Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, while we are locked up here today, I would like to wish my wife Sherry a very happy birthday. This week, I have been telling her, has been a real doozy for civil liberties. We learned that both the Pentagon and the National Security Agency have been spying on thousands of innocent Americans. Apparently, the NSA was doing it at the direction of President Bush. I was shocked to learn that one of those documented instances of the Pentagon domestic spying happened in my district. A student protest against military recruiters at the University of California at Santa Cruz, which occurred this past April, was not only observed for suspicious activity, but the ``threat'' was declared ``credible.'' I cannot condemn these actions strongly enough. Using government time and money to spy on people exercising their constitutional freedoms is just ridiculous. I have already signed on to two letters about these violations of privacy, calling on the NSA to fully explain the constitutionality of their surveillances and calling on the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice to investigate NSA's actions. As Members of Congress, we must be diligent in our oversight of the Pentagon, but our job is next to impossible when the administration hides behind the cloak of national security to thwart the civil liberties of many Americans, as they have done with the Pentagon surveillance program. The Pentagon must come forward with an explanation about why they were spying on the UCSC rally. The right to express differing opinions was one of the founding principles of this country. The voices of the American people must always be heard, whether this admistration agrees with them or not. It is hypocritical for us to urge transparency in foreign governments while ignoring what our own government is doing in violation of its citizens' civil liberties.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, like millions of other Americans, I am pleased that Iraq held a democratic election for permanent representation and commend the bravery of the Iraqi people who risked their lives to vote for their vision of an Iraq ``by and for Iraqis.'' And I remain a stalwart supporter of our sailors, soldiers and marines who are serving in Iraq. What I do not support is the Republican leadership's political manipulation of the Iraq war and their attempts to stymie debate about how to get U.S. troops home as quickly and safely as possible. I could not vote for H. Res. 612 because it does not call for immediately bringing U.S. troops home. U.S. troop presence fuels the insurgency. If the administration acknowledged this fact and started bring our troops home, we would remove the dangerous veneer of ``occupiers'' and put pressure on the Iraqis to step up to the plate and take over their own security, particularly now that the Iraqis have a representative government. The administration's bogus statement of ``they stand up we stand down'' is a hollow promise to our troops: It's just a slogan that provides no concrete answers on how we're getting out of Iraq. I urge my colleagues in Congress and the administration to stop wasting our troops time with slogans and politically driven resolutions like H. Res. 612 and instead focus on what's really important: bringing our troops home.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4437. It is so egregious I do not even know where to begin. H.R. 4437 does not address the heart of the immigration problem--what to do with those 11 million undocumented people who already reside in this country. This bill is ready, however, to intimidate and criminalize any immigrant who believes in the American Dream and acts on it. H.R. 4437 contains border and law enforcement provisions that give this bill the facade of substance but in reality, this legislation is hollow. It's like having the framework of an army tank, but no engine. Just as an army tank will not work without an engine, America's immigration problem will remain unresolved without addressing a guestworker program. This legislation only offers a false promise of protection. Real protection would come from identifying those undocumented aliens already residing in this country. Real protection would come from assimilating and welcoming immigrants into our society, as we have done in the 230 years before today. Real protection would not automatically condemn the bus boy at your local favorite restaurant, your house keeper, or farmworkers who ensure you can eat fresh vegetables year round. Creating an ``us verses them'' attitude will not foster true homeland security. I urge you to reject H.R. 4437. Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, what has made America great have been the opportunities given to everyone in this country. Since our founding, individuals and families have come to America to seek freedom, opportunity and the choice for a better life. Everywhere I travel throughout Eastern Washington, I hear from people demanding we do a better job of controlling our borders and reducing illegal immigration. This past year, my office helped with nearly 150 immigration cases. It has become increasingly difficult for those who would like to enter our country legally and choose to obey the law to do so. For example, one family went through a 17-year process before they were allowed to come over legally. We must find a way to have responsive and legal immigration for those who desire to come. In Congress my priorities include growing our economy and keeping our Nation and community safe. In my opinion, this includes a comprehensive immigration policy that addresses the growing problems related to illegal immigration but also ensures that our efforts do not unduly hurt our local and national economy. The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 will bolster our border security, increase interior enforcement efforts, crack down on human trafficking, and reestablish respect for current immigration laws. While this is an