Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. We cannot even get a debate on it.

Mr. FARR. I want to see us have a debate on the President's plan in your committee.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my colleague, my neighbor Congressman, and my friend, Norman Mineta. His departure from Congress is not only a tremendous loss to his district and the great State of California, but also to this Nation. Many people have served in the U.S. Congress. Norm's election was history. He was the first and only native-born Japanese-American forced into an internment camp to be elected to the United States Congress. During his youth in the Santa Clara Valley, he was surrounded by orchards and vineyards. San Jose has since grown to be the third largest city in California. His lifetime experienced the switch from an agricultural center to a center of Silicon Valley; from his Boy Scout troop days to the days of a major league hockey team, the San Jose Sharks. Perhaps history will show that no other Member of Congress did more to help those who were wronged by our Government. From being interned to authoring the 1988 Japanese-American redress bill, which officially apologized for the internment and provided a $20,000 payment to each surviving member of the camps, Norm always tried to help those less fortunate than him. Norm's love for aviation not only found him in the jump seat of most flights to the west coast, but also led him to marrying a flight attendant, his lovely wife, Danealia. He became chair of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation and was able to achieve major policy changes in transportation planning and policy, including the historical passage of the Surface Transportation Act of 1991 which for the first time shifted the decisionmaking power for proposed projects to local governments. I will miss Norm not only for the leadership he has provided in the House and for the role model he is to Asian-Americans but most of all for his passion for justice and compassion for people. Norm brings every young child he meets to the floor; instills them with a sense of belonging to the House of the people, and tells them that they, too, may someday serve here. [[Page E 1900]] Norm has wit and humor. Our staffs have been playing softball in a joint team for the past 2 years. Our team is called, Farr from the Norm. My predecessor, Leon Panetta and Norm had a softball team called, The Sign of the Rising Pizza. Norm has never forgotten how to give back to his community from being mayor of San Jose, serving on the board of regents at Santa Clara University, and being a member of the board of directors of Smart Valley, Inc. In Washington, he has been chair of the visitors committee for the Freer Gallery, an active member of the board of regents of the Smithsonian Institution and a member of the board of directors of the Kennedy Center. Norm's energy, enthusiasm, wit, and compassion will be missed. His ability to explain every detail about cross country jet travel, his knowledge of the transportation industry, and his ability to know the name of everyone and introduce them is remarkable. The northern California teammates George Miller, Anna Eshoo, Peter Stark, Tom Lantos, Nancy Pelosi, Zoe Lofgren, and me will carry on in your tradition, but Congress will never be the same without you. Good luck and goodnight but never goodbye. You have left your mark. God bless you. Thank you, Norm, for making this country a better place in which to raise our children.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Farms for the Future Act of 1995. I have joined my friend Mr. Gilchrest in drafting this bill to help fix a problem that threatens the very essence of Thomas Jefferson's vision of our Republic: the family farm. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Resource Inventory shows that the Nation is losing over 1 million acres of productive farmland each year to urban development. This represents a loss of topsoil roughly equivalent to that being saved by Federal erosion control efforts, including the Conservation Reserve Program. The land being lost is disproportionately prime farmland with the highest productivity. In many cases, it is irreplaceable as a source of domestic fruit and vegetable production, 85 percent of which comes from counties near expanding cities. The loss of this land threatens our Nation's long-term ability to produce abundant inexpensive food supply and compete in the global agricultural market. Moreover, keeping this land in agricultural production has additional benefits, ranging from watershed and wildlife habitat enhancement, to reducing the tax burden on communities from wasteful urban sprawl. Since the late 1970's, States and localities have invested an estimated $650 million to protect this resource--funds that went directly into farmers' pockets in exchange for voluntarily agreeing not to develop their property. This has protected 400,000 acres of high- quality farmland, but a study by the American Farmland Trust shows that for every farmer the States can help, another six willing farmers are disappointed. Meanwhile, the Federal Government has contributed almost nothing. This is wrong. A national problem of this magnitude deserves national attention. The State and local leaders in this effort deserve a Federal partner. And the farmers who have been turned away from State and local programs because of a lack of resources deserve Federal support to help them meet their goals. This Federal response should be governed by two basic principles. First, Federal efforts to conserve productive farmland must protect the private property rights of farmers. Second, the Federal Government should build upon existing and future State and local farmland preservation efforts. My bill does that by simply helping the existing State farmland conservation programs more effectively serve the farmers and other agricultural landowners who want to get the equity out of their land without contributing to urban sprawl. It would establish a matching grant program to add Federal resources to this State driven effort. I urge my colleagues support of this legislation.