Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thought the author of the amendment has the right to close.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is very straightforward. In simple terms, the Farr-Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Paul amendment prohibits the use of funds in the bill from preventing States that have medical marijuana laws from implementing them. As a result, the States have medical marijuana laws on the books they can implement, regulate and enforce them, just like now. States that do not have medical marijuana laws on the books remain subject to the overarching Federal law. This amendment does not stop law enforcement officials from prosecuting illegal use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage the use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage the use of drugs in children. This amendment does not legalize any drugs. This amendment does not change the classification of marijuana. This amendment is recognized as States' rights to oversee the medical scope of practice of doctors in their States, to prescribe drugs as doctors see as necessary for medical conditions. Today's Los Angeles Times points out that the Justice Department's medical marijuana war seems increasingly out of step with the whole country. Last fall, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling barring Federal officials from prosecuting doctors for their recommendations. Just 2 weeks ago, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainstream religious groups supported doctors' rights to prescribe pot as a when- all-else-fails treatment for the seriously ill. The best way to thwart casual use of this drug is to let doctors prescribe it in closely circumscribed and regulated ways such as the States do. Now, there are nine States that have passed these laws. The voters are speaking, and they are doing it more in every State. Just recently Vermont. Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have enacted State medical marijuana laws. Because of these State laws, thousands of patients are able to alleviate their pain and suffering without fear of arrest by State or local authorities. The threat of arrest by Federal agents, however, still exists. In the past, the Federal Government has impeded research on medical use of marijuana, even though thousands of patients have testified, explained, and acknowledged that it helps relieve some of the debilitating symptoms, such as nausea, pain, loss of appetite associated with serious illness. Despite Federal admonitions against marijuana, the American people support medical marijuana and pretty overwhelmingly. Most national polls show the support around 70 percent. This amendment is not necessarily about the actual medical purpose of marijuana, though I know scores of doctors have attested to marijuana's medical benefits. In States where medical marijuana is legal, thousands of licensed physicians have recommended marijuana to their patients. This amendment is not about legalizing drugs, though some will argue that it should be. No. What this amendment is about is States rights. In so many areas we trust States rights. And I think of us here in the United States Congress. We allowed States to draw our district boundary lines. We allow States to set the fee we have to pay to run for office. We allow the States to create the primary procedures for getting elected to Congress. We allow the States to fashion Medicaid packages. We allow States to license doctors to practice. We trust the States to do what is best for their residents of that State. When it comes to health care policy or palliative care, the care of alleviating pain, nine States of the United States have determined that it is appropriate public policy to allow the use of marijuana as a prescribed treatment. If Congress respects States rights in so many other areas, why does it not respect it with regard to medical marijuana? Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the Federal Government from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. It would end the DEA raids on medical marijuana patients and caregivers who are acting in accordance with state law. It would not--let me repeat--it would not prevent the DEA from arresting individuals who are involved in marijuana-related activities unconnected to medical use. Here is the simple question posed by this amendment: Should the Federal Government arrest individuals who are trying to alleviate their own suffering or the suffering of others in compliance with state law? I am only too familiar with the tension between DEA law enforcement and state and locally-sanctioned marijuana cooperatives in California. On September 5, 2002 in Santa Cruz, California--my district--dozens of heavily armed DEA agents stormed into the home of Valerie and Mike Corral where the cooperative garden of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), a medical marijuana hospice, is tended by collective members. They destroyed 167 plants, which would have been distributed--free of charge--to more than 200 seriously and terminally ill WAMM members. Although the Corrals did not resist, the agents pointed loaded rifles to their heads, forced them to the ground, and handcuffed their hands behind their backs. The DEA agents kept them handcuffed in their home for 4 hours before taking them 30 miles to the Federal courthouse in San Jose where they were eventually released without being charged. Meanwhile, Federal agents handcuffed the Corral's over-night guest, Suzanne Pfeil, a WAMM member who was disabled by polio, and detained two other members, one with AIDS and a caregiver. Pfeil happened to be sleeping when the raid occurred. Despite the fact that her leg braces and crutches were in plain sight, the agents demanded she stand, which she was unable to do with her hands cuffed. Pfeil's blood pressure shot up and she experienced chest pains. Agents then refused to call an ambulance. All this pain, confusion and fear--yet WAMM was operating with the full knowledge and consent of state and local authorities. Many people who oppose medical marijuana say that there is only anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness. But these anecdotes cannot be simply dismissed; they are the stories of real people who are suffering. Just this morning in Roll Call, there was a powerful example of this. Talk show host Montel Williams discussed his struggle to live with excruciating pain caused by multiple sclerosis. Montel Williams, a former Marine and decorated naval officer, who made anti-drug PSA's for the White House drug czar's office, explained in this article that marijuana is the ``only'' drug that allows him to function on a day-to- day basis. Now if he is using marijuana with his doctor's advice and is following state law, why on earth should we waste Federal resources trying to prevent him from alleviating his own pain? And taking it a step further, if someone else is growing that marijuana for him and is following state law why should we take that medicine away from him by interfering with the grower? The answer most opponents of this amendment will give is that marijuana simply is not a medicine. But this had become an absurd claim. First of all, both the Netherlands and Canada have enacted medical marijuana laws, with marijuana available at pharmacies in the Netherlands. In the United States, nine states have medical marijuana laws that allow doctors to recommend marijuana to their patients. And in those states, hundreds of doctors have recommended marijuana to thousands of patients. Even our Federal Government has acknowledged the therapeutic benefits of marijuana. