Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. We had small business development in Colombia. There was also a whole bunch of people working on educational television, which the country was implementing and needed teachers who knew how to do that, and technicians on how to run the studios and set it all up. We also had architects helping design public facilities and parks. You don't work on your own. You work with host country counterparts who are professionals like you are.

Mr. FARR. You did it even more so, because you were married, you were a rock star athlete out of California, you were at the University of California Berkeley. And to be married and to take that risk, sort of walking away from what was just the ideal life to go off to Ethiopia must have been an incredible pull.

Mr. FARR. I would also like to mention that we could use a lot more Peace Corps volunteers because of these countries that want us. They want us to come in for the first time, they want us to grow. Vietnam is interested in getting the Peace Corps. We were just in East Timor. They were there. We were pulled out due to unrest. They are now in peace. They want them back. Surabaya in Indonesia, there are, I think, 18 volunteers there now. They could grow that to hundreds of volunteers. The country wants it. But the one thing we have to do here in Congress is give them more money. Frankly, I want to really salute the President of the United States, because in these tough fiscal times, where everything else has to be cut back, this year he has asked Congress to give the Peace Corps more money than we gave them last year, and that's one of the bounce-up programs. We have gotten strong bipartisan support on this, and hopefully in this Congress, which is going to be mostly a cut, squeeze, and trim Congress, we don't throw the baby out with the bath water, as you said. What an incredible opportunity at a time when peace might be breaking out in the Middle East. They are going to need a lot of this. They are going to need a lot of community development. You are going to need people to understand. I mean, I could go on for hours at what I just saw in East Timor where women had, three, four, five babies in houses with no electricity, mud floors, before anyone got to them and said, you know, you need to go through a prenatal discussion and some postnatal treatment. Even in that poverty, what they are just trying to do is sequence the babies so they won't be born so quickly one next to another because there is a high risk of low birth rate. You know who is there right on the ground doing that--that is what the Peace Corps does. So the need, the war on poverty never ends. The war, or the path to peace, the process for peace, as we have seen hopefully breaking out in the Middle East, that we can get a democratic society, they are all going to need teachers, and as we need them here at home we need them abroad. Teachers and not just traditional reading, writing, and arithmetic but teachings of health care and HIV prevention and so on. And I know you and Patti have dedicated your lives to that work and what a wonderful way to celebrate on this 50th anniversary.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for reinstating funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service. Following the recent votes on the House floor, I urge my colleagues to recognize volunteerism as a historic and valued tradition, and we cannot close the door on millions of Americans who want to serve their country. As a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer, I know firsthand the expansive value of service. America has an unparalleled history of extending a helping hand to lift up our neighbors in times of need. Now more than ever, we must rebuild our country and strengthen our national spirit through service in our communities. The Corporation for National and Community Service is one of our country's finest expressions of volunteerism. Through programs like AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America, CNCS creates important opportunities for Americans of all walks of life to offer their brains, brawn, and heart in service to others. I am proud to say that there are 1,117 folks from my district currently serving in CNCS programs. And they are part of a five-million strong corps of volunteers across the country who are dedicating part of their lives to meet our nation's critical needs in education, health, safety, and the environment. CNCS exemplifies the best of what America has to offer. Senior Corps volunteers have given over 1 billion hours of service as foster grandparents for at-risk youth and companions to the elderly. More than 400,000 Americans have served in AmeriCorps on critical projects ranging from Hurricane Katrina and Deepwater Horizon disaster relief to homelessness and neighborhood revitalization around the country. And well over 1 million high school students have experienced the power of civic engagement through participating in Learn and Serve programs. CNCS' work touches public agencies, schools, national and local non- profits, and faith-based organizations. Yet despite the critical mass of people wanting to serve and the widespread need for service, my colleagues have chosen to eliminate CNCS from our national budget. This dissonance between supply and demand makes absolutely no sense. For the sake of saving .03% of our total federal budget, my colleagues have taken away the ability for millions of Americans to help their fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, I honor the service of my constituents on the Central Coast and Americans across the country. I reject this legislation and will fight to restore robust funding so that we can continue our noble legacy of service to those in need for this and future generations.