Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Monterey County Fair on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. The mission of the Fair, to create, produce and offer quality events in their unique setting of 22 oak-studded acres, has educated, entertained and inspired our people for 75 years. The Monterey County Fairground is a State owned Multi-Use Facility, generating $22.9 million annually in spending activity over its history and contributing 300 full-time and part-time jobs. This year's theme, chosen by the 7th District Agricultural Association, will be ``Horse'n Around'' and was inspired by the artwork of artist Jo Mora. This summer, from August 31st to September 5th, livestock demonstrations, displays and auctions will recall and promote the rich agricultural heritage and diverse resources of Monterey County. The money raised from the auctions goes towards scholarships for local students and includes the participation of over 5,000 of Monterey County's youth through the Future Farmers of America and 4-H programs. The Monterey County Fair prides itself on being an inclusive environment where everyone in Monterey County can join in the festivities. Seniors' Day, Kids' Day, Special Friends' Day and Military Day ensure that citizens of all abilities and income levels can participate and enjoy the fair. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to hold up the Monterey County Fair as a model for other community and cultural events. On behalf of the whole House, I acknowledge the valuable contributions of the Monterey County Fair, and invite the community to join the celebration of its 75th Anniversary. May their continued success inspire many more generations to celebrate our agricultural and cultural heritage.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Maestra Marin Alsop, whose visionary and charismatic leadership has made the Cabrillo Festival of Contemporary Music in Santa Cruz, California our nation's global leader in the creation and presentation of contemporary music for orchestra. Born in New York City, Marin Alsop attended Yale University and received her Master's Degree from The Juilliard School and was the first woman to be awarded the Koussevitsky Conducting Prize from the Tanglewood Music Center where she became a protege of Leonard Bernstein. She has gone on to make history as the first woman to lead a major American orchestra; the first conductor to receive a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship (``genius award''); and the first artist to win both Gramophone's Artist of the Year and the Royal Philharmonic Society's Conductor's Award in the same season. Other prizes include a European Women of Achievement Award, a Classical BRIT Award for Best Female Artist, the Royal Philharmonic Society's BBC Radio 3 Listeners Award, Musical America's Conductor of the Year, and induction as a fellow to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Described by the New York Times as ``a conductor with a vision of what an American orchestra could be in the 21st century,'' Marin Alsop has made Cabrillo a place where composers, musicians, audiences, and the community interact, and where everyone contributes to the process of modern symphonic music making. By the force of her genius and her genuineness, the Festival has become a creative gathering like none other in the world. A Music Director of vision and distinction who passionately believes that ``music has the power to change lives,'' Marin Alsop has made the Festival a creative force on the international stage. No longer just a presenter of new works, Cabrillo is now an originator of new works, with more and more composers choosing the Festival for the first performance of their newest works. This season there will be a historic seven world premieres, each written to celebrate her special 20th anniversary season. Mr. Speaker, for all that she has done for living composers and the future of symphonic music as a vibrant American art form, and for all that she will undoubtedly achieve in the years ahead, I extend my most sincere appreciation and congratulations to Marin Alsop on the occasion of her 20th anniversary as music director of the Cabrillo Festival of Contemporary Music.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to clarify a mischaracterization of the administrative costs of the supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children, commonly known as WIC. It's interesting, you can come down here to the floor or speak in committee, and we are protected as Members of Congress to say anything we want. It isn't required that everything we say is factually correct. Sometimes those mischaracterizations, misstatements get into the record. And in this case, the complaint or the statement in subcommittee and full committee and even in debate here on the floor of the Agriculture appropriations bill, it was asserted that the administrative costs in this program are up to 40 percent of the total cost of WIC, this is a misstatement of fact, although it was included in the report language and it was adopted by the committee. So I come today to point out that the 40 percent administrative cost claimed by the majority is based on selective data from a 2008 Brookings Institute report. It didn't come from the Department of Agriculture, which administers the program. The Brookings report collapsed several legislative mandated nonmonetary programs, including the education of nutrition, the requirement that we support and inform people on how to do proper breast feeding, other client services, issues like health care referrals, even immunization screenings, these were counted as administrative costs when they are mandated by us in Congress to be carried out. They are programmatic costs, and it wasn't proper for the Brookings report to include those as administrative costs. Breast feeding, nutrition education, and immunization screening are vital programs which improve birth outcomes and reduce the incidence of health