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine conducted a study funded by the White House Office of National Drug Policy. The principle investigator from the study said upon its completion, ``We concluded that there are some limited circumstances in which we recommend smoking marijuana for medical use.'' An even stronger endorsement came from the DEA in 1988. Then, Administrative Law Judge Francis Young, after an exhaustive, 2-year study of marijuana, called for its rescheduling on the grounds that ``marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.'' He concluded, even 60 years ago, that marijuana offered a ``currently accepted medical use in treatment.'' Over the past year, medical marijuana has gained even wider acceptance. It has been endorsed by the American Nurses Association, whose 2.6 million members care for the Nation's most seriously ill patients; by the United Methodist Church, the Nation's third largest religious denomination; by the New York and Rhode Island Medical Societies; and by many other health care organizations. Other longtime supporters of medical marijuana include the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the American Public Health Association. Do opponents of this amendment honestly believe the American Nurses Association, the New York State Medical Society, United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and others are supporting this issue because they hope to legalize marijuana for all purposes? Of course that isn't the reason. These organizations support legal access to marijuana for medical purposes because they know one simple fact: it helps sick people. Other opponents of this amendment say that they will not support medical marijuana until more research is complete. The problem is that the Federal Government has effectively blocked research. To cite just one example, in July 2001, the University of Massachusetts applied to the DEA for a license to manufacture marijuana for medical research. This is the same kind of license a company called GW Pharmaceuticals applied for in England a few years ago. While GW Pharmaceuticals has now concluded Phase III trials and is nearing market approval for its marijuana spray, the DEA--3 years later--has not even bothered to deny the University of Massachusetts' license. Of course, they have not granted it, either. They have just let the application sit in limbo. Antoher application to the Federal Government, requesting permission to import just 10 grams of marijuana for research has languished for 10 months. Does our government think 10 grams of marijuana is going to increase the drug problem in this Nation? Of course not. The Federal goal seems to be to purposely to block research that would prove--or disprove, once and for all--that marijuana has therapeutic benefits. But let's assume for a minute that all of the obstacles to research were suddenly removed. That does not get us past the immediate question: Should the Federal Government, over the course of the next year, while research is proceeding, arrest patients and caregivers who are complying with state law in order to alleviate their own suffering or the suffering of others? Another objection raised by opponents of this amendment is that passing it would send the wrong message to children. It would make children think that marijuana is not dangerous. Let me tell you something. Children know how dangerous marijuana is already. Allowing seriously ill patients to use it will not change that. And associating the use of marijuana with AIDS and chemotherapy is not likely to increase its appeal. On the other hand, if you deny cancer, AIDS, and MS patients the opportunity to use this drug to alleviate their pain-- while permitting the medical use of powerful addictive drugs like vicodin and oxycontin--the only message you are sending to children is that you are intellectually dishonest and completely lacking in compassion. The truth is, where medical marijuana is legal, there has been no increase in marijuana use among teens. In fact, in my home state of California, teen use of marijuana has dropped 34 percent among 7th graders, 44 percent among 9th graders, and 21 percent among 11th graders since the California medical marijuana initiative passed in 1996. The same Institute of Medicine study described earlier noted, ``there is no evidence that the medical marijuana debate has altered adolescents' perceptions of the risks associated with marijuana use.'' Listen closely today to hear whether opponents of this amendment back their warning about sending the wrong message to children with any evidence demonstrating that medical use has caused a change in attitude about recreational use; I doubt there will be any with any scientific weight. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is reasonably drafted and built on scientific evidence, judicial review, and medical studies. It reflects the grass roots demand and legislative will of nine of our United States. It is time for Congress to recognize the powerful dynamics of this issue and adopt my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR. 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 rise in opposition to the CJS appropriations committee recommendation to eliminate funding for the SBA 7(a) program and in support of the Manzullo-Velazquez Amendment. The challenges for small businesses in this stagnant economic climate are formidable--rising health insurance costs, increasing energy expenses and dramatic outsourcing competition. The SBA 7(a) program is the only source of affordable, long-term financing for many of our nation's small businesses. It offers assistance to established small businesses and acts as a catalyst to energize and foment the entrepreneurial spirit that, as Americans, we must celebrate and nurture. The 7(a) program not only serves as a lifeline to entrepreneurs, it also creates American jobs. Small businesses account for approximately 75 percent of the net new jobs in America. The SBA 7(a) program annually generates 360,000 jobs. If the Bush administration is truly serious about growing the economy and creating jobs on Main Street instead of offering tax cuts for Wall Street, they should not have zeroed out this program in their budget. We must continue to fund this important program that is instrumental to fostering the entrepreneurial spirit. How can we deny our constituents the chance to realize the American dream and create their own business and be their own boss? Every job counts in this economy and the U.S. government has the obligation to foster free enterprise and small businesses by funding the SBA 7(a) program.