Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would express the sense of the House that the country ought to give itself a pat on the back for its progress in recycling. I am joined in this effort by Mr. Porter, Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Gilchrest, and I am proud to have them as partners in this worthy effort. This resolution would suggest that the House believes it appropriate that a national celebration of ``America Recycles Day'' be observed by States and localities. This would be a day to celebrate the progress the country has made in establishing and integrating recycling programs in each State, in hundreds of cities, in thousands of communities. Whether it be the simple act of depositing an old Coke can in an aluminum recycling bin, or meticulously separating brown glass from green glass from clear glass and hauling them all down to the city recycling center, it is clear that Americans have learned that recycling is a valuable means of conserving resources, saving money, and keeping our environment clean. When you look at the trash that we generate in a year's time--208 million tons worth--it is clear that it is incumbent on us to use less, recycle more, and find new ways of managing our finite resources. The numerous recycling programs throughout the country are dedicated to this cause and each person who recycles ought to be commended for their dedication to a cleaner, safer environment. The resolution I introduce today with my colleagues will hopefully be a catalyst for more Americans to recycle and continue this positive and simple means to a better future. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed following my remarks. H. Res.-- Whereas the people of the United States generate approximately 208,000,000 tons of municipal solid waste each year, or 4.3 pounds per person per day; Whereas the average office worker in the United States generates between 120 and 150 pounds of recoverable white office paper a year; Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency recently estimated that the recycling rate in the United States has reached 27 percent of the solid waste stream; Whereas making products from recycled materials allows the people of the United States to get the most use of every tree, every gallon of oil, every pound of mineral, every drop of water, and every kilowatt of energy that goes into the products they buy; Whereas manufacturing from recycled materials creates less waste and fewer emissions; Whereas recycling saves energy, reducing the need to deplete nonrenewable energy resources; Whereas it is estimated that 9 jobs are created for every 15,000 tons of solid waste recycled into new products; Whereas recycling is completed only when recovered materials are returned to retailers as new products and are purchased by consumers; Whereas buying recycled products conserves resources and energy, reduces waste and pollution, and creates jobs; Whereas more than 4,500 recycled products are now available to consumers; Whereas the United States has a two-way, use and reuse system of recycling and buying recyclables; Whereas Americans support recycling, but need a regular reminder of the importance of buying recycled content products, the availability of recycled content products, and how to recycle; Whereas states and localities throughout the country will be establishing November 17, 1997, and November 15, 1998, as ``America Recycles Day'' in their communities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the House of Representatives supports the goals of America Recycles Day; and (2) the House of Representatives requests that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to support the goals of each America Recycles Day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Oceans Act of 1997. I am pleased to be able to offer this bill with the support of the chairman of Resources' Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Representative Jim Saxton; the ranking Democrat of that subcommittee, Representative Neil Abercrombie; and the ranking Democrat on the Resources Committee, Representative George Miller, as well as Representatives Gilchrest, Pallone, George Brown, Porter Goss, Patrick Kennedy, and Solomon Ortiz. This is an exciting time in the history of man's relationship with the oceans. With this year as the International Year of the Reef, and next year as the International Year of the Ocean, more focus is being directed on the state of the world's coasts and oceans than ever before. And rightly so. We are critically dependent on the oceans, and the resources we derive from them. Commercial and recreational fishing provides 1.5 million jobs and an estimated $111 billion annually to the Nation's economy, and more than 30 percent of the United States GNP is produced in coastal counties. Americans love the ocean and beaches: they are our leading tourist destination, with 85 percent of tourist revenues being spent in coastal States. In 1993 more than 180 million Americans visited coastal waters nationwide, and in California alone the revenue generated by tourism is approximately $38 billion annually. The beautiful coasts and ocean in my district are key to the areas's $1.5 billion travel and tourism industry. Yet we cannot ignore the evidence that our oceans and coasts are imperiled. Since 1950 production from world fisheries and aquaculture has increased by a factor of five. Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] analysis of hte world's fishing resources in 1995 concluded that most of the major fish stocks in the world can be classified as fully fished, overfished, depleted, or recovering. Approximately 45 percent of the Nation's threatened and endangered species inhibit coastal areas, and almost 75 percent of the endangered and threatened mammals and birds rely on these coastal habitats. We are inundated every day with stories of marine, estuarine and reverine pollution, wetlands loss, algal blooms, coastal and marine habitat degradation, fishery over-harvesting, and the looming threat of sea-level rise. With all of the legislation, regulations, and Federal, State and local programs and policies, we somehow still seem to be failing in our mission to have healthy, sustainable oceans and coasts. The situation will only get worse as coastal populations increase: Two-thirds of the world's cities with populations over 1.6 million are located in the coastal zone. By the year 2010 it is estimated that at least 75 percent of the United States population will live within 50 miles of the coast, with all of the attendant potential environmental consequences of having so many people concentrated in areas of diverse and fragile ecosystems. Part of the problem is that we are not investing enough in learning about our oceans; for all of the money we have spent in space exploration, we know woefully little about the amazing characteristics of the 71 percent of our planet's surface that is the world's oceans. The fact is, we know less about the surface of our own planet than we do about that of Mars, Venus, or the Moon. I believe that we need to put our national ocean exploration programs on par with the space program, and our efforts to conserve the marine environment at least equal to that provided to the land portion of our country. Our efforts to protect our marine environment through our national marine sanctuary system provide only 0.7 percent of the funding we give just to our national parks. The legislation I am introducing is patterned after the law which was enacted in 1966 to establish the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, known as the Stratton Commission, after its chairman, Julius Stratton of the Ford Foundation. The Commission was given the task of examining the Nation's stake in the development, utilization, and preservation of the marine environment, to assess the Nation's current and anticipated marine activities; and, on the basis of this information, to formulate a comprehensive, long-term, national program for marine affairs with the goal of meeting current and future needs in the most efficient manner possible. In January of 1969, the Stratton Commission released its report ``Our Nation and the Sea: A Plan for National Action.'' The report and recommendations of the Commission led to the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, supported the impetus for the enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972, and provided the vision and structure for ocean and coastal policy for the past thirty years. Today, however, U.S. population has grown from 196.5 million in 1966 to 265.6 million in 1996, over half of whom lives within 50 miles of our shores; ocean and coastal resources once thought inexhaustible are now seriously depleted; and wetlands and other marine habitats are threatened by pollution and human activities. As the 30-year anniversary of the Stratton Commission's report approaches, it is of great importance that we again do a thorough assessment of the current state of our Nation's coastal and marine resources, programs, and policies, and that we create a new national ocean plan to lead us into the 21st century. The Oceans Act of 1997 contains similar provisions to the 1966 act. It calls for the creation of a Stratton-type commission, called the Commission on Ocean Policy, to examine ocean and coastal activities and to report within 18 months its recommendations for a national policy. In developing the report, the Commission would assess Federal programs and funding priorities, infrastructure requirements, conflicts among marine users, and technological opportunities. The Commission would then meet at a minimum of once every 5 years to assess the Nation's progress in meeting the purposes and objectives of the act. An appropriation of $6 million over the course of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 would be authorized for the Commission to complete its work. In addition, such sums as necessary would be authorized for the Commission to meet in the 10 years following the submission of the report. It would also call for the President, with the assistance of the heads of relevant agencies and departments, and on the advice of the Commission, to develop and implement a coherent national ocean and coastal policy that provides for protection against natural hazards; responsible stewardship of fisheries and other ocean and coastal resources; protection of the marine environment; resolution of conflicts among users of the marine environment; advancement of research, education and training in fields related to marine activities; continued investment in marine technologies; coordination and cooperation within and among governments; and preservation of U.S. leadership on ocean and coastal issues. I believe that a comprehensive ocean and coastal conservation and management plan for our country is absolutely necessary. Our efforts have got to be coordinated, and we've got to act now to increase our knowledge of this critical area of our planet, and to ensure proper management of marine resources, and healthy, vibrant coastal and ocean ecosystems we all can enjoy.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fox-Mollohan amendment that would restore the Legal Services Corporation funding level to $250 million. In my congressional district, Legal Aid of the Central Coast is the only source of legal advice for some 2,000 residents if they want to pursue legal recourse for cases of domestic violence, housing evictions, consumer fraud, and child support--the same kinds of legal problems that could confront any one of us. The LACC conducts weekly clinics on housing issues--a critical issue for low-income tenants in an area of the country with some of the Nation's highest housing costs. Low-income victims of natural disasters--two of which have occurred in my district--the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and severe flooding in 1995--are disenfranchised from legal recourse without access to legal services provided by the LACC. Its work in protecting children from being forced to live in housing with lead-based paint has been cited in local newspapers. A recent California State Bar report estimated that the legal needs of three out of four low-income Californians were not met. If the Fox- Mollohan amendment is not approved, LACC could be forced to close 1 week out of every month. It is simply unconscionable to deny legal services to anyone based on their economic resources or lack thereof.