Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed emotions but in support of the rule. I represent the Salinas Valley, which is one of the most productive agricultural regions of the world. We are the ``Salad Bowl Capital'' of the world. And when you produce fresh produce, for example, lettuce, you don't have a kill step. You can't boil it before you eat it, so you have to be very careful about how you grow this material--lettuce, broccoli, brussels sprouts and all of those things--so you don't have contamination coming from the field. We have had recalls, the E. coli recall, a very serious recall, and the difficulty we have had over the years is that essentially the Federal responsibility for food safety is in the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA. The responsibility for poultry inspection and meat inspection is in the Department of Agriculture. So you have a split responsibility in this country, and it has been that way for a long, long time. What you hear in this bill is we need to have some national standards. The authority for those standards lies, for other than meat and poultry, with the Food and Drug Administration. So if you are going to get these standards and get some national credibility and an equal playing field, then you are going to have to work on the food safety for agriculture and organic and all of those others in this legislation. We have been trying to do that, and the author of the bill, John Dingell, has been a tremendous help in trying to understand the nuances of small farmers, of organic farmers and others that are selling to farmers' markets. But I hear from all my ag folks that they may not want the FDA, who don't know much about growing practices, to be out there. They do agree we need to have these national standards, that this is the only way we are going to ensure that all food we serve in this country, which has the safest food in the world, is going to be even safer. So I share the concerns raised by the minority, but I think that the best answer to the problem is to work in a constructive way so that we can develop constructive regulations that benefit everyone, and that is an equal playing field, not a split between the USDA and the FDA.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). We are passing an historic food safety measure today, and I truly appreciate the effort that you and committee staff have made to move this legislation to the floor today. As a Member of Congress who represents the Salad Bowl of the World, Salinas Valley, I feel landmark legislation is long overdue and look forward to working with my colleague as the process moves to the Senate and to the conference committee. Also as a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working with the gentleman to allocate the resources necessary to make the safest food in the world even safer. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention my concerns with the fee structure in this measure, and I appreciate the effort by the chairman and the committee, and it's my preference to find a more equitable fee that does not inhibit our farm families from taking advantage of new markets. As a member of the Organic Caucus, I have concerns about the interplay between this bill and the National Organic Program. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that this bill would not establish any requirements for organically produced or processed products which are in conflict with the requirements established in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and USDA's National Organic Program regulations.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the southern sea otters are a keystone species, as the chairwoman pointed out. That means that if they break the chain, the whole ecological system falls apart. And essentially, what you find in the oceans are the sea urchins are kind of like the snails of the ocean. They eat the seaweed. And if the sea urchins go unchecked, you'll clearcut the oceans and have no habitat for all the fish and other things that live in the kelp beds. So the sea otters, by eating urchins--and frankly, we have a big urchin industry in California as well--have been compatible for years and years. The problem we have with the southern sea otters is that it's a remarkable recovery, and it's a tribute to Federal law that listed them, because they were less than 100 animals, and now they're up to about 2,000. But guess what? They're not growing and there are less than there were a few years ago. So there is something happening to this species that nobody can understand. And that's why you need specific legislation to try to get--as the bill points out, it's a research bill. And I want to point out to the ranking member, Mr. Hastings, that where he pointed out that we shouldn't have these management sort of by single caveat, although we have done, in law, the African Elephant, the Bald and the Golden Eagle--and I know those are important to you in your district--the Tule Elk Preservation Act, the Fur Seal Act, the Crown of Thorns Starfish Act, the North Pacific Halibut Act, the Salmon Conservation Act, and the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation; those are just 8 which I could quickly find, and I'm sure there's a lot more. I think that the crisis here of the sea otter, and, frankly, it's a big economic issue, too, because those of us who live along the central coast of California, it is a big draw for tourism, and that's why the Monterey Bay Aquarium, their single-most looked at and visited exhibit is the sea otters. So this bill came about with a lot of work from a lot of organizations. There's 13 organizations that have gone in support of this bill and brought these issues to us, including the Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Sea Otter, The Humane Society of the United States, the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Oceana, and many others, and they represent about 14 million members. So I'm pleased that we were able to work out this bill with the committee and bring it to the floor and hopefully get it adopted so that we can figure out why this canary species, if the sea otters are dying, then something else is happening that is very keen to the coastal and near-shore environment that affects the well-being of mankind. So I would appreciate your support on this bill. It is important to good science and to the preservation of our marine ecosystem.