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this, I think, misguided bill. [[Page H 9351]] Mr. Chairman, the cold war is over. The Soviet Union is gone. Cuba is no longer a threat to our Nation's security. Yet the supporters of this bill would seek to keep us fighting a cold war battle. Mr. Chairman, we already maintain a comprehensive trade and travel embargo on Cuba. What have been the effects of this embargo? It has caused 10 million people of Cuba to suffer from critical shortages of food and medicine. It has kept United States businesses shut out of expanding investment opportunities in Cuba while other countries take advantage of it. It has not led to any major changes in the leadership of Cuba. This bill would change none of that. But what H.R. 927 would do is try to force other countries to keep from trading with Cuba as well. Not only is this a violation of trade law but it also risks our good relations with some of our most important trading partners, including Canada, England, Italy, and Mexico. I ask my colleagues, is it worth hurting our own economy and running the risk of an international trade war just to make Cubans suffer a little more? Mr. Chairman, I just do not see the need for a bill which puts burdens on our own economic future to fight a war that ended years ago. Even supporters of the current embargo agree, this bill is the wrong way to bring about political change. Do not be afraid of our human potential and our ability to prevail by example, not by ridiculous avoidance. Let us begin the leadership we are capable of. Vote against this bill.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to rise today in salute of an outstanding individual, community and military leader. Mr. Speaker, Rear Adm. Thomas A. Mercer, who until recently commanded the Naval Postgraduate School, provided 33 years of service to the U.S. Navy and to my central coast community. His contributions will be remembered and sorely missed. Graduating with distinction from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1962, Rear Admiral Mercer served a 3-year tour of duty in the U.S. Navy, including a Southeast Asia combat deployment. He later attended the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA and was awarded a master of science degree in aeronautical engineering in 1969. Rear Admiral Mercer's remarkable career has been demonstrated by his assignments and duties throughout the country and the world. He has been awarded 17 medals and awards that recognize his distinguished service, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal and Defense Superior Service Medal. I am very pleased to commend Rear Admiral Mercer for his contributions to our country. In addition, Rear Admiral Mercer significantly contributed to the Monterey Peninsula community. He has served as the superintendent of the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA since January 1993. His contributions there helped to retain the school in Monterey and he has worked with other institutions of higher education to make the region a center of excellence for education and research. Rear Admiral Mercer has also helped many organizations in the Monterey region, including outreach programs to schools, the American Legion, the Salinas Air Show and many more. We are indeed fortunate to have a national resource like the Naval Postgraduate School in our community, but more so since Rear Admiral Mercer has been its superintendent for the past 2\1/2\ years. It is said that Rear Admiral Mercer left every command in better shape than when he arrived and I agree. The Naval Postgraduate School and the entire community have benefited from his leadership. On behalf of a grateful community and country, I wish him congratulations, and very best wishes for a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I really want to rise to question what is really broke here. If we say that the military defense industry is broke because they cannot compete in the world, then we have to look at the fact that 70 percent of the world market is controlled by U.S. industry, so we would not say that U.S. industry is really hurting there. If we say, well, this is an impact on American industry that other foreign competitors do not have, we have to look at the way this industry generates its revenue. The taxpayers of this country have put forth $30 billion in R&D military research money. The law, which has been in effect for a number of years, estimates that in the next 5 years it is going to recoup from that $30 billion investment $1 billion. That is certainly not a very good return on the taxpayers' investment. I think we have to also compare that we put a lot of money into universities. When universities come up with an idea and invent it, they patent it, and that goes into marketing that idea and the university is able to recoup over time the invention, the effort in that