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would express the sense of the House that the country ought to give itself a pat on the back for its progress in recycling. I am joined in this effort by Mr. Porter, Mr. Gejdenson, and Mr. Gilchrest and I am proud to have them as partners in this worthy effort. This resolution would suggest that the House believes it appropriate that a national celebration of America Recycles Day be designated. This would be a day to celebrate the progress the country has made in establishing and integrating recycling programs in each state, in hundreds of cities, in thousands of communities. Whether it be the simple act of depositing an old Coke can in an aluminum recycling bin, or meticulously separating brown glass from green glass from clear glass and hauling them all down to the city recycling center, it is clear that Americans have learned that recycling is a valuable means of conserving resources, saving money, and keeping our environment clean. When you look at the trash that we generate in a year's time--208 million tons worth--it is clear that it is incumbent on us to use less, recycle more and find new ways of managing our finite resources. The numerous recycling programs throughout the country are dedicated to this cause and each person who recycles ought to be commended for their dedication to a cleaner, safer environment. The resolution I introduce today with my colleagues will hopefully be a catalyst for more Americans to recycle and continue this positive and simple means to a better future. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed following my remarks. H. Res. -- Whereas the people of the United States generate approximately 208,000,000 tons of municipal solid waste each year, or 4.3 pounds per person per day; Whereas the average office worker in the United States generates between 120 and 150 pounds of recoverable white office paper a year; Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency recently estimated that the recycling rate in the United States has reached 27 percent of the solid waste stream; Whereas making products from recycled materials allows the people of the United States to get the most use of every tree, every gallon of oil, every pound of mineral, every drop of water, and every kilowatt of energy that goes into the products they buy; Whereas manufacturing from recycled materials creates less waste and fewer emissions; Whereas recycling saves energy, reducing the need to deplete nonrenewable energy resources; Whereas it is estimated that 9 jobs are created for every 15,000 tons of solid waste recycled into new products; Whereas recycling is completed only when recovered materials are returned to retailers as new products and are purchased by consumers; Whereas buying recycled products conserves resources and energy, reduces waste and pollution, and creates jobs; Whereas more than 4,500 recycled products are now available to consumers; Whereas the United States has a two-way, use and reuse system of recycling and buying recyclables; and Whereas Americans support recycling, but need a regular reminder of the importance of buying recycled content products, the availability of recycled content products, and how to recycle: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that November 15, 1997, and November 15, 1998, should each be designated as ``America Recycles Day''; and (2) the House of Representatives requests that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each America Recycles Day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep disappointment with President Clinton's decision not to join the international landmine treaty being negotiated in Oslo. Antipersonnel landmines pose a deadly, indiscriminate threat to the lives of millions of people around the world. Each year, over 20,000 people are killed or disabled by landmines left over from past conflicts. In many former war-torn countries, the damage is all too visible: thousands of men, women, and children with missing limbs, crippled by hidden landmines. Banning the production and deployment of antipersonnel landmines is a reasonable, common sense and necessary solution. Yet the decision to not sign the treaty means the United States has rejected that solution, and will instead continue to produce, sell, and deploy antipersonnel landmines. Action must be taken to stop this insidious and deadly weapon. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2459, legislation introduced by my colleague, Lane Evans, to stop the further deployment of antipersonnel landmines by the United States. We in Congress must step forward, where our President has not, and do the right thing.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of Gonzales, CA, on the 50th anniversary of its incorporation. The residents of Gonzales have long been active in the development of the community and the Nation. In 1874, Mariano and Alfredo Gonzales laid out a town of 50 blocks surrounding a recently erected railroad depot on property deeded by Mexico to their father. From this early date, Gonzales established itself as a friendly town where a stranger could easily be persuaded to stay a few extra days and enjoy the smalltown charm. Within 20 years, the population of Gonzales had reached 500 residents of diverse ethnic backgrounds and heritage. A number of Swiss immigrants established a soon to-be-thriving dairy industry. Soon thereafter, a local resident discovered the process for producing condensed milk. Following this historic discovery, the Alpine Condesary opened in Gonzales and began producing the world's first condensed milk. Over the years, agriculture replaced dairy as the region's most important industry and Gonzales, located in the Salinas Valley, became known as one of the most fertile regions in the country. I am honored to have the privilege of introducing a resolution to recognize the historical contributions of the residents of Gonzales, CA. Since its establishment, Gonzales has maintained the smalltown charm that people the world over envy.