Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on the issue of war with Iraq. I rise not only as a House Member from California, but as a father and about-to-be grandfather, and as a person who in his youth responded to a call for action by serving in the United States Peace Corps. I have to ask myself in casting the votes before us, what is the best way to achieve peace in Iraq, not only for its own diverse ethnic people living in Iraq, but also for the people in the rest of the world? The House leadership has adopted a closed rule on the debate so only three resolutions can be voted on. I think the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has the preferred alternative because it speaks to the issue of putting all our efforts into working with the world community through the United Nations Security Council to get inspectors into Iraq. We should let that process run its course before determining that it will fail. The Lee resolution calls upon the United States to ``work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of insuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction through mechanisms such as resumption of weapons inspectors, negotiation, inquiry, mediation, regional arrangements and other peaceful means.'' The President has done a good job in making the point that the U.N. Security Council must resolve the Iraq violation of U.N. resolutions. He should have stopped there, using all of the power of the President of the United States, the State Department, the Commerce Department, and the Department of Defense to help the U.N. inspectors into Iraq but not to threaten war. Why? Because, first, according to the U.N. Charter, only the U.N. Security Council has the power to enforce U.N. resolutions. I find it ironic that the President who seems to be committed to holding Iraq accountable to the U.N. is requesting an authorization that circumvents the Security Council and runs counter to the authority of the U.N. Charter. Second, the people's House should not give a blank check to declare war to the President of the United States. According to Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to declare war. The President is asking Congress to abrogate its constitutional responsibility. The President's resolution authorizes him to use force as he determines to be necessary. This is not the responsibility of the President. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He shall execute as determined by Congress. The Constitution clearly makes a separation of powers to stop the President from going on foreign adventures without the express consent of the American people. Third, I think leaping into war before we get all of the facts could threaten world security, especially our own. Think about it. Striking preemptively without gathering sufficient intelligence will put U.S. troops in harm's way. We need U.N. inspectors in Iraq to gather information. How will the U.S. military carry out surgical strikes of Iraq weapons depots and laboratories if it does not know where these facilities are? We need to know how many weapons Iraq has and what types of weapons. Striking before knowing creates an unintended consequence which could further threaten the world. A preemptive strike will set an extremely damaging precedent to the future of international affairs. The U.S. will entirely lose its moral authority on preventing conflict. What will we say if Russia moves to attack Georgia, if China invades Taiwan, if India or Pakistan makes a decisive move into Kashmir? Lastly, a unilateral attack could alienate the U.S. from the rest of the world community including our traditional allies, our allies in the region, and our new allies in the war against terrorism. Far from strengthening the U.N., a unilateral strike before the U.N. acts will undermine the international body and lead the world to believe that the U.S. views the U.N. as a rubber stamp at best. A unilateral attack makes it less likely that the rest of the international community will support the U.S. in postconflict reconstruction of Iraq. The U.S. will bear most of the costs if not all the costs of the war and postwar, and remember the Persian Gulf War cost approximately $70 billion. Our allies paid all but $7 billion, which the U.S. took responsibility for. This new war against Iraq is estimated to cost between 100 and $200 billion. If we go it alone, the U.S. will have to pay it all. What will happen to other priorities? What will happen to Social Security, to Medicare, to education? Will we have enough resources to spend on our domestic priorities? Last, let us not forget that the power we have as Members of Congress is to cast these important votes from the consent of the people. My constituents have responded 5,000 to 24, approximately two to one. If one has to vote, let us vote on the side of peace before we vote on the side of war.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a public servant of the highest degree. Ms. Mila Williams Brooks, a former Peace Corps Country Director and economic development consultant for USAID, died in Washington, D.C., on September 4 after a long but spirited battle with cancer. She was 75. As a returned Peace Corps Volunteer, I wish to take this moment to express my sympathy to her family, and to pay tribute to her extraordinary life. An independent woman of unsurpassed energy with a remarkable sense of adventure and fun, Mila was born in Topeka, Kansas. She graduated from the University of Kansas with degrees in Political Science and French. After college, she married and had five children. In the mid-sixties Mila drove to Mexico with four young children in tow to establish a new life and offer her children cross-cultural opportunities. In Mexico, she learned fluent Spanish, attended graduate school, and hosted a radio show. In 1969, she returned to the United States and began work with the Peace Corps. In 1973, she was appointed Deputy Peace Corps Country Director in Santiago, Chile. Before