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to some of the false statements of my colleagues. It has been said repeatedly that the American people are suffering and job losses are at an all-time high and that this is the Democratic response--to debate a bill about horse welfare. But this bill will actually save taxpayer money. It reforms an inefficient program that wastes taxpayer dollars, and makes it a fiscally responsible program. My colleagues also say that this bill will cost $700 million or more. This is unequivocally false. This is simply fear-mongering. The truth is that the bill promotes on-the-range management and reduces the number of horses in costly short-term and long-term holding facilities, partly through more widespread use of fertility control. In FY 2008, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) spent $36.2 million on its entire wild horse and burro program and the cost of holding wild horses and burros in its facilities exceeded $27 million--more than two-thirds of the BLM's total budget. The current program is a train wreck, and H.R. 1018 addresses the core problems of this program. By implementing herd reduction with birth control, the U.S. Geological Survey says H.R. 1018 will save taxpayers $7.7 million a year and the Journal of Wildlife Management says it will save ``$6.1'' million a year. In addition, it has been said that the management of wild horses and burros only affects western states. This is simply ridiculous because every American, not only those in western states, pays tax dollars to a fiscally irresponsible program to manage these horses. H.R. 1018 will save all American taxpayers money by increasing the efficiency of the BLM program. I have also heard arguments that no one is talking about slaughter and that it should not be a part of the debate. However, it is a fact that the BLM was going to slaughter 30,000 completely healthy horses, not terminally ill ones, because there was not enough space for them. H.R. 1018 will prevent this from happening. The status quo cannot be allowed to continue. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1018 and no on the Hastings amendment.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I hear from the other side that government takes over health care. I'm just wondering which one of you Members is going to give up your Navy doctors downstairs to take care of you. Which one of you is going to give up your Federal health care plan which insures all the members of your family? Which one of you is going to give up Medicare for all of your constituents? Which one of you is going to give up the veterans' care in the veterans' clinics that are in your districts? Which one of you who loves the military that is doing such a great job of defending our country in Iraq and in Afghanistan is going to take away the military TRICARE program? Yes, government is involved in health care. It sure is. That's what our country is surviving and living on. Let's make this work and stop attacking each other.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FARR. There is absolutely no competition with the private sector. They have endorsed this. They are the members of the board of directors. They are trying to assist this community to get on its feet. And why I take umbrage with this, there are 201 earmarks in this piece of legislation. The author of this amendment has chosen 11 to go after. And they are about attacking poor people, the poorest of poor. That is what incubator centers are about, to get people on their feet, people who can't get loans, can't get access to the capital that the normal business community can do. And who is helping them? The business people who say, yes, we need these jobs. These are niche jobs that are unfilled. If you're going to begin the entrepreneurial spirit in America, then you have to get people into the entrepreneurial capability. That is legal. That is fiscal. And that is what this does. So I object to the fact that you have gone through this bill and only picked out 11 of 201 earmarks, less than 10 percent of this bill. If you want to attack earmarks, attack an F-22. Attack something that is big that really saves some money, instead of something that attacks poor people.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment doesn't save the Federal taxpayer one penny. It just takes it out of the earmark and puts it into the general fund. This earmark is to help the poorest of the poor get on their feet. I recommend a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. And let me explain, as others have explained the situation. Pajaro Valley is in the central part of California. It is probably the most agriculturally productive area in the region and in the whole Nation. It is also the epicenter for the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. It was the largest plant closure for food processing plants, and it now has an unemployment rate of over 25 percent. We have been struggling for many years to try to get involved in how do you create businesses, create new businesses, create businesses that people who have no capital, have no ability to go out and borrow money can start. And a lot of that is cottage industry. One of the cottage industries is the catering business, areas where you learn to be chefs at restaurants, learn, particularly with all of our specialty crops and organic crops, how do you take those crops and move them to the next stage. It is also a struggle because in order to do that and to get into the commercial world, you have to have a commercially licensed kitchen. So we have been struggling. The local community is very involved in this. Local businessmen sit on the board of directors of the community development corporation. This is a corporation set up under Federal law. Under the small business development corporations, you have bankers sitting on this, you have business people sitting on it, and you have lawyers sitting on it. And what they do is they work with people in giving them the skills they need to go into business for themselves. Part of that is to build a place where you can come and learn all of this food processing and food cooking. You need to have a kitchen. It needs to be industrialized. It needs to be certified. You just can't run a business out of the back of your home. It is just not legal in a residential area to start a commercial enterprise like that. It has strong backing from the small business community. This is a one-time expenditure, never to be done again. I really have to say that I object to going after the poorest of the poor who want to get on their feet, who want to get off welfare and have that American Dream. And this is one area, one niche, that everybody has identified as a niche that needs to be filled. So I think this amendment would kill the American Dream. I suggest that you oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the public service career of Mr. John Bradford on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Forest Service. After over thirty years, John is giving up the every day pressures and demands of Forest Service management for the every day pressures and demands of a gentleman farmer. I have had the great pleasure of working with John for the last eight years during his tenure as the district ranger of the Los Padres National Forest's Monterey Ranger District, known to the rest of the world as Big Sur. Having represented the Big Sur coast at the local, state, and now federal level, for more than thirty years, I can attest to the combination of vibrant community and stunning beauty that define the Big Sur region. John excelled in navigating the Big Sur communities various cross currents while protecting the incredible resources under his charge. Growing up, John spent a lot of time with wood and in the woods. He is a forth generation member of a family-owned San Joaquin Valley commercial lumber company, the Modesto and Stanislaus Lumber Co. As an adolescent and young man, he was active in the Boy