invention. I mean, they own it. What we are saying here is that the American taxpayers own this invention, They put the money in and they ought to get something back for it. The defense industry, I think this is a weak issue to be pleading on. I come from California where the majority of defense contract dollars go. We get 23 percent of the entire defense contracts, and I think New York was second with 12 percent. We got about as much in defense contracting a few years ago that equaled the entire State budget. The industry has not been moving out of California. The tax base in California is very high. Labor costs in California are very high. The next thing we are going to hear is, let us repeal all of those local taxes and those job incentives because the industry has got to leave. I rise in support of the Maloney-DeFazio-Berman amendment because I want to support the American taxpayers who are the real shareholders in the defense industry, and they ought to get a return on their investment.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution of disapproval. I do so because I am concerned about the manner in which the BRAC Commission carried out its mission. I support downsizing the military and cutting the budget. But I believe it needs to be done in a manner that is logical, fair, and honest, with the emphasis, Mr. Speaker, on honest. In my district, the BRAC recommended that Fort Hunter Liggett be realigned. The Army told BRAC publicly and on the record, that it would only cost $6.7 million to move the mission of Fort Hunter Liggett to Fort Bliss, TX. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that internal Army documents which I have obtained show a different story. Internal Army documents show that it will, in fact, cost three times that amount to move the Fort Hunter Liggett mission. The Army told BRAC publicly and on the record, that savings of $12.7 million would be realized from the realignment of Fort Hunter Liggett. But internal Army documents state, ``There are no savings to be realized in this action.'' I am not whining about having a base realigned in my district. As everyone knows, my district is the site of the largest base closure so far, that of Fort Ord. And I know from experience that as traumatic an experience as base closure can be, there is a way to turn closure into successful economic redevelopment. President Clinton was at Fort Ord just this past weekend to celebrate Fort Ord's transformation into a major educational center. So, I do not necessarily oppose base closure or realignment. What I oppose is the deliberate manipulation of the numbers by the Army and the BRAC to make their case. The BRAC method above all must be fair and honest. I do not believe this round of closures met those criteria and that is why I support this resolution.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Elena Baskin, a wonderful woman, a prominent philanthropist, and a dear friend and constituent of mine who passed away Monday morning. Her humble beginnings in Kishinev, Romania, where she was poor and often went hungry, ingrained in her the desire to share her good fortune with others. Mrs. Baskin and her husband Jack Baskin have played a prominent role in the organization and funding of services for the elderly, the poor, women, children, education, and the arts. Her acts of kindness and giving will live on in the community and in the hearts of all who knew her. Born Elena Djatschenko on December 1, 1925, she lived without plumbing or electricity. Mrs. Baskin's parents were Russian and her father worked as a typesetter. The family moved to Chernovitz, now part of Ukraine, in 1935, where they resided until the outbreak of war in the region. They fled to Germany where Mrs. Baskin worked as a secretary with the U.S. Army in Berlin. In 1948, she immigrated to the United States and began work at Stanford University in the Hoover Library. Elena subsequently married Paul Baran and had a son, Nicholas. She graduated from Stanford in 1960 with a master's degree and taught Russian at Gunn High School in Palo Alto when she met Jack Baskin. They were married in 1976. Mr. Baskin became a successful developer, and Mr. and Mrs. Baskin went on to share their good fortune with others. Mr. Baskin has said that perhaps his wife's proudest accomplishment was the founding of the Live Oak Senior Center in Santa Cruz. The center opened in 1977 and serves about [[Page E 1748]] 1,000 meals a day. She was also instrumental in establishing the Battered Women's Assistance Program, the Mondanaro-Baskin Center for Women and Children, the Schools Plus public schools matching-funds program and the Cabrillo College of Child Care Center. The Baskin name can be found on numerous buildings, endowments, programs, and contributions throughout the region. For many years Mrs. Baskin served on the Santa Cruz County Seniors Commission and contributed to Stanford University and U.C. Santa Cruz, where a computer engineering center and student art studios proudly carry the Baskin name. Mr. and Mrs. Baskin were named Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce Woman and Man of the Year in 1986. Mrs. Baskin remained active in her later years. Enthralled by ballroom dancing and ice skating, she also continued to skate and ice dance several times a week. Mrs. Baskin was diagnosed with cancer just 3\1/2\ weeks before she passed away. She chose to refuse treatment, wishing quality time with her family, rather than quantity. She is survived by her husband, Jack Baskin of Santa Cruz; her mother, Valentina Djatschenko of Santa Cruz; her son, Nicholas Baran of Sandpoint, ID; two stepdaughters, Elaine Baskin of Palo Alto and Marianne Gabriel of Watsonville; two grandchildren; and four step grandchildren. While Mrs. Elena Baskin will be greatly missed by those who knew her, her acts will continue to be an inspiration to us all.