problems for WIC participants. They should not be categorized as administrative costs for the purpose of budgeting. So today, I would like to point out in a recent letter to our Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, of which I am the ranking member, from the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Vilsack, and I will include this letter at the end of my comments today, he notes that the food and nutrition service delivers its program management and actual administrative costs at a steady 9.09 percent rate, far less than the 40 percent purported in the Brookings Institute report and included in the committee report. WIC is effective in improving the health of pregnant women, new mothers and their infants. I feel it is important to clarify that the WIC program is meeting its mission. It is meeting the law to safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, and children who are at nutrition risk by providing nutritional food and supplemental diets and information on healthy eating and referrals to other health care services. As Members of Congress, we should not do the program any further disservice by erroneous figures being included in the report. So today, Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record the letter from Secretary Vilsack pointing this out and to make the record clear that the WIC program is indeed being administered very soundly and fiscally conservatively. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, July 14, 2011. Hon. Sam Farr, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Farr: Thank you for your work on behalf of the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) appropriations for fiscal year (FY) 2012. I appreciate the difficult decisions and choices that were before you and the Committee. As identified in the Statement of Administration Policy, the Administration has serious concerns with H.R. 2112; however, I wanted to weigh in specifically on what I perceive as misstatements regarding administrative costs for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). I understand that during full committee debate and on page 43 of the committee report, selected data from a 2008 Brookings Institute report were referenced, giving the impression that administrative costs in the WIC Program are over 40 percent of Federal expenditures for the program. The true figure is much lower. Beyond simply providing assistance in the form of supplemental food benefits, WIC provides low-income mothers, infants, and children with other legislatively mandated non- monetary program benefits, including nutrition education, breastfeeding support, and other client services such as healthcare referrals and immunization screening, which improve birth outcomes and reduce the incidence of health problems for WIC participants. The Brookings Institute report collapses these important additional benefits under the category of administrative costs. However, these legislatively mandated program benefits provided to participants should not be classified as administrative costs. For reference, I asked USDA's Food and Nutrition Service to provide me with a breakdown of the Federal cost of food benefits, non-monetary program benefits and administrative expenses for FY 2010. I am sharing this information with you to correct the record and so that you can share it with your colleagues: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percentage of Category Obligations obligations ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Supplemental Food Benefits........ $4,561,570,027 70.44% Nutrition Services and Admin. (NSA): Additional Benefits: Nutrition Education....... 418,437,331 6.46% Breastfeeding Support..... 149,133,594 2.30% Other Client Services..... 758,015,711 11.70% Program Management............ 588,984,767 9.09%

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the dawn of the Republic of South Sudan, the world's newest nation. While this is certainly a cause for celebration, the road to peace will not be an easy one for this war-torn region of Africa. The legacy of fifty years of violence, two million lives lost, and deep-rooted ethnic tensions will not vanish overnight. This is especially true in the Nuba Mountains, part of the disputed border region of Southern Kordofan. While this volatile area remains under the control of Sudan, it is home to many communities that support the newly formed South Sudan. Sudanese forces from the north are accused of carrying out extensive aerial attacks targeted at pro-South Sudan groups. These attacks have displaced some 73,000 people, including 2,000 in a recent bombing campaign. Media reports also suggest targeted civilian killings and extrajudicial executions of suspected dissidents. This violence must stop. The citizens of the Nuba Mountains, and all the citizens of Sudan and South Sudan, deserve to live in freedom, security, and stability. The history of genocide, war, and turmoil that has plagued this region of Africa does not need to be its future. As Sudan marks a momentous separation into two independent countries, let us embrace the possibility and hope that this new beginning can bring. I urge all my colleagues here in Congress to use their voice and their vote to promote enduring stability for the Nuba Mountains and all of Sudan and South Sudan. Peace cannot wait a moment longer.