Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership and cooperation and friendship.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask one further question of the chairman. I would ask that the gentleman would work with me during the conference on this issue to retain language we all find agreeable that will keep the Forest Service as first in line to get Fort Hunter Liggett when and if it is excessed.

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

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, today signals the beginning of a new era in the protection and management of this Nation's largest public trust resource: our oceans. Along with the other bi-partisan co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus, Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania, Tom Allen of Maine, and Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, I introduced OCEANS 21, a comprehensive oceans policy bill that answers the calls of the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Our bill offers a comprehensive legislative solution to all of the crises documented in both oceans reports by establishing a strong national oceans policy that protects, maintains, and restores the health of marine ecosystems. This national policy will secure, for present and future generations, the full range of benefits of healthy marine ecosystems--a responsibility that I take quite seriously in my job of representing California's central coast, home to the Nation's largest national marine sanctuary. The importance of this policy cannot be overstated, as we all depend on our oceans and coasts, from the person who lives off the water to the person who visits the ocean once in a lifetime. The oceans provide food, jobs, vacation spots, as well as opportunities for scientific inquiry, including medical discovery, and personal reflection. Despite our inability to measure the many non-market values associated with our oceans and coasts, we are able to quantify some of the benefits they provide. For example, over a trillion dollars is added to our economy each year by ocean and coastal economies. This is a huge economic contribution to our gross domestic product, a contribution that must be protected so the returns keep coming. Our bill explicitly protects these returns. Mr. Speaker, to implement the national oceans policy set forth in OCEANS 21, we provide four national standards which covered actions, defined as those carried out by the Federal Government or paid for in part by Federal funds, must be consistent with. These standards include a precautionary approach and a reversal of the burden of proof. These cornerstones of OCEANS 21 are founded on the opinions of many marine scientists who have seen the health of marine ecosystems degrade over the past years. In fact, many scientists have been encouraging a restructuring of our ocean policy to reflect a precautionary approach and a reversal of the burden of proof for many years. For example, in a 1998 Science article, Paul Dayton, a preeminent marine scientist, asserted, ``If society's environmental needs are to be protected so that future generations can also enjoy, learn, and profit from marine ecosystems, this legal burden of proof must be applied to our marine resources so that those hoping to exploit them must demonstrate no ecologically significant long-term changes.'' Today, I am proud to report back to the scientists, those who know our oceans better than most, that members of Congress have heard their calls and have responded. As asserted in both the Pew and U.S. Commission Reports, our government needs a way to promote greater coordination among federal agencies whose actions may affect the oceans. Our bill responds to this issue by establishing a National Oceans Council comprised of secretaries of departments and heads of independent agencies. OCEANS 21 recommends that this Council be chaired by a National Oceans Advisor to the President. We recognized early on in our House Oceans Caucus leadership discussions that the best way to improve federal stewardship of our ocean resources was to offer a mechanism for bringing federal agencies together and to have an advisor to the President who can articulate the importance of the oceans. The National Oceans Council and the National Oceans Advisor are the solutions we present. One of the biggest advances in our understanding of the oceans to occur since our last national review of ocean policy over 30 years ago is that the natural world functions as ecosystems, with each species intricately connected to the other parts that make up the whole. Both the Pew and the U.S. Commission Reports clearly state that we must adopt a new policy framework that is based on the concept of ``the whole,'' an ecosystem-based approach, and move away from our archaic approach based on political boundaries. This new ecosystem-based management approach will not be as easy as our previous approaches, but we must dedicate ourselves to making it a reality. We have responded to the call for ecosystem-based management by including within OCEANS 21 a provision for Regional Ocean Councils, whose primary responsibility is to do ecosystem planning. We do comprehensive land use planning, so why not do comprehensive ocean planning? With a national ocean policy explicitly written to maintain healthy ocean ecosystems and with Regional Ocean Councils charged with developing and implementing regional ocean ecosystem plans, we can turn back the tide of irresponsible ocean management. Mr. Speaker, the bill also provides an ``Organic Act'' for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)--an agency whose existence today is only reflected in an Executive Order. Our bill establishes NOAA in statute. However, unlike some of the other proposals currently being considered, we do not simply codify the status quo. This is because we recognize the status quo has failed and, if long-term ecological sustainability is one of our goals, then we can no longer consider our ocean resources in a piecemeal fashion. OCEANS 21, therefore, restructures NOAA to better reflect the importance of ecosystem approaches. Setting