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 7 to title VIII.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] for his important help in this matter. I look forward to working with him in the future on this problem. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this amendment with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], and I understand it may not be in order. However, I believe my amendment addresses an important issue, and I would like to speak briefly on the matter before withdrawing the amendment. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prevents the Army from wasting Federal tax dollars to implement a recommendation by the BRAC Commission. The recommendation would relocate the TEXCOM Experimentation Center from my district to another facility. In their proposal to the BRAC, the Army claimed this move would cost no more than $6.7 million. It is this figure which BRAC used as a basis for its final recommendation to move the facility. However, there are Army documents that show that it may cost as much in fact as $13 million or more. Mr. Chairman, let me quote from a recent U.S. Army Forces Command document which states that ``Significant one-time costs are $17 million for realignment. There are no savings to be realized in this action.'' Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to hold the Army to its word that the relocation of TEXCOM would be cost-effective and save money important to the American taxpayers. If, as the Army claims, they can move TEXCOM for only $6.7 million despite their own estimates, then my amendment would change nothing. If, however, the Army attempts to convince BRAC to move the facility by raising it one figure and then raid the defense budget to meet the cost of the second higher figure, then my amendment would prevent such a move. In short, my amendment requires the Army to keep their word.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro substitute amendment and in opposition to the Dornan amendment. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, it is patently unfair that American women cannot obtain medical services--medical services that are legal under the American Constitution and American laws--at American medical facilities just because these women are stationed overseas. Our Government has long advocated the elimination of discrimination and unequal treatment. We have long advocated access to safe and sound medical services. The Dornan amendment is overtly discriminatory; it is overtly unequal and it is overtly unsafe and unsound. This amendment is not about granting special rights to women stationed overseas. It's about fairness. It's about making sure that American women overseas are not classified as second class citizens by their Government, the Government for which they provide defense from foreign aggression. I support the DeLauro substitute because I support women as full and equal citizens of this country. To vote otherwise, is to insult the women of America in the worst way possible.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the Latino community has lost a great leader. Jesse Sanchez, who devoted every ounce of his spirit to empowering the Latino community in the city of Salinas, in my congressional district, died on August 2, 1995, of cancer. Mr. Sanchez always spoke first when Latinos in Salinas confronted public racism--and often, he spoke alone. He had the courage and uncompromising conviction to express what many others felt, but, could not say. Mr. Sanchez fiercely believed that Latinos belong in every room and at every table where public discourse occurs, and, he fought aggressively to dismantle artificial barriers to Latino political participation. His valiant battles inspired many Latinos to assert their God-given talents and to express their political leadership skills. As a result, the city of Salinas, the county seat in what is one of the most powerful agricultural valleys in our country, now boasts a Latino-majority city council working mightily to represent all of Salinas. And more importantly, the city's schools are now filled with young Latino students who dream of leading their city some day. Mr. Sanchez' vitae attests to his commitment to the Latino community. The following list contains just some of Mr. Sanchez' achievements: As a student during the late 1970's and early 1980's, Mr. Sanchez insisted that commencement ceremonies celebrate Latino culture, first at the predominantly Latino Alisal High School in Salinas, where he convinced authorities to hold the first ever bilingual commencement and then at the University of California at Davis Law School, where Mr. Sanchez became the first valedictorian to address celebrants in Spanish as well as English. Upon finishing his studies, Mr. Sanchez returned to Salinas in 1981 and became the first Latino elected to the Alisal Union School District Board of Trustees, where for 12 years Mr. Sanchez helped transform the school district into California's leading bilingual, bicultural educational institution. In 1988, Mr. Sanchez led a successful fight to convince the voters of the city of Salinas to adopt single-member voting districts to elect city council members, thus paving the way for the city's first ever elected Latino city councilman. In 1992, Mr. Sanchez filed a lawsuit and obtained an order pendent lite requiring judicial elections by districts, an order which yielded the first Latino, the first Latina and the first African-American municipal court judges ever in Monterey County, CA. In closing, let me make one thing clear: Mr. Sanchez' efforts, although focused on empowering Latinos, have benefited the entire Salinas community. The pool of talent which serves Salinas has now been enlarged to include people who previously could not contribute. Those newly enfranchised people now lend their talent and their commitment to the effort to make Salinas a better community.