important component, any comprehensive immigration bill must take into account our national and regional economy, which must have the workforce to meet the demands in agriculture and other service industries. Agriculture is the number one industry in Washington State, producing thousands of jobs and over $1 billion in revenue for Eastern Washington. Our farmers help supply the country with a safe and stable food supply and they must have enough workers. The agriculture industry in Washington is currently experiencing overall labor shortages. When I visited Crane and Crane Orchards last month in Brewster, I learned that labor shortages are hurting their business. This year alone, over 80,000 boxes worth of apples were left on the trees because they didn't have enough labor; they needed over 300 pickers. They are experiencing labor shortages despite the fact that they pay between 10 to 12 dollars an hour and provide housing to their workers. They couldn't find workers anywhere. As Congress proceeds with immigration reform, Eastern Washington's agriculture and service related industries need to address the impact of these policy changes on their workforce. We need to keep our economy and workforce competitive in the 21st century by establishing a legal workforce. A comprehensive immigration bill must take into account potential impacts on our workers, their families and the overall economy. Immigration is a complex problem, with no easy solution or quick fix. Controlling our borders is an important first step, but we cannot stop there. Immigration reform will not be complete until we can adequately resolve the labor needs of our agriculture community. As we continue to update and improve our immigration laws, it is important that we retain our compassionate and welcoming system that defines who we are as Americans.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I just want to make a comment to my colleagues from California. Yes, the fence they showed was a fence that has been built without waiving any laws, a fence that is in existence. It did not need to do this Draconian kind of legislation here where you are going to an appointed official and giving them the authority to waive every law. What really bothers me, and nobody has seen this, is one section. In your section 903, ``The Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a study on the construction of a state-of-the-art barrier system along the northern international land and maritime border of the United States and shall include in the study,'' a whole bunch of studies. That northern international border, as I know it, is called the Canadian border. This bill is not just about building a fence across the Mexican border. It is also about studying and building a fence across the Canadian border. It is a meat-axe approach, giving all these waivers, and it should be rejected.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and what it says about the United States of America. I wish this debate had been held in committee and that something more than just the last-minute long list of amendments could be debated right here tonight, because I think most of the Members of this House have not read this amendment nor understand the implications. This amendment allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to not only build a wall between Mexico and the United States but to study building a wall across Canada, across our U.S. borders. In so doing, it gives the political appointee the authority to waive all laws, not only all environment laws but also notwithstanding any other provision of the law, child labor laws, laws to protect workers from ensuring safe and healthy workplaces, Davis-Bacon laws, civil rights provisions, ethics laws for clean contracting and procurement policy, laws and statutes that give small businesses a fighting chance for winning contracts for construction. There is no recourse to the abuse of power and certainly no good will come as demonstrated in this manner in safeguarding our national borders. I urge all my colleagues to be rational lawmakers and avoid overreacting in the hysteria of a few. Mexico is California's number one trading partner. Our border with Mexico is the busiest in the world. More people and commerce legitimately cross that border than any other border in the world. Why would the Government of the United States at a time when we are advocating support for enforcement of law, why would the government now want to forbid the use of a law to finish the fence? Not even the importance of securing our border can justify placing a government official above the law. How can we celebrate tearing down the Berlin Wall, fight undemocratic regions around the world, and build respect for law here at home with this kind of message? Allowing a political appointee to waive the law and to prohibit legal appeals is not winning the war on terrorism; it is supporting it. Ronald Reagan said, ``General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' Unfortunately, someone will have to say that about this wall some day because an America with walls between Canada and Mexico is not an America that reaches out for the people of this world to come here legally.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, would the author please tell me what is broken that needs fixing? Where is the local agency not, I mean, as you say in your bill, you shall not provide any person, agency or entity, pursuant, any grant, even any formula grants. You are going to just bring law enforcement to a standstill here. You are going to create the biggest bureaucracy in the world. I represent a lot of local governments. I do not know any of them that do not share this information. But I also know that there are times when local law enforcement has undercover agents who are undocumented. I found that out from previous experiences where they may not want to tell anybody that is an undercover agent. And is that the kind of thing? I mean, this is not the law that the local city councils adopt. This is the way law enforcement does their business. And with your amendment, I see that the Attorney General has now to determine whether that city or county receives any formula funds of any amount, and that they cannot receive those amounts in the future. What are you going to do about Katrina? What are you going to do about all those cities that you are trying to bail out with the floods? I think this amendment is fixing something that is not even broken. I oppose it.