the stage for a long-term solution to the best possible management of our ocean resources, we also call for the President to submit recommendations for reorganizing Federal departments to establish a Department of Natural Resources. This way, all of our valuable natural resources can be managed together--reflecting our full acknowledgement of the connections between all parts of the natural world, from the oceans to the land to the air. In addition to addressing the problems of oceans governance, OCEANS 21 also addresses the need for increased investments in marine science research, including ocean exploration, and marine education. Mr. Speaker, to address the Pew and U.S. Commission recommendations surrounding the ocean science, our bill calls for a national strategy on ocean and coastal science and authorizes funding for marine ecosystems research. OCEANS 21 also creates a National Oceans Council Subcommittee to focus Federal investments on scientific areas especially requiring attention. One of the most exciting aspects of OCEANS 21 is that it will help to instill a new marine stewardship ethic in all people--from first- graders learning how to read to graduate students investigating challenging scientific processes. The bill does this is in many ways: by explicitly describing education as one of NOAA's missions; by creating an interagency ocean science and coastal education program; by establishing an ocean science and technology scholarship program; and by creating a mass media campaign on how we are all dependent on healthy and productive oceans. Mr. Speaker, OCEANS 21 is a comprehensive response to two comprehensive ocean reports that both deliver the same sad message: our oceans are in peril and we must act now. It is up to each of us to not let this unprecedented, once-in-a-generation opportunity pass us by. With the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and The Pew Oceans Commission Reports both calling for immediate action to protect the oceans, this Congress has a responsibility to the American public to pass legislation that ensures future generations have the opportunity to benefit from healthy oceans. Since coming to Congress in 1993, I have worked hard to raise awareness of the importance of our oceans and today, my dedication to protecting this Country's largest public trust resource is reflected in the introduction of OCEANS 21. I have worked with the bi-partisan cochairs of the House Oceans Caucus to introduce a bill that we all support and this bipartisan effort should be celebrated. The Bush Administration has a prime opportunity to take the steps necessary to instill a new ocean ethic in our government. Action by this Administration could very well save our oceans. The time for leadership is now. I am dedicated to providing it in Congress, and I hope the President will provide it in the White House. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to dedicate themselves to shaping a better future for our oceans by supporting the House Oceans Caucus Leadership's ocean policy bill. Our bill will not only bring U.S. ocean policy into the 21st century, it will set the tone for a future in which our oceans remain vital components of our economy, our communities, and our lives. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with a quote from the U.S. Commission Report that encapsulates my thoughts on the urgency of considering OCEANS 21 this session: ``The responsibility of our generation is to reclaim and renew the oceans for ourselves, for our children, and--if we do the job right-- for those whose footprints will mark the sands of beaches from Maine to Hawaii long after ours have washed away.''

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for his leadership on this bill. We have just had a long debate on this military housing issue, and I think what is missing in it is a little bit of understanding of what it is all about. Several years ago, Congress authorized that instead of designing military housing, instead of funding and building it, essentially putting up taxpayers' money and then going out to bid and building it to a military plan, we decided why not allow the private sector to build this housing, build it more like the housing that is in the communities, higher quality housing, and build it to the standards that are normally found in the private sector in housing; and this was called the RCI, Residential Community Initiative. It has been a very effective program because we do not have to put up taxpayer money to do it. Through that, what we have found is that the private sector rushed in and put together these consortiums of developers and have done a job that is more attractive than anything we could have done under the old sort of public-military housing concept. And the soldiers and the wives of the soldiers are very, very interested. In fact, they came to our committee and said of all of the issues affecting the military, of all of the issues affecting families in the military, the number one issue was adequate housing. Not surprisingly, it is probably the same question on the private side. And they applauded us for addressing the issue, but they asked us to make sure that we do not get stuck in these internal budget rules. What we are talking about is an internal rule. It is our own rule, we can waive it if we want to, and that is the issue. We should be waiving it. Why should we be waiving it? Because we do not have to put up the money; the private sector does it. Why should we waive it? Because it is all about investment. It is the ounce of prevention that is worth a pound of cure. What is the investment in? It is in quality homes built to code standards in the community, the highest standards we have ever had in this country. It is built to the kind of quality that the housewives and soldiers, the men and women in uniform like. And what does it do? It helps us, one, go out and recruit people, and we are in an all-voluntary military. We cannot force them to join. They want to join, and part of it is the benefit package that is offered to you while you are in the military, including the housing. The second is, once you get in, if you are assigned to bases that have the inadequate housing that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) talked about, and there is a lot of it out there, people living in Quonset huts, we should not allow that. If these were local homes, they would be shut down by the building inspectors, yet we allow military families to live in them when the private sector can build new homes. So we need to do that for retention. Once we have these well-trained people in the military, we want them to stay. One of the biggest attractions of staying is you get to live in a quality community. So this internal budget rule makes no sense, and I hope that nobody raises an objection.