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a short history of campaign finance reform and make it part of the Record. Basically, we have heard comments here today that we as legislators should not legislate; that all we ought to do is investigate, give up our role of making law even when we find things that are broke that need fixing. We would rather hear and smear than make things that are wrong right. I want to just point out to this House that has certainly not been the history under previous leadership in this House. Whenever my party, the minority party now, has been in charge of this House, we have passed comprehensive campaign finance reform, and that comprehensive campaign finance reform has done one of the primary things that is needed in this country that everybody is talking about, and that is put a limit on what we can spend. People will say that is unconstitutional, the courts have said. They have never said we could not, in a law, set up a system where candidates could voluntarily limit themselves, and that is the bill that is before this Congress. It was before the last Congress. And in fact in the last Congress it was the bill that got more votes than any other bill on campaign reform. Unfortunately, this year, we have not even been able to have a hearing in the committee of authorization, much less set a schedule for when that bill will be brought to the floor and voted on. The American public is sick and tired of seeing us just talk about campaign finance reform, just to investigate past campaigns, they want us to use our role as legislators. The courts cannot do that. The administration cannot do that. When things are broken in the law, the only people that can fix it are the people that are serving in this House. And in fact we can fix it for our House without even fixing it for the Senate. We can have a different set of rules in running for the U.S. Congress. And we ought to be doing that but, instead, we are trying to backpedal, we are trying to find excuses, we want to have more hearings, we want to discuss it. Well, the history shows that this House has never done that before. We have never waited so long to do so little about campaign reform as we are doing in this session. In the 1989-90, the 101st Congress, a bill was passed then by Tony Coelho, and it had cosponsors on the other side. It went through the hearings, was adopted and passed the House on August 3, 1990, by a vote of 255. Obviously, it could not have been done just on a pure partisan vote. Bipartisan vote on a comprehensive campaign reform, that same bill, is sitting before the House today, an approved version of that bill H.R. 600. In the 102d Congress the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] introduced a bill. It had key sponsors from both sides of the aisle. It went through a hearing process and passed the House on November 25. Mr. Speaker, I will submit the remainder of my remarks for the Record. Since I am out of time. A Short History of Campaign Finance Reform 100th Congress, 1987-88 House H.R. 2717: Introduced June 18, 1987 by Tony Coelho (D-CA). Key Cosponsors: Leach, Synar; 96 cosponsors in all. Legislative action: Went through the hearing process but was never reported from committee (never went to the floor). Senate S. 2: Introduced January, 1987 by David Boren (D-OK). Legislative action: Then-Majority Leader Bob Byrd tried to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. The Republicans filibustered the consideration of the bill for a record seven cloture votes. 101st Congress, 1989-90 House H.R. 14: Introduced January 3, 1989 by Tony Coelho (D-CA). Key Cosponsors: Leach, Synar; 98 cosponsors in all. Legislative action: No action taken on this bill; for further action, see H.R. 5400. H.R. 5400: Introduced July 30, 1990 by Al Swift (D-WA). Key Cosponsors: Gephardt, Gray, Brooks, Annunzio, McHugh, Anthony, Frost, Sabo, Synar; 9 cosponsors in all. Legislative action: Went through the hearing process. Passed the House August 3, 1990 by a vote of 255-155 (including 15 Republicans voting yes). Was adopted in the Senate on September 18, 1990. Senate S. 137: Introduced January 25, 1989 by David Boren (D-OK). Legislative action: Went through the hearing process. Passed the Senate on September 18, 1990 (H.R. 5400 in lieu) by voice vote. Conferees were never appointed to reconcile the two versions of the bill. Congress adjourned October 28, 1990. 102d Congress, 1991-92 House H.R. 3750: Introduced November 21, 1991 by Sam Gejdenson (D-CT). Key Cosponsors: Gephardt, Bonior, Derrick, Kennelly, Lewis (GA), Hoyer, Fazio; 82 cosponsors in all. Legislative action: Went through the hearing process. Passed the House November 25, 1991 by a vote of 273-156. Senate S. 3: Introduced January 14, 1991 by David Boren (D-OK). Legislative action: Went through the hearing process. Passed the Senate May 23, 1991 by a vote of 56-42 (H.R. 3750 in lieu). Conferees were appointed in March, 1992. House agreed to the conference report on April 9, 1992 by a vote of 259-165. Senate agreed to the conference report on April 30, 1992 by a vote of 58-42. President Bush vetoed the bill May 5, 1992. Senate failed to override the veto May 13, 1992 by a vote of 57-42. 103d Congress, 1993-94 House H.R. 3: Introduced January 5, 1993 by Sam Gejdenson (D-CT). Key Cosponsors: Gephardt, Bonior, Derick, Kennelly, Lewis (GA), Hoyer, Fazio; 45 cosponsors in all. Legislative action: Passed the House November 22, 1993 by a vote of 255-175 (S. 3 in lieu); requested conference with the Senate the same day. Senate S. 3: Introduced January 21, 1993 by David Boren (D-OK). Legislative action: Passed the Senate June 17, 1993 by a vote of 60-38. Cloture filed on motion to go to conference on September 23, 1994 due to filibuster by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX); cloture failed on September 27. Second cloture petition filed on September 28; failed on September 30. Congress adjourned sine die on October 8, 1994. 104th Congress, 1995-96 House H.R. 3505: Introduced May 22, 1996 by Sam Farr (D-CA). Key Cosponsors: Gephardt, Bonior, Fazio, DeLauro, Lewis (GA), Richardson, Kennelly; 88 cosponsors in all. Legislative action: Went through the hearing process; was offered as a substitute to the Republican campaign finance reform bill in committee and on the floor. Failed passage on the floor 177-243. Received bipartisan support. Senate S. 1219: Introduced September 2, 1995 by John McCain (R-