Scouts, attaining the rank of Eagle Scout and managing several Boy Scout camps in the Sierras and Southern California. During this time he became familiar with the Forest Service and decided he wanted to be a forester rather than a lumberman. John began his Forest Service career in 1978 as a forestry technician on the Shasta Trinity National Forest. The next dozen years saw John in a variety of timber management jobs on national forests throughout California and Arizona. On the Modoc National Forest, John led the reforestation of hundreds of acres, an accomplishment of which he is particularly proud. In the mid-1990s, John shifted his focus to planning, becoming the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) coordinator for the Tahoe National Forest. From 1999 to 2001, John worked with the Forest Service Region V office on several regional planning efforts. In 2001, he achieved his career goal of becoming a district ranger. It was the good fortune of my district that John achieved that goal as the district ranger of the Monterey District. During his tenure in the Monterey District, I worked with John on many different projects, both big and small. In 2002, I authored legislation that expanded the Monterey District's designated wilderness by over 55,000 acres. John worked closely with my office in helping shape the final bill and in implementing it once passed. John took the lead in incorporating the Bixby ranch into Forest Service ownership following a controversial purchase. John regularly participated in the quarterly Big Sur Multi Agency community meeting that I co-chair where the Big Sur community engages in a free and open dialogue with the various public agencies that have a role in managing Big Sur resources. Most recently, John was at the center of the multi agency response to the 2008 combined Basin Complex and Indians fires that covered over 240,000 acres combined--one of the largest wildfires in California history. Madam Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House in expressing gratitude to John and his wife Julie, also a career Forest Service employee, for devoting his life to public service. We thank him for a job well done and wish him every success in his future life in retirement.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the public service career of Mr. Frank Pinney on the occasion of his retirement as Chief of the Big Sur Volunteer Fire Brigade after thirty-five years, seventeen as Chief. I have known Frank for a long time and have called him many things over the years: chief; mayor, community volunteer, community leader, mentor, neighbor, trusted advisor, public safety expert, friend, and above all, public servant. It is in this last capacity that I speak today about the great difference that Frank has made to the community that he has called home for nearly forty years. Frank Pinney arrived in Big Sur in the early 1970s. At that time Big Sur residents relied upon Monterey based crews for fire protection along 70 miles of remote rugged coastline. It could take an hour or more for those trained firefighters to arrive at a house fire or other emergency. Soon after he arrived in Big Sur, Frank joined a community based effort to organize its own volunteer fire protection service. And so in August 1974, the Big Sur Volunteer Fire Brigade was born with Frank Pinney among its first members. Frank soon displayed an unsurpassed commitment to the Fire Brigade's public safety mission. In 1975, he became the Brigade's training officer and in 1978 won election as the Brigade foreman. Other milestones included engine company captain, 1982 Outstanding Firemen of the Year, and Assistant Chief for Administration in 1985. He also assisted the Brigades development by spear-heading the effort to secure its 501(c)(3) non-profit status in 1983 and managing the capital fund and actual construction of the Brigade's firehouse in 1991. All of this work and devotion culminated in 1992 with Frank's election as Brigade Chief, a role in which he became synonymous with the Brigade itself. Over the course of his career with the Brigade, Frank was at the heart of efforts to protect the local community and the millions of annual visitors to Big Sur from common car accidents to major wildfires. This included service during the 1977 Marble Cone fire, 1983 El Nino land slides, and the 1985 Rat Creek fire. As Chief he helped lead the response as a member of the incident command to the 1996 Sur fire, the 1998 winter land slides, and the 1999 Kirk fire. Frank surpassed all this work with his efforts during last year's monumental Basin Complex fire. The Basin Complex fire, and the adjacent Indians fire, burned over 240,000 acres of Big Sur coastland and back country and over 25 homes. This event became one of the largest wildfires in California history and nearly destroyed the heart of the Big Sur community. Frank participated in the Basin Complex incident command and played a critical role in bringing his local knowledge and experience to the Forest Service and Cal Fire leadership running the massive fire fighting effort. ``Public service,'' ``community organizing,'' and ``volunteerism'' are all frequently heard in conversations today. But these words alone fail to do justice to Frank for he has been the very embodiment of these ideals--all the more so in light of the purely voluntary nature of his Fire Brigade work. Madam Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House in both commending Frank Pinney for his dedication to the public good and in holding out his public service record as an example for the whole nation.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Chairman Edwards, for yielding. Madam Chairman, I just want to rise to speak on this bill, and I just want to say something following Congressman Young's points. What I love about this committee, more than any other committee I have ever served on in the State legislature or here in Congress, I think it's the best listening committee I have ever been on. We listen to people, and what I call the felt needs, and we respond. I think what we are so proud about is the fiscal year 2010 military construction and veterans spending bill responds to what we heard and addresses those issues. What I think is remarkably progressively happening in this country is that for the first time these two huge agencies, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, are beginning to be seamless in a sense. I mean, you can't be a veteran without going through the Department of Defense. And the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs Shinseki has said that the minute you enroll in the Department of Defense you are automatically enrolled in the Department of Veterans Affairs. So you are going to begin seeing this, rather than having these lost records and folders and everything that needs to be done, that it will be administratively clean. What I also really appreciate about this committee that probably is not recognized is that we hear over and over again about the health care of our veterans. And I can't think of two more sensitive people than Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wamp and our colleague on the committee, Patrick Kennedy, that listened so profoundly to the needs of mental health care for veterans, not only those coming back with posttraumatic stress syndrome from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have about 270,000 veterans that sleep on the streets of America. That's the biggest embarrassment that this country has. We have not been that good at taking care of them. This budget puts $800 million more in mental health and does the outreach for homeless veterans. I am very proud of that and would urge support of the legislation.