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, history reminds us of people who made a difference, who used their talent to change things. John Baker is one of those rare persons whose life has made a difference. I first met John Baker as his classmate entering Williamette University in Salem, Oregon. We both joined the Sigma Chi Fraternity together. We studied science, religion, and history together. We played intramural sports and campus politics together. John was always special. I think he was the first person I met who constructively was questioning authority--asking, ``why not?'' whenever someone was treated unfairly he spoke up for them. When the Civil Rights movement began in the South, John made sure the injustice being done was brought to the attention of the Northwest. He was always the first to rise to the cause--in many cases began the cause--to fight evil. John's career brought him to the ministry to use it as a means of educating parishioners to the wrongs in society. To the farmers, he brought the issues of farm workers. To the warriors, he brought the sorrow of death and destruction of the families and their enemies. To the small, friendly and secure rural towns of California, he brought the hatred and prejudice of the towns in the South. John was always a teacher, a prophet, a motivator for justice. Truly a religious leader. That was not enough. He moved to education and a larger audience. He became a counselor of students and rose to statewide recognition in his field. John was always pushing--pushing people to think about options, to change their lives to do better. He didn't just influence the students, he had an impact on his peers as well. He pushed his community to participate in the electoral process. He didn't just preach, he also practiced his compassion. He was one of the first during the Vietnam War to adopt Vietnamese orphans. He didn't just tell people to vote for change, he ran for public office and got elected to the City Council. John practices what he preaches--and he preaches what he practices. His special style makes him an ideal counselor fitting ones passions with ones work. Public institutions will miss him because he makes those institutions do better. Teachers and students will miss him because he is the best of both. His friends will miss him because he makes friendship mean a lifetime of support. I'll miss him because he pushed me to push others. My public service as an elected county supervisor, state legislator, and now congressman, was made possible by John Baker's support and belief that ordinary people can rise to opportunity to do greater good. John personifies President Theodore Roosevelt's wise command, ``Do what you can, where you are, with what you've got.'' John's life and deeds are a model for how the torch should be passed to the next generation. As John departs his position as Vice President of Student Services from Gavilan College, I wish him all the best in his retirement. He will be deeply missed.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FARR

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

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for the opportunity to debate an important topic on foreign aid to Colombia under the Plan Colombia. The amendment that I am going to offer today would cap the military personnel in Colombia. The gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) knows how much Colombia means to me as a former Peace Corps volunteer in that country, and I would like to debate this issue with my colleagues here on the floor. In the original Plan Colombia, Congress placed caps on the number of personnel that would be allowed in Colombia, U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilian personnel. Those caps were put in place to prevent the growth of the U.S. military commitment in Colombia. I became very concerned when I heard the administration had asked Congress to increase the manpower caps in Colombia to 800 U.S. military personnel and 600 contractors. It has been pointed out to Congress just last week by General Richard Cody, who told the House Committee on Armed Services that the recent troop deployments in Iraq have taken a toll on U.S. readiness to deploy elsewhere and even to replace troops currently deployed in U.S.-led military combat in Iraq and in Afghanistan. To quote General Cody, ``We are stretched thin with our active and reserve component forces right now. Absolutely.'' Yet the administration wants to double the number of troops allowed under the manpower caps from 400 to 800. Even General Hill of SOUTHCOM recently said before the Committee on Government Reform that rebuilding the social and economic system is needed in order to solve the problems in Colombia. But today the administration has been calling Members' offices to ask them to oppose the Farr-Schakowsky-McGovern amendment, because the administration is dead set on working to expand the military aid, not the economic aid to Colombia. After 5 years of spending almost $4 billion on Plan Colombia, is it not time that we reassess our policy? The Committee on Armed Services did that. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is to be commended for his work on the Committee on Armed Services, because he was able to get a reasonable ceiling on U.S. personnel in Colombia. He got bipartisan support and amended the defense bill to do just that. I am asking the same in the foreign ops bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky)