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sanders-Otter- Conyers-Paul-Nadler Freedom to Read amendment. This amendment curtails one of the most invasive provisions of the Patriot Law by prohibiting law enforcement from making sweeping searches and seizures of library and bookstore patron records. We can all recall October 2001 when the PATRIOT Act was hastily passed by this body. Many of us, myself included, didn't have the chance to read this lengthy and complicated legislation in the few hours we had before the vote. I voted against the unseen legislation because I was concerned that its passage would amount to the blind abandonment of our civil liberties. As the details of the PATRIOT law came to light, it became all too clear that this law contained numerous infringements on our long-held civil liberties. Today, we all know what is in the PATRIOT law, and our constituents know too. In my district, the local governments of Pacific Grove, Salinas, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville, CA, have all passed resolutions expressing their concerns with the anti-privacy and antiliberty portions of the PATRIOT Act. Supporting this amendment is an opportunity to respond to those concerns and rollback one of the most invasive provisions of the PATRIOT law. Passing the Freedom to Read amendment would ensure that library or book store records relating to an American who is not the subject of an investigation will not end up in the government's hands without the benefit of the protections of the courts. I would urge my colleagues to stand up for the civil liberties that our country has always stood for and pass the Freedom to Read amendment.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am rising today to discuss this bill because it cuts the NOAA funding by 15 percent and ignores essentially the two in-depth ocean reports released to Congress this past year. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, for a commitment that they made during the full committee markup to work to increase the funding levels for the ``National Ocean Service'' and for the National Marine Fishery Service during conference. I appreciate their acknowledgment that the levels need to be increased. I also want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for stating his concern on the NOAA funding cuts. I am deeply concerned about NOAA. With the commitments in mind, I want to highlight the funding levels for some of the NOAA programs. The hardest hit, and I would reference a bipartisan letter that was sent to the Committee on Appropriations by 59 Members of the House, the Coastal Zone Management Grants and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Grants, both of which States heavily rely on. Florida, for example, loses $345,000; Virginia has a net loss of $620,000; California also has a net loss of $620,000. This may not seem like much when we are usually dealing in millions and billions, but to the States who rely on these funds for ongoing coastal zone management and nonpoint source grants, it is a great deal of money. The Cooperative Fisheries Research Programs were cut also by $20 million. These programs bring the fishing community together with scientists to better understand fishery resources. This is a big issue that both of the ocean reports talked about, the fact that the right hand on science does not necessarily work well with the left hand on fisheries, and we need to make sure these two groups come together, and the fishermen understand the science, and the scientists better understand the economics of fishing so we can better meld these two groups together. We cannot do this if we are cutting the programs that bring people together. Another area, the Marine Mammal Protection area, will be severely hampered under the House mark which, once separate lines are combined, equals roughly $4 million. The National Marine Fisheries Service will not be able to fund top-priority studies as identified by the multi- stakeholder take reduction teams. The National Marine Fisheries will not be able to design or implement fishery management plans that protect marine mammals. The agency will not be able to conduct research on population trends, health and demographics of marine mammals, and the National Marine Fisheries will not be able to carry out the education and enforcement programs. The other program that was affected by this was the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program which was cut last year and that has not yet been resolved. The program funds our investigations of die- offs of large numbers of marine mammals, including the recent bottlenose dolphin die-off in Florida, which involved more than 100 animals. If we combine the cuts in the State Coastal Zone Management Grants and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Grants, both of which are, as I said, relied on heavily by the States, you get these additional losses. So without these funds, we lose the opportunity to study and to work with the States in implementing good programs. In my constituency, I have 24 national organizations which have signed a letter to every Member of the House, which describes deep concerns with the NOAA funding. They have fundamental problems with the cuts that NOAA received. I believe the commitment made by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) to increase funding levels is sincere and they will work on that in conference. The NOAA programs such as the ones I have highlighted will ensure that our future in the oceans will remain vital and components of our economy and our communities and our lives will be sustained. Lastly, because of the good work done by both the Pew Commission and the National Oceans Commission, we will be able to implement with these fundings some of the strong recommendations they made for healthy oceans. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letters for the Record: Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, April 8, 2004. Hon. Frank Wolf, Chairman, Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Jose Serrano, Ranking Member, Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano: As Members concerned with our nation's diverse and productive coastal areas, we are requesting your support for funding the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Our oceans and coasts support more than 2.8 million jobs, generate more than $54 billion in goods and services per year, and are the most popular destinations for recreation and tourism in the U.S. Established by Congress in 2000, the Conservation Trust Fund dedicates $560 million in FY05 for critical coastal conservation programs within NOAA. We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's full use of this funding over the last four years to provide vital support for high priority coastal conservation initiatives and urge the Subcommittee to again make full use of this fund in FY05. On the eve of the release of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy draft report, we ask for your assistance in meeting the significant challenges and threats now confronting our oceans. We recognize the Committee has extraordinarily difficult choices to make this year; however, the continued health and prosperity of our coastal communities