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1103 in the strongest possible terms. This bill, which amends and strengthens the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act--or PACA for those in the know, is one of the most important Federal agricultural programs for the farmer's of California's central coast. And, Mr. Speaker, it does not cost the taxpayer a dime. PACA, which was first enacted in 1930, ensures that growers, packers, and produce dealers are paid in a timely manner for their produce without recourse to costly and time-consuming court litigation. Produce dealers and retailers must get a license from the USDA to market produce and their license fees support the program. PACA is absolutely crucial for perishable fruits and vegetables such as strawberries or lettuce which are only marketable for a short time before they spoil. Almost every dollar of the $2.4 billion per year in agricultural production in my district is directly tied to the protections in PACA--it is as crucial to central coast specialty crop growers as the wheat and corn programs are to mid-western farmers. So I am very happy that the House is taking up this bill today that ensures a strong PACA program well into the next century. I want to point out that this legislation includes an important provision for domestic flower growers. Fresh-cut flowers are every bit as perishable as lettuce, grapes, or other produce. But they are not included in PACA's protections. This legislation will require the USDA to work with the flower industry to study the feasibility of including flowers within PACA. I want to thank the Chairman Roberts and Mr. de la Garza for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. I also want to thank my Subcommittee Chairman Ewing and friend Mr. Pombo for their hard work in bringing all sides of the produce industry together in agreement on this legislation. Finally, I want to thank Mr. Keith Pitts and Ms. Stacey Carry of the Agriculture Committee staff who given so much of their time to move this legislation forward. So if you enjoy artichokes, strawberries, lettuce, tomatoes, or any other of the 160 fresh produce crops that my district produces, I urge you to support this legislation.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the issue of the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and proposals before Congress for the United States to unilaterally lift the embargo. This is not an easy issue. It affects our relations with our allies abroad, and the authority of our President to conduct foreign policy. Above all, it involves the lives of thousands of people, Bosnians and Americans, who will be affected by lifting the embargo. There are some who argue that ending the embargo will lead to a fair settlement in Bosnia, or even some victories for the Bosnian Moslems. But there is little evidence this will happen. Indeed, the exact opposite may occur: Serbs may begin massive pre-emptive attacks on Bosnians to destroy their army before they can receive arms. In addition, recent evidence suggests the Bosnians are so poorly trained and led that increased arms shipments would do little to improve their chances on the battlefield. In fact, the war may expand far outside the borders of Bosnia if the embargo is lifted. Nearby places such as Macedonia and Kosovo are already politically and ethnically unstable, and could easily become engulfed in the conflict. Furthermore, Russia, a traditional ally of Serbia, may respond to any Bosnian victories by providing overt military support for Serbia--bringing a major world power into the war, and forcing the West to either provide similar support for the Bosnians, or else let them be defeated. Even supporters of ending the embargo admit: Ending the embargo would mean increased conflict in Bosnia--and thus, more bloodshed, more deaths of innocent civilians, and massive increases in refugees fleeing to Western Europe. Above all, I believe the ultimate question on this issue must be: Will lifting the embargo put the lives of American men and women in danger? Supporters for lifting the embargo make it sound simple: Lift the embargo, and wash our hands of the Bosnian conflict. But things rarely happen that way--and they would be unlikely to happen that way in Bosnia. First, the United States would be forced to immediately deploy troops--at least 20,000--to Bosnia, to aid the withdrawal of the thousands of defenseless U.N. troops stationed in Bosnia. Next, the Bosnians would need weapons and the training to use them. Supporters for ending the embargo may say that that would not be our responsibility. But how will we respond to those who argue that, if we are responsible enough to unilaterally end the embargo, for the supposed benefit of the Bosnians, how can we not be responsible enough to come to the aid of those same Bosnians, especially the innocent civilians who have lost the protection of the United Nations? And what if other countries, such as Russia, come to the aid of the Serbs? How could we not provide similar aid to the Bosnians? Mr. Chairman, I support peace in Bosnia, not war, and not the deaths of Bosnian civilians or Americans soldiers. It is hard to believe--and no one can possibly guarantee--that lifting the embargo would help the peace process. I cannot support unilaterally lifting the arms embargo when the result will be needless conflict and deaths.