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise in strong support of this. And the answer to your question is the President has not endorsed your position. He has not asked us to cut this amount. The reason is that there are 12,000 Americans that applied for Peace Corps jobs that can't be filled because there isn't enough money to fill them. There are 20 other countries that want Peace Corps in them. We can't expand the program because there isn't enough money for it. That's why the committee put more money in it. This is the most effective foreign aid program, the most effective domestic program. If we are going to curtail violence in the world, we have got to do it through initiating what is best in America by sending more and more Peace Corps volunteers to countries who want them. To the people who apply for the jobs, there is only room for one out of every four applicants because of the money. So this $450 million is exactly what President Obama has said in his campaign speeches--that he wanted to double the Peace Corps. You can't double it without putting more money in it. So I object to your opinion that Mr. Obama, President Obama, supports your amendment. He does not, and neither do the people in this House or the other House. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record Senator Christopher Bond's letter asking for $450 million from the Senate for an Appropriations Committee. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, July 9, 2009. Hon. Patrick Leahy, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Senate Dirksen Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Judd Gregg, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Senate Dirksen Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Gregg: President Obama pledged to double the number of Peace Corps volunteers by 2011--a goal I strongly support--but unfortunately failed to provide the necessary funding to do so in his budget request. The House of Representatives has already acted to correct this oversight by increasing funds for the Peace Corps to $450 million for fiscal year 2010. I hope that in the House-Senate Conference Committee the Senate's conferees will support providing additional resources the Peace Corps needs to accomplish their critical mission. The need for the Peace Corps has never been more important. There is no doubt that anti-Americanism is growing throughout the world. One of the most effective tools to combat, this anti-Americanism and other extremist ideologies is the Peace Corps, which remains one of the United States' most effective grassroots diplomacy and development programs. In addition to the growing need for the Peace Corps, the demand is up as well. The Peace Corps reports that as many as twenty nations are interested in starting Peace Corps programs where none currently exist, and there are real opportunities to expand and improve upon existing programs. An increased investment in Peace Corps will support an expansion of Americans serving our country as volunteers, enable new country programs to be established in strategic-- and too long ignored--countries like Indonesia, and continue the collaboration and integration of volunteers into our foreign assistance priority program areas, like basis education, agriculture and nutrition, global health, and HIV/ AIDS prevention and treatment. Expanding and strengthening our Peace Corps would provide an immediate opportunity to realize America's commitment to global leadership and citizen service. Smart Power initiatives like the Peace Corps should be a cornerstone in our foreign policy and in our efforts to combat extremism and terrorism around the world. Your recognition and support of these critical efforts is invaluable. Chairmen Leahy and Ranking Member Gregg, I appreciate your difficult task of balancing the many competing Smart Power priorities with limited resources and I appreciate the subcommittee's support for my additional Smart Power requests like international exchanges, biotechnology research and public diplomacy to name a few. However, I also believe it is critical that we work together to support an increased investment in the Peace Corps above the President's request. Our nation must reinvigorate the Peace Corps as part of its overall effort to strengthen our Smart Power efforts. Sincerely, Christopher S. Bond.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 30th anniversary of the Big Sur Health Center, an independent, state-licensed, not-for- profit, community clinic, nestled in the heart of the beautiful Big Sur Valley. The Center is the only source of out-patient care for the 1,500 residents of the over 100 miles of remote and mountainous Big Sur coast. The Center also serves nearly 3,000,000 tourists who visit the Big Sur coast each year. It is crucial to the welfare of the Big Sur Community. As a Big Sur resident myself, I applaud the work of the health center staff and volunteers who do so much for their neighbors and visitors alike. The Center grew out of a local, grass-roots effort in the late 1970s, to meet the needs of this rural community to provide quality comprehensive medical care to all in Big Sur regardless of a patient's ability to pay. At that time, I represented Big Sur as a Monterey County Supervisor. I had the great pleasure of working with Ray Sanborn, Dr. Saul Kunitz and other community leaders. The Center finally opened its doors in September 1979. By 1985, it had become a 501(c)(3) corporation with a volunteer Board of Directors. That same year BSHC relocated from the Big Sur Grange Hall to its current location on the grounds of the All Saints Episcopal Church. In 2004, following a community-wide fundraising effort, the Center moved out of its old trailers into a new building at that site. Over the years the Center has developed into a busy family practice with over 2,600 patient visits annually. In the last few years the Center has also embarked on several important outreach initiatives. These included an oral health program emphasizing childhood dental care, a program to work with families and school districts to reverse growing rates of childhood obesity, and a multi year effort to reach out to the Big Sur coast's substantial Spanish speaking population. This spirit of service and professionalism was apparent during the summer and fall of 2008 when the second largest wildfire in California's history besieged the Big Sur community for the better part of two months. The Center staff worked hand in hand with the fire response authorities to help treat injured fire fighters so that they could return to their crews to continue their important work. Looking to the future, the Center has fully embraced the move to electronic medical