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes at this time. I want to respond to the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Indiana. They say that Plan Colombia is working, and it is working under the existing caps. My point is that, as a person who lived in that country and worked in the economic development and the community development as a Peace Corps volunteer, is that I believe that Colombia has the capacity with our help to win this war on terrorism, to win this war on drugs, and it is the obscene amount of money that drug cartels dumped into the country that is doing it. But you are not going to win that by putting all of the emphasis on the military side, and that is where the mission creep is. We have the most amount of money being spent on the military than we ever have, and we are winning the war. Now we need to spend money on the civilian side, on the economic side. You cannot win this war. What you have to do is win the peace, and the peace will not be won until the investment is in Colombians to do the job for themselves. My job in the Peace Corps was to work myself out of a job, and I think what we have lost track of here or lost sight of is that we are not really emphasizing how do we get these countries to do the job themselves. How do we get the contractors that are being paid American dollars, how do we get military that is our military to work themselves out of a job? Until we answer that and see that we are moving in that direction, I think we are asking the wrong question and we are quoting the wrong facts here. Yes, it is moving in the right direction. In fact, we would argue that, because of the way it is moving, there ought to be a greater emphasis, not a less emphasis, on local economic development, on fighting the war on poverty. There is only 20 percent of the budget that now goes to the economic side of it. That is the least amount of money since the war in Colombia, the Plan Colombia began. So the mission creep is on the military side, and I think the mission creep ought to be on the other side, on the economic side. Until we win the war on poverty, we will not win the peace, and until we win the peace, we will not have a stable country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, I would ask for unanimous consent that, at the end of this, we withdraw the amendment to keep this dialogue going. I think we can focus on really trying to do the right thing in Colombia, and I do not think that there is any difference on either side of the aisle that we want the Colombians to be able to have the capacity to govern themselves in a peaceful fashion. They certainly, of all the countries that we are involved in, have a better infrastructure, a longer-running democracy, more communities established all over the country, have well-educated people, but they also have a massive amount of poverty. The biggest problem with the drug war is it has displaced millions of people who just do not have an adequate place to live or a job or the social services or the health services and educational services that are necessary. That is my concern, that if we are putting more emphasis essentially into the military, we are going to have less emphasis, because there is only so much money you can spend on what I think is so essential, to having a lasting peace in Colombia. And that is, we have got to provide for the infrastructure, the social, economic infrastructure of all of the people that have been displaced, and we are moving away from that, from the ability to have alternative crops. Remember, the crops that are growing and are being destroyed are way out in the boonies in the middle of the jungles. You are not going to reestablish a market crop in the jungles. You are going to have to reestablish a market crop in the areas. And, remember, Colombia has been one of the leading agricultural countries in the world. We have all been drinking its coffee forever, and the quality of that coffee is the highest there is. We could do more by paying more for Colombian coffee, would be the best help in economic aid to that country of anything that I can imagine. But I would like to make sure that, as we go into conference on this bill and into the defense bill, that we keep in mind that the war in Colombia is not going to be won by mission creep of the military. It is going to be won when we start tipping the scale, as the gentleman from Indiana said, to put more emphasis in the peace effort and less in the war effort.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Col. Leda Jelinek who passed away June 7, 2004. She served the country as a distinguished member of the Army Nurse Corps for 30 years until her retirement at Fort Ord in 1971. Col. Jelinek is survived by her sister, Veva Fitzgerald of Monterey and many friends who loved her. Born in Bonesteel, South Dakota, Leda entered nurse's training at the Hospital of St. Vincent's in Sioux City, Iowa. After completing the program with distinction, Leda began a long and remarkable nursing career. She was commissioned by the Army Nurses Corps in 1941 and subsequently served at a plethora of Army hospitals throughout the United States. In addition, she served in Korea, Germany and Japan. General George Marshall was one of her many patients on the VIP floor of Walter Reed Hospital in 1953. She was a Chief Nurse Anesthetist before her promotion to Major whence she became the Director of the Advanced Medical Specialist School at Fort Bragg. Upon her retirement and during her distinguished career Leda received the Army of Occupation Medal (Japan), American Campaign Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, World War II Victory Medal, Legion of Merit, the American Defense Service Medal and the Meritorious Service Medal. Col. Jelinek was an ardent supporter of the Democratic Party and was a Jimmy Carter delegate at the National Democratic Convention of 1976. Former Congressman Leon Panetta had her as a campaign worker on numerous campaigns. She was affiliated with Monterey County Democratic Party and the Women's Democratic Club. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Leda's many accomplishments, and I commend her for her lifelong dedication to her community and friends. She was a remarkable figure, and her memory will live on in the many people whose lives she has touched. I join the Monterey Bay community, and friends and family in honoring this truly admirable woman and friend for all of her lifelong achievements.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gary Sage, who recently passed away. His contributions to both the City of Carmel as well as the international music community made him a truly commendable figure that will be greatly missed. Born in Carmel, California, Gary was born into a musical family. His father, A. Lee Sage, and his mother, Emma Joanne Sage, played important roles in the founding of the Monterey Jazz Festival. The lineage of Gary's family can be traced back to Sir David of Wales, an ancient King who was purportedly the uncle of King Arthur. Gary is survived by his former wife Katherine Cameron Sage and his son Elijah Merlin David Sage who is continuing the musical legacy that his father left behind. Gary proved his own musical genius as early as age fourteen, and is considered to be one of the best stride jazz pianists of the past few decades. He is also known as the preeminent piano restorer both in Carmel, and in the worldwide musical community. Gary was approached throughout his life by such notable piano companies as Steinway and Sons for his expertise in piano restoration. He was of the few craftsmen who knew the intricacies of piano building and made the restoration and construction of pianos into an art form. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Gary Sage for the indelible impression he left in the music world. I join his community, friends and family in honoring Gary, and have no doubt that his contributions as a musician and as a craftsman will live on for future generations.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for being a member of this great committee. I want to compliment the chairman on the good work done in bringing this bill to the floor, but I also want to point out I think something that all of us on the committee, the committee that spends the money on agriculture in America and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, what we realize is a problem, and that is that we have in this great country of ours, we still have nutritional problems and people going to bed at night hungry. One of the big difficulties in the way the budget process is set up in this country is that 80 to 85 percent of the money we spend goes to mandatory food programs. That leaves only about 16 percent or so that is discretionary. Why we need to have more input into how the Federal Government spends its money on food and nutrition is because half of the budget of the USDA is dedicated towards nutrition. So it is not a small program. It is more than half of the entire budget of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That is important. That is good. That is a good priority. But we still have areas where the demand is increasing. Frankly, food and nutrition is so essential to life and we talk on the committee about problems we are having with obesity, what we ought to be doing with our nutritional programs, particularly in schools as we feed kids. The United States government has some specialized programs in the school lunch program and the school breakfast program, and we assist schools. Those are for kids who come from a low-income family, but essentially the school lunch program that all the kids eat is a public policy because it is run by the schools, and in that program alone you will notice that when I look through what America buys to feed kids, it is not exactly the same as what we have invested money in doing research on, in telling people what is healthy for Americans. That is, our nutritional voice does not meet our spending practices. I am a big advocate for trying to get more fresh fruits and vegetables in schools. Schools have used the school lunch program and school breakfast program to provide for vending machines in schools, for finding other ways to raise money and have not really paid attention to the fact that the health of the children and the students is really dependent on how well they are fed and how good that health is. The committee has addressed a lot of these issues, but we are also faced with the same problems that other committees are and that is our discretionary funding is limited. And what we have seen with that is the food stamps, as the economy goes up and down, and as the Members know, it has been sort of in a recession in the last few years, that means more people have been unemployed. Yes, we see people getting back on the employment rolls, and that is a good thing; but we still have had since 2001 a 45 percent increase in demand for the food stamp program. We have taken a lot of steps in that area to try to streamline it and better manage the program through automatic debit cards, to swipe cards rather than having to go through the line and go through this ticket process of whether the stamps one is using are eligible to buy the product that they picked off the shelf, and the debit card allows it to show that right away on the computer and does not sort of put the recipient and the cashier in an awkward situation. The WIC program, the Women, Infants and Children, we have a program in America to feed women who are expecting in prenatal conditions and in postnatal conditions, giving them nutritious food to feed the infant. It is a very successful program. It is one that America can be very proud of. But we see that may need an increase, meaning that people just do not have the resources to buy that kind of food, or it is not readily available in their neighborhood. I have spoken of a school lunch and school breakfast program. We have a Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program called TEFAP. The money that has been flatlined for a number of years, we may need in the future to increase that. We have the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. That is mainly the things