returning to the U.S. in 1977, she served as an economic development consultant for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and as the Southern Cone regional representative of the Young Men's Christian Association. In 1985, she was appointed Country Director of the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic, a post she held until 1988. In 1989, she was selected as one of two Americans to work in pre-election activities in Nicaragua. Following the 1990 elections, she was selected to run USAID's democratic initiatives program in Nicaragua, a post she held until 1993. That year, again stateside, she settled in Napa, California, and continued to consult internationally. Mila was a fiercely devoted and loving mother. Throughout her life, she had the gift of loyal and loving friends who received the great gift of her love and friendship in return. She will be deeply missed and mourned by all who knew her, especially her four children Trent, Mia, Brad and Holly and her three grandchildren Tiffany, Maxwell, and Sophie.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I ask to be heard on the appeal.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer a privileged resolution that I noticed pursuant to rule IX and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, rule IX of the House Rules Manual states that questions of privilege are ``those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of, Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their representative capacity only.'' The rights, reputation and conduct of this Member are negatively affected when the House cannot move legislation that the American people overwhelmingly support. That is true when it comes to full funding for education, for prescription drug, HMO reform and economic recovery. I, like others, represent 700,000 people. My rights and those of my constituents are being denied when urgent legislation that has majority support is blocked from consideration simply because the Republican leadership will not schedule the bill. As a result, I believe this resolution meets the test of privilege. While the health care safety net is under particular strain, general health care providers, hospitals, doctors and home health care agencies are facing disastrous financial circumstances. The Disproportionate Share Hospitals, also known as DSH hospitals, cuts first enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 were initially postponed, but now are scheduled to go back into force, creating a health care havoc for hospitals across this Nation. In California alone, the DSH cuts total $184 million and will grow exponentially if we do not act to correct this situation. The hospital system in California, nor in any other State, can absorb this level of funding reduction. We have to act now. Other provider reimbursement programs are facing similar financial catastrophe. Physician reimbursements were reduced by 5.4 percent in January of this year and are scheduled to decline by another 17 percent by the year 2005. Just 2 days ago, a 10 percent reduction in nursing reimbursements to nursing homes and skilled nursing home facilities was implemented. How are these critical facilities supposed to cope? How will their patients fare unless Congress addresses a reasonable level of care? States and localities that operate hospitals and health clinics to treat the indigent and low-income populations rely on Medicaid revenues to help cover their costs. Low provider rates compound the effects of other losses that these facilities will be experiencing this year, including the dramatic drop in Federal revenues from the DSH cliff and reductions in State support, and reductions in the State support because of the implications at the State level. I urge this body not to recess unless we can correct the problem and make sure that basic health care providers, our public hospitals and doctor networks, have the funds they need to give care when and where it is needed. It is our duty as the legislative branch of government not to abandon these responsibilities. We must do this, and we have to do it now. I ask for support of my resolution.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of House rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to present a question of privilege to the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: A resolution, in accordance with House Rule IX, expressing a sense of the House that its integrity has been impugned and Constitutional duty hampered by the inability of the House to bring to the floor H.R. 854, legislation that would promote the general welfare of the nation by protecting its health care system. Whereas President George W. Bush has urged Congress to put Medicare on a ``sustainable financial footing'' in order to assure Americans of affordable and accessible health care. Whereas the Administration has failed to take action to protect Medicare and Medicaid programs from severe cuts that threaten basic services to persons in need of health care. Whereas the Medicaid program is facing significant cuts through reductions in the disproportionate share hospital program, threatening the very financial viability of the nation's public hospitals. Whereas the cuts made in order by the Balanced Budget Act were postponed until 2003 by the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act but without further congressional action cuts will be reimposed and have the potential to seriously cripple safety-net public health services in states across the nation. Whereas, in addition to slashing payments to hospitals the Administration has also eliminated the UPL payments for hospitals, further weakening their ability to provide health care to the indigent and uninsured. Whereas federal payments to states for this program have been reduced by approximately $700 million in FY 2002 and will be reduced further by about $900 million in FY 2003, thus severely restricting public hospitals' ability to serve persons in need of health care. Whereas the number of uninsured persons without access to health care has risen in the last year to 41.2 million. Whereas by failing to act Congress imposes on the states and localities an undue burden to carry health care costs as well as abrogates its responsibility to maintain the general welfare of the country, bringing discredit to this Body and threatening the very well-being of the populace. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Congress should complete action on H.R. 854 or other provider reimbursement legislation before recessing and should insure that Medicare and Medicaid providers have appropriate funds to carry out their health care mandates.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard at the appropriate time on the question of whether this resolution constitutes a question of privilege.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak of the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Patsy Mink, and especially to her daughter, my constituent, Wendy. General Leave

Mr FARR of California

Mr FARR of California. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H. Res. 522, a long overdue resolution to thank the Braceros for their contributions to the war effort. As the Representative of California's Central Coast, I have the distinct honor of representing the Salad Bowl of the Country, the Salinas Valley, known world wide for its lettuce and strawberry fields. The agriculture industry in the Salinas Valley was memorialized in John Steinbeck's novel, ``Grapes of Wrath.'' I am proud to state that the Bracero workforce contributed significantly to the economic development of the Salinas Valley and the surrounding region. Their hard labor then became the foundation for a thriving $2 billion fresh produce industry today. At the onset of WWII, many Americans left their civilian jobs to join the war effort. This left labor shortages in many sectors of the national economy, particularly in agriculture and transportation. The U.S. government looked to Mexico as a ready source to fill these labor needs. For the first time in our relationship with Mexico, the U.S. need for cooperation gave the Mexican government unprecedented bargaining power. The Mexican government insisted on a bilateral treaty to goven any large scale recruitment and movement of Mexican workers to the U.S. In 1942, a treaty between the two governments was signed that allowed for the recruitment and employment of agricultural workers and contemplated that further agreements might be negotiated for recruitment of workers in other industries. The agreement regarding railroad workers followed shortly thereafter. This program became known as The Bracero Program. These agreements covered a number of topics regarding recruitment, transport, salary and other terms and conditions of employment. The treaty contained a requirement that 10% of the salary of each worker was to be deducted by his employer and transmitted to the U.S. government for transfer to banks in Mexico. This 10% deduction was to be used for creation of a savings fund that the bracero could claim upon his return to Mexico. The savings fund for agricultural workers was to be held by Banco de Credito Rural; for railroad workers, by Banco del Ahorro National. Both banks were wholly owned by the Mexican government, and the transfers were to occur through the Banco de Mexico, the equivalent of our Federal Reserve Bank. According to documents from that era, an estimated $35 million was transferred through these various deduction programs between 1942 and 1949. In 1949, the two governments dropped the 10% savings withholding and made several other reforms to the program. The Bracero program continued until 1964, but without the wage withholding provision. Due to a series of problems, including mal-administration of the program, delays in the sending of funds from the U.S. to Mexico, the lack of adequate information regarding how to retrieve funds, worker illiteracy, and the difficulty for workers residing in isolated rural areas in Mexico to access funds held in banks headquartered in Mexico City, a significant percentage of this money was never retrieved by the workers for whose benefit it was supposedly being held. The facts regarding the deduction and transmission of these funds have only recently come to light as a result of investigations of the savings fund program undertaken by bracero advocates in recent years. Most of these workers appear to have been unaware of the savings funds supposedly held on their behalf until recent publicity regarding this program and the filing of the lawsuit. In consequence, many Mexican workers--some of whom made a significant contribution to the effort of democratic governments to defeat fascism in Europe and Asia, never received the full salary to which they were entitled for their work. These men are now in their 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Many of them are in ill health. Due to the economic crises that have plagued Mexico for the last several decades, many are poor, and without any source of income to provide even the barest of necessities. While this resolution is a good first step, it is only that, a first step. What this body really needs to do is pass H.R. 4918, the Bracero Justice Act of 2002. That bill will provide standing to the Braceros to take their case to court, statute of limitations notwithstanding. The responsible parties in this matter have made it clear that they intend to hide behind legal technicalities to prevent these Mexican workers and their families from recouping what they lost. H.R. 4918 would ensure that the workers receive these long overdue funds. So I ask my colleagues today to pass H. Res. 522, but also to bring true justice to the Braceros and pass H.R. 4918 as well.