Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to point out something that I think is pretty obvious around here, and that is the President was here earlier this year asking that this House deliver a campaign finance reform bill to him by July 4. We did not do it. We have had no hearings, we have had no votes, we have had no discussion; we have had a lot of effort to try to get a campaign bill on the floor. Yet at the same time the tax bill, which gives incredible breaks to very wealthy people, moves through here like a knife through butter. Why is that? Why do we not move for campaign reform for the people but we can move very quickly for tax breaks for the rich? I think there is a causal connection. Madam Speaker, just wait and see this next election period why we have not passed campaign reform under the Republican leadership and why there are big tax breaks for the rich under the Republican leadership.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the Members, hey, wake up and smell the coffee. What do Members think this program is all about? Members sit there and watch television, where Juan Valdez is wandering around the supermarket selling Colombian coffee, where the Greeks are selling olive oil, where the French are selling wine. Where do Members think those countries are paying for those products to get into our markets? How are we going to do world trade unless we can reach out and sell our products? Agriculture has the best balance of trade, $30 billion in surplus. Support this program. Members are foolish to cut us off and shoot us in the feet and not allow American products to be sold abroad. Smell the coffee. Defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Market Access Program [MAP] is critical to the future health of our Nation's agriculture. If we cut MAP, we will pull the rug out from underneath American farmers. First, the Market Access Program benefits American agriculture. Every dollar spent by M.A.P. provides several dollars in export sales. For fruits and vegetables alone, each dollar of MAP creates $5 dollars in export sales. MAP benefits all American agriculture: grains, livestock, fruits and vegetables, cotton--all benefit from MAP. Thanks in part to MAP, U.S. agriculture exports are the single largest positive contributor to the U.S. trade balance. Despite years of trade deficits, agricultural trade continues to run a surplus--$27 billion this year alone. This year alone the United States will export 457 billion in agricultural goods--that's double the size of exports when the program started in 1985. Second, MAP is very small in comparison to what other countries spend on export promotion. Europe alone spends $350 million a year on export promotion programs--over three times the amount we spend in our country. Fourteen other countries--including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and Norway--spend a total of $400 million per year on export promotion programs. When you buy Juan Valdez coffee, Greek olive oil, or French wine, you're buying a product that profited from foreign export promotion. Third, some say MAP is a subsidy--but that just isn't true. MAP gives first priority of funding to small businesses, cooperatives, and trade associations. No MAP funding may supplement or replace private sector funding; it can only be in addition to private-sector funding. MAP funding is matched by up to 50 percent, or sometimes more, by participants. MAP funding has been steadily reduced, from $300 million in 1985 to less than $100 million today. American agriculture depends more on exports than ever before--don't kill a program that works. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is a choice between farmers and candy. Vote for farmers.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman. Would the gentleman agree that the research for such a specific crop be conducted in the Salinas Valley?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to supporting him on this great, important bill.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment and the commitment of the committee in directing USDA to fill this vacant research position at the Salinas Valley ARS station to ensure that the final bill will include funding for this ARS position to support onsite lettuce research.

Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the distinguished chairman of this incredible committee that has one of the most important jobs in all of Congress because it is so diverse to have to deal with all the issues of agriculture. I rise in support of a very important issue to American specialty crop growers. As the gentleman knows, for 4 years the Salinas ARS station, located in the heart of the largest vegetable production area in the United States, has been without a research scientist, to the detriment of the lettuce industry. Does the gentleman agree that the lettuce farmers would be greatly aided by filling this position with a scientist at USDA with expertise in lettuce breeding?

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Name one single property right issue that is violated by naming this as a biosphere.

Mr. FARR of California. What is the restriction? What is the point of the gentleman's question?

Mr. FARR of California. What impact? Name one.

Mr. FARR of California. What? There is a restrictive use because you might measure the weather, because you might measure the rainfall?

Mr. FARR of California. I am trying to get an intelligent answer.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I will give a very clear answer to the gentleman's question. The U.S. Constitution protects us on a takings issue, and most constitutions, including that of the State of California, protect us on a takings issue. There is absolutely no taking by nominating and being accepted as a biosphere property. It is simply----

Mr. FARR of California. In closing, Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no violation on property rights; I am talking about biosphere, that applies to property. I know it, I own it, I participate in it, and there is no violation. Therefore, there is no need for this amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. FARR of California. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the local planning is done by zoning that is under control of local government and cannot be violated by a biosphere agreement. Second, it was on public lands, as the gentlewoman indicated, not private land. The management plan for that biosphere is done by those agencies that govern that land.