we have seen, Meals on Wheels and other entities taken to senior citizens where the commodity foods are put into a local senior citizen nutritional program. The money has been frozen in that despite the fact that we have an aging population in America; and as that aging population increases, and it is going to increase tremendously because I was just told the demographics of California, the census data shows that by the year 2015, one out of every five persons over the age of 65 will live in the State of California, that is going to be a huge burden on the State. It could also be a great asset because these people have come with a lot of experiences; but on the other hand, as we know, the aging population is staying alive longer, and we are going to need more services, and those are usually expensive services. So these types of programs may be hurt in the future if they are flatlined. So the point of my raising this is that I am really excited to be a member of this committee. I think it is a tremendous committee that works in a very strong, bipartisan fashion. The chairman has been excellent. The staff has been excellent. The other members of the committee, we all get along very well and try to work out our differences. And what I am trying to point out in my comment today is that despite the good workings inside Congress and despite the fact that we are the wealthiest country on the Earth and the most agriculturally abundant and productive, I mean just in abundancy alone, one of the three counties I represent produces 85 crops. When I talked to Members here in Congress and to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, I found that there was no other State in the United States that produced 85 crops alone. California, being the largest ag State, has the greatest variety in it, and what I would like to see our country do is move more into buying the fruits and vegetables and the things that we describe in our nutrition. Frankly, the things we see in all these fad diets that are going on right now, those are all about healthy foods and healthy fruits and vegetables, and if we use the government resources to purchase those more and get those into the school lunch program, into the WIC program, into the feeding programs, into the senior meals programs, and, frankly, into our institutional feeding. We feed the military. We feed hospitals. We feed big institutions like the Federal Prison System. If we could get our sister States and counties and cities to be able to work on their institutional feeding, we could do a much better job of getting the kind of food that is necessary to the people who need it, and we could have a better distribution of how agriculture functions in America. So I want to compliment the committee on the direction it is headed. I think we have a few problems on the horizon. I think if we put our minds to it, we can address those.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of George W. Davis, a longtime member of the Watsonville community, who passed away June 7th, 2004 at the age of 83. George is survived by his wife of 60 years, Mildred Davis, his daughter, his sister, and numerous nieces and nephews. George served in the Navy as a blimp pilot in 1941 during World War II. He transferred to the Watsonville airport following the war, starting his own construction business in 1948. Throughout the next decades, George built more than 100 area schools, including facilities at Cabrillo College, University of California at Santa Cruz, Aptos High School, Salesian Sisters and Moreland Notre Dame School. He also built numerous churches and other public buildings, including the Watsonville Youth Center. George's dedication to the youth of our community is outstanding, a commitment that we will cherish always. His accomplishments have shaped the Central Coast into the strong community it has become today. Mr. Speaker, I am immensely grateful for the tremendous gift George gave to our community. His legacy will be cherished for countless generations. I would like to extend my condolences to his family and friends.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, today this House considers the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill. I rise to speak on the Commerce portion of the bill--and more specifically, the massive cuts in funding for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs. Sadly, the bill we debate today cuts NOAA funding by 15 percent when compared to fiscal year 2004 levels. The decision to cut the funding of vital NOAA programs flies in the face of two in-depth oceans studies, The Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission Report, both released during the past year. These two reports document the crises facing our oceans--crises, as noted by the reports, which require attention now. Today. Unfortunately, instead of using the findings of the two reports to take steps forward, we will in fact be taking many steps backward if we decide to under-fund NOAA programs, especially those within the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Before I speak about some of the specific programs hardest hit, I want to thank CJS Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano for the commitment they made during full committee mark-up to work to increase the funding levels for conservation programs, particularly programs within the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, during conference with the Senate. I am grateful that they have acknowledged the importance of increasing the funding levels. I also thank Ranking Member Obey for stating his concerns regarding the NOAA funding cuts. As a co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus, I helped to lead a bi- partisan letter than garnered a total of 59 signatures supporting a variety of NOAA programs, including state coastal zone management grants, coastal nonpoint and community resource grants, the national estuarine research reserve system, the coastal and estuarine land conservation program, the national marine sanctuary system, coral reef conservation, ocean exploration, fisheries research and observer programs, marine