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise reluctantly because Mr. Kingston and myself, I think, have a great deal of respect for how we ought to be managing the future of payments, and I concur with his remarks. But I am rising in favor of the amendment because I think we have to push the attention to how vital it is that we reform this program, and I don't think you get that attention without bringing this amendment to the floor and passing it. It's going to be hard to implement in the next remaining months, as so many of the amendments that we've adopted here in the last 3 days, but I do think that it is worth the debate of how we focus on the rest of the year. Because, frankly, we ought not to be just paying entities in this country hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars because they didn't get the price they wanted at the market. I represent the biggest growing area, and we don't get any of these payments. Not a single farmer. These are just a few entities, and it's wrong. So we ought to adopt the amendment.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Thank you for yielding. This is a bad amendment, and I urge all of my friends to carefully consider it. Mr. Heller may have an issue in Nevada, and he says he wants to have legislation to require Congress to make these designations, but that's not what's here today. He's wiping out the money to give the President the ability to make these monuments. Look it. We just made one in California on the entire coast of California for all the rocks and islands and is probably the largest monument in the United States. It was overwhelmingly endorsed by all of the communities along the coast. Let local governments be involved in these things so they can petition the President. More Republican Presidents have used this than Democratic Presidents. It affects all of your States. The Grand Canyon was originally a monument before Congress made it a national park. Taking away this tool in the tool box would just leave these lands fallow. They're BLM lands. They're already owned by the Federal Government. They'd have no use. You can't get into the other activities that the others have. This is a great tool. Don't throw it away.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. If any of you live in coastal communities, you want to oppose this bill. Ocean acidification is a real threat to this Nation. Climate change is happening, and the ocean is where climate is born. The coast of California is seriously considering all of what the rising oceans will do to the economic value of the most valuable coastal property in the United States. So you don't want to take out the partner in working with State and local governments on these issues. If tourism is in your community, if fishing is in your community and, in fact, educational institutions. Yesterday, hundreds of high school students from all over the United States were here working, showing their science projects on ocean acidification. They won awards from government entities and nonprofit entities. Their future is about studying these issues. This is the kind of program that we want to invest in. Smart technology, smart energy, that is the way we are going to handle this problem in the future. Those are jobs. ``No'' on this amendment.

Mr. FARR. Thank you for yielding. I represent a lot of fishermen in the west coast in California and up the west coast all the way up to Alaska. The catch share program has worked very well. The reason you have it is, one, you only have two systems in fishing--you have a season and you have a limit or quota. The pounding of all of the boats going at the same time regardless of weather is a very risky thing. Now we've given that up to share. We give shares to boats. So what happens if you're a small fisherman in a small boat, you've got a share. You've got your right. You can go out when you want to. Not just when the weather is really foul and may be dangerous. People like this. It's sustainable. They can get loans on their boats. They know they've got all kinds of certainty that they've never had before. To wipe this out, it may be uncomfortable in some other communities, but if you'd much rather direct it, if you want to get mad, do it to those communities because wiping it out this way, you're going to really hurt where it works. And where it works, it works really well. So please oppose this amendment.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have been on a 3-day marathon talking about how we are going to cut, squeeze, and trim the Federal Government. Frankly, we haven't even hit the big stuff. Seventy-five percent of the budget isn't even up for discussion here on the floor. What you are seeing with this amendment is you are taking a meat axe to essentially a bloody mess. We know this bill is not going anywhere because it doesn't really get into trying to do structural reform. If we really wanted to deal with debt, you deal with a plan to get rid of debt, not just with a hacking and hacking away. Let's devise a plan that will really make this country deal with its debt just like you do with your mortgage, your long-term mortgage. It's a lot of money. People aren't scared, as long as they have a job, to how they are going to pay their mortgage because they have a plan. That's not what we are getting at. This amendment is a meat axe to a bloody mess that ought to be opposed.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I think that this is a problem. And I think Mr. Kind has a way of looking at trying to remove the money, but it's not going to make the problem go away. I agree that this is a thing that needs to be addressed because there's going to be retaliatory implications if this money is just pulled, and those retaliatory implications are unknown to an awful lot of other agriculture who may even support this amendment. So it is an idea that we need to address. This is not the place to address it. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Food for Peace. Over the past 50 years, this essential program has fought hunger and offered hope for some 3 billion people in 150 countries. For less than .05% of our total federal budget, Food for Peace is able to provide emergency food relief, combat famine and starvation, and promote much-needed stability in the most poverty-stricken corners of the world. Without question, food security is global security. Struggles to gain access to food can easily erupt in violence, instability, and health epidemics. Food for Peace's small financial investment in hunger security yields tremendous returns in the form of increased stability in fragile areas, reduced dependence on foreign aid, and increased goodwill towards America. As the Ranking Member on the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I know that Food for Peace is far more than just a helping hand. This program works with communities to promote agricultural development and access to local markets so that food recipients can transform into food producers. Rather than create enduring reliance on U.S. aid, Food for Peace strengthens communities to provide for themselves. In this tight fiscal climate, what better return on our investment could we ask for than decreased dependence on foreign assistance and increased stability in conflict-prone states? Yet, my colleagues have made dangerous cuts to this critical capacity-building program. These cuts, which amount to marginal cost- savings, would eliminate support to millions of the world's poorest and hungriest at a time when food prices are rising across the globe. Rather than providing smart investments to uplift these communities, we are ripping away resources and sinking them deeper into an unbreakable cycle of poverty and instability. As our country faces increasing international scrutiny, this is not the face of America that we need to be showing the world. On behalf of the billions who have been lifted up by Food for Peace and the millions for whom it currently gives hope, I strongly oppose my colleagues' misguided efforts to save a few dollars. America is better than this, and I will never stop fighting to promote our national security through smart international assistance.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the Lowey amendment to restore funding for Title X family planning programs. My colleagues have spoken about the achievements of Title X, so I want to focus on what elimination of this highly successful program would mean to the citizens of California. As you all know, California has been hit extremely hard by this recession and is struggling just to meet the basic needs of its residents. In 2010, Title X funded health care services for over 1.2 million people--which represent 20 percent of all Title X participants. In my district alone, over 33,000 people relied on Title X-funded clinics for their primary health care needs. Eliminating Title X funds would result in a critical loss of vital health care services to an already struggling state with limited resources. My district has been profoundly affected by the Medicare reimbursement issue because, while we are a high cost area comparable to San Francisco, the reimbursement rate reflects rural costs. As a direct result of doctors no longer accepting Medicare patients, many seniors have been forced to turn to Title X clinics for their basic health care needs. Older adults, both men and women, are able to receive immunizations, physicals, diabetes testing, and STD testing and treatment, in addition to typical gynecological services. If Title X funds are eliminated, these seniors will lose the only access to health care that is available to them. A vote in support of this amendment is a vote in favor of allowing millions of Americans access to vital health care services. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Lowey Amendment to restore funding to Title X.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the dangerous and irresponsible cuts to the State and Foreign Operations budget. This short-sighted budget slashing generates petty savings at the expense of America's long-term national security and economic growth. There are no two ways about it: Our national security depends on investments in development, diplomacy, and defense. As Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, ``The challenges confronting our nation can't be dealt with by military means alone.'' But this legislation and many of the amendments to it are tone deaf to this common sense. Mr. Speaker, this fiscal negligence will come back to haunt us if we cripple our efforts to prevent conflict, promote rule of law, and support the creation of stable allies. I am particularly upset that the Peace Corps, one of our government's most cost-effective tools of peacebuilding, is slashed by $70 million. Do you know what Peace Corps could do with that money? Send 1,400 Americans to high-priority countries in the Middle East, Africa, and around the globe to work on critical projects like education, agricultural development, and HIV/AIDs relief, while promoting goodwill towards America. Similarly, I am concerned about amendments to defund the U.S. Institute of Peace. Our country is fighting a multi-billion dollar war. And as General Petraeus affirmed, USIP works closely with the military in both Afghanistan and Iraq to promote on-the-ground peacebuilding efforts and bring an end to conflict. Yet, as my colleagues propose to increase funding for the war, some have also proposed to eliminate funding for USIP, the only independent government actor that is dedicated solely to conflict prevention and resolution. That makes absolutely no economic sense. Rather than make smart investments in civilian instruments of security, this bill and a lot of the amendments to it cut many other excellent foreign assistance programs with strong returns on investment. These include international family planning, poverty and infectious disease alleviation, and the Inter-American Foundation. As Secretary Gates said, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending in soldiers.'' If we want to be better stewards of taxpayer dollars, then why are we ripping resources away from the low-cost, high-return international programs that create strategic alliances and prevent multi-billion dollar wars? The foreign aid budget is less than two percent of our total federal budget. This boils down to about $126 per American. That's about $100 bucks less than an army service uniform. So, for just $126 a head, America remains the beacon of democracy in the world. Now, that makes good economic sense. Our job in this body is to serve the American people. But what kind of public servants are we if we vote to jeopardize America's national security so we can save a few bucks this year? These cuts to foreign assistance masquerade as fiscal responsibility. But the reality is that this is a short-sighted proposal that endangers our long-term security, stability, and economic health. I strongly oppose this misguided legislation.