we can improve the condition of the working class in these countries, the Andean countries, and particularly, I think, help some of our flower growers that are struggling as well. Another interesting thing about Colombia that many people do not think about, I just got some facts today that today there are 25,000 American citizens who live in Colombia. From October 1997 to September 1998, more than 158,000 Americans visited Colombia. Currently, we have 250 private American businesses that are registered in Colombia. There is a strong American-Colombian connection, despite all of the violence and problems that have been going on. The key that we are here tonight on the floor talking about is how do we move beyond this impasse. Colombia has come to us and said we want to move on. We want to move significantly further than we have ever been before in all kinds of reforms. We need the aid of the United States. We have a plan. It is a well-thought-out plan. It has been applauded wherever it has been presented as a comprehensive plan, as a plan that could work. But there is no free lunch. Colombians are asking us, as well as the Europeans and other countries, to help finance that plan. Because as the gentlewoman mentioned, they are in a historically deep recession right now, and no country in conditions like that can pull out of that without some international help. And so as we approach how we are going to bail out Colombia, what we have to break here in Congress is the stranglehold that has said the only way we are going to help Colombia is to give them Blackhawk helicopters, more money for military, more national police money. It may be that some of that is essential, but that is not the whole package. And Colombians keep reminding us that is not all that we have asked for, we have asked for a lot of other help that is essential. Because none of the aid to the military for suppression of drugs will work unless the rest of the country is brought up on its feet.

Mr. FARR of California. Has the gentlewoman not been impressed with the number of organizations, nongovernmental organizations, the human rights organizations, the number of active missions, of technicians, of people, as the gentlewoman talked about, who are just skilled farmers or skilled nurses, people who would really want to help Colombia? I think if we can make this country safe to return to, we will see an outpouring of Americans. It is such a beautiful country. There is so much possibility there. And I just think that we in Congress have to provide the resources to make this possible. My daughter is 21 years old. I would hate to think that there is any place in the world that she cannot as an American citizen go and be safe in, and particularly in a country which her father spent two of the most marvelous years of his life as a Peace Corps volunteer. Yet my wife and others do not think it is safe for her to go down there, particularly alone. It may be, but the perception is that it is not. And that is a tragedy, that we have a country that we are so close to and people that we have had such a long historical relationship with and a country that has probably been historically the strongest democracy in Latin America that our own children cannot feel safe to visit or study in their schools. I hope that those of us who are Members of Congress who care about this will have the ability to do something about it in a very short time.