mammal protection, and invasive species initiatives, among others. This letter was not for parochial projects; it was for national programs for this Country's largest public trust resource--our oceans. Despite this letter, the bill in front of us today actually cuts the funding levels of many of the programs we specifically noted were important to protect. Mr. Chairman, let me highlight some of the most severe cuts and briefly discuss the likely consequences of the cuts. When combining the cuts from decreases in coastal zone management grants and coastal nonpoint pollution grants--both of which are important to state efforts to address threats to the coastal ocean-- many states will be left scrambling. For example, Florida will have a net loss of $345,000; Virginia a net loss of $620,000; and my state of California will lose $620,000. These numbers may not seem like high dollar amounts since we are used to dealing in millions; however, the states rely on these funds and it is unfortunate that we can't provide them. Cooperative Fisheries Research programs have been dealt a huge blow-- going from an FY04 enacted level of $19.9 million to $5 million in the bill before us. Cooperative Research programs bring scientists together with the fishing community to foster trust and to conduct collaborative studies aimed at better understanding our fisheries resources. If we are serious about resolving over-fishing issues, we cannot afford to cut a program that brings together the critical players. Lastly, I am deeply concerned by the funding levels for marine mammal protection. Under the funding levels put forth in the bill, the National Marine Fisheries Service will not be able to fund top priority studies as identified by the multi-stakeholder Take Reduction Teams; the agency won't be able to conduct research on marine mammal population trends, health, and demographics; and sadly, the National Marine Fisheries Service will not be able to carry out marine mammal education or enforcement programs. Another unfortunate aspect of the bill in front of us today is that funding for the marine mammal health and stranding response program was zeroed out last year and the funds were not restored in this year's bill. This program funds investigations of die-offs of large numbers of marine mammals, including a recent bottlenose dolphin die-off in Florida that involved more than 100 animals. Without the restoration of this program, we lose the opportunity to study marine mammals during die-off events. Mr. Chairman, our oceans are this Country's largest public trust resource. When are we going to start treating them as such in this chamber, including adequately funding ocean programs? Our job is to ensure a future in which our oceans remain vital components of our economy, our communities, and our lives. To do this, we must fund NOAA programs today. Despite concerns by my constituents, many of whom are members of the more than 24 national organizations that signed a letter delivered to every member of the House urging a commitment for increasing NOAA funding, I am dedicated to moving this bill forward. Both the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee have given me their commitment to work diligently to increase the funding levels for the NOAA programs hardest hit by today's bill. I sincerely appreciate their commitment and look forward to working with them. However, in the future, I hope that this House will adequately fund NOAA programs so that we don't find ourselves depending on the good will of the Senate to increase the funding levels of programs that so many of our constituents care so deeply about.

Mr. FARR

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

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the comment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I am going to read here that in the State of California, teen use of marijuana has dropped 34 percent among seventh graders, 44 percent among ninth graders and 21 percent among eleventh graders since the California medical marijuana initiative passed in 1996. Also, I would like to point out that this is not such a radical amendment. It only affects the States that have State laws, that have the enforcement. We have not heard from law enforcement opposing this. We have heard from the American Nursing Association, the United Methodist Church, the New York Medical Society, the Rhode Island Medical Society, the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar Association, the American Public Health Association and the Episcopal Church. They all support this amendment.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think we have to stop and listen and look at what is going on here. What we are talking about is regulations that went into effect 7 days ago. These are new regulations. There was no oversight by Congress. We are providing the opportunity here to give that oversight and to do the checks and balances. The regulations are anti-American because they only affect us. They do not affect Cubans. We are the ones that cannot do this. Our government is telling us that we cannot be compassionate Americans. We cannot send seeds, cannot send clothing, cannot send fishing equipment, cannot send soap to people in another country. And we are going to have to have a police force that goes out and enforces that? That is not a compassionate America. We cannot be a country that says that we can leave no child behind when we cannot even send hygiene products to this country. We cannot. Americans cannot. We can send to every other kid in the world something that we cannot send to Cuba. That is not leave no child behind. What are we afraid of? What are we so afraid of that we have to make these regulations so restrictive that we Americans just cannot send a goodwill package to people? How are we going to have friendships? How are we going to instruct about democracy? How are we going to talk about this great country? This country is turning into the ugly American, the really ugly American by making these really dumb and anti-American restrictions; and we in Congress should lift them by voting for this amendment.