records championed by the Congress and President Obama. The Big Sur Health Center has developed and implemented an information technology system that provides practice management, electronic medical records and electronic health information exchange, and assures the protection of critical patient data in the event of a disaster that threatens or destroys the facility. In addition, this system allows for remote access to documents and facilitates patient management in the event of after-hours emergency room visits, or during a community disaster that closes the center. Retrieval of information for disease management in key populations, quality measures reporting, tracking of data and State-mandated annual clinic reporting is no longer the cumbersome and time consuming project of past times. Electronic retrieval and reactivation of patient health records is now done rapidly and accurately. The result is great savings to the Center and faster, better, more attentive care to the patient. Madam Speaker, the Big Sur Health Center is a national treasure. It exemplifies a kind of dedicated grass-roots based health service that will be a key ingredient in a reformed American healthcare system-- first rate medical care, cutting edge technology, in a community based setting. I know I speak for the whole House in extending our congratulations to the Center for a successful thirty years and our wishes for many more to come.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the underlying bill. I wasn't going to speak on it, but it just gets bothersome sometimes to see how much time we spend on debating a rule. I mean, this process is very open. There's no other process in the world that is as open as the process inside Congress. And to say that you're denied access to the hearings that set up the bill, to the markups, all of these things are very open. I served for 13 years in the California legislature, a full-time professional legislature. We didn't have rules for each debate that we were going to conduct on the floor. So in all the years I have served in Congress, I have never been asked how did you vote on a rule or was the rule an open rule or a closed rule or whatever. These are pretty esoteric terms of inside Congress. And to suggest that that process is denying people access to a process to make a law and decide how to spend money on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, I think, is an exercise in a little bit of futility. The substance underlying here is very good. It's about how we spend the money, taxpayers' money, on these agencies that are responsible for overseeing our food safety, for overseeing the incredible array of agriculture that we have in this country unlike any other country in the world. The diversity is incredible. Just the county I represent grows 85 different crops. I don't think there's another county in the United States or the world that grows 85 different crops, $3 billion in sales. So all fresh fruit and vegetables, things that you're eating in your salad today, a lot of it harvested by immigrants. It's an amazing thing because the Department of Agriculture also does the rural infrastructure, rural electric, rural water, rural farm work, farm worker housing and things like that, kind of the essence of a culture of a rural community. Broadband communication systems. We have a very competent chairwoman, and she has brought a great bill to the floor, and I ask that you support the rule.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding life-work of Dr. Lynda J. Goff. Dr. Goff has served with distinction as a Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz for more than 30 years. Dr. Goff has decided to take the next step in her life, and is retiring from the University of California. While she will no longer be a faculty member, her legacy of outstanding dedication to California and the scientific community at large shall be persistent. Dr. Goff is a devoted and truly inspiring biology teacher. In the tenure of over three decades, she has taught 10,000 university students, and has supervised the research of more than 100 graduate students. Her noteworthy achievements include teaching and researching molecular plant and marine biology on all seven continents. She has the honor of having significantly contributed to seven expeditions to Antarctica and twenty in the Arctic. Her exemplary teaching led her to serve in the distinguished role of Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education from 1999 to 2004, and subsequently as the first director of the ``California Teach'' program. Dr. Goff played a pivotal role in creating this program, established to increase the number of highly trained K-12 science and mathematics teachers in California--something our nation desperately needs. She dedicated herself wholeheartedly to ensure that California, and indeed our great Nation, increases its competitiveness in math and science in the 21st Century. Professor Goff has received national and international recognition for her scientific research, much of which has centered on cell-cell and genome interaction in algae and the evolution of parasitism. Dr. Goff has been a solid pillar in the Monterey Bay community for years; not only as a distinguished professor, but also as an elementary science teacher, a naturalist and photographer. Her work embodies what California's central coast prides: experiencing the beauty of nature, seeking to understand the mysteries of our oceans' flora and fauna and giving back to the community to ensure our posterity's brighter future. I would like to thank her for her meritorious service to California and commend her for her many accomplishments.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who dedicated his life to serving our nation during Operation Enduring Freedom. Eduardo Silva of Greenfield, California served our country as Specialist in the United States Army and was a devoted husband and a proud son. Specialist Silva died in Iraq earlier this month. Eduardo enlisted in the Army in August 2006 and was deployed to Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan in July 2008 where he was a food service specialist. He was assigned to the 563rd Aviation Support Battalion, 159th Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, U.S. Army, Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Eduardo's life inspired the lives of others. He was a proud resident of Greenfield where he graduated as Valedictorian from Vista Verde Middle School and excelled at Greenfield High School. At an early age, he learned to appreciate the arts as a student of music. As a result, for his actions both at home and abroad, there is no measure of devotion we as a community can dedicate to Eduardo. This soldier, husband, and son shall be remembered for his caring, altruistic life. Held closest to Eduardo's heart is the love and support of his wife and partner, Rosalinda, and his family. The memories the family has shared of Eduardo depict an honorable, caring, selfless man who gave without hesitation. It is evident the Silva family is proud of the example Eduardo left on his community. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives, I would like to extend our nation's deepest gratitude for Specialist Eduardo Silva's service to the United States of America and for his many accomplishments as a husband and son.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Chairman Berman, and thank you, Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I rise not on this amendment but just to make a comment on the Peace Corps because I was just thinking, as hearing about the amendment, that had we fulfilled John F. Kennedy's dream in the 1960s to have 100,000 Peace Corps volunteers serving overseas throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and this decade, we might have avoided the disaster in Sudan. And I want to commend the committee because on the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps, which is in 2011, we have now only 6,000 volunteers serving in 78 countries, and the price tag of that is less than one weapons system. It's a drop in the bucket; $350 million for that incredible service that we are having from our country. And what I want to commend the committee on and all of them is the strong support for strengthening U.S. diplomacy with a consistent new vision for a global engagement, and I think that's the global engagement that President Obama has promised this country and is now seeing delivered. And with that, this bill authorizes an increase in Peace Corps funding and will allow the Peace Corps to build to the point where we have 20 countries that are asking for Peace Corps volunteers. We have about 12,000 people a year that volunteer to go in the Peace Corps, that sign up, and we can only take 4,000. That's all we can afford. So all of these 20 countries have been waiting in line and haven't been able to get attention to adding Peace Corps. And what's interesting is that, as I have sort of dealt with some other issues here, for example, on food hunger in sub-Saharan Africa, I just recently read a report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. It called for 300 to 600 new volunteers in sub-Saharan Africa to work on agriculture as a step toward America's reasserting global leadership in the fight against hunger and food insecurity. The point was that the only way you're going to really deliver that effort is by getting people who are going to live in the community, who are going to live on the ground and work with people in the fields, and the only organization we have that does that in the Federal Government is the U.S. Peace Corps. I don't know if you saw it today, but what the committee did in strengthening this provision of the bill, the new Rwanda President, Paul Kagame, who is the President of the Republic of Rwanda, wrote a letter, and I will just paraphrase parts of his letter: ``We view the return of the Peace Corps as a significant event in Rwanda's recovery. These young men and women represent what is good about America. I have met former volunteers who have run major aid programs here, invested in our businesses, and I even count them among my friends and close advisors.'' He goes on to say: ``While some consider development mostly in terms of infusion of capital, budgets, and head counts, we in Rwanda place equal importance to relationships between peoples who have a passion to learn from one another, preparing the next generation of teachers, administrators, and CEOs to see the exchange of values and ideas as the way to build the competencies of our people and to create a prosperous nation. ``We will do this because we see that the only investment with the possibility of infinite returns is in our children, and because after a couple of years in Rwanda, working and learning with our people, these Peace Corps volunteers will be our sons and daughters, too.'' There is no more loved organization in the world than the United States Peace Corps. And at this time when American image abroad has been suffering in many ways, it keeps growing in this particular service. So as a return Peace Corps volunteer, I am very thankful and delighted that this committee grew the Peace Corps to the demand out there in the world and among the Americans who want to serve. I want to thank you for that. I will submit President Kagame's statement in the Record. A Different Discussion About Aid The United States of America has just sent a small number of its sons and daughters as Peace Corps volunteers to serve as teachers and advisors in Rwanda. They have arrived to assist, and we appreciate that. We are aware that this comes against the backdrop of increasingly scarce resources, of budget discussions and campaign promises, and of tradeoffs between defense and domestic priorities like health care and infrastructure investments. All that said, I believe we need to have a different discussion concerning the potential for bilateral aid. The Peace Corps have returned to our country after 15 years. They were evacuated in 1994 just a short time before Rwanda collapsed into a genocide that killed over one million people in three months. Things have improved a lot in recent years. There is peace and stability throughout the nation. We have a progressive constitution that is consensus-driven, provides for power sharing, embraces diversity, and promotes the participation of women, who now represent the majority in our parliament. Our economy grew by more than 11 percent last year, even as the world entered a recession. We have chosen high-end segments of the coffee and tea markets in which to compete, and attract the most demanding world travelers to our tourism experiences. This has enabled us to increase wages by over 20 percent each year over the last eight years--sustained by, among other things, investment in education, health and ICT. We view the return of the Peace Corps as a significant event in Rwanda's recovery. These young men and women represent what is good about America; I have met former volunteers who have run major aid programs here, invested in our businesses, and I even count them among my friends and close advisors. Peace Corps volunteers are well educated, optimistic, and keen to assist us as we continue to rebuild, but one must also recognize that we have much to offer them as well. We will, for instance, show them our system of community justice, called Gacaca, where we integrated our need for nationwide reconciliation with our ancient tradition of clemency, and where violators are allowed to reassume their lives by proclaiming their crimes to their neighbors, and asking for forgiveness. We will present to them Rwanda's unique form of absolution, where the individuals who once exacted such harm on their neighbors and ran across national borders to hide from justice are being invited back to resume their farms and homes to live peacefully with those same families. We will show your sons and daughters our civic tradition of Umuganda, where one day a month, citizens, including myself, congregate in the fields to weed, clean our streets, and build homes for the needy. We will teach your children to prepare and enjoy our foods and speak our language. We will invite them to our weddings and funerals, and out into the communities to observe our traditions. We will teach them that in Africa, family is a broad and all-encompassing concept, and that an entire generation treats the next as