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this very poorly drafted bill. I learned long ago in my legislative career that you should not enact laws that you cannot enforce. This bill has some good provisions, but it also has a lot of bad provisions. If there was ever a moment, I think, in legislative history of congressional hypocrisy, it has got to be right now. Just a few minutes ago we voted to recognize and support the symbols of Christmas. This bill steps on the spirit of Christmas for 11 million people in America who are now being given a Christmas present, being told they are ``criminals.'' Not only are all the undocumented people made instant criminals, so are their churches, so are their neighbors, and so are the people that support them and employ them. Mr. Chairman, this bill declares war mostly on Mexicans because they are the vast majority of undocumented people in the United States. They are people that are already here, working, living in our communities. Who are these people? They may be your town heroes. They may be the latest valedictorian in your high school. They might have been the star of your football team or other sports team. They may have been the next scholarship winners. They may be some of America's brightest, our future. And yet now, by caveat, they are criminals. Some cut your lawn, some clean your house, some harvest your food and that is the food that we pray over. This bill makes criminals out of innocent children, their mothers and their fathers. You cannot enforce this bill, I think, without a revolution. That is why the Chamber of Commerce, the American Bar Association, the Association of Builders and Contractors, the Episcopal Church, the International Association of Firefighters, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, and many other areas oppose this legislation. I ask for a ``no'' vote on a badly drafted bill.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I have not seen any of that, and I am one of the cosponsors of that bill. The Oceans Blueprint for the 21st Century is the report that we spent $10 million on. The bill to implement that is called Oceans-21. This task force, the caucus, have all been bipartisan, have been equally split. But if you want to look at it, this task force is not only a delay tactic, it is also a very partisan tactic. The task force, for no apparent reason, will have seven Republican members and only five Democratic members. This is the first time in any of the debates we have not been an equal number in leadership and work. This is a cynical attempt to just delay, to stall. Although you have quoted Mr. Panetta and Admiral Watkins, I know they want more than anything legislation to pass, not creation of another task force.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I want to put this debate in some perspective. It was a year ago this week that the commission that the United States Congress created gave their report to us, after spending approximately $10 million of the taxpayers' money to put the report together, a year ago. This debate is about how we spend another year before we do anything, and that is wrong. What is lacking here is leadership. The ocean issue goes back generations. It goes back to the last administration. President Clinton had the first White House Conference on the Oceans out in California in 1997. That was where all the ideas were created that we needed to upgrade all the oceans. President Bush signed into law and appointed members of the committee which gave us this report. What is happening is that this task force that is before the House today is just a way of delaying, stalling and not getting anything done. Everybody that is speaking here today loves the oceans. Everybody is a supporter of it, and there is not a greater supporter than Mr. Gilchrest. But, unfortunately, there is a lack of leadership behind Mr. Gilchrest. Where, Mr. Speaker, is the leadership? There is a bill in his committee, it has been there for almost a year, and they say, We need more time. That bill was put together with a coalition of Democrats and Republicans and Sea Grant Fellows, the staff, the Ph.D.'s and MAs to come here and work together. They are on it a year with Members and other staff. There has been all the work done, and it has been put in a bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It has all the cosponsors of the Oceans Caucus, three Democrats and three Republicans. That bill is H.R. 2139 and the leader of that bill is Mr. Weldon from the Republican Party. We have not even been able to have a hearing, not even scheduled a hearing. That bill could pass, and it is the ocean policy. It is the sum total of the parts of those two commissions. We do not need to spend more taxpayer money and more time in our House trying to decide what to do; we just need to do it. Now, we created a commission after 9/11, and after the recommendations came back, yes, there was debate on it, but in the same year we adopted it, and we took the recommendations. This is not being done. Mr. Gilchrest is not getting the support. What they are giving him is a bone and saying, Here, go out and use the bureaucracy of the House to have another task force. I ask, what date are we going to have a hearing for our bill? If we want to have some leadership on this, can you give us a date when the Oceans-21 bill will be heard in your committee?

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

Mr. FARR. I just want to know the date. What month? January?

Mr. FARR. Can we have a hearing on it?