Mr. FARR of California. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for scheduling this hour, and I would encourage everyone who has listened to this, who cares about Colombia, to petition and to write the President, to let the President of the United States know that it is important for the President to make Colombia a high priority, not just Members of Congress. And also to remind us that we, as Americans, are part of the problem. Because we are the buyers of the illicit drugs that are coming out of Colombia. If there was no market, there would be very little production. We need to take some responsibility for that as well.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, it has been three and a half years since my constituent, Adam Darling, died. He died on the same airplane that carried the late Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown. Together, they and 33 others perished on the side of a cold, dark mountain outside of Tuzla, Croatia. Since that fateful day, the families of the victims of that crash have sought redress with the government, first through the Air Force, then through the Department of Commerce, and now with Congress. It is for that reason that today I and more than 30 bipartisan members of this body, introduce this bill. We introduce this bill in the name of justice and in the name of every person who died in this crash. And for me, I introduce this bill in the memory of Adam Darling and all the energy and hope and spirit that emanated from his young, idealistic heart. Mr. Speaker, when TWA 800 went down, and more recently Egypt Air 990, the families of the victims on those planes are met with helping hands and offers of assistance. They are met with intensive investigations as to causes and apologies for events gone wrong. If the families are unsatisfied, they have recourse to means (namely the court system) to alleviate their loss. This was not true for everyone on the Ron Brown trip. Because this trip was government sponsored and occurred on a government aircraft, and because the crash happened on foreign soil, the victims on that plane were caught in a tremendous catch-22 that prevented their grieving families from seeking restitution for their loss. After extended negotiations, families of private citizens were awarded settlements from the Air Force. Families of deceased federal employees were not. Federal employees' survivors are not entitled to seek such restitution because the law provides only for those benefits within the scope of the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA). Even under situations where there may be clear cause, these persons are barred from the court system to argue their case. The victims of TWA 800 could go to TWA or the Boeing Company for redress. The victims of Egypt Air 990 could go Egypt Air or the Boeing Company for restitution. The victims of CT43-A have only their government to turn to, and their government has turned them down. This rejection is hurtful not because the law is so strict in its treatment of the victims. The rejection is hurtful because the post- crash investigation found deliberate violation in the chain of command that allowed the airplane to fly the day of the crash; numerous safety deficiencies on the airplane; and overt aircrew error. When this much goes wrong, and when the wrongs are items that should never have happened had normal precautions been in place and standard operating procedures been followed, then there is every reason to ask for redress. The legislation being introduced today will provide $2 million to each family of the victims on the Ron Brown plane who were federal employees. This will provide some measure of confidence to the families that yes, the government that employed the victims cared about them, in their lives and in their deaths. I ask all of you to join with me today in making these families who lost so much know that the circumstances of their loved ones' deaths will be met with justice.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I would like to add, Marta, that I felt that memorializing your husband, our colleague, in statuary hall, where he was surrounded by some of the greatest leaders of this country, was appropriate because in my mind George was as great as all of them and he should be in that hall. He is in this hall here tonight, because as long as someone is in our minds, they are here. We have heard from his colleagues tonight. What a great father for the State of California. I do not think anybody understood what made California tick, what made California the center of so many excellences, the center of excellence for electronics, the center of excellence for the entertainment industry, the center of excellence for agriculture, and so many kinds of agriculture. Agriculture in the north and agriculture in the south, totally different. From row crops to forestry, to all kinds of diversity, he understood the diversity of the people who live in the great State of California. When we talked to him, we realized that we were talking to someone who grasped the entire potential of California. I think he saw that defined through science and technology; that if we could take enough good minds and put those good minds to practical use on beautiful places, like the diversity, the geographical diversity, that we cannot help but solve problems. And those problems are not just solved for California, they are solved for the United States. And when they are solved for the United States, they are solved for the world. Just a remarkable human being in our time. Every one of us was touched by him. I think that he was, indeed, one of the fathers of modern California, and for that we will forever remember him as one of the great statues of this great state.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from San Francisco, California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) very much for those beautiful words. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for a moment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration given to this special order. As my colleagues have heard, the legislature is coming to an end. And it would be a very sad end if we did not pay tribute to one of the most distinguished California citizens to ever serve in the United States Congress, our beloved George Brown, who passed away this year as a Member of the House. So tonight, surrounded by his family and friends, Members of the California delegation and other States have come forward and would like to express their feelings and sympathies for the great life of a great man who served longer in the United States Congress than any other Member in California history. I am very pleased to be able to share this hour of colloquy, hour of memorial resolutions with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), my esteemed colleague and very close friend of George Brown and his neighbor. I would like to call upon the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) first. And then we are going to be sharing, as Members want to express their concerns and try to keep their remarks to several minutes. Because we can see there are many people here that want to speak. Mr. Speaker, ``I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, human liberty as the source of national action, the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas.'' JFK quote. He was a great man and a distinguished public servant; 45 years of public service; 36 years in the House, the longest serving Congress member in California history. Won first election--as Monterey Park city councilman and became mayor one year later. Member of the California State Legislature. First elected to U.S. Congress in 1962. Unlike other politicians, he did not read the polls--No other member of Congress cast more ``unsafe'' votes--and live to tell the tale. Best known for his work on science and technology: ``With his passing, science and technology lost its most knowledgeable advocate, he embraced the future by articulating a vision that includes harnessing science and technology to achieve sustainable development.'' George Brown quote from NY Times interview: ``From my earliest days, I was fascinated by science. I was fascinated by a utopian vision of what the world could be like. I've thought that science could be the basis for a better world, and that's what I've been trying to do all these years.'' He had the foresight to champion the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Technology Assessment, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Recognized leader in forming the institutional framework for science and technology in the Federal Government. Led effort to move the National Science Foundation into more active roles in engineering, science, education and the development of advanced technologies. Had the vision, courage and integrity to have remained ahead of the mainstream: In the California Assembly authored first bill in the nation to ban lead in gasoline. Recognized, early on: the environmental hazards of burning fossil fuels; the destructive effect of freon; the importance of keeping space development under civilian control; and the necessity of monitoring global climate change. In due time, Congress adopted these issues as legislation. Style of argument: Brown cultivated a polite and courtly style of argument. His reliance on reason coupled with the respect he showed his opponents made him a very effective advocate and enabled him to form alliances with people of all political parties. Human qualities: Cigar chomping, rumpled suit, pacifist, social democrat, fierce idealist, a maverick. At UCLA, he helped create some of the first cooperative student housing and was first to integrate campus housing by rooming with Tom Bradley--the future Mayor of Los Angeles. Joined the Army despite his pacifist leanings in order to serve the country. Inspiration to California Democrats: The current California Democratic party is replete with individuals who worked on Brown's several campaigns, including Senator Boxer. Dean of the California Congressional Delegation. He was our hero, and our inspiration to continue championing good and fighting evil. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), my colleague and esteemed friend, the chair of the Republican delegation from California.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) who will yield to other Members from California.