its own children. And we will have discussions in the restaurants, and debates in our staff rooms and classrooms where we will learn from one another: What is the nature of prosperity? Is it subsoil assets, location and sunshine, or is it based on human initiative, the productivity of our firms, the foresight of our entrepreneurs? What is a cohesive society, and how can we strengthen it? How can we improve tolerance and build a common vision between people who perceive differences in one another, increase civic engagement, interpersonal trust, and self-esteem? How does a nation recognize and develop the leaders of future generations? What is the relationship between humans and the earth? And how are we to meet our needs while revering the earth as the womb of humankind? These are the questions of our time. While some consider development mostly in terms of infusion of capital, budgets and head counts, we in Rwanda place equal importance to relationships between peoples who have a passion to learn from one another, preparing the next generation of teachers, administrators and CEOs to see the exchange of values and ideas as the way to build the competencies of our people, and to create a prosperous nation. We will do this because we see that the only investment with the possibility of infinite returns is in our children, and because after a couple of years in Rwanda, working and learning with our people, these Peace Corps volunteers will be our sons and daughters, too.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, Chairman Berman and the entire Foreign Affairs committee are to be commended for bringing an excellent bill to the floor. These much needed reforms reflect Congress' strong support for strengthening U.S. diplomacy and are consistent with the new vision for global engagement championed by President Obama. As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I am very pleased that H.R. 2410 authorizes $450 million for Peace Corps. I'd like to express my appreciation to Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for including Peace Corps in the their bill and for supporting a substantial increase that will help send volunteers to the 20 countries that have already requested Peace Corps volunteers. Recently, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs called for 300 to 600 new volunteers in Sub-Sahara Africa to work on agriculture as a step toward America reasserting global leadership in the fight against hunger and food insecurity. The Chicago Council notes that ``The Peace Corps' presence goes a long way toward convincing people that America knows about their circumstances, is committed to partnership to lift them out of poverty and is willing to send hard-working Americans, experienced in agriculture, to live and work with them for an extended period.'' Rwanda's President recently wrote, ``We view the return of the Peace Corps as a significant event in Rwanda's recovery. These young men and women represent what is good about America; I have met former volunteers who have run major aid programs here, invested in our businesses, and I even count them among my friends and close advisors.'' Peace Corps volunteers live and work in the poorest communities in countries around the world. The work that they do day in and day out is the finest expression of American generosity and solidarity that our government has to offer. I enthusiastically support H.R. 2410 and urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam President, today the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California will celebrate its 100th anniversary. Founded a century ago as the School of Marine Engineering at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, the Naval Postgraduate School has grown in response to a changing world. The school moved to Monterey, California in 1951, taking over the landmark Hotel Del Monte resort. Today, NPS is a global leader in national security and defense-related education and research. The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) is a unique graduate school--an institution dedicated to providing education and research with a focus on relevance to the defense and security arenas and on recognizing and innovatively solving problems in support of our military forces, our country's global partners and our national security. NPS provides high-quality, relevant and unique advanced education and research programs that increase the combat effectiveness of the Naval Services, other Armed Forces of the U.S. and our partners, to enhance our national security. NPS is one of the oldest and most prestigious institutions belonging to the United States Department of Defense. Since its inception almost a century ago, NPS has been found to be worthy of the investment that both the Navy and the nation has made in it. The school has educated some of the most brilliant and effective leaders of our nation and of the world. Countless numbers of NPS graduates have made significant contributions to global stability and national security, and some remarkable breakthroughs in research at NPS have saved the lives of the men and women who so bravely defend their nations daily. Madam President, I want to wish a happy 100th birthday to the Naval Postgraduate School.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, for more than 50 years, Dr. Gerald Oehler has dedicated his life and his work to the care and well being of his patients. Born January 29, 1933 in Harvey, North Dakota, Dr. Oehler's well rounded medical education came from Kansas University Medical Center, where he was trained in several specialties and gained the broad-based knowledge that would become his hallmark. Graduating from medical school in 1958, Dr. Oehler put his skills to work for his country, enjoying a distinguished career in the United States Navy. Named to the staff at Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System in 1966 and Board Certified in 1973, Dr. Oehler's practice was dedicated to the entire patient. In his four decades at Salinas Valley Memorial, his surgical and family practice touched the lives of thousands in the Salinas Valley and Monterey Peninsula. Dr. Oehler's specialty was the patient, his practice in the operating room, at bedside or in his medical office. Regardless of the location, his knowledge and experience touched and saved lives. While witness to many changes in medical techniques and styles, Dr. Oehler showed a remarkable ability to adapt, and to keep his focus on patient-based medicine. His legacy will long remain a testament to that focus. Dr. Gerald Oehler became Physician Emeritus at Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System on June 1, 2007. His dedication and professionalism will remain as an inspiration to all who follow.