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the PATRIOT Act Conference Report. Due to concerns about civil liberties infringement, I voted against the original PATRIOT Act in 2001 and the House PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Bill earlier this summer. The democratic fabric of this country was founded on checks and balances but the PATRIOT Act contains neither. In 1775, one of our Nation's true patriots, Benjamin Franklin, said ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' This legislation tramples on the essential liberties that our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure. They understood that lowering our civil liberties standards would not ensure safety; but it would undermine the relationship of this proud democracy with its citizens. I believe that the Founders of this country would be rolling in their graves to hear the claims this Administration and Republican Leadership make in the name of safety from terrorists. Do you really feel safer knowing that the government is allowed to investigate personal records without you knowing? Do you feel safer knowing that the government can issue blank wire tap orders without identifying the line, place or person it wishes to investigate? Do you really feel safer knowing that if you or your neighbor were accused that documents used against you would not be subject to judicial review? Do you really feel safer that your library records can be considered intelligence in an investigative report? I can not with a clean conscience support this bill which gives government unnecessary access to the lives of innocent Americans and tramples on their civil rights. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this piece of legislation that flies in the face of our forefathers.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the United States must rededicate itself to creating the groundwork for a lasting peace between all the sons of Abraham. A just and lasting peace will be achieved by imbuing the region with the unswerving proof that democracy is the better path than armed conflict and insurgency. To quote a great American, Abe Lincoln, ``The ballot is stronger than the bullet.'' The Palestinian elections are a historic opportunity to bring more Palestinians into the folds of a democratic state; replacing guns with ballots. This election will, hopefully, give President Abbas the legitimacy to implement the necessary reforms for a democratic government: eliminating paramilitary groups, ending corruption and creating a government infrastructure that can provide economic and social services. Hamas is a popular organization in many parts of the West Bank and Gaza because it, not the state, provides a variety of social services. President Abbas must work to create law and order but, just as important, he needs to foster economic and social development for the Palestinian people, but he cannot do this alone. The West Bank and Gaza Strip will remain economically stagnant and ripe for further violence unless there are serious international efforts to improve the deplorable living conditions of Palestinians. I urge the Administration and my colleagues in Congress to robustly fund programs that will create economic development for Palestinians, which I believe is an essential step in creating peace in the region. Finally, the Administration and Congress should be promoting programs that bring about reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. For example, programs like the Interfaith Encounter Association based in Jerusalem bring together Muslims, Jews and Christians to work on building peace and reconciliation. I urge the Administration to include robust funding in the FY 07 budget request for reconciliation programs and to work to build a strong, legitimate civil society in West Bank and Gaza so that Palestinians voices, not gunfire, can reverberate throughout the Middle East. I voted for passage of H. Res. 575 not because it is the only solution, but because dismantling the Hamas terrorist organization is part of a solution for peace between two peoples who are truly brothers.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 218 that commemorates the substantial achievements of Filipino-Americans to our nation's history. My district, comprised of Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties in California, owes a particularly large debt to the Filipino-American community. Starting in the late 1890's, Chinese, Japanese and Filipino farm laborers were the engine for the development and growth of the Salinas Valley agricultural industry. Farm labor work on strawberry and peach farms was often back-breaking; laborers rose at dawn and worked until dusk, and were generally paid very poorly. Additionally, Filipino immigrants were often treated horribly and harshly discriminated against. Filipino farm workers formed the first organized group in the early history of the United Farm Workers Union. Despite these deplorable working conditions and societal obstacles, over the last hundred years, Filipino-Americans on the Central Coast of California have enriched the quality of life for all Californians and for our nation as a whole. For example, the Filipino Community Club of the Monterey Peninsula is an energetic non-profit community based centers in my district and serves as a cultural and civic hub for Filipinos living on the Central Coast. I am proud to represent a large and vibrant Filipino population and commend their centennial of accomplishments to the United States. Mabuhay!

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the passage of the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2017) and appreciate Representative Smith's leadership on this important issue. This bill, if enacted into law and fully funded, will provide much needed assistance to victims of torture, both within the U.S. and internationally. But I am deeply disheartened that the good intentions of H.R. 2017 will be undercut by the Administration's refusal to unequivocally reject the use of torture not only for the military but also for the intelligence community. I do not naively believe that al-Qaeda or other Foreign Terrorist Organizations have any respect for the U.N. Convention Against Torture. But, the United States immediately loses the moral battle against terrorists when U.S. policy makes acceptations for torture, and disregards due process and the rule of law. Most importantly, ambiguity about U.S. policy on torture puts into jeopardy the lives of captured U.S. citizens, both military and civilian. It is time for the House of Representatives to embrace Senator McCain's anti-torture language and move on.