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Ann Soldo, a generous community leader in California's Pajaro Valley and the first female mayor of Watsonville, California. Ann passed away at the age of 90 on January 24, 2011. She was an admired teacher that taught from the heart and touched the lives of thousands in the Pajaro Valley. Born in Watsonville, California, on May 27, 1920, Ann received a bachelor's degree from San Jose State University in 1942, before getting her Master's degree from Stanford University in 1954. From there, Ann began her 40-year career as an educator on California's Central Coast. In addition to teaching, Ann furthered her contribution to education through her role as principal at several schools including Aptos Junior High, where she was the first female principal. She retired from the Pajaro Valley Unified School District in 1978. In 1999, Ann M. Soldo Elementary School was named in her honor. Ann was the epitome of public service in the Pajaro Valley. She became involved with her local government in 1979, when she was elected to the Watsonville City Council and appointed as Vice-Mayor. From 1983 to 1987, Ann served as the first female mayor of Watsonville. Moreover, she volunteered for numerous community organizations, including the Salvation Army, YWCA, and the Pajaro Valley Historical Association. After the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, she co-chaired the fundraising drive to rebuild a local church and construction of the Henry Mello Center for the Performing Arts. Mr. Speaker, Ann Soldo was an inspiring leader to so many, a woman who dedicated herself to bettering her community. Ann was proud of her Croatian heritage and took comfort in calling the Pajaro Valley home. She was preceded in death by her husband Andrew Soldo and is survived by her sister Grace Leavitt of Newport Beach, California and stepdaughter Mary Ann Jurchan of Colorado. I know that I speak for the whole House in mourning the passing of this dedicated and loving woman. Her life was a gift to her community.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I thank my ranking chair, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). I rise with serious concerns. I am the ranking member of the Agricultural Appropriations Committee. I come from the State that is the leading ag State in the Nation, California, and agriculture is the number one economy in California. We're a State that is really diversified, and we do it without subsidies and we do it by partnerships. The partnership is essentially a public-private partnership, and there is a major role to be able to make the private sector successful with that partnership. We all care about feeding people, all people, whether they are rich or poor. One thing they all have in common is that they want that food to be safe. They want the drink to be safe. They want the drugs that they buy in the stores to be safe. And the problem with this CR, which is very interestingly talked about on their side in the generic of the necessity of cutting the deficit, which we all agree on. But to take a meat axe approach to the USDA and the FDA cuts the safety net for food and drugs. For example, the Food and Safety Inspection Service would have to cut down on their inspectors who have to be in every one of the 6,300 slaughter and processing facilities. If they are not there, there is no work. We would have to close these facilities for months at a time; therefore, putting a lot of people out of work, less jobs, and certainly no food safety. It goes on and on and on. We need to argue these details, not just the generics. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) FSIS is responsible for the safety of domestic and imported meat and poultry. It inspects nearly 6,300 slaughter and processing facilities. Its inspectors are required to be present continuously during the operation of slaughter plants and to inspect every meat and poultry processing plant in the U.S. every day. All imported meat and poultry must also be inspected by FSIS. The Republican proposal would hold funding for FSIS to the 2008 level. The administration estimates that this would require a furlough of all FSIS employees, including all inspectors, for 30-47 working days (which amounts to 20-30 percent of the working days left in the fiscal year assuming enactment on March 4th.) Without inspectors available, meat and poultry plants would be legally required to stop operating. The administration estimates the economic loss from stopping plant operations at $11 billion. It also expects that consumer prices for meat and poultry would rise with the curtailed supply. That's a lot of jobs and food--not only up unemployment but also drive--up prices. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) FDA is responsible for the safety of food, drugs, medical devices, human blood products, vaccines, cosmetics, and many other products. Consumers spend about 20 cents of every dollar on products regulated by FDA. The Republican proposal would fund FDA at about 10 percent below the 2010 level. Coming this late in the fiscal year, much deeper cuts would be necessary to end fiscal year 2011 at the level appropriated in the Republican bill. The administration has estimated that under the Republican proposal there would be 2,000 fewer FDA inspections of firms that manufacture food and medical products; 10,000 fewer FDA import inspections to verify that imported foods and medical products meet safety standards; and analysis of 6,000 fewer food and medical product samples to identify safety problems. In addition, this level will likely lead to furloughs and/or * * *