depend on our willingness to invest today to preserve our nation's coastal legacy for future generations. We respectfully request the Subcommittee seriously consider the funding levels for the following programs. coastal zone management State Coastal Zone Management Grants--$80 million. These funds, which are matched dollar for dollar, are critical to support the efforts of 34 states and territories to reduce the impacts of coastal development, expand public access, reduce the damages from coastal hazards, restore and protect critical habitats and support the nation's important and diverse coastal communities. Coastal Nonpoint and Community Resource Improvement Grants--$10 million. We urge the Subcommittee to reject the Administration's proposed termination of this program. This funding is only a fraction of what is needed by states to address polluted runoff, the most significant source of pollution of coastal waters. National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)--$20 million grants, $15 million acquisition and construction. This funding will enable NERRS to support the addition of a new Reserve to the current system of 26 and fund the ongoing coastal stewardship training, research and education programs and construction needs. Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program--$60 million. Nowhere in the nation is the threat of ecosystem fragmentation, sprawl and habitat loss more prevalent than in our nation's coastal zone. In the first three years of this program, CELCP funds have leveraged non-federal funds and protected thousands of acres of coastal lands in 25 states. marine conservation and ocean exploration National Marine Sanctuaries--$40 million operations, $10 million construction. The National Marine Sanctuary Program protects our nation's most unique and nationally significant marine ecosystems and resources. Level funding for operations in FY05 is critical to reducing staffing shortages, supporting conservation, community outreach, research, and education programs, and updating sanctuary management plans as required by law. We support no less than the fully authorized level for operation of sanctuaries and encourage the committee to recognize the pressing need for higher levels. In addition, we support $10 million for construction, as the backlog in facilities maintenance remains a significant operations liability at many sanctuaries. Coral Reef Construction--$28.25 million. Coral reef ecosystems are among the most diverse, biologically productive, economically valuable, and threatened marine habitats in the world. Increased resources are urgently needed to reduce land-based pollution and address overfishing, diseases, and other threats to coral reefs. Funding for local action strategies will support on-the- ground solutions, such as critical monitoring, mapping, restoration, outreach and protection activities that reduce threats to coral reefs. Ocean Exploration--$13.9 million. Less than 5% of the ocean has been explored or characterized to the same degree of resolution as we have characterized Mars and Venus. Ocean exploration is the vital first step in a new approach to ocean resource management, improved marine science and education, and a new vision for ocean stewardship. We urge the Subcommittee to support last year's funding level to demonstrate U.S. leadership in this important global issue. sustainable fisheries, marine mammals and invasive species Fisheries, Research and Observer Programs--$75 million. Recent scientific reports conclude that too many of our nation's fisheries are on the brink of collapse. Reducing the backlog in research days-at-sea and increasing fishery observer coverage and cooperative research efforts will give managers baseline information critical to better managing our fisheries. We commend the Subcommittee's efforts for increase funding in these areas in FY04 and urge $25 million for expanding stock assessments, $20 million for cooperative research, including data collection and analysis, and $30 million for regional and national fishery observer programs in FY05. Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)--President's request of $9.3 million. VMS is a satellite-based fishery enforcement system that provides real-time catch data from participating vessels in a range of fisheries. The President's request would allow for the establishment and implementation of VMS systems and placement of transponders onboard many of the estimated 10,000 boats in the U.S. commercial fishing fleet. VMS programs augment existing enforcement efforts at approximately 1% of the cost, enhance data collection, and benefit fishermen by improving safety at sea and allowing fishing right up until a quota is reached. Marine Mammal Protection--$9.1 million. This funding will help NMFS more fully assess and take measures to recover depleted and strategic marine mammal species, such as common dolphins, pilot whales and bottlenose dolphins, through take reduction team activities as well as other research, conservation and recovery efforts. Endangered Species Act, Cooperative Agreements with States--$4 million. This cooperative program makes funding available on a competitive, matching basis to carry out conservation activities at the state and local level. Providing $4 million to the states in FY05 would support local researchers, non-governmental organizations, and volunteers to accomplish monitoring, restoration, science and conservation of species at risk of extinction. Invasive Species Initiative--$5.5 million. This funding will be used by NOAA's Invasive Species reducing the potential for invasive species to be introduced in US ports and coastal waters, and to promote increased collaboration among the many groups working to understand invasive species, including NOAA, other agencies, and the scientific community. Our oceans are a public trust whose stewardship is critical to our economy, our environment, and our future. We greatly appreciate your past support for these programs and your consideration of our requests. Sincerely, James Greenwood, Wayne T. Gilchrest, Curt Weldon, E. Clay Shaw, Jan Schakowsky, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Frank Pallone, Jr., Sam Farr, Tom Allen, Dennis Cardoza, Michael H. Michaud, Jo Bonner, Jeb Bradley, Timothy V. Johnson, John Conyers, Jr. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Chris Smith, Gene Green, John M. McHugh, Bart Stupak, Susan A. Davis, Loretta Sanchez, Anthony D. Weiner, Peter Deutsch, Jerrold Nadler, Carolyn B. Maloney, Gary L. Ackerman, Eliot L. Engel, Dale E. Kildee, Ed Markey. Robert Wexler, Tom Petri, Eni Faleomavaega, Betty McCollum, Kendrick B. Meek, George Miller, Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, Raul M. Grijalva, Earl Blumenauer, Tom Lantos, Tammy Baldwin, Alcee L. Hastings, Jim McDermott, Jay Inslee, Adam B. Schiff. Mike McIntyre, Mike Thompson, James Langevin, Lois Capps,