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Keith Shaffer, an influential and much beloved member of the community in the Santa Cruz area. Mr. Shaffer lived a life of dedicated and generous service to his community. He is survived by his wife Elinor Shaffer; his two sons, William and Richard Shaffer; daughter-in-law Alana Shaffer; and his two grandsons. Mr. Shaffer was born in the San Joaquin Valley town of Atwater, on October 15, 1915. After serving as a naval aviator during World War II, he eventually moved to the Santa Cruz area in 1950, where he took over his brother's floral business. While Mr. Shaffer was a successful businessman, he also found time to give back to the community, by serving on numerous school boards, the Dominican Hospital Advisory Board, the Rotary Club of Santa Cruz, the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce, and the California Automobile Association. Mr. Shaffer was a shining example of dedication and devotion to citizens of the community. In 1937, Keith Shaffer married his childhood sweetheart Elinor George. Along with his wife Elinor, and his two sons, William and Richard, the other love of Mr. Shaffer's life was his orchids. Mr. Shaffer was well known within the floral community for his creation of several hybrid orchids, most notably his ``Capitola Moonlight,'' which was recognized by the Royal Horticulture Society with its highest honor, and perhaps his favorite, the ``Elinor Shaffer.'' Mr. Speaker, the service of local members of the community are an asset to this Nation, and I am deeply grateful for the contributions of Mr. Shaffer. The passing of Mr. Shaffer is a painful loss for the community. It is clear that Keith Shaffer has made a lasting impact on the community, and I join the Santa Cruz area in honoring the memory of Mr. Shaffer.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for yielding me this time. When we left here last night, we had spent the evening in bitter rancor over serious political issues, however we arrived this morning, and the first thing we do is take up a bill where we all agree on something. And I think that is the beauty of the United States Congress. We can disagree and we can have partisan fights, but there is one thing we have in common, and that is that we all support the people who volunteer to serve in our United States military and support the veterans who have served in that military, and the benefits that they should receive afterwards. It is sort of promises made and promises kept. I think, also, that the reason why we do not have any rancor on this legislation is, we have two of the finest Members of Congress, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Walsh, Mr. Edwards as ranking member and Mr. Walsh as Chair, of a committee where the divergent members come together. We still have strong political differences on either side. We have different backgrounds, life experiences that we bring to the committee. In fact, I think it is kind of ironic that Mr. Walsh and I, who are former Peace Corps volunteers, are now very active in the committee that deals with the quality of life for the military, but I think that the things we have learned in the Peace Corps about service to human beings are very important to the subject matter in this committee. I also would like to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Lewis, and the ranking member, Mr. Obey, because they have given us sort of that parental consent to go ahead and do the best we can do with the money allocated. There are a lot of good things in this bill mainly because we have added money to it, and Congress has been more supportive than the administration to our veterans, and I think that that ought to be made very clear. We are providing a second increment of $1.5 billion in addition to what Congress has already passed, $1.2 billion in emergency money. But now there is still some talk that there is going to be an across-the-board cut. We cannot provide the services that Mr. Lewis just talked about one day and then come back here later and provide a cut to those services. That is total hypocrisy, and we do not want to see that across-the-board cut affect our veterans and our active duty members of our services. This committee has a lot of issues that we have to deal with. Are we providing enough care for our returning service members? I have been out to Bethesda and to Walter Reed Hospital, talking to the people who have been injured. We have seen a difference between the rehabilitation care that is given to spinal cord injury soldiers than that of the ones that are amputees, and we ought to try to bring coordination to one place, that they both get the same kind of rehabilitative care. Are we doing enough to reduce the waiting period for veterans for health care? Is there enough money to meet the staggering mental health care, something that we have never really put enough focus on? Posttraumatic syndrome, how long does it take sometimes? Veterans and active Reservists and National Guardsmen who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan may not develop their mental problems from serving for many years after they leave the service. Is there going to be adequate mental health care for them? How about the price tag for prosthetics? Our centers for our wounded military are quality centers of excellence in trying to develop the latest technology in prosthetics. Yet we do not spend enough time looking at it and making sure that those things are funded well, because the private sector just cannot meet that responsibility. This is a responsibility of the United States Congress. And are we hiring enough people to make sure that we can serve those who need that service, whether it be in a health care clinic or whether it be at the military hospitals? These are questions that we have got to address. We also have got to address the fact that we have closed military bases, and in those bases we have a lot of unexploded ordnance. Those are ordnances that could only be cleaned up by people that have Federal special training, a very limited specialty field, and yet it is one of the lowest priorities of the military. Obviously, their duty is to train people to defend our country, not necessarily to do environmental cleanup, but we cannot turn that real estate over for subsequent use to the community unless there are enough funds to clean it up, and we have been sorely lacking in enough funds. Fortunately, the chairman and ranking member of this committee have really worked with me in trying to get additional funds for cleanup, although we are way short of the billions of dollars that are needed. So today is the day where we bring together the differences that we had last night and show that Congress can, indeed, unanimously support the needs of the men and women in uniform and all voluntary service. I am very proud to have served on this committee. I am proud of its leadership, and I would urge that all my colleagues support the men and women in uniform, support the quality of life that we provide for our services, and help the veterans of the United States by approving this appropriations bill. Thank you.