Mr. FARR of California. That cannot be done.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise on this issue. I was not intending to speak here, but I was monitoring this in my office. I just heard some statements I could not believe. I think the authors of this amendment have not done their homework and they are leaping before they are looking. This program, as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has said, has been around since 1971. We have 15 Federal agencies that participate in it voluntarily. The total amount they spend is $115,000 of contributing money. That is about $10,000 per agency that they contribute. In my State of California we have 25 sites that have been designated. I might add that they have been designated out of the initiative of the local community to do it. What they are suggesting here is that Federal agencies should not participate in this, and essentially that we ought to be the micromanager, the mother of every kind of interest in our local communities, because it has some kind of United Nations attached to it. We will get to a Congress that will want to screen every tourist that comes to our district from out of State, we will want to make sure that every type of weather satellite going over our country is monitored, and so on. Mr. Chairman, the point is that this program is absolutely harmless. There are 15 State parks in California that have applied for this and have been designated, including some public water districts, like Marin Municipal Water District, a private ranch owned by the Audubon Society, and in fact, I am up here speaking about it because property that my family and other families own, private land, eagerly sought this designation because we want to be part of this international monitoring station. Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point here, that it was stated that there was no local knowledge of it, that it was some kind of umbrella brought out of some kind of international community. You do not participate in getting these nominations; it is a competitive nomination. You do not get any junk land in here, you do not get any land in here that does not have any scientific interest in it, that there is not an ongoing monitoring by the scientific community. All of these people want to be in this. They want to be part of this. This is a biosphere all over the world. How are we going to learn about global warming, how are we going to learn about the impacts of air quality, how are we going to learn about migratory birds that do not know that they have to fly under United States rules? These are the kinds of things that biostations give us information for. We cannot be here in Congress and say because we are participating in this in an international community that we have to strike the money and we cannot do anything with this program. Do not be so ignorant about this globe. It needs international monitoring and these biospheres do it, and the properties that are in it have been eagerly sought after to get into the program. It is tough to become nominated for a biosphere. It is an honor. I am proud that my land, our land, is in that.

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

Mr. FARR of California. I did not check with the U.S. Congress.

Mr. FARR of California. What was exactly proposed in the biosphere that made it so controversial?

Mr. FARR of California

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's observations are very well made. I just disagree with the author of this amendment that the way of getting there is to rob Peter to pay Paul. I think when we rob an educational account to pay for a medical account we have no gain. Mrs. Chairman. I include the following for the Record. State of Kansas, Department of Wildlife & Parks Pratt, KS, October 4, 1996. Hon. Christopher Bond, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Bond: I appreciate the efforts of yourself, Senator Grassley, and Congressman Lewis to examine the relationship between USDA and the Corporation for National Service regarding the AmeriCorps program. At this time in America, it is critical that government operate ethically and above board, without the intent, act or perception of wrongdoing. However, as I am certain you will find, the relationship between USDA, CNS and the AmeriCorps projects administered at the state level is reasonable and desirable. This partnership allows rural Americans to perform needed community services for an honest wage and broaden their potentials for the future in the process. When these AmeriCorps members have completed their educations, they will be ready to take their places as productive members of society, with not only the class work behind them, but also the experience earned in the successful completion of their AmeriCorps projects. Without the assistance of the USDA and CNS, the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks would not be able to hire these young people, lacking the funding to do so. The department can, however, provide raw materials, tools and supervision. Important projects underway now, and others that might be completed in the future, would die without being completed. Rural communities would lose the employment options provided by AmeriCorps, the public would lose the benefits provided to the natural resources and outdoor recreation projects, and the individuals who would have been selected as members would lose valuable opportunities. The language proposed by USDA correlates to previous agreements, and fully supports the principles under which AmeriCorps was conceived, while ending the transfer of operating funds from CNS to USDA. No additional funding is needed to support the AmeriCorps program, and the positive impact it makes is tremendous. I hope that you will find that you are able to fully support continuation of AmeriCorps as a viable program important to the American people. Sincerely, Rob Manes, Assistant Secretary for Operations.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National Endowment for the Humanities and in opposition to the Chabot amendment that would eliminate the NEH. It is imperative that the government play an integral role in the preservation of the events and historical documents that shaped our Nation for this and future generations. The NEH fulfills that role. NEH projects preserve books, newspapers, and official documents in an effort to retain America's heritage. NEH grants stimulate local economies by increasing attendance at humanities exhibitions and attractions. I urge all of my colleagues to read the following letter to Members of Congress from Sheldon Hackney, the chairman of the NEH. This letter is an excellent explanation of the benefits our Nation receives from the work of the important National Endowment for the Humanities. Without a strong link to the past, we cannot build a strong bridge into the future. National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC, March 14, 1997. Dear Member of Congress: America is a nation founded on an idea. That idea--democracy--lives on generation after generation through a celebration of the formation of this union, an examination of the principles of the past, and a teaching of the events and people who have gone before us to make us the country we are today. A great nation as ours must know its history if it is to be strong in facing the challenges of the future. The National Endowment for the Humanities helps Americans to know more about who we were, who we are, and who we will be. We do this in part by devoting a large portion of our resources to help historians preserve and interpret our past and to share knowledge and evidence of our history with the American people. For almost ten years, the NEH has helped museums and historical organizations undertake projects to ensure the preservation and security of millions of archaeological, ethnographic, and historical objects. The NEH also supports projects to train the staffs who maintain these historical collections. The training paid off in the wake of Hurricanes Hugo, Andrew, Iniki and the Midwest floods of 1993, because it helped minimize damage to collections in the areas affected by these disasters. Through supporting the compilation of U.S. Presidential Papers, preserving photographs and saving brittle books, the National Endowment for the Humanities works to insure our nation's heritage is preserved and accessible to its citizens. If you have any questions about the work we do, please contact me or my staff in the Office of Congressional Liaison at (202) 606-8328. Sincerely, Sheldon Hackney, Chairman.