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I, like others, rise in support of the bill. I think the authors of this bill, particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), have done a great job, but this is the only bill we have before Congress which allows us to have a debate on FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It would be a better bill if we put an amendment in there, but the Committee on Rules has not allowed that amendment, and that is wrong. It is really wrong because this is the only place where we can address that issue. The administration should address it. They have been silent. They sit by and allow FERC to continue to do nothing. FERC is a regulatory agency. This is where the consumers can go to get some protection. That is the only agency in the Federal Government that can do anything about it; and when they do not act, we have nowhere to turn. This is an agency that ought to have money withheld from it until it answers the questions. That is something that we do in the legislative process all the time. And since the administration has failed to hold them accountable, Congress should. We are asleep at the switch. When that switch was asleep at FERC, a regulatory agency, they allowed all of these companies to just screw California. Mr. Speaker, it took $9 billion of taxpayer money to pay these bills. This is absolutely absurd. It is more than absurd. It is obscene, it is criminal and it ought to stop now. The Eshoo amendment should be debated. It is a shame on the Committee on Rules that they did not make it in order.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the great young leaders I have had the privilege to know and work with. Rafael Lopez of Watsonville, California, will be leaving his post as founding Executive Director of First 5 Santa Cruz County to attend Harvard University and pursue a Master's degree in Public Policy and Administration. Rafael is a native of Watsonville, where his family worked as migrant agriculture workers. One of the many noteworthy facts about his life is that he was the first in his family to graduate from both high school and college. Rafael graduated from Watsonville High School and attended Vassar College in New York and the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he earned a degree with honors in American Studies and was awarded a Distinguished College Service Award. Rafael's resume reflects his deep commitment to his community and our nation: an internship with a Member of Congress, staff member of the UCSC Chicano Latino Research Center; Coordinator for Residential Education at Merrill College, UCSC; working with groups such as the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, the El Andar Foundation, the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, the City of Watsonville, the County of Santa Cruz, the list goes on and on. Most recently, however, Rafael has truly shown what it means to be a community leader. In 1999, he ran for a seat on the Watsonville City Council in a special election, and won with over 70 percent of the vote. At the time, Rafael was the youngest person in Watsonville's history to serve on the council, and he approached this position with a passion and commitment that reflected his love of his hometown. As in all things in his life, he felt called to serve his constituency to the best of his ability, and reached out to those he served in an unprecedented manner. Shortly after his election victory he was tapped as the founding Executive Director of First 5 Santa Cruz County, a countywide program implemented through the passage of the California Children and Families First Act (Proposition 10). Once again Rafael rose to the challenge of working with and implementing a program aimed at serving children from zero to five years old and their families out of whole cloth. While the act itself does provide many specifications for how each county's commission would operate, it also provides the flexibility necessary for each commission to implement the act in a way that helps its constituency best. For Rafael and the commissioners, this included grant funding to large and small programs; countywide analysis with partners such as the United Way on the state of families and children in Santa Cruz County; and perhaps most groundbreaking is the upcoming implementation of guaranteed health care for all children from zero to eighteen. This last program has been the vision of many individuals and organizations in the county, and is the result of a unique and exciting partnership, but without a doubt Rafael's energy, focus and passion for this program shines through. Mr. Speaker, there are few individuals who have left as large an impact on the Pajaro Valley and Santa Cruz County as Rafael Lopez. I am honored to know him, and equally saddened to see him go. I would like to take this opportunity to wish him and his wife, Rosa Ramirez, all of the best in success and happiness as they enter this new stage in their lives.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Charles B. ``Sonny'' Towner, Jr., who passed away on June 2, 2004. A dedicated member of the Santa Cruz community, Charles is survived by his wife Ellen, and will be greatly missed. Charles led a life of public service, first serving in the 6th Aircraft Repair Unit Floating during World War II. Following the war, Charles returned to California to sell sporting goods, becoming a prominent businessman in the Bay Area for over 30 years. Continuing his public service, Charles also became the business manager for the Cambrian School District in San Jose for ten years. During this time, Charles was an active member of the Camden High School Booster Club and volunteered for the Cambrian Park Little League and Pony League. Following his retirement in 1990, Charles continued his commitment to his community, as he volunteered with the Trinity Presbyterian Church, Santa Cruz Gardens School Volunteer Program and the California Grey Bears. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deepest sympathy to Charles' family and honor him by celebrating his life and contribution to society. As a prominent member of the Santa Cruz community, Charles Towner, Jr. will be missed.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, California's the fifth largest economy in the world. One would think that the Republican administration would be paying attention to the economic indicators in California and realize that all is not well in the economy. Since President Bush took office, 1.9 million jobs have been lost. Californian unemployment remains above the national average, and one in 10 persons in my District is unemployed. Jobs that have been created are low-paying and do not provide benefits such as health care and other important benefits. There is a direct link between getting a good education and getting a good job, but the ability to get that good education has been undermined by the inability to adequately fund the best higher education system in the United States, the California higher education system, because students are now being turned away. Eligible to get in, all the tests, all the ability to get in, but no room in the inn. Why? Because this administration has failed to adequately fund the Pell grants and Perkins loans for students to make education accessible. During the 1980s, we learned that voodoo economics did not stimulate the economy. Neither is hoodoo economics stimulating the economy today.