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise with a great deal of respect for the authorizing committee chair and work with Members on the opposite side of the aisle on a lot of educational issues. I am surprised to see this amendment before us and strongly rise to oppose it. This is a country that prides itself on testing. Every child that is going to go to a university has to go out and take an SAT exam. If he or she is going to go to medical school, it is a national exam to take; to go to law school one has to take an exam. We test water and we test air, we test milk, yet now we do not want to test the minds of the kids in this country. We do not want to test their ability in the fourth grade to read or their ability in the seventh grade to do math. I think what the real fear of this national testing is that the people we are going to find that are flunking the tests is Congress itself, in not appropriating enough money for education. You hear minority groups in this Congress rising against this testing because they do not want kids to be tracked, they do not want kids to be stigmatized, and I agree with that, because I think we are going to find we are not spending enough money on the remedial title I programs to remedy those problems. We are going to find we are not spending enough money, as Congresswoman Lowey said a moment ago, in her bill to allow the Federal Government for the first time in history to be a partner in school construction, we are not spending any money to build the classrooms so we can create the environment in which kids can learn better. Congress is going to flunk the test in showing we do not put enough money into construction, into remedial programs, into special education programs, into migrant education programs or any of the title I programs. Why, I would like to know, is the Republican leadership in Washington so strongly opposed to testing, when the Republican leadership in Sacramento held up the adjournment of the California State Legislature insisting that they do testing? The arguments pro and con are the same arguments that were held here today. The point is that the biggest State in the country with the most children in school and the seventh largest economy in the world realizes that unless we have accountability in education we will not be able to compete in a global environment, in a competitive environment. So I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Allow those who want to test to do the testing. Allow this country to see that we need to invest more in education, not less, to improve reading and math, to let kids know how they are doing. The only way we are going to be able to do that--which is consistent with what we insist when they graduate from high school so that they can get into college--is to allow for a national test on a voluntary basis. The only way we are going to get there from here is to defeat this amendment. So I urge my colleagues to work with us in defeating the amendment and allowing the President's program to be in the bill.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, today we faced the possible weakening or elimination of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting [CPB]. I am extremely pleased that both misadvised amendments were defeated. I believe public broadcasting funding is a good investment. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is an excellent example of one of the most successful public-private partnerships in the country. Every $1 in appropriated funds leverages $5 in private investment. More than 90 percent of the Federal appropriation goes directly back to States and local communities, either for direct services or programming. In 1993, for example, CPB's $253 million appropriation created more than $1.5 billion in revenue for local stations. This modest investment is critical to our local communities. Public broadcasting programs are the only commercial-free shows available on television, and have wide appeal; many are educational and award-winning, such as ``Sesame Street'' and ``NOVA.'' I am sure that almost every Member in Congress has fond memories of watching ``Sesame Street,'' ``Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood,'' or the ``Electric Company'' themselves or with their children, along with new ones such as ``Barney.'' CPB programs are not just for children though; many of us regularly tune into CPB supported shows such as ``This Old House'' and the ``McNeil-Leher Hour.'' Public television and radio provide an important outlet which is not dictated by corporate sponsors. Public broadcasting stations serve as community institutions, much like libraries or museums, and as such are supported by the community through financial aid. CPB is a public service, ``owned'' by the American people.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a real watershed issue of where American public policy is reflected in how we are going to use Federal funds, Federal taxpayer dollars, to spend those dollars effectively in the coming years and in the coming century. Without a doubt, with the actions we have taken this year, we have been the educational Congress and the educational President with all the tax breaks and incentives we have given. We have promoted wiring every classroom in the United States with computers. We have promoted the downsizing of schools so that we can have a smaller class size. But, Mr. Chairman, when we think about it we cannot get there from here unless we put money into construction. What is happening in the United States, and California is probably the leading State in this area because we have the largest number of students in the United States, what happens is we are moving all of our expenditures for school construction out of the regular budgets. The only way those capital outlay programs are funded is through State bond acts or through local general obligation bond votes. Those votes in California, and other States I think are going to adopt those same requirements, require a two-thirds vote. So it is harder and harder and harder for schools to provide money for construction, which is absolutely essential. Here we are, the Federal Government, we are providing construction for university buildings through agricultural research money, we promoted money for prisons and for local jails, and those moneys can actually be used to build classrooms in the jails and in the prisons, but we have no money in the Federal Government to assist school districts, no money for those that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] just talked about in the poor, rural areas, or in the urban areas. Mr. Chairman, this is essentially an area where we have to get involved. We cannot afford to not commit some Federal dollars to this. It is ridiculous that we have the money for roads, we have the money for promoting economic development, we have money for everything but the very essential that we have said is in our national interest and our national security interest to have, a well-educated electorate. We cannot do that unless we have school construction money. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is essential that this Congress begin the first step of finding those funds. I appreciate this time to bring that to the attention of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who is working hard on this, and to the attention of the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man devoted to landscape architecture and children. Ken Wourmhoudt was a sport's visionary, creating large outside sculptural forms used as skateboard parks. Ken befriended children and defended skateboarders from detractors, a true friend to his community. It is my privilege to be speaking of this man's accomplishments today. Ken Wourmhoudt, a licensed architect by trade, worked hard to keep an open dialog between the community and the skateboarders. He appreciated the children's love of the sport and often spoke on their behalf. His passion for the skateboard parks began in 1978 when he designed Derby Park in Santa Cruz. He relied on the skateboarders' experience to guide him through the design process, to build the best possible park for them. Derby Park is still enjoyed by many skateboarders throughout Santa Cruz and beyond. His love for the skateboard parks was only rivaled by his appreciation for the arts. His artistry showed in skate projects in communities such as Napa, Milpitas, and Pleasanton. This devotion went well beyond the skate parks. He served 8 years on the Santa Cruz County Cultural Council and two terms on the Santa Cruz City Arts Commission. He promoted public art on Pacific Avenue and helped with the installations. Ken traveled the country sharing his expertise and love of the skateboard parks. These visits helped other communities build parks and taught the communities successful new techniques to keep the lines of communication open with the community. Ken will be missed by all those he encountered and inspired. He is survived by his wife Mardi, a Santa Cruz supervisor, a daughter Lisa, and three sons, Zachary, Jonathan, and Jacob. Zachary is a landscape artist and will continue in his father's footsteps, building skateboard parks for all to enjoy.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I have listened for days now to the debate over education appropriations. I would like to add my voice to the debate and say our kids deserve more than what Congress wants to give them. They deserve well-built schools and classrooms, qualified teachers, and a chance to learn in a safe classroom and secure environment. And we should let students know that public schools are quality schools, and that it is not only a wonderful opportunity but a privilege to learn in the public school system. This country's public school system produces some of the most gifted and well-learned students in the world. That is why we need to keep our public schools well funded. A recent example of how well public schools work in our communities is Watsonville High School, located in my district in California. Two students this year graduated from Watsonville High School were valedictorians of their senior class. Both students came from poverty- stricken, farm-worker families, both students are the first in their families to attend college, but both are high achievers attending top universities this fall. Fabian Bedolla is studying architecture at Cornell University and Sonya Rocher is attending UC-Berkeley. If we put our much-needed public education funds into vouchers, we take away from these students, who want to succeed, and fulfill their dreams within the public school system. We owe it to our children to keep all of our public school money in the public schools. They are the future of our country, and we must give them the tools to lead us into the next century.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to ask the Republican leadership: When are we going to legislate? If something is broke, let us fix it. Mr. Speaker, every Congress before this one was able to vote here and act on campaign finance reform. The House Democrats passed a comprehensive campaign finance reform in the last three Congresses; in the 101st, 102d, and 103d. Even last session, when the Republicans were in control, we had a vote here on the floor. When, Mr. Speaker, do we get to have that vote this year? Now, let us not talk about minor campaign reform. Comprehensive campaign reform, that is what every other Congress has been able to debate and vote on. When do we get to do that? Mr. Speaker, let us not just hear; let us act. Let us not investigate; let us legislate.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Speaker, what is really going on in Congress? We are hearing the Republican leadership, and the Republican committees in the House and the Senate are conducting hearings. They want to investigate and they want to smear. However, Congress was elected to legislate. We are lawmakers. We can fix what is broken. Why is it that the Republican leadership does not want to fix what is broken? The GOP has failed to meet every deadline on campaign reform. No hearings on the bills, either Democrat or Republican bills, no vote on the rules, no schedule, no nothing. We are elected to make the law. Every time the Democrats were in control, we passed campaign reform. It was either vetoed or filibustered before it got into law. Why do the Republicans not want to use that power to pass campaign reform? The answer simply is, they want to hear and smear, not fix. Madam Speaker, I ask one simple question: When do we get to vote on campaign reform?