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Last night, I was in a town hall meeting in California, and it was very clear. It was a bipartisan whole group of people, and what they told us very truly is, Stop playing games. They know that the United States Congress, since 1940, has voted over 90 times--90 times--to raise the debt and never once with a game, never once with preconditions of, Oh, we've got to do this. We've got to do that. You guys are ruining this country's fiscal future by lighting a fire to our fiscal sanity and to our reputation. You want to take down our Constitution by requiring a two-thirds vote. You should look before you leap. California did this by initiative in 1990. That State has had a two-thirds vote locked up. It's impossible to get it out of any fiscal crisis, and it has dropped from the sixth wealthiest economy in the world. Do you want to follow that lead by amending the U.S. Constitution and locking in all these tax laws? You're just freezing in every single impropriety that's in the Tax Code. These people in my town hall meeting said, Stop playing games. They said it because they don't think you should put conditionality on it. Vote for a clean debt limit. I did. Not one of you did it. Not one Republican voted for that. Shame on you. Shame on you for playing fire with the United States Constitution. Shame on you on the cut, cap, and ruin of the United States. Vote ``no.'' Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I voted for H. Res. 268 because I believe in the bill's underlying premise of a negotiated two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bring enduring stability to the region. I have always used my voice and my vote to promote peace in the Middle East. Too many lives have been lost and too much violence has been wrought to do anything else. Citizens throughout the region deserve better. However, my vote is not without reservations about the provisions in this resolution. At this moment of incredible regional volatility, we should be encouraging the President to deploy America's full diplomatic capacity to pursue peace in the region not discourage recognition of a Palestinian state, as this resolution does. We should be encouraging the promotion of stability and dialogue with all parties involved, not discouraging assistance to the Palestinians, as this resolution does. And we should be calling on every actor involved to be a serious broker for peace. I just traveled to the Middle East and saw firsthand the need for a sustainable two-state solution. The question I came away with is: What can be done to bring a just and lasting peace? While I hope that this resolution can bring us closer to a peaceful solution, I fear that it leaves too many hard questions unanswered and too many issues unaddressed. While I voted for this resolution, I will also continue to support a constructive dialogue that can bring this conflict to a permanent end. The time for peace is now. We cannot wait a moment longer.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I have never supported the Afghanistan War. It has cost us 1,650 American lives. And the cost of those lost lives can't be measured. But this war has also cost us $444 billion. And that can be measured. Where we spend our money reflects our national values. And we spend $228,000 a minute on this war. So every minute of every day, we are telling the world that we value war above all else. But what about peace? What if we spent $228,000 a minute on peace? If we did that for just one day, we could send 6,566 Peace Corps Volunteers to serve America in the name of peace. Or we could feed 6.6 million school children for a year. Those are things worth valuing. Those are things worth fighting for. So, I urge my colleagues to vote to bring our brave women and men back home. To bring our money back in line with our values. To bring peace back now.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor World Refugee Day and the 60th anniversary of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. While we are commemorating World Refugee Day all week, the plight of refugees continues day in and day out. As I speak, there are some 15.4 million refugees around the world. But, there's another dimension to this humanitarian crisis that I want to highlight. Worldwide, there are an estimated 27.5 million internally displaced people who have fled their homes, but remain within their country's borders. So, as we mark World Refugee Day, we cannot forget internally displaced people who are refugees within their own countries. In total, there are 43 million refugees and displaced people globally which is roughly the entire population of Colombia. In fact, in Colombia, our hemispheric neighbor, there are an estimated 4 million internally displaced people, equivalent to the entire population of Los Angeles. Pakistan has nearly 2 million refugees, and Somalia, Sudan, and Iraq all have over a million displaced people each. Displaced persons are a national security issue as much as a humanitarian crisis that violates basic human rights. This spring, I hosted Congressional briefings with Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and Alexander Aleinikoff, the Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees. I commend the work of the U.N. High Commissioner and the many organizations--large and small--that are on the frontlines providing basic relief and security to displaced communities. And I will do everything I can to inform my colleagues about this important work. But, while immediate relief is essential, we also must tackle the root causes of conflict and poverty that continue to drive up the number of displaced people. We cannot be a just and peaceful world with so many living without basic human rights and protections. So, this week, and every week, I will continue to use my voice and vote to end this humanitarian crisis and bring justice, security, and enduring peace to the millions of displaced people around the world.