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. The American people know better than the politicians here in Washington about what's best for American families. If you've learned anything from Tuesday's election is that you ought to listen to the American people. The American people know that this Congress, under the Republican Leadership, is cutting over $50 billion in important domestic programs, while still adding billions to the Federal deficit. The Republican leadership's fantasy of deficit reduction comes at the expense of significant cuts to domestic programs that middle class American families--making $27,000 to $65,000 rely on. I've gotten hundreds of letters from concerned and distraught constituents urging me to oppose this bill and they're screaming that America does NOT want: $14.3 billion in cuts to student aid programs, raising the cost of college for students and families. Nearly half a million Californians borrow money for education, we should be assisting the next generation of Californians, not raising fees and interest rates on students; $800 million cuts to food stamp programs, eliminating nutrition and lunch/breakfast programs for hundreds of thousands of families and children; billions in cuts to child support programs run by the States--over 5 years, Californian families will lose almost one billion in funds that should be going towards our children; $11 billion in cuts to Medicaid, with over $1 billion of those cuts coming out of California; and $425 million in cuts in Social Security Insurance benefits for the disabled. With all of these cuts, the Republicans and this Administration will still be adding at least $20 billion to the Federal deficit when the Republicans push through $70 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans. America deserves and wants a Federal budget that is fair and compassionate. I urge my colleagues to listen to their conscience and the voices of the American people and strongly oppose this bill and throw out these misplaced budget priorities.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Elizabeth Ann Leeper who passed from this life on November 5, 2005. She was a fearless and tireless community activist, who taught her children and grandchildren to always question authority and not be afraid to fight for what they believe in. Known as a political radical, Liz said, ``Troublemakers have more fun.'' Liz was deeply involved in the local political scene, often being referred to as ``The Mayor of New Monterey.'' She was a charter member of the American Civil Liberties Union and was active in women's issues, the peace movement, and the Democratic Party. Liz graduated from the University of California Berkeley with a degree in social work and education. She taught elementary and middle school on the Monterey Peninsula for 20 years. After her retirement she continued to be a mentor to anyone seeking advice, especially helping women become aware of their own potentials. Family was of prime importance to Liz, with three husbands, Norman Godbe, Bruce Harris, and Ed Leeper; two daughters, Kira Godbe and Dana Carnazzo; and four grandchildren, Arye and Blaise Lipman and Alonzo and Tessa Camazzo. Liz adored her grandchildren and was present at each birth. One of their favorite memories of her will be the smells and sounds of grandma making pancakes for them. The community will miss her greatly, but we know her life will continue to inspire those she touched.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Associate Parliamentarian Muftiah McCartin, who has served in the Office of the Parliamentarian with distinction for nearly 30 years. Muftiah began her career in the Office of the Clerk in 1976 and earned her bachelor' s degree and juris doctorate by studying at night. She became the first woman appointed a Parliamentarian in 1991. When I came to Congress in 1993, Muftiah was like a navigator on a ship. I was unfamiliar with the trappings of the House of Representatives and it was overwhelming. To find the Parliamentarian had lived in Carmel Valley, California and knew my District helped me adjust. I commend Muftiah as a role model to everyone. A lawyer and working mother, she was here at all hours, as long as the House was in session, sometimes at the expense of her family. Yet she has raised beautiful children: Marissa, Elaine, Sandra and Luke with her loving husband, Terry. It's always sad to lose longtime professional staff; you lose that irreplaceable, institutional memory. But I wish her well in her new endeavors, including spending more time with her family and training for her next marathon or triathlon.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight realizing what an incredible privilege it is for us to speak in the well of the floor of the House of Representatives and what a privilege it is to grow up in a family that is politically inspired. I also know what a heart-wrenching loss a parent is. It tears your heart out. I speak tonight because I feel very privileged, having grown up in a political family, like Lucille Roybal-Allard. I remember so much early childhood politics of what was going on in our house and in the State of California. In many ways, Ed Roybal was like another father, because he was in the era that my father was in politics. He was born the same year as my mother, 1916, Albuquerque, New Mexico. He came to California, worked in the Civilian Conservation Corps, worked for the California Tuberculosis Association, became involved in World War II as a soldier, and then returned to Los Angeles County as director of health education and then got into politics at the same time, as he and my father both ran for city council, my father in Northern California and Ed Roybal in Southern California. They both lost. Later on