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I was going to speak on this, but let me tell you why I changed my mind. First of all, I represent the largest number of organic growers in the United States and the headquarters of Earthbound Farm, which is the largest shipper of organic produce in the United States. And what concerns me is that you totally wiped out the program, zeroed it out. It is organic transition grants. One, they are competitive because they are grants. Two, it's about people transitioning from traditional agriculture, which is agriculture that uses pesticides, herbicides, and so on, into organic, where you have to lay your land fallow, which means that you can't, for 3 years, use any of those fumigants on your land. That is what this money goes to, to help you transition. It is not major agriculture that needs these transition grants. It's the really small farmer who finds, as was stated previously, an organic niche that they want to sell to, and they need some assistance both in research and how do you get certified. Because in order to be organic, you have to go out there and have people test everything and be certified as organic before you are allowed to use the ``organic'' label on your marketing. So it's a small amount of money, but to zero it out I think is just going too far. I support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. If the gentleman will yield, I think what is also very important is this is one government program where there is no free lunch. It requires a local match. It requires a contribution by the community, by volunteers. It's not a paid-for program without raising the money in the local media, as you know in your own station and had to do every year in the volunteer drive. When you think about it, you don't go out and match public volunteerism to buy military equipment. You don't match with public volunteerism practically any other thing in American society. This is one budget that really depends on the popularity of the programming in order to get volunteer support, volunteer contributions, and volunteer help in the studios. Why would you cut out something that the private sector and personal commitment think is so important?

Mr. FARR. I would even say it defines our civilization. When you think of programs like StoryCorps, collecting that information for the records and keeping that part of our oral history of America, it is absolutely essential that our culture and our times and that our moment in history and in the world be maintained in the public sector where there isn't private ownership of it.

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me. This is a very important discussion. I wish we could do it really in an open debate where we could have a debate on this, because I don't think that there is a person in this country that doesn't realize how necessary it is to keep our electorate well informed. So I join the chorus of well-informed listeners tonight to support America's Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I find it ironic that the news got released today, the day when you think of a national day of communication, a day when we tell our loved ones how much we appreciate them through words and symbols. And here we are attacking the very essence of America's foundation for information that is not commercial information, that is not paid for to get it and have to have ratings in order to get people to purchase the commercials. It is a sad day that Valentine's Day is used to destroy something we love so much. It is mean news to hear some of my Republican colleagues who want to cut almost half a billion dollars out of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at a time when the world has been dedicated to watching what is going on in the Middle East, in Egypt, which is essentially the essence of communication, the essence of technology, but also the freedom of technology. In America, we don't own stations, like BBC and Canadian Broadcasting where the government owns the stations. We allow nonprofit entities to do the broadcasting, both on radio and television, as you indicated, Mr. Chandler. And I don't think you can raise children in this country without appreciating the value of what is learned, the lessons learned by programs such as Sesame Street and others. But to think that you can just cut this out as a value to a greater debate of balancing the Federal Government by eliminating this, is nuts. This is what I always call the persons who know the price of everything but the absolute value of nothing. Because cutting this, you can come up with a pricetag, but the value you lose to the American public. I wake up, here we are in Congress, and obviously we need all the news we can get. I don't know a Member of Congress who doesn't wake up listening to NPR radio, of all the choices we have, on both sides of the aisle, to get unbiased news in the morning before we come to work. And I know it because when you're on it, people comment the minute you get here. They hear you on NPR, everybody says, I heard you this morning when I was getting ready to come to work. This is not just done by Members of Congress. It's done by everybody in the United States. And what Congressman Blumenauer talked about is the rural parts of America would never have this program; never have access to this information. If you want to destroy rural America, then destroy their access to information. Because then the only thing the young population will do is have to move out in order to keep up. So we have to make sure that these nonsensical cuts, which have dramatic and negative impacts, are not made to this budget. Let's sustain the budget to keep Americans well-informed and ensure future generations of the richness of public broadcasting. Let's give back our hearts and minds to the American public by maintaining PBS.