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the research efforts of the many marine researchers in the Monterey Bay area and around the world, who are dedicating themselves to the task of exploring and understanding the ocean environment, and the critical links between marine ecosystem health and human activities. In particular, I would like to recognize the work of a scientist from my district, Dr. Valerie Loeb. This summer, Dr. Loeb, an adjunct professor at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, had her research featured on the front cover of the British scientific journal, Nature. For the past 10 years Dr. Loeb, her students and colleagues, have been studying the link between environmental variations and the dynamics of the Antarctic food chain, particularly changes in abundance of krill and other zooplankton. Krill, which are small, herbivorous, shrimp-like crustaceans, provide the basis for the animal food web in the southern ocean, and are a vital food source for many whale, fish, penguin, and other vertebrate species in the seasonal sea-ice zone. Another abundant planktonic herbivore, salps, are jelly-fish-like organisms which, in contrast, have few known predators, and are associated with open water habitats. Dr. Loeb and her coworkers have identified patterns of abundance of krill and salps as they relate to environmental changes in the area. Salps are associated with open water habitat, unobstructed with ice, while krill's reproductive success is linked to increased ice coverage. In the past 50 years, atmospheric warming over the Antarctic Peninsula region has resulted in a decrease in sea-ice formation during winter months. Because of this, krill abundance since the mid-1980's has been greatly reduced compared to earlier years, while the springs and summers following these warmer winters have seen massive salp swarms. Since these salps compete with krill for phytoplankton, there is a further negative feedback from warmer winters affecting krill populations. This regional warming may be significantly altering the Antarctic food chain from one dominated by krill, supporting a variety of vertebrate predators, to one dominated by salps, effectively breaking the food chain. This research is extremely valuable, not only in providing information important to the management of krill harvesting, which is currently conducted by Japanese, Polish, and Ukraine trawlers, but also as insight into the possible devastating effects of global warming on the oceans that may occur in addition to decreased ice development and sea level rise. The fact is that krill populations are already affected by ocean warming, making them, and the species that rely on them, further susceptible to human perturbations. This research, and the hundreds of other marine research projects conducted in my district and around the world, are of great importance for us to understand and properly conserve the health of our planet, 71 percent of which is covered by oceans. We can no longer live in ignorance of the important links between ourselves and the oceans. I urge my colleagues to support America's leading role in ocean research and conservation, and to recognize and give credit to researchers such as Dr. Loeb for their great efforts in improving our understanding of the magnificent oceans, and clarifying how humans impact vital ocean resources.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who has spent the last 19 years as a devoted public servant of San Benito County. Mr. Herman Fehl has been recognized as a community leader and visionary in both the job training and community action arenas. It is my privilege to be speaking of this man's countless accomplishments today. In 1978, Mr. Fehl began his public service as the director of San Benito's Comprehensive Employment Training Act program, which over time evolved into the Federal Job Training Partnership Act program. Three years later, Mr. Fehl, in conjunction with several members of the San Benito board of supervisors, successfully established the county as a Community Action Agency [CAA]. This led to Federal community services block grant funding for San Benito County. In addition to forming the community action agency, in 1984 Mr. Fehl joined together with several community members to form the San Benito County Community Services Development Corporation [CSDC]. This nonprofit corporation is dedicated to helping low-income families become self-sufficient. Mr. Fehl watched the CSDC's assets grow from $30,000 to over $6,000,000. Under his able leadership, CSDC developed the San Benito Business and Industry Park, which includes the Community Services Building. This is an award-winning one stop Social Services Center. The newly reorganized Department of Community and Workforce Development is now recognized as the primary provider of comprehensive social services for the low-income community. Due to Mr. Fehl's excellent direction, the Department budget has grown to over $3,000,000. Its extensive range of services include rental housing assistance, a homeless shelter, utility assistance, emergency food, and first-time homebuyers mortgage assistance, in addition to plans for on- site child care for job training clients. If a measure of success is recognition from your peers, Herman Fehl's many contributions to the residents of San Benito have been generously acknowledged: Citizen of the Year 1988 for San Benito County; the 1990 League of United Latin American Citizens award for his devoted service to the Hispanic community in San Benito County; and Disaster Relief Coordinator for his heroic leadership during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Mr. Speaker, please join me saluting an outstanding public servant who has given so much to his community as both a leader and as a citizen. The residents of San Benito County will sorely miss Herman Fehl's commitment to its citizenry but joins me in extending him a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the point of order.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman that has just spoken. It makes no sense to give money or weapons to militaries without making sure that they are used for the right purposes. This provision just does that. It is a one sentence provision. It is totally permissive. It ensures that our resources are not misused by human rights violators. I rise as a former member of the U.S. Peace Corps serving in Colombia. I know that there are human rights violations because a lot of the paramilitary down there we have no jurisdiction over have been using the military equipment that we have sent to Colombia. We need to make sure that we do not throw money at the problem of drugs if it puts human rights and innocent people at risk because, if we do that, we do not stand for anything. The credibility of America is gone. The provision is responsible and fair and should be kept in the final bill. I urge the Chair to rule against the points of order because this is made in one sentence that is permissive and does not mandate that expenditure has to be done as such.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday everyone in the leadership took credit for getting the budget deal. It demonstrated that leadership means that we can get things done when we pull together. But where is the leadership in campaign reform? The President stood here in this room and asked for it by the Fourth of July. Members of the House and Senate have both introduced comprehensive legislation. They have introduced legislation to do it in small ways or big ways. Yet nothing is moving, Mr. Speaker. Nothing is moving. However, soon we will see big contributions moving into the coffers of the Republican Party. It seems only smart that we should have a vote on campaign reform before someone suggests that there is a link between tax breaks and campaign contributions. The public wants a vote, Mr. Speaker. The President wants a vote. I authored a comprehensive campaign reform, H.R. 600. I want a vote. This House wants a vote. When do we get it?