he was elected and became the first Hispanic to serve on the city council in more than a century. I remember in 1954, he was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor. My father was on that ballot. I remember that ballot. That was when red baiting went op. People just tore people apart. They both lost in that election. My father went on to become elected to the State senate and Ed Roybal to the United States Congress. When he arrived here in Congress, he was the first Hispanic Californian to serve in Congress since 1879. He was a pioneer for all our great State, and, indeed, the multicultural democracy that California has become. He served on the Appropriations Committee, and there is where our paths crossed. I am on the Appropriations Committee. I met Lucille when she got elected to the California State Assembly in 1986. We served together there. She came to Congress a few months before I did. We have served both on the Appropriations Committee, the only California Democrats on that committee. I think when we think back about the privilege we had, not only growing up in a family, yes, things were tough, as pointed out by Charlie Gonzalez, there were also privileges, the privileges of debate, the privileges of commitment to public services, the privileges of wanting to make the world a better place. Those were privileges. I think that the legacy that he left for his own children, Lucille serving in the United States Congress, Lillian, who is a constituent of mine in Santa Cruz and a really able professional, doing a lot to deal with discrimination and how to teach tolerance, and their brother, Edward Roybal, Jr., carrying the yoke of his father, obviously, with not only the same name but all of the responsibilities that his father has left for him. It is a privilege, and it is sad to lose a parent, but what an opportunity to be able to come to the well of the House of Representatives and give this tribute, a tribute that he, Mr. Roybal, has gotten not only from us here tonight, for his life, but during his life, recognized by Presidents, by Senators, by Congressmembers, by members of the State legislature and city council members; and, frankly, I cannot think of a person who we really know was a pioneer in being able to bring an understanding that if you are going to have a government of by and for the people, it better look like the people. I am very proud to be in a congressional delegation from California that is the most multicultural delegation in the United States Congress. Your father started that. I am very, very proud to serve with you. Perhaps one of the nicest titles that your father has been given, which was while he was still alive, back in 2004, the Mexican-American Political Association named him the Latino Legend of the 20th Century. Lucille, we appreciate the great life that your father gave to public service. We love you for serving with us in the United States Congress. Please pass on our best to all of your family, your sister, and your brother and your mother for the service that your father gave to this country. It made us a better America.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sister Julie Hyer, as she has recently celebrated 20 years as President of Dominican Hospital in Santa Cruz, California. Since 1985, Sister Julie has enlivened and inspired those affiliated with Dominican Hospital and the community at large with her leadership in ways that are practical and profound. Before coming to Santa Cruz, Sister Julie served at the Mercy Healthcare Corporation in Farmington, Michigan. There, she served for 11 years beginning as a hospital coding clerk in 1974 and ascending to Associate Director of Medical Affairs at the corporate level. Sister Julie has an MBA in Finance from the University of Detroit, BS in Medical Record Administration from Mercy College in Detroit, and a BA in Mathematics from Siena Heights University in Adrian, Michigan. Dominican Hospital is a non-profit community hospital located in Santa Cruz, sponsored by the Adrian Dominican Sisters. As President of Dominican Hospital, Sister Julie oversees acute care, inpatient and outpatient services, four subsidiary corporations, two congregate living facilities totaling 356 apartments, and other multiple joint ventures. She also serves as a member of many corporate-wide initiatives and committees. Mr. Speaker, the service of local community leaders is an asset to this Nation, and I applaud Sister Julie for her significant contribution. The 20 year anniversary of Sister Julie's presidency signifies a fruitful career of improving the health of the community through her core values of dignity, excellence, collaboration, justice, and stewardship. It is clear that Sister Julie has made a lasting impact on our community and I join Dominican Hospital in honoring her tenure.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. I think the conferees did an incredibly good job, considering the tight allocations they had. And I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Mollohan) and their highly competent staff. Despite the good job, I would be remiss if I did not stand here and remind Congress of our need to deal with the recommendations that have been made to us by very important organizations, our U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy that studies the oceans, and the Pew Oceans Commission, a charitable trust which also studies the oceans, and ask our administration to propose an adequate budget for our ocean programs in the future. It is so critical, as Americans depend on the oceans, when we think of all of the tourism from the beaches and the watchable wildlife. We make livings on sometimes turbulent surfaces, we put food on America's tables, we play on its beaches and so on. These are often critical and overlooked in our economic engine, yet the U.S. economy in 2000 was almost 2\1/2\ times larger, the ocean economy, than the agriculture economy in terms of the output, and employed 1.5 times the number of people. It encompasses huge activities. NOAA activities touch almost a third of our Nation's gross domestic product, and our oceans and coasts contribute more than $117 billion to American prosperity each year. So the issue here is really that we have to put more effort into this, because if we do not, we are just stabbing ourselves in the foot. The oxygen that we breathe comes from the oceans, the future, the unexplored. It is frankly more important that we explore the oceans on this planet than we explore Mars, yet we are putting more and more money into that effort than we do into our own planet. So I am thanking the committee for job well done and hoping that next year we can get a better mark on this. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2006, but I also strongly encourage both the administration and the House to invest more in the programs that protect, maintain, and restore the health of our oceans in subsequent years. The conferees did a good job with this bill given the allocation, and I especially appreciate the hard work of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Mollohan, and their highly competent and helpful staff. The Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy both released landmark reports within the past 2\1/2\ years reviewing the state of our oceans and the policies we use to govern them. This was the first comprehensive review in over 30 years. Both reports came to the same conclusion: Our oceans and coasts are in a state of crises and we are loosing important goods and services that they provide. At the top of the list of problems causing this crisis is an under investment in the programs we use to manage the oceans and coasts. From our oceans, Americans draw inspiration from the animals in its waters, make a living on its sometimes turbulent surface, put food on their tables, play on its beaches, and benefit from the microscopic plants that provide the majority of oxygen we breathe. For many of these reasons and others, our oceans are a critical, albeit often overlooked, economic engine. The U.S. ocean economy in 2000 was almost 2\1/2\ times larger than the agricultural economy in terms of output and employed 1\1/2\ times as many people. Ocean sector employment is larger than every manufacturing industry. NOAA activities touch almost a third of the Nation's gross domestic product, and oceans and coasts contribute more than $117 billion to American prosperity each year. If we are going to continue to obtain these important benefits from our coasts and oceans, we will need to implement the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to invest more in our oceans. I call on the administration to propose a more robust budget next year so that Americans will continue to benefit from the goods and services our oceans provide. I also ask my colleagues here in the House to push for a budget resolution next year that authorizes adequate money to the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce accounts so that Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan will be able to put together a bill that adequately supports programs that protect, maintain and restore the health of our oceans. Unfortunately because of the tight allocation, conferees were forced to cut many important ocean programs, such as the National Marine Sanctuary Program, which is receiving a 30-percent cut from fiscal year 2005 funding levels. In 1972, exactly 100 years after the first national park was created, the Nation made a similar commitment to preserving its marine treasures by establishing the National Marine Sanctuary Program. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary plays a critical role protecting the ecologically and culturally important areas off my district in California while promoting sustainable use and educating the public about the marine environment. The National Sea Grant College Program is being cut by 10 percent from fiscal year 2005 funding levels to $55.5 million, a cut of $5 million from the House bill and $11.2 million from the Senate bill. From this cut, the U.S. will loose major projects that assist coastal communities, including promoting coastal economic growth, improving the quality of marine environments, educating students in marine sciences, and solving critical marine and Great Lakes resource programs. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy called for increasing the National Sea Grant College Program by $20 million, and the President's Ocean Action Plan called for expanding the program. The National Marine Protected Areas Center is being cut by 50 percent from fiscal year 2005 funding levels after the House bill called for nearly level funding and the Senate bill called for a slight increase. This center helps protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations by strengthening and expanding the Nation's system of marine protected areas. An expanded and strengthened comprehensive system of marine protected areas throughout the marine environment would enhance the conservation of our Nation's natural and cultural marine heritage and the ecologically and economically sustainable use of the marine environment for future generations. The programs I highlighted today as well as several other ocean programs are being cut when they need to be expanded. This is putting the well-being of many Americans at risk by jeopardizing the goods and services provided by healthy oceans that drive our vast ocean economic engine.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on the PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization bill. This Motion to Instruct would take the most contentious provisions of this bill and sunset them in 4 years. These provisions include section 215, which allows officials to order the surrender of anything when relevant to a terror investigation, section 206 which allows secret wiretap orders without definition of who and where the tap will go, and the ``Lone Wolf'' provision which allows the government to surveil so called ``agents of a foreign power'' who act alone. Egregious law that robs the civil liberties of law abiding Americans should be reviewed sooner than later, therefore I strongly support these sunset provisions proposed in this motion to instruct. My constituents agree that the American people should not have to compromise their civil liberties in order to combat extremism. The local governments of Pacific Grove, Salinas, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville, CA have all passed resolutions expressing their concerns with the anti-privacy and anti-liberty nature of the PATRIOT Act. I also would like to note my disappointment that the fiscal year 2006 State-Science-Justice-Commerce Appropriations bill included one of the most invasive provisions of the PATRIOT Act that permits sweeping searches and seizures of library and bookstore patron records, despite this body's condemnation of the provision earlier this year. Voices in the Congress echo voices of people across America. I urge a ``yea'' vote on the motion to instruct.