Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) one of the newest Members of Congress. (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think I represent a sense of some fishermen who I represent, and knowledge of the California coastline and essentially West Coast coastlines. This is not good law. This is not good precedent. As has been stated, the fish stocks do not respect political boundaries, whether they are near shore waters, offshore waters, State waters or exclusive economic zone. One of the things that we have been trying to do with our management councils is to develop that kind of uniform practice of how you can best fish a fishery without catching in the process what they call the bycatch, which are also, and when you are fishing for shrimp, you are catching three times as much bycatch as you are fish. That bycatch has an economic value. If you are going to wipe out a species by it as a bycatch, you are going to be wiping out somebody else's business. So in the best economic interest, it does not make sense to essentially give States this exclusive jurisdiction at the expense of other fishermen in the ocean. That is why the council of this jurisdiction is opposed to this. The States indicate they do not have the resources to manage it, have the patrol boats and so on. It really does makes sense to keep these jurisdictions as they have. These States have coastal Zone Management Plans. They have exclusive authority that has been granted them to regulate in certain instances activities in these zones. So there is essentially a local, State, Federal cooperation that has been working well all these years. The only reason you want to extend this jurisdiction is to take away Federal Government authority and give it to the States, and that might be in the best interest of some commercial interests in that State, but it will not be in the best interest of all the commercial fisheries interests. It will certainly not be in the best interest of sustaining. Our most important issue in respect here in making laws is to sustain so future generations can have access to these fisheries.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, Congress passed the State Department authorization bill which authorized $819 million to pay the United Nations back dues over the next two years. The Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill includes $475 million of the $1.3 billion owed to the U.N. It is essential that this funding not be decreased or stricken. Because of its large debt to the United Nations, the United States actually risks automatically losing its vote in the United Nations General Assembly early next year. We can not afford to lose our voting rights. The United States has been trying to reduce its United Nations budget share, but negotiations ended last year when other members would not agree to pay more until the United States paid at least its current obligated share. Who can blame them. Seven former Secretaries of State wrote Congress, telling Members that ``without a U.S. commitment to pay arrears . . . U.S. efforts to consolidate and advance U.N. reforms and reduce U.S. assessments are not going to succeed.'' The continued failure of the United States to honor these obligations threatens the financial and political viability of the United Nations. opponents argue The United Nations doesn't reimburse countries for their participation in U.N.-run peace operations. NOT True--The United Nations pays countries $998 per soldier per month in U.N. peace operations. The U.N. does not reimburse countries for operations which they conduct on their own, or outside the U.N. system. The United Nations owes the U.S. $109 million for peacekeeping. True--The U.N. recognizes this fact, but has no money to pay the U.S. or others of the 70-plus countries that contribute to U.N. peacekeeping. Countries have failed to pay over $1 billion in peacekeeping assessments; currently the U.S. owes about $900 million in peacekeeping arrears. The United States is relinquishing command of American soldiers. Not True--Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25) described the overall Clinton policy for using U.S. troops in peacekeeping operations. It is classified, but according to the declassified summary, participation in peacekeeping operations is contingent upon several factors, including command and control of U.S. troops by American commanders.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would support an additional $1 million for the National Estuary and Research Reserve program. Our Nation's fishery nursery is in these estuaries, which supports 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch. I offer the amendment by taking carry-over funds from the Saltonstall-Kennedy fund. I ask that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) if he would accept the amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have a question, if I may, on another issue. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) if he would respond to a question I have. I would like to ask the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) to participate in a brief colloquy regarding the new National Marine Fisheries Lab in Santa Cruz, California. Some concerns have been expressed regarding the current design of the seawater system as it relates to the ability of the laboratory to support live marine mammal research. I know on May 12, 1998, in a letter to the Department of Commerce, the committee addressed this issue and indicated that should additional funds above the current plan be necessary to address deficiencies in the system, the committee will be willing to entertain a reprogramming request from NOAA for no more than $600,000 to cover the costs of any necessary changes. My question to the chairman is, does he believe that this is the appropriate way to address the issue of the seawater system at the Santa Cruz laboratory, and will the gentleman agree to do so?