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. The point is here is an election that is closer than the one that you were talking about in Orange County, a lot closer. There is no purge or going through and suggesting that the people in that election were all voting illegally because they were not properly registered. I think that this is obviously a witch hunt. There is 21 races that you say were close, that won by 6,000 votes or less, 21 in the 435 Members of Congress. And of these top 21, there is only one that they are going after, and there is only one in that whole group of 21 that has a Hispanic name, Sanchez. I think that this is a witch hunt. It is embarrassing to this institution and ought to be called off. And it would not have been done had she not beaten Representative Bob Dornan, who everybody knows is a bulldog of every stripe and was here dominating this time usually in the evening on special orders about these issues.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to comment for a minute and then yield here for a colloquy with my friends because I think why we are here tonight is to stand on the floor of the House of Representatives in defense of this institution and criticizing essentially the attack that has been made upon this institution. It has been an attack on this institution, because it is an attack on a particular Member, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, who got elected to this House. She was declared the vote winner by the Secretary of State of the State of California, entered this House, took the oath of office. And now there is a witch hunt to say that because she had a close election, she won by 984 votes, that therefore, and because her name is Sanchez, and because she lives in southern California, and because many people in southern California have Latino names, that people voted in that election who should not have voted. Mr. Speaker, I think there are probably people in most elections in America who voted who should not have voted. There are illegal votes cast in this country. But to say that they were all cast in one congressional district is ridiculous. The reason that I am so upset about it, if indeed Members want to go after close elections, the election of the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, ranked fifth. Listen to the names ahead of her: The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jon Fox, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. John Tierney, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Adam Smith, the gentlewoman from Washington, Mrs. Linda Smith. All of those people, Members of this House, won by lesser votes than she did. So, essentially, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jon Fox, won by 84 votes. Did anybody challenge that election and say there were illegal voters in his election, or in the election of the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. John Tierney? Did the Canadians come in and illegally vote in the election of the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. John Tierney, or the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Adam Smith, and the gentlewoman from Washington, Mrs. Linda Smith? How many Canadians are they challenging? No, they are picking out one race, one congressional district in all of the United States, one that came in fifth from the bottom, and going after that. Why? Because of a very controversial former Member of this Congress who has decided ad hocly not to give up his title, but to use his color of title to go after the person who won. So I engage my colleagues in a colloquy about this, and certainly would ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for a comment on it as well.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman had a closer election than Loretta Sanchez?

Mr. FARR of California. She won by 900 votes. So you have a very close election, and yet they are not going after you and doing a witch hunt in your district in Massachusetts. After all, you are close to Canada, you could have had some Canadians sneak over and vote for you.

Mr. FARR of California. In the election next door, the gentleman from California, Mr. George Brown, he won with 17 more votes than the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, 17 more votes; the same type of mix of ethnic populations. Is anyone going after the voters in his district and suggesting that that election was a fraud? No. This is absolutely the first time in the history of this country, in this House, when they have used the powers of the INS, the Immigration Service, to go back and question people how they became legal citizens.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend and a real talent. William Shaw, who helped shape the world around him for most of his 73 years, passed away recently. I know he will be sorely missed by all. To me and my family, Will will be remembered as an especially close friend. Together with my father, former California State Senator Fred Farr, and the renowned photographer Ansel Adams, he established the Foundation for Environmental Design in the early 1960's. ``We have art critics, music critics, theater critics, but we don't have any environmental critics. We need them badly, and I guess that's what you call us,'' Will is quoted as remarking in press reports at the time. Indeed, a superb environmentalist and architect, Will is responsible for some of the most beautiful manmade scenery our Nation has. The recipient of the renowned Prix de Rome, Will's portfolio includes the school or architecture at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo as well as the Buddhist Temple in Seaside and the restoration of the Highlands Inn and the Custom House. He was an outstanding member of his community and country. Born William Vaughn Shaw in Los Angeles on August 12, 1924, Will had lived in Monterey since 1954, and for the past 13 years in Pebble Beach. He was cofounder and past president of the Big Sur Foundation as well as the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects. In addition, Will was past president of the Monterey History and Art Association and the Community Foundation of Monterey County. During this difficult hour, Mr. Speaker, my entire family wishes his wife, Mary, and half-brother, Steven the very best. Will will always remain in our hearts.