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to voice my opposition to H.R. 4691, The Abortion Non- Discrimination Act, which would radically broaden the ability of any health-care entity to refuse to comply with federal, state, or local law that pertains to abortion. These health-care entities include hospitals, insurance companies, HMO's, and any other similar company; all of which would suddenly have the power to decide at will to override the existing federal provisions in Title X and Medicaid that ensure that all women have access to health information and services. These entities would have free reign to refuse to provide or pay for abortion services, counseling regarding abortion, and referrals to other providers. In addition, hospitals would have the right to turn away women who are in need of emergency abortions as a life-saving procedure. The State of California has worked hard to establish laws that protect the right of women to make fully informed medical choices, but H.R. 4691 would threaten these valuable laws that protect a woman's right to choose. These changes would create confusion and chaos regarding what services are available, therefore threatening the women's ability to seek and obtain health care. The provisions encompassed in H.R. 4691 dramatically endanger women's right to quality, non-judgmental health care, and stand in direct contrast to California's efforts to protect access to information and reproductive services. I urge my fellow members to vote against this dangerous legislation.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I think what turns that around is leadership. Leadership needs to be provided to get us out of the broken modality. I think back to the years when I was a Peace Corps volunteer and had no resources except the people. They did not want to necessarily be American consumers and have all these goods, because they could not afford them; but they wanted a better life-style. What I think they wanted from the leadership was how can we have a better life-style without having to pay the price of pollution. They would say we live in pollution and streets that do not have sewers. We live in houses that do not have clean water, or any water at all. We live in houses that have no electricity, or if we have it, it is very weak because it is borrowed from what they call contraband electricity. They were not asking for more bad, more ugly, more evil; they were asking how do we use the smart technologies in the United States. And I think we have done that on a couple of examples. For example, cell phones, a great technology, have eliminated a need to wire everything. Those things are very, very costly; and we are using a technology where satellites can help us communicate all over the globe. That has a social impact. It allows people access to information, and we do not necessarily have to build poles. Look at how if we could tear down all of the power lines in the Unites States how much more attractive many communities would be if they did not have all of those wires hanging everywhere. My experience has been to lead us into the appropriate technology that is necessary for us to be in this world. The gentleman mentioned corn in Mexico. The one thing that the Mexican farmers are doing is they are starting to grow organic. Where is the organic market in the United States? They do not have to buy a lot of expensive fertilizers and get into the expensive infrastructure to compete with America. They have cheap labor. Organic farming is labor intensive. It takes more people to produce a crop than just doing it with chemicals. There were examples of where American technology, American ingenuity can help countries overcome some of their pollution problems. I think what we have not demonstrated in this country is the will, the political will, the leadership that it takes to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's recognizing the struggle that there was in Johannesburg with trying to defend America.

Mr. FARR of California. I just want to thank the gentleman. I would love to see the leadership, the political leadership, elected leadership and the administration, would it not be wonderful if the electricity on the President of the United States' ranch was totally generated by solar power and that the vehicles that were driven on that ranch or were used were these hybrid vehicles as other countries have had. That is the kind of leadership. We need to demonstrate by our own actions as I have at home by using solar power to generate energy in my piece of property down on the Big Sur coast. That is the kind of leadership I think that the people are asking for, is demonstrate by your own use. My wife wants to get for our next car a hybrid car. I think each one of us can do our part. But at the same time we have to look and commend those areas, as I said, like California that has really moved on a huge scale to convert 33 million people into being energy-conscious, and to being environmentally sensitive. I want to thank the gentleman for representing our Nation's viewpoint in the global conference in South Africa. I appreciate him and our other colleagues in this House attending that.

Mr. FARR of California. If the gentleman would yield. I am very curious about the gentleman's discussions. We spend a lot of time here in the House of Representatives and on the floor arguing trade issues, and obviously issues come up about trade sanctions. When the gentleman looked at the commitment that people were making in South Africa, did he get any feeling that we may be isolating ourselves from future markets because our standards are not good enough, our automobiles are not clean enough; and, therefore, they are not going to allow them to be sold in those countries; that our other exports of our machinery does not meet high enough standards to be marketed in those countries, and that we are really shutting off our ability to do trade? Even though a lot of times the brainpower for that technology really rests in the United States, it is just that we have not had a commitment to investing that brainpower in the tools that can be incorporated in our polluting instruments.