Mr. FARR

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

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to also associate myself with the gentleman's remarks, and remind this body that only last week with all the construction that is going on, and we are trying to get that construction over with because it is so bothersome, but when we were having the service for former President Reagan in the rotunda, we stopped all the noise outside in the construction area. It seems to me that we ought to allow the national parks to be places where people do not have to experience unnatural noises, and the noises from snowmobiles are very, very loud.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Holt amendment, and let me tell you why. I know a lot of these things have been said. But, after all, this is a national park, and I think if you read Megatrends and what is happening in America, that the most increasing sport in America is watchable wildlife. More people watch wildlife than all of the national football games, baseball games, basketball games, golf, everything you see on television. More people are looking at wild animals. Where do you go to look at wild animals and have the serenity of the wilderness? It is in the wilderness areas. It seems to me that that is the inspiration for thought, the inspiration for connection with nature. And if there is anything that is so obtrusive after you have gone into a park, it is to be interrupted by things that are not natural. If there is something that is not natural in a national park, it is snowmobiles. It is like having chain saws while we are trying to have this debate here in this Chamber. We could not stand the noise. We would ask that it be stopped. I represent the United States' largest marine sanctuary. We have outlawed jet skis in the sanctuary. Why? People do not want to go down to the ocean and just hear a bunch of noise from jet skis. They want to see otters, they want to be able to see sea lions, they want to be able to hear them, they want to be able to watch whales, they want to see the coastline in its natural state. That is why we have national parks. That is why it is the highest act of Congress to do it. It seems to me if a park is a park is a park, then we have to do everything possible to make sure that park is the experience that people want to have in the wilderness. If you want to go out and have sports in the wilderness, fine, go to someplace in a national forest. But do not go to a national park to do it. It is just not right. You do not allow hunting in the national park, and people could give you all reasons why perhaps you ought to have hunting, limited hunting; but we do not do it, and we ought not to have snowmobiles in any national park.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my dear friend Edie Karas, one of the most dedicated and energetic community members in my Central California district, and indeed the nation and the world. A life-long resident of the Monterey Peninsula, Edie has played an active and vital role in countless civic organizations. Along with her late husband of more than 50 years, the former Monterey County Supervisor Sam Karas, Edie made up half a dynamic duo of public service. Since Sam passed away in 2003, Edie has carried on with that tradition of service to both her neighbors next door and her neighbors around the world. A short account of Edie's service would include the time that Edie has donated to the Monterey Civic Club, Monterey Recreation Committee, Robinson Jeffers' Tor House, Alliance on Aging, Monterey Bay Symphony, State Theatre Preservation Society, and the list goes on. In addition, several years ago, Edie and her late husband, the former County Supervisor Sam Karas, traveled to Bosnia where they served as international election observers. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate Edie's work on behalf of the Big Sur Health Center, which will recognize her service in a tribute on June 18, 2004. I became involved with the clinic in the late '70's as a member of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. At that time the Big Sur Clinic had more certified EMTs per capita than any place in the U.S. and provided free emergency services and an ambulance maintained by the Red Cross. Today the Health Center serves many of the outpatient health needs of the rural Big Sur community in a modest facility made up of two 35 year old portable trailers and a treasury of heart, soul, and dedication supplied by its volunteers. For much of the last decade, Team Karas has been instrumental in its growth and success. When they joined the Center's board in the late 1990s, the Center faced deep financial hardship. Sam took immediate action and began to contact the Pebble Beach Foundation and other funding sources outside the immediate Big Sur community. His efforts put the Center on the map for charitable foundations and government agencies. The Center soon regained its financial footing and was back on the path to fiscal health. However, while Sam was out front making the initial calls and receiving the credit, I have always suspected that it was Edie who did the work. I see evidence of that in the fact that the Center will soon replace its venerable trailers with a new building, a development in which Edie has played no small part in seeing to fruition. Edie continues to be the spark of energy that animates the Center's fundraising efforts and every other cause that she embraces. So it is with true pleasure that I join with the Big Sur community and the people of Monterey County in recognizing Edie Karas for her service to the Big Sur Health Center. I wish Edie and the Center the best of health.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in full support of my friend and colleague, Mr. Gilchrest, in his efforts to protect sea turtles. Mr. Gilchrest has a long history of working diligently to protect marine wildlife and this bill, H.R. 3378, the Marine Turtle Conservation Act, demonstrates his ongoing interest in this area. Mr. Speaker, both the Pew and U.S. Ocean Commission Reports have documented the many crises facing our oceans. These are crises that require real leadership by this body. Today, we have the opportunity to demonstrate our leadership by passing Mr. Gilchrest's bill. With 6 of 7 marine turtles listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, H.R. 3378 is a wake-up call. Like the sea otter--an animal especially important to my district--sea turtles play vital roles in the ecosystems in which they occur. This means that our efforts to restore sea turtle populations will likely have the indirect effect of benefiting many other marine species. More bang for the buck. I think we all like it when that happens. Sea turtles straddle numerous political borders--they are highly migratory species whose conservation depends on cooperative efforts by humans across the globe. These cooperative efforts require political and financial commitments by many groups, from individual countries to non-governmental organizations to local communities. When all of these levels of leadership come together in a cohesive manner, our protection of sea turtles is dramatically increased. H.R. 3378 coordinates all of these levels by authorizing funds for on-the-ground efforts to protect sea turtles in countries where a lack of funds, not a lack of will, is the problem. Mr. Speaker, it is only through international efforts that sea turtle populations will begin to rebound. I know that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service work hard to oversee our country's efforts to protect sea turtles and to collaborate with other countries at every opportunity. With passage of H.R. 3378, we can take our leadership to the next level by providing grants to international groups with demonstrated experience in conserving sea turtles. By doing this, the United States can demonstrate its leadership in coastal and ocean conservation--something near and dear to my heart. Mr. Gilchrest has addressed one piece of the puzzle and I commend him for his efforts. The next step--and I think that Mr. Gilchrest would agree--is to provide a long-term vision about our relationship with the sea by passing a national ocean policy act. I am working on BOB, the Big Ocean Bill, with the cochairs of the bipartisan House Oceans Caucus. I know we would all welcome Mr. Gilchrest's leadership and expertise on marine wildlife and fisheries conservation as we move forward with BOB. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3378 and hope that it represents the beginning of a new era in U.S. ocean policy.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas Q. Reefe, whose lifelong dedication to the Santa Cruz community consists of over 35 years of volunteerism and leadership with local organizations. Tom will be retiring from his current position as Executive Director of Leadership Santa Cruz County where he has diligently worked to advance the interests of the organization for the betterment of the community for over 13 years. Tom first became involved in local politics while attending UC Berkeley in the 1960's. He was soon recognized by many as a community organizer and anti-war activist. His education was interrupted by military service while he served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam. After a distinguished tour, Tom returned to receive his PhD in African History in 1974. Following the receipt of his degree, Torn taught History at the University of North Carolina. After a fruitful career as a professor, Tom accepted a position at the University of California Santa Cruz as Director of Career Services where he worked until 1993. Beyond his extensive professional experience, Tom has been an integral part of the local Santa Cruz community as well. A member of the first graduating class of Leadership Santa Cruz in 1986, Tom has remained loyal to the organization since its inception. Due to his innovative and sustainable proposals, Leadership Santa Cruz has blossomed into a much relied upon organization within our community. Under his tutelage, over 600 members of our community, including members of my district staff, have been guided through an extensive course intended to outline the various facets that make up Santa Cruz County. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Tom on his much deserved retirement and thank him for his contribution to our society. Tom has continuously gone above and beyond the roles bestowed upon him and has left in his wake a legacy of community leadership. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Alan Brenner who passed away May 16th 2004 after a prolonged battle with cancer. He has been an active member of our community and will be missed by all who knew him. He is survived by his wife, Jeannie, son, Michael, stepchildren Alex, Scott, and Diane Wilsdon, and ten grandchildren. Born and raised in Palo Alto, California, Alan was no stranger to the nearby Monterey Bay, as he completed his basic training at the former Fort Ord. After serving for two years in the United States Army, Alan began his lifelong career in the hospitality industry. He returned to the Monterey Peninsula in 1971 to become the General Manager of the La Playa Hotel in Carmel. In 1978 he began managing the new Monterey Conference Center, where his accomplishments led his colleagues to name him ``World's Best Convention Services Manager'' in 1979. Alan's famous generosity led to his involvement in several local organizations such as the Pacific Repertory Theater, Forest Theater Guild in Carmel, the Carmel Rotary Club, Pacheco Club, and All Saints Episcopal Church. He often took on leadership roles, and was an active supporter of local artists and musicians. The Carmel Bach Festival board benefited from his eleven years of service, and he put in countless volunteer hours helping to renovate the Sunset Theater while on, the Building Committee for the Sunset Theater Project. Even with his busy schedule at home, Alan never missed a chance to travel with his wife, Jeannie. They visited such diverse places as Bhutan, Niger, and India, always eager to meet new people. Alan and Jeannie made first contact with the Kumbi people in Irian Jaya, and during a trip last fall to China met the Miao people. Alan's travels and interactions with other cultures truly made him feel connected to the global community in a way that few people have the chance to experience. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Alan's many accomplishments, and I commend him for his lifelong dedication to his community and friends. He was a remarkable figure, and his memory will live on in the many people whose lives he has touched. I join the Monterey Bay community, and friends and family in honoring this truly admirable man and friend for all of his lifelong achievements.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Richard W. Bedal, a dedicated member of the Santa Cruz community, upon his retirement. Beginning his commitment to public service in 1970 as a Legal Clerk in the Superior Court Clerk's Office, Mr. Bedal has continued to serve the county of Santa Cruz for over 30 years. Mr. Bedal will be enjoying his retirement in the company of his family and wife, Martha. In 1975, Mr. Bedal became a Judge Pro Tem in the Small Claims and Traffic Court before accepting the position of Assistant County Clerk in 1976. After spending 6 years supervising the Superior Court Clerk's Office, Mr. Bedal was elected in 1982 and then re-elected in 1986 and 1990 to the position of County Clerk-Recorder for the County of Santa Cruz. His public service took a new turn in 1994 when he was elected to the consolidated office of County Clerk-Recorder and Treasurer-Tax Collector, continuing to serve in this office until his retirement this year. Though a well deserved retirement, Mr. Bedal's long dedication to the county of Santa Cruz will be missed. In addition to serving the county of Santa Cruz, Mr. Bedal also has been the President of the California Association of County-Treasurers- Tax Collectors, President of the Boys and Girls Club of Santa Cruz, President of the County Recorders' Association of California, and President of the Santa Cruz County Employee's Credit Union throughout his many years of service to his community. An avid biker, Mr. Bedal has also completed the California AIDS ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles and once even biked from Santa Cruz to Santa Barbara to visit his daughter. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize Mr. Richard W. Bedal's accomplishments and contributions to our community. I am immensely grateful for his dedication and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and pleasure that I am able to rise today to recognize Tom Reefe, the Executive Director of Leadership Santa Cruz County. Tom has held the position of Executive Director for twelve years, and will retire this coming June. Leadership Santa Cruz County, an organization that promotes civic participation of emerging community, political and business leaders, has grown tremendously under the tutelage of Tom. He has, for the past twelve years, dedicated a tremendous amount of strength and energy into this noble endeavor. More than 500 people, including some of my staff, have graduated from Tom's program during his tenure as Executive Director. These graduates come from all walks of life, yet they came to Tom for a common reason: they had a desire to approach the problems, issues, and needs facing our community in a matter of fact and head-on manner. Indeed, Santa Cruz has benefited greatly from Tom's contributions. His dedication, dynamism and spiritedness have rubbed off onto everyone who has the opportunity to work with him. Our central coast community is truly indebted to Tom Reefe.