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much for yielding. I want to speak in favor of the bill and very adamantly opposed to the amendment. I think people are just misaddressing the whole issue. National parks have the significance of being national. And if you think that it's okay to carry guns in national parks, why not carry them into the National Cemetery, into the national White House, into the national Capitol, into the National Arboretum. The list goes on and on. This is a dumb amendment--and Congress should be embarrassed that we have to vote on it. People go to the national parks for a specific purpose--to enjoy the serenity of wildlife. Now you're going to have some gun nut come in there and see something rustling at night and decide that maybe, Oh, I'm being attacked by a wild animal, or maybe something is going on out in the bushes. There are going to be problems with this. It doesn't make any sense. This is a credit card bill. And there's no purpose in the credit card bill to have a gun bill. We talk a lot about pork in this House. I think this is an act of chicken. Anyway, this is a bad amendment, and I hope that you'll vote ``yes'' on the first vote and ``no'' on the second vote.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the passing of a great American that you may have never heard of. John Tsukasa Tanimura, known to all as Johnny, recently passed away at the age of eighty-eight. He was a farmer's farmer. As one of the founders of the Tanimura & Antle produce company, he helped build it into the nation's largest private lettuce producer. So while you may have never heard of Johnny Tanimura, I can guarantee that every member of this House has eaten something that Johnny and his family grew. As an integral part of the Salinas Valley's agricultural and cultural fabric, he will be missed tremendously. However, the legacy that he planted and nurtured will produce a crop for generations to come. Born November 21, 1920 in San Juan Bautista, California to Eijiro Kimoto and Yukino Tanimura, he was the sixth of 13 children in a farming family. Johnny graduated from Salinas High School and served in the Army as a guard in Germany, while his family was interned in Poston, Arizona, during World War II. After relocating to Gilroy, Johnny along with his siblings rebuilt their living in the farming business with harvesting jobs. Through hard work, Johnny, his brothers and their families commenced a farming enterprise that grew from the seeds of love, respect and cooperation. The Tanimura family created ties with Bud Antle and his family in 1948, and the two families jointly established the formation of Tanimura & Antle in 1982, a successful and dynamic family farming enterprise in the Salinas Valley. His dedication to the lettuce farming was tireless, as he worked throughout his life without ever retiring. He and his brothers were an ever present sight in their ubiquitous white pickup inspecting and tending to their various ranches up and down the Salinas Valley. Even when he was unable to get around without a walker or wheelchair, he had someone take him into the fields multiple days a week to make sure the farming went smoothly. He is survived by his wife, Sakako (Sachi); daughters Jeannie, Susan and June Tanimura; grandchildren Brian Cobb and Jennifer Caro; great grandchildren Desiree and Mateo Caro, Draven Cobb, Jake Esqueda and MacKenzie Wright; brothers and sisters-in-law, George and Masaye Tanimura, and Tommy and Hisako Tanimura; sister-in-law, Fumiko Tanimura, wife of his late brother Charles (Charlie); and sisters Alice Sato, Rose Yuki and Betty Furisho. Madam Speaker, Johnny Tanimura's life was filled with impactful accomplishments. He leaves behind a footprint on the agricultural business of the Salinas Valley through hard work and a loving and dedicated heart, and touched the lives of those around him. I am certain I speak for the entire House when I extend our heartfelt sympathy to his family, friends and colleagues.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in observance of National Day of Silence. Last Friday, April 17, marked the 13th annual National Day of Silence, a day where students throughout the country follow in the footsteps of the great civil rights advocates like Mahatma Gandhi and spend the day in civil disobedience. These students remain silent for one day to bring attention to and highlight the discrimination some of their peers endure by speaking out about sexual orientation and their personal gender identity. When asked to explain why they will participate in a National Day of Silence, some of the young people in my district said, ``We stand up and stand out by not speaking out on that day.'' The Day of Silence is a day to acknowledge the roads already traveled and the ones soon to be traveled to show how far we have come and how much further we have to go. The Day of Silence brings attention to the oppression that queer youth face from their peers and their classroom, and is a reminder that we still have much work to do. I commend all my constituents who observe the Day of Silence. Though the nationally observed Day of Silence has passed this year, I would ask my colleagues to take a moment of silence today to reflect what we can do for our LGBT youth to make their lives better, to make their schools safer, and to end discrimination.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Monterey Museum of Art for their fifty years of service dedicated to the stewardship and celebration of the artistic legacy of the Monterey Peninsula. On behalf of the whole House, I am honored to extend to the Monterey Museum of Art the gratitude of the Congress and the American people for their past and future service. Monterey County, in Central California, is a region that has inspired artists since the late 1800s. Artists flocked to the area, which was then and still is a region of pristine beauty. They brought with them the tradition of plein air painting, still in evidence today with artists painting the land and seascapes of ``the greatest meeting of land and sea.'' The Monterey Museum of Art was founded in 1959 in Carmel as a Chapter of the American Federation of the Arts by a group of civic minded individuals who sought to create an arts space for that seminal arts colony. In addition to celebrating pioneers of early California art such as Armin Hansen, the museum collects and exhibits contemporary photography by such renowned artists as Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and Imogen Cunningham, contemporary artists working locally, in California and nationally. Now comprising two locations, after the bequest of an historic adobe in the early 1980's by Frank Work, the museum serves nearly 40,000 visitors annually from around the world, including thousands of local schoolchildren. The museum is reaching out to families and children with new activities and programs geared to inspire a passion for the visual arts in accordance with their mission. The mission of the Monterey Museum of Art is to collect, preserve, and interpret the art of California from the nineteenth century to the present day, within a national and international context. In this way, they expand the appreciation of their evolving artistic legacy and inspire a passion for the visual arts. We look forward to the next fifty years of their endeavors in this area. Madam Speaker, I want to hold up the Monterey Museum of Art as a model museum and cultural institution, an expression of what makes our nation a worldwide leader in arts unique to our land. May their continued success inspire many more generations to celebrate our nation's artistic heritage and participate in its future.