Mr. FARR of California. I have no objection.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order today.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, George Brown was not only loved in southern California but also in other States. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is from Marin County. He was loved in the north as well as in the south.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those very dear and personal remarks. I yield to another colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentlewoman very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) for those beautiful remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a person on whose shoulders the last few days of this session are dependent, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the former chair, a good friend of George Brown.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) very much, and I appreciate the remarks and I know the family does as well. Mr. Speaker, the great State of Texas may be a big State, but it is not as big as the heart of George Brown. To speak for that State is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). Mr. Speaker, I would like to now call on the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). She and the other gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) share something in common with Marta Brown. They have all lost their husbands while serving in Congress.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the millionth meal served by Dorothy's Place Hospitality Center. Founded in 1982 by Robert Smith and operated by the Franciscan Workers of Junipero Serra, Dorothy's Place is a local soup kitchen in Salinas that has provided food and support daily to the hungry and the homeless. Dorothy's Place Hospitality Center has for more than seventeen years provided meals as well as support to the less fortunate members of Salinas County during times of need and hardship. The staff and volunteers have graciously extended themselves through commitment and generosity to our local poor. Dorothy's Place is a great community resource deserving of praise and thanks for the humanitarian spirit and service that it has provided for so many years. It is with great pleasure that I commend Dorothy's Place Hospitality Center for serving its millionth meal. For its exemplary record of service to the poor and hungry, I would like to extend best wishes for success in the future as this establishment continues to make invaluable contributions to our community.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Let me say why. First of all, we have a lousy policy in the United States. It is an addiction policy. It is addiction where we say to schools they have to be addicted to cutting publicly-owned trees in order to have enough money to run their school. Congress has made it that way and it should have never been that way. That addiction to cutting trees is because the more trees that are cut the more revenue that can be generated. Now, take rural schools in agricultural communities, they are not addicted to how much wheat is cut or corn is cut. This is a foolish policy. We say that if one is a school in a National Forest county, that they have to be in favor of cutting as much timber as they possibly can in publicly-owned forests, National Forests. This does not apply to State forests. This does not apply to private lands that are cut, only to National Forests. There is a debate going on of why we have this silly policy of addicting schools to forest timber harvests. That is why the President has said let us cure this addiction; let us delink the funding of schools to the cutting of trees. It is the only area in the United States where public policy has this linkage. It is foolish. Now, the proponents of this bill, and I think we are moving in the right direction, are trying to do something about it but they want to keep people a little bit addicted. They want to keep that 20 percent set aside by saying, with this money it can be used but remember the demand is whether it is going to be used for an ecotourism trail, fine, how much revenue is that going to generate versus revenue to cut more trees? We know where the interests are going to be. They are going to say let us spend that money to promote more tree cutting. That is not delinkage. That is not trying to cure the addiction. This amendment does that. This amendment says if one is interested in schools in the United States, then give all of this money to schools because that is what this bill is about, funding schools. So this silly idea that part of that can be set aside and it will be delinked, and will essentially get schools off the addiction, is totally wrong. I support 100 percent this amendment. If this amendment fails we ought not to be passing the bill.

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for reminding me that he still has that local control because, frankly, schools in the United States are funded by property taxes and the only reason we are in this is because some States have still made those schools totally dependent on property taxes, so when there is federally-owned land they do not have a lot of property taxes. In California, it has shifted because we do not do that by property taxes anymore. The State funds the schools. Those counties that still have Federal property have some impact, but do not think that this is a bill where one is going to try to get schools totally and fully financed as long as they are linked to cutting trees. That is the wrong policy for the United States. We should not be having our National Forests be the only way we can fund an adequate education in the United States.

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