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to point out that last night we had quite a victory in this House on campaign finance reform. We had a victory on an amendment, a small step. It is not the answer. The answer is comprehensive campaign reform. People fail to realize that in the elections last time, running for this seat in the House of Representatives cost over half a billion dollars for all the candidates. That was what was reported, because there are a lot of ads done by independent agencies that are not reported. So, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have meaningful campaign finance reform, we are going to have to put limits on what candidates can spend. That amendment is up today. We are going to have a great debate and we are going to see whether this House can live up to what it has done in 1991, 1992 and 1993, when we passed comprehensive campaign reform that really put limits on campaigns. Shays-Meehan is a step in the right direction, but it is not the answer.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3460. I would also like to say before beginning the statement here, point out how much I have enjoyed working with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). I think that our committee is a committee that deals an awful lot with public domain and the oceans and the resources in the oceans, and we work in a wonderful bipartisan effort to make sure that those resources are protected for the citizens of this country and, frankly, the world, and this legislation in a small way plays a part in that. What this legislation does, Mr. Speaker, is reauthorize several important fishery conventions, including the governing international fishery agreement between the United States and the Republic of Latvia. While the international agreement is unlikely to result in a foreign allocation of fish from U.S. waters, we have in several instances permitted foreign vessels to process fish caught by U.S. fishermen in the United States waters. As such, the GIFA, which is the Governing International Fisheries Agreement, renewal is an important building block in our long-term bilateral relationships with the Republic of Latvia and was requested by this administration to potentially allow both countries to expand their business opportunities. Section 2 of the bill reauthorizes the Northwest Fisheries Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995. Unfortunately, this organization has not been successful in preventing overfishing in many of the fisheries managed by treaty nations, and as a result, many of these stocks have been severely depleted. As the U.S. joined the organization only recently, we did not participate in the overexploitation of these resources, and ironically we therefore do not have the catch history to justify a quota for U.S. fishermen. Improving both conservation efforts and equity within these organizations should be a primary goal of the United States as we continue to play a large role in the international fisheries conventions and agreements. Section 3 of the bill delineates the U.S. role in the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. As we know, many of the highly migratory species managed by the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas are overfished and desperately in need of strong conservation measures. The convention must work harder to protect these stocks not only from overfishing but also from nontreaty nations whose activities diminish the effectiveness of the ICCAT recommendations. This act delineates the involvement of the United States in this organization, and it authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to adopt the regulations which are necessary to manage these valuable stocks consistent with international conservation efforts. Section 4 of the bill allows the States of California, Oregon and Washington to continue to cooperatively adopt and enforce State laws to manage the Dungeness crab fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone along the West Coast of the United States. As my colleagues know, that Exclusive Economic Zone goes out to 200 miles. In the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, Congress granted these States interim authority to manage the Dungeness crab fishery in the exclusive economic zone while future options for the fishery were explored. The primary reason for this was to accommodate the rights of the Northwest Indian tribes to harvest a share of the crab resources off the Washington coast. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council was then asked to report to Congress on progress towards the development of a Federal fishery management plan. The Council examined the management options for the fishery, and, after careful evaluation, voted unanimously to request Congress to allow the existing management structure to be extended. This legislation does not override the Council's authority in any way. It is supported by all the States, the tribes, the processors and the fishermen. The legislation is limited solely to the fishery for Dungeness crab, and, more importantly, the authority granted to the States under this bill expires when the Secretary of Commerce approves a Council fishery management plan for crab.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and congratulations to the authors. Shame, shame, shame on those that will try to tell you that this bill does all kinds of things that it does not do. It does four things, very simple things. It brings control back to people who run for the House of Representatives. It takes soft money out. That is outside the system. That is not candidates' money. It bans soft money. It bans sham ads. Since when are sham ads in the interests of candidates? Those are done by third-party organizations that do not have anything to do with the campaign. You or the candidate should be able to speak your own words, not have outside interests speak for you. It has more power for the FEC to look into disclosures and to enforce them. We certainly need that if you are going to enforce the law. Lastly, it sets up a commission to study it. That is all it does. How can one not vote for this?