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of both Members representing Santa Cruz County, California, myself and Representative Anna G. Eshoo, I rise today to honor M.R.C. Greenwood, former Chancellor of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and a dedicated member of the Santa Cruz community. Ms. Greenwood has recently left her position at UCSC to become Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs for the University of California. I rise today to honor her contributions both to UCSC and to the community of Santa Cruz County. As soon as she stepped foot on the UCSC campus in June of 1996, Ms. Greenwood began revolutionizing the institution. During her tenure, she was instrumental in the creation of the Baskin School of Engineering, as well as two new colleges on campus. As an accomplished scientist herself, Ms Greenwood was responsible for the development of many fine research institutions including the Institute for Advanced Feminist Research, the STEPS Institute for Innovation in Environmental Research, the Center for Justice Tolerance, and Community, and the Center for Ocean Health. By the end of her tenure, academic programs had been enhanced and enlarged and graduate and undergraduate enrollment increased to more than 14,000 students. With the campus now reaching a regional annual economic impact of almost $1 billion, her leadership has proven advantageous not only to the students at the university, but to the local community as well. In addition to her dedication to the campus and academic life, Ms. Greenwood has also made important contributions to our local community. As member of the Board of Directors of Sutter Hospital, the Second Harvest Food Bank, and the United Way of Santa Cruz County, Ms. Greenwood has earned the title of ``Woman of the Year'' from the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, Representative Eshoo and I would like to extend our gratitude to Ms. Greenwood for her friendship and dedicated service to the UC-Santa Cruz community. Her leadership has benefited the lives of countless students and has improved our community beyond our greatest expectations. We wish her the best of luck in her new role with the University and have no doubt that the entire University of California system will continue to flourish under her guidance.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for yielding me time and for allowing me to join her on the floor today. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and members of the committee for allowing me to attend the hearing that led to the markup of this bill. I served in the Peace Corps, and it holds a really special place in my heart, as it does for four other Members of Congress who are also return Peace Corps volunteers. Our colleagues, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and myself all are return Peace Corps volunteers. In the 1960s I spent 2 years serving as a Peace Corps volunteer in Colombia, South America. My experience as a Peace Corps volunteer helped me to motivate my life to public service and I think helped shape me into the person I am today. And there are tens and tens of thousands of Americans who have served in the Peace Corps in over 130 countries throughout the world and who have had similar experiences. The vast majority of the return Peace Corps volunteers agree with the sentiment that the Peace Corps experience was the toughest job they ever loved. Peace Corps not only benefits individual Americans, but it also helps the developing world and makes the world a bit safer one volunteer at a time. The important community-based jobs the Peace Corps volunteers perform are instrumental in helping to bring about greater peace and security in the world. Not only are PCVs helping people in developing countries overcome poverty, one of the root causes of terrorism, they are also showing the world a different, friendlier face of what Americans are really like. Peace Corps volunteers live, eat and work amongst the people in countries from Albania to Zambia. In this type of environment, where a Peace Corps volunteer is teaching hand washing to a child or computer literacy to a brother, the realization quickly dawns on the people, regardless of their nationality, that we have more similarities than differences. This people-to-people interaction is the real recipe for creating more peace and stability in the world. Today we are discussing the Health, Safety and Security of Peace Corps Volunteers Act of 2004, which tries to improve the safety of volunteers who can sometime serve in isolated areas of the world. H.R. 4060 addresses some important issues and tries to increase the safety and oversight of the Peace Corps. I am very pleased that this bill does not mandate that volunteers must be paired together in communities. The best security measure for Peace Corps volunteers is for them to integrate quickly into their communities. Pairing volunteers would impede I think in this integration into the host country. My major concern with H.R. 4060, though, is that the safety and security measures should not take away from the important existing budgetary requirements of the Peace Corps. Let me end by reminding this body that in the currently constricted budget environment we need to carefully allocate our resources. Just recently, General Abizaid, who is head of the Middle East, let our Committee on Appropriations know that he thought America would never be able to have world peace until we were able to cross the cultural divides. I cannot think of any better investment that the United States Congress can make than to fully fund the Peace Corps as the President has requested in his State of the Union Address. What he asked was to double the size of the Peace Corps, which we have, but now we have failed to meet the President's demands on what it will take to do that. That is a very bad mistake at this time in the history of the United States. I am glad the Congress is concerned with the safety of volunteers, but I urge each of our Members, when it comes to the appropriations process, let us meet the President's request. Let us fully fund the Peace Corps. Let us indeed teach America how to cross the cultural divide and create world peace forever.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, and I would like to commemorate the substantial achievements of Asian Pacific 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 Asian Pacific community. California has benefited greatly from the contributions of Asian Pacific immigrants throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Chinese immigrants were instrumental in building the transcontinental railroad which helped open California to settlement and brought rapid economic growth to the West and along with immigrants from Japan, helped start Monterey's commercial fishing industry. The Central Coast of California was and still is, highly dependent on agriculture. Starting in the late 1890s, Chinese, Japanese and Filipino farm laborers were the engine behind the growth and development of the agricultural industry. Farm labor work on strawberry and peach farms was often back-breaking work; laborers rose at dawn and worked until dusk, and were generally paid very poorly. Additionally, Asian Pacific 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 conditions and obstacles, over the last hundred years, the Asian Pacific American community has grown into a vibrant community that has made substantial contributions to California and our nation as a whole. I am proud to represent a large Filipino population in my district who are active citizens of the community. This year's theme of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month is ``Freedom for All--A Nation We Call Our Own,'' and exemplifies one of the best aspects of the America; that all citizens can take ownership in our society and country and work towards building a better nation. Mabuhay.