Mr. FARR. Thank you for your leadership. It is absolutely essential to America's well-being.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, tonight I felt compelled to vote against extending the three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act that continue to give the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States and, in some cases, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. These intrusive and sweeping powers stand in stark contrast to the fundamental individual privacy rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution. All three surveillance provisions are unnecessary, they do not protect us against terrorism, and they should have been allowed to expire long ago. I am appalled by the blatant disregard for the civil liberties of innocent Americans who have absolutely no connection to the global war on terrorism, and I look forward to a time when these provisions are no longer the law of the land.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise with serious concerns with the lack of debate in this House. I was taught growing up that there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. The right way is to look before you leap. We are not today looking at the consequences of our actions. Reckless cuts are as dangerous as reckless spending. While the Democrats talk about creating more jobs, the other side talks about the race to the bottom in fiscal cuts. Think about it. You can't create jobs by removing the foundation that creates an educated workforce. Cutting access to education won't create more jobs. Cutting job training won't create a more competitive workforce. Cutting social safety nets won't save lives. Not having hearings on the impacts of our cuts is not a smart thing to do. That's why my granddaughter reminds me we should stop, look, and listen before we cross the street. But not the new Congress, which embraces a race to the bottom rather than informed reductions. We should look before we leap. It might save jobs and lives.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican Study Commission's proposed cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development. This proposal comes as USAID undergoes systemic reforms that will bolster American power, fortify our national security, and realize long-term savings. Budget slashing now cuts these reforms off at the knees and seriously jeopardizes our international security and standing. USAID is transforming itself into a modern development enterprise. Like any good business enterprise, USAID has put a laser-sharp focus on delivering the highest possible value to its shareholders, the American taxpayers. Already, USAID has launched efforts to increase efficiency, dramatically reduce contracting, strengthen evaluation and oversight, and promote capacity development. Taken together, these complex initiatives will enable USAID to achieve better results faster at lower costs. And lower costs mean that USAID can be a better steward of taxpayer dollars. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending in soldiers.'' Truly, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. USAID civilian efforts do the essential front- end work to prevent violence in the first place by strengthening democratic governance, promoting rule of law, and supporting infrastructure growth to eliminate the root causes of conflict and develop peaceful, secure states. When countries are stable, the likelihood of extremist elements diminishes and vibrant economic markets and partnership for U.S. exports emerges. USAID is helping to create strong local capacity so that development assistance is no longer necessary. USAID is truly working itself out of a job. What could be more cost-effective than that? Finally, international development is not a partisan issue. It is an American value that reflects our fundamental belief in progress and peace. When we invest in foreign assistance, we promote international stability and build strong allies. USAID has laid the foundation to become a more effective, efficient, transparent instrument of our national security apparatus and diplomacy toolbox. Now more than ever, USAID needs Congressional support to fully realize these reforms and restore American power abroad. I strongly urge my colleagues to reconsider this misguided proposal.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the current participants of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program. The Uni- Capitol Washington Internship Program is a unique eight week experience that brings some of the most dedicated Australian university students who have exhibited a passion for civic engagement and public service to Washington, DC to work in Congressional offices. This year, I am honored to welcome Elizabeth `Liz' Noble into my Washington, DC office and I'm thrilled to have the opportunity to participate in this valuable exchange program, as I have since this program was established in 2000. Since its inception, the program has seen 118 young Australians walk the halls of Congress in various capacities and it is with the utmost pride that I recognize the importance of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program in the United States House of Representatives. Ms. Noble joined my office on January 3, 2011 from the University of Canberra where she is pursuing her B.A. in International Studies and Political Communication. During her time in my office, Liz has proven herself to be a tremendously caring, intelligent and dedicated intern and I am honored to host her. In addition to serving my constituents with professionalism and respect, she has attended hearings and briefings, drafted legislative correspondence and has assisted my staffers with a variety of important research projects. Founded and directed by former House and Senate staffer, Eric Federing, the program fosters cultural and educational exchanges between the United States and Australia. Mr. Federing deserves distinguished praise for his efforts in coordinating this program and the support he provides to all participants is truly incredible. Outside of working in Democratic and Republican House, Senate and Committee offices, interns are given the opportunity to explore our brand of democracy through panel discussions with political correspondents, Members of Congress and representatives from various government offices as well as professionals at non-government agencies. Mr. Speaker, I cannot fully express how remarkable the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program is and how critical it is to strengthening ties with America's allies. Participating in this special exchange is a memorable experience that will stay with Liz, her peers and my staff for the rest of their lives. I extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. Federing for developing and organizing this program, to my fellow Members of Congress and their dedicated staff for hosting, to Liz for grasping this opportunity with an open heart and a curious mind and to all participants for engaging in public service. I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing the contributions of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program and, again, thank Elizabeth Noble for her admirable participation and diligent work.