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. The gentleman is going to check all of this? They are legally here. We do not go around every day trying to check whether someone is here legally. I mean, if they are here legally, they are here legally; right?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman I just have a question of how the gentleman would manage this, if the author would so indulge. One is a legal resident of the United States, one is here, the law says one is here.

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

Mr. FARR of California. It does. You cannot sit down in your office with a group that wants to do a campaign and figure out and coordinate how you are going to be working on legislation and then go out and run a campaign on it. That is just totally illegal. You are making an exception for legislation. I think it is an exception being made, frankly, that the big political battle here is for the tobacco interests. This bill would allow the tobacco interests and the legislators to sit down and figure out a plan of how to run a national campaign. Maybe that is not what you intended, but that is what the law allows. And I do not think it is good, and I would oppose it. This is not about campaign finance reform. This is essentially about how to let more lobbyists into the door of legislative offices and be involved in designing and collaborating for campaigns.

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let us really look at the wording. I cannot believe that we want to suggest what this amendment does. This amendment weakens the existing law, weakens the ability for the FEC to enforce the law. This amendment allows Members to conspire about a campaign issue. Let us take the tobacco issue. This amendment allows you to meet with a lobbyist for the tobacco industry to figure out how you are going to vote and what Members are going to vote on it and devise a campaign out of that. I do not think that is really what you want to happen. Look at the language, no communication with a Senator or Member of the House, including a staff member, regarding any pending legislative matter regarding the position of the Senator or the Member on such matter may be construed to establish coordination with a candidate. You are saying that you cannot use that collaboration as being construed as collaboration under the law. Therefore, illegal.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because I cannot understand what is broken and needs fixing. This amendment suggests that there is not enough money in campaigns. This whole debate, this whole process started when we tried to put limits on what candidates running for a seat in Congress would spend in campaigns. They still have that comprehensive bill on the floor. That is the way this bill started out. Nowhere were we going to try to get more money into campaigns. And just to show you that only .1 percent of the American people, about 235 individuals gave contributions of $1,000 or more in 1995 and 1996 to Federal candidates and to PACs and parties that support candidates. Yet this group gave as much money for Federal elections, $638 million, as the millions who gave under $200. This is not the part of the campaign finance system that is broken and needs fixing, to get more money into the system. In fact, this amendment, as well-intentioned as the author may be on it, is a poison pill. It is opposed by all of those groups that advocated for campaign finance reform, including League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Common Cause, the U.S. PIRG and others. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, because it is not going to help get the Shays-Meehan bill passed, and it is not going to help the perception of the American public that we need to have more money and bigger contributions in campaigns.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does. And the language, just look at it, no communication may be construed to establish coordination. Those are the operative words. I do not think that is in the best interest of campaign reform.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the argument is how does the gentleman intend to enforce this amendment he is making? How do we enforce it? How do we check from campaign contributions? How do we go back to check whether the people are permanent residents, served in the Armed Forces? I mean, just look at the mountain of incredible research that we are going to have to do on everyone.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. The gentleman is doing a wonderful job on his bill, along with his colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. Chairman, I rise on this amendment in deep concern and in opposition to the amendment. I think the sincerity of the author is true, but I think this is the wrong place. This whole bill is about congressional campaign finance reform. It is how we regulate the money that controls our elections, to get elected to this House. It is not about presidential elections. There might be a great debate about how to do that, but as the gentleman knows, the presidential election process is controlled by each of the 50 States. We have no national primary in the United States. I think there is room for that kind of debate, whether we ought to move in that direction, whether the process for qualifying for a ballot ought to be more uniform, as the gentleman suggests. But to take the gentleman's ideas about presidential debates and move them into this bill is, I think, the wrong way to go; the wrong place, the wrong time, and frankly, the wrong issue. So I strongly oppose this amendment. I think the gentleman is going to try to confuse what the underlying bill is all about. We have to keep that in focus. We have to keep it limited to that issue. We cannot build the coalition that we need to build if we try to put everything in this bill, and make it a Christmas tree on all of the ills about lack of voting in America, lack of enough debate for those who wish to run for President of the United States from minor parties. With all due respect for the gentleman's sincerity, I strongly oppose this amendment, and recommend that all my colleagues oppose the amendment, because it is probably technically germane, but it is not politically germane to what we are trying to accomplish.