Mr. FARR of California. Well, it is rather embarrassing, if not shameful, that our country that is always sort of championed as being in a leadership role of higher quality, of better standards, of caring for living things, protection of species, and so on, would be so negative about in this race for to clean up the planet; that we are not at the front of the parade. It is embarrassing for me from a State that is trying to be at the front of the parade but not having any cooperation from the Federal Government to keep us up there or to encourage us to go further by bringing the rest of the Nation up to those levels.

Mr. FARR of California. It certainly does not demonstrate leadership. There is no way anyone can take the United States position and argue that we are a leader in this field. I think we have been a leader in bringing about the consciousness of global pollution and admitting that we are, as tremendous consumers of our material goods, leading the world in pollution. And we have been a leader in recognizing that we have to do something about it, but that has always been initiated more by local communities and States. There has been sort of an attitude in America that you think globally and act locally. And certainly that has been the response coming out of the West, and I think out of my colleague's State of Maine as well. The frustration that I have experienced in my political life has been that without leadership we do not get commitment of research dollars, of essentially those key dollars or those lending programs through international banks. Attention was brought to me by a constituent who actually worked out the technology with a lot of firms, none of which were American companies, on how we could reduce all oil dependence on all the islands around the world. All of the islands do not produce oil, so they have to ship it in. It is very costly. Yet they are surrounded by two things; they are surrounded by sun and they are surrounded by saltwater. If we could use the sun to convert the saltwater, one, we get fresh water for the island, which, in addition, could be used for mariculture, so we could start growing fish products onshore that would have global markets as well as a domestic market; and, two, we reduce the independence of having to ship this oil. Hawaii is a good example in our country. And we have a by-product of clean water and an energy source. That is very expensive to do; and the first time it is done, it is not cost effective. There is no profit. There needs to be a risk, and usually those kinds of risks are taken by government loans and subsidies, but we have to get it started. I wonder if there was any discussion in Johannesburg about how to get the money in place to do some of these absolutely essential things.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my colleague and good friend, for yielding; and I want to congratulate him and my other congressional colleagues who went to Johannesburg, South Africa. While he was in South Africa, I had the privilege of being in his beautiful State, in fact in his district of Portland, Oregon; and I can tell my colleagues that indeed the western United States and particularly Oregon is one of the most beautiful States in the United States; and I would recommend to everybody who wants to see spectacular scenery and uncrowded highways just to visit that great State. My colleagues all came together in Johannesburg about 2 weeks ago to address the global issues that exist at the intersection of economic development and environmental sustainability. I happen to be very keenly interested in the outcome of that because my district that my colleague just mentioned is the salad bowl center of the world and we cannot continue to produce fresh fruits and vegetables if we do not have a clean environment, clean water, clean air; and we know that from our interest in trying to develop small business economy through tourism and ecotourism that indeed the environment sells. Well, the environment cannot sell and cannot be there for small businesses if it is dirty. My colleagues all went to Johannesburg to declare along with other countries the commitment to making the Earth cleaner, a more healthy place for humans and all living creatures; and I, following the press article, I was struck by how many poor Nations, who could least afford to send representatives from their government and nongovernment organizations, but indeed did hope that they could persuade the richer countries to help them grow their economies in socially and environmentally sustainable ways. I think one of the most positive outcomes of the summit was the agreement by all nations to begin managing the marine resources with an ecosystem approach and to restore fish stocks to sustainable levels by the year 2015. I pledge to continue to work with the U.S. and all nations to make these goals and reverse the devastating trends in pollution and overfishing that we see in the oceans all over the world. I was shocked, as my colleague's comments pointed out, and I am sad to say that I believe that our administration remains blinded to these issues; and I think it remains blinded because they really have not listened beyond the short-term special interests, corporate interests in America. Let me tell my colleagues that I represent the State of California and chair the Democratic delegation in that State. Look at California. I mean, we have that comment here that sort of anything but California, but indeed, California is a nation-state. It is 33 million people. It is the fifth largest economy in the world. It is the most diversified in businesses, everything from Hollywood to Silicon Valley to agriculture. It was the leading agriculture State; and it goes on and on and on. Yet this State that is such an economic engine, which has more cars, more people to consume energy, more air conditioners, more houses, more buildings to heat and cool, more of everything, has created policies in that State, political policies, that are implemented and carried out. The bottom line is that California