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, my Republican colleagues have been relentless in their attempts to weaken offshore drilling regulations and to preserve wasteful and unnecessary subsidies to the most profitable oil corporations in the world. While Americans are facing serious pain at the pump, in the first quarter of 2011, the five biggest oil companies have made a total combined profit of $35 billion. Yet, as these companies break record profits, the Republican leadership insists that we continue to hand these companies billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies. H.R. 2021 is just another blatant attack on human health and the environment in an attempt to shield outrageous Big Oil profits. This bill seeks to evade Clean Air Act standards intended to protect our air and health by allowing the oil companies to pollute as much as they want from their offshore operations. Secondly, this anti-environment piece of legislation would block the right of California and other states to enforce more rigorous emissions standards on vessels servicing an offshore operation. It seems ironic that my colleagues who are arguing against big government now want to take away states' rights to protect their residents from dirty local air. I strongly support the need to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. However, H.R. 2021 is not the answer. I am extremely disappointed that my Republican colleagues continue to dismiss renewable sources of energy as part of the solution. The renewable energy sector has the potential to support hundred of thousands of jobs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The number of jobs in the solar industry, for example, doubled from 2009 to 2010. However, in the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water Subcommittee Appropriations bill, Republicans have proposed draconian cuts to programs that focus on energy efficiency research and renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind. The proposed cut of $1.895 billion to the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program is simply unacceptable. These cuts to alternative energy programs and the numerous pro-Big Oil bills, such as H.R. 2021, that have been introduced in the 112th Congress indicate that the Republicans do not support a comprehensive solution to rising gas prices, ending America's foreign dependence on oil, and creating jobs. My fellow Democrats attempted to improve H.R. 2021 by offering ten different amendments, but the Republicans rejected each and every one, including an amendment that would maintain California's ability to set its own emissions standards. Unfortunately this Republican desired top- down approach will degrade air quality along the coast of California, causing health costs to soar with increasing incidence of respiratory illnesses. Madam Chair, the quality of the air we breathe and the health of my constituents is of utmost importance. For this reason, I do not support this legislation, and I voted ``no'' on H.R. 2021.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know we've been here almost 25 hours of debate. I appreciate the open rule and the fact that we've had a huge debate. I personally would like to thank you and all the staff. I wore my Father's Day tie for you because I know your children are in town and you've been spending a lot of time here on the floor, and I'd like to wish you a happy Father's Day.

Mr. FARR. I rise in opposition to this amendment. It doesn't do any of the things that the author talked about. It's a one-sentence bill. This is a legal bill. We are here as lawmakers. It says that each amount made available by this act other than the amount required to be made available by provision of law, which is the one part that Mr. Kingston just talked about, is hereby reduced by 5 percent. That's all it says. There is nothing about accountability. The accountability goes on before our committee. That's what we do. We go over every item in the USDA's and FDA's budgets and in a public process where there is input and give-and-take. We do the scrutiny every year. That's what the Appropriations Committee is all about. It makes good press releases to get up here and say that, if you cut, squeeze and trim, government is going to get a lot better; but then they don't practice it in their own offices or in their own lifestyles. They just demand that, by just cutting out money, people who give services to people can't give those services. So this amendment doesn't do anything that the author talks about except to whack a budget that was already whacked. It was whacked by the allocation given to us. As I pointed out, it's $5 billion less. It's almost 23 percent less than what the President requested. It's 14 percent below what Congress enacted last year. It's 26 percent below what we enacted in 2010. It's even below what we enacted in 2008. Last night, we cut across the board. We did what this amendment does, in a very small proportion; but we used that money beneficially to adjust for the WIC program. So just whacking it across the board by 5 percent isn't going to cause any good for anybody, and I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, look, if you like dirty air, you will love this amendment. If you like dirty fuel, you will love this amendment. What this provision does is it strikes the requirement in law that says to the government, which is a big purchaser of fuel, look, don't buy dirty fuel. Buy something that is clean. I mean, that's what we're trying to do is stimulate clean air, fuel efficiency, alternative fuels. This strikes us down. This is going back to the old smokestack, fill the air full of dirty air. This goes back to all the traditional people that just don't like the fact that there's competition out there and that the Federal Government has to purchase that competition. I don't understand why in a competitive world, where fuel and efficiency and engine development, where we're going to have to lead that or have our clock cleaned, this is exactly what creates markets for that. You look at venture capital, you look at all these people that go in and put private risk capital out. Then they have got to have a market. And fortunately, the government tries to be that market, whether we're buying healthy foods for children, whether we're buying food for our troops, whether we're trying to encourage alternative fuels, as we have under this program where the Navy planes have found a proven alternative to traditional aviation fuel that they've tested in supersonic speed jets. This is a program that tells the American ingenuity, Get out there and invent something. Because guess what, if you invent it, we, as a purchaser of cleaner and better standards, are going to be your market. And this amendment just wipes that all out. It's really back to dirty smokestacks, dirty air, and no competition and no ability for America to succeed in the future. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I rise with great concern for this amendment. It wants to reduce about 5.8 percent across the board. Our problem is that we have dealt a really bad deal. The bill that we brought to the floor--and we cut some last night across the board--is $5 billion, or 23 percent below what the President requested. The President put together all of the asks, and as you know, OMB scrubs those things. And we're always very critical of the President's requests, sometimes because they're so low. Nonetheless, this is 23 percent below what the President requested. It's 14 percent below what we enacted last year. We in the committee last year, under Rosa DeLauro, when we were in the majority, we didn't have the impact on farm programs, particularly the environmental programs, that the cuts do this year. It's below the 2010-enacted level, and it's actually below the 2008-enacted level. You know, people use these terms very loosely, ``below a level.'' But think of it in your own personal income. Think about what the costs of life were for you in 2008 versus now. And I would submit that almost in every case, your water bill, your cable bill, your garbage bill, your utility bill, certainly the price of gasoline now, is a lot higher than it was in 2008. Nonetheless, you've got the same amount of money. So it's going to have a draconian impact, this amendment and the underlying bill, on the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. So I'm concerned. I think the gentleman is well intended to protect the programs that I care a great deal about. But I think the 5.8 percent across-the-board cut on top of what we've already cut is just too much. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of program that I think Mr. Flake pointed out that you wonder why we use taxpayer moneys to market American agriculture abroad, and you say, well, we don't need to do that. As he pointed out, he pointed out a couple of great big companies that take advantage of it. But guess what? In this legislation we carve out so that the small businesses can take advantage of this. And why do we do that? I don't know how much you see in the advertising that goes on to buy products from other countries, but remember the Juan Valdez coffee ad for Colombian coffee, ``Wake up and smell the coffee''? Guess what? That was subsidized by the Colombian Government. It was very, very effective. Coffee prices actually went down and they lost their ability because it cost them about $40 million a year to do that advertising. What we have created in the United States is a matching program saying, you put up your money first, put up the private sector money, and we will match it, and we carve out and protect it. And I'm just looking. California has a lot of congressional districts. You wouldn't think that districts in San Francisco or Los Angeles--we have 53 Members of Congress from California. There's only four congressional districts in California that don't take advantage of this program. I would imagine those are in the middle of Los Angeles. Because there are companies in it--and I can go through all of them. A lot of them are very small. In my county alone, we have Soy Vay, for example. Soy Vay, the sauce. That's a husband and wife company. They take advantage by putting some of their money up and then they get to advertise. I don't know what countries they choose to advertise in. They can't advertise their product per se. They have to advertise the generic of it. So you don't sell Sunkist oranges, you sell: You should buy more California oranges. It's an easy program to attack, but when you get down to managing in a global market and world competition, this stuff makes sense. As long as other countries are going to do it to us to stay competitive, we've got to do it to them. I think our way of doing it protects the small producer, more than anybody else, and allows them to get--we do this in tourism promotion all the time. We just passed a bill to advertise United States abroad. We have a Tourism Promotion Board to do that. We're going to have to be globally competitive. And this is one of the programs that allows us to be globally competitive.

Mr. FARR. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FARR. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. FARR. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Madam Chair.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. FARR. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. FARR. Reclaiming my time, with all due respect, I don't think the Agriculture Committee created the Brazilian problem. It was not the committee's act that created it. It was what the Brazilians did in their ability to become a major agricultural production country. And they are going after production in other countries. They have got connections with their government much closer between producers and government than we have here. They are buying out companies. They are going to really try to affect farm prices in the United States. I will tell you, the next place they are going to go after is specialty crops. So I am not a big fan, as you know. I spoke last night with concerns about getting these payment limitations down and to essentially trying to find a better program that is not so costly to the taxpayers. But you don't do anything beneficial with this money, you just cut it. And I am here to do things using money, taxpayers' money, to do the wise thing. It doesn't affect the outcome at all. It just penalizes certain people that happen to be in the cotton business. And I don't think that I want to support an amendment that isn't constructive. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.