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the majority party zeroing out funding for title X, which is our Nation's critical Family Planning Program. The title X Family Planning Program was created in 1970, with broad bipartisan support, as part of the Public Health Service Act. It was enacted and signed into law by then-President Richard Nixon, creating for the first time a comprehensive Federal program devoted entirely to the provision of family planning services on a national basis. Mr. Speaker, in his message on population growth and the American future, Nixon declared that ``No American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition. I believe, therefore,'' he continued, ``that we should establish as a national goal the provision of family planning services to all who want, but cannot afford them.'' Today, title X continues to be the glue that holds the national family planning service delivery system together, largely determining both its structure through its nationwide network of clinics and the substance of its services that are provided to low-income and moderate- income women and teenagers. In 1990, alone, 5.3 million family planning clients were served by clinics administered by title X-supported agencies. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of misconception about the use of these title X funds. The far right claim that title X money is somehow used to pay for abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since its inception in 1970, the title X statute has prohibited the use of the program's funds for abortions as a method of family planning. In addition, congressional investigations during the 1980's found that all title X-funded clinics were operating in full compliance with the law. Of the more than 4,000 title X-funded clinics nationwide, approximately 80 provide abortions, all with other than title X funds, without exception. In fact, more than 50 percent of these clinics are in hospitals. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues about title X and what it does. Besides providing contraceptive methods, family planning clinics conduct related tests and examinations, including: pelvic exams, blood pressure measurement, anemia screening, Pap smear tests, diabetes, urinary tract infection screening, pregnancy tests, HIV testing, well-baby care, infertility counseling, prenatal care, midlife health programs, and mammography screening. Health care services are also provided to men, including STD treatment, STD screening, HIV testing, infertility counseling, and testicular cancer screening, among others. The importance of family planning is widely recognized. According to the Institute of Medicine Committee to study the prevention of low birthweight, it is important to stress that both young teenage status and poverty are major risk factors for low birthweight, and title X is specifically targeted at low-income women, including adolescents. As such, the program should be regarded as an important part of the public efforts to prevent low birthweight. Mr. Speaker, according to the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, ``Family planning counseling and services are essential elements of preconception and interconception care. We affirm that family planning should be an integral part of prenatal care to improve pregnancy outcome.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me tomorrow and vote against the Labor-HHS rule which prohibits an amendment to restore funding to title X, and in the event that the amendment to restore funding for title X ruled in order, I urge my colleagues to support it. Support restoring these vital title X dollars.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall No. 604. Had I been present, I would have cast my vote in the affirmative. Personal Explanation

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases the transfer from the fund to promote the development of fishery products to NOAA's operation, research, and facilities account. This increase of $2 million would provide additional funding for the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. In 1995, $9.2 million was available from the fund for the fisheries development grants but only $7.2 million in the grants were awarded. This amendment maintains the level of funding for fishery grants from this fund while partially restoring reductions to the marine sanctuaries program. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores about 15 percent of the 25 percent of the marine sanctuaries program that was cut. I think that it goes a long way to try to help a program that is not a very big one. It is a $12 million program in total. The program is very important because there are dozens of marine sanctuaries around the United States, not only in California but in Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington. So Members from those States are very interested in making sure that those programs are run effectively. Mr. Chairman. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] who also shares the largest marine sanctuary, the Monterey Bay Sanctuary.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to Members of this body that this is a very, very important issue to the coastal States of the United States. This issue affects how we manage where the land mass of the United States meets the water mass of the United States. That is a very delicate zone in this country, and the fact is 80 percent of Americans live and work within 50 miles of a coastline. So all of the pressures of on-land meet the pressures of off-land, and that very fragile area needs special attention, and that is what this budget does. Frankly I wish we had restored more. We restored $20 million and a $37 million cut, so they are going to get less money, and in the NMFS budget, that was a 20 million of 37, and in the coastal zone management budget, restored $5 million of a $9.5 million cut. So there is still a substantial cut, and I just want to support the compromise, but I want to point out that this is such an important area, important issues to all Americans, that we need to pay attention to these fundings and hope in a subsequent amendment that my colleagues will also support an increase in the sanctuaries.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]. (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I praise my colleague from California, Mr. Miller, who has been a long player in this issue of the protecting of the environment on the California coast. But I rise in support of this bill. Although some environmentalists oppose ending the ban, the Department of Energy study shows that, indeed, if you lift this ban, it will have an environmental benefit for the State of California. The only ban on exportation of oil in the United States drilled anywhere where there is oil is on Alaska, and because of that ban to foreign countries, it must come to California. It comes in supertankers down the west coast, and when the Alaskan oil spill occurred, we took a look in the State of California about what would it mean if we had a spill like that magnitude on the coast. The area most vulnerable to a spill is the district I represent, along Big Sur and the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay coastline. The resources along that coastline are so valuable you could not put a price tag on them. It became of interest to a lot of people to say, ``Look, how can we mitigate any issue relating to oil tanker traffic in creation of the National Marine Sanctuary?'' They have asked the tanker carriers to go out to 60 miles. One of the carriers, ARCO does that on a regular basis because a 60-mile buffer on the coast gives them at least some buffer zone if any accident should occur. So, by lifting this ban it essentially says that oil can be exported where there is a market, where the refineries are. Japan is the logical buyer of that oil and the processor of that oil. So I rise in support of this issue. From an environmental standpoint, I think it is going to be a better management of the delicate resources along the coast, and there is a secondary benefit, and that is that California is a large oil-producing State. Monterey County is a very environmentally sensitive county. It has the fifth largest oil- producing field in the State of California. So if we increase the oil production onshore, which the environmental community has already indicated we ought to go onshore before offshore, and I have led successful battles to prevent offshore oil drilling, we will, indeed, allow more onshore production, which will increase the local revenues and be a benefit to the local counties. This is a win-win for jobs for California, revenues for the counties, for the environment. I support this bill. Mr. Chairman, ending the export ban for Alaskan oil is clearly a critical issue for the State of California. Hundreds of thousands of barrels per day of Alaskan crude come to California, with profound effects on California's oil market. I support this committee's efforts to examine in greater detail the effect of this current practice, and the possible ramifications of ending the ban on Alaskan oil exports. Many have discussed ending the ban in terms of its economic effects. This is clearly an important factor: California is the third largest producer of crude in the United States, and any change of policy which benefits California oil producers will have a profound effect on California's economy, job creation in the region, and tax revenues at both the State and Federal level. In addition to economic effects, however, we must also examine how ending the oil export ban would affect both the natural environment and U.S. workers. Ending the ban may be beneficial for both the environment and employment if it means less oil tanker traffic along the California coastline, less pressure to develop in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and secure shipping jobs and increased employment in California. In reviewing H.R. 70, we should take into consideration the testimony not only of those who are experts in the field, but those who would be most affected by removing the ban. I appreciate the testimony of those who have come before the committee today, including Deputy Secretary William White from the Department of Energy, representatives from labor organizations, and members of the California oil industry. I look forward to further debate in the committee on this important legislation.