consumes the least energy per capita of any State in the United States. Why am I saying this? Because if the U.S. remains unwilling to truly come to the global negotiating table, strong commitments toward such efforts as reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and urging a change of the way from an unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, then California is going to suffer, the businesses of California. Why? Because in business there is a need to have fairness, and fairness essentially is a question of certainty. If one is going to take capital and put it into something at risk, they want enough certainty that they are going to be able to get a return for their investment. That is what California businesses do every single day. Only the balance of that certainty is shifted away because the Federal Government fails to take a lead in leveling the playing field, which means, really, upgrading the playing field so that California, which is doing things that are environmentally very sensitive, gets treated wrongly in this town. It hurts all the small businesses who are not able to compete on a level playing field, and it certainly hurts our big corporations. Are they going to the State legislature and asking the State to repeal all these tough environmental laws in California? Absolutely not. In fact, our national leadership should be championing the leadership of cleaning up the pollution. This administration should be acknowledging the leadership of California Governors. When we look at them, Republicans and Democrats alike, Republican Governor George Deukmejian; a Republican, Governor Pete Wilson; and now Governor Gray Davis, who just signed the toughest automobile car sequestration emission standards in the world. That is the kind of leadership that American people are asking for. Was it easy to do politically? Absolutely not. Everybody who was in the automobile industry opposed it; and yet California has the largest automobile sales, the largest consumption of automobiles in the United States. Why was it accomplished? Because it really was the right thing to do. California really wants to move towards sustaining itself internally on energy and making sure that energy is clean. We are the leader of wind energy; we are the leader of solar energy; we are the leader in geothermal energy; we are the leader in biomass production. All of these alternatives, which show that we can meet these really tough standards and still make a profit, I think ought to be recognized. Business really needs fairness at the national level, an equal playing field; and I ask this administration, I ask the President of the United States, to help bring up the rest of the Nation to California standards, to recognize, as the leaders in California, ought to be praising Governor Davis. But because it is an election year and people are sensitive about partisanship and the President is a Republican and the Governor is a Democrat, that instead of praising him for doing the right things, there is a criticism going on and that criticism is just unjustified when we look at the voices that were in Johannesburg and what they were saying. They want this Nation to join California, to be more like California, so that together we can lead the world, not drag the world down, which is the image that we had in Johannesburg. I am absolutely thrilled that members of the legislative branch, the checks and balance system that we have in our Constitution, were able to go to Johannesburg and to indicate to the delegates that not everybody in the United States was against setting some really tough global standards and to providing the money and capital and leadership to move the world in that way. I am thrilled that my colleagues and others, including, I see, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is here, people that ought to be thanked by the American people for their commitment to making sure that the world understands that we in the United States are trying to, in Congress, invest moneys in developing appropriate technologies so that those technologies can be applied in the developing countries around the world so that they can indeed have a clean, healthy environment to raise their children in. I thank my colleagues for representing us at the world summit and thank them for having this colloquy tonight.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to respond to the request, rather flippantly, that we go back to the offices and read on the Internet what this bill is. I read it, not in my office, because we were voting; but there are 304 pages right here on the floor for 435 Members to read. I want to wake up America at 1:25 in the morning to tell them they had better understand what is going on here tonight. This is not one little simple trade bill; this is five trade bills. This is a fast track bill, an Andean trade preference bill, a customs reauthorization bill, a trade assistance package, and a dozen provisions including giving the U.S. Trade Representative a slush fund to pay WTO fines without congressional approval. This bill gutted the Eshoo trade preference adjustments. Reading this bill, it is a travesty to California agriculture. We sell out California flower growers. We sell out California asparagus growers. Yet they were able to protect the Puerto Rico rum producers. We sell out textiles, shoes, and jewelry; and we ignore the child labor problems that are in Ecuador in the banana industry, as pointed out by the New York Times. This is a bad bill. Vote against the rule.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I hope I do not have to consume 5 minutes. I just want to thank everybody who helped co-sponsor this and the committee members who have really focused on what I think is a very important issue. I think while we are thanking them we also have to thank the desk staff would have been here all day and they have to be back here early tomorrow morning. This has been a long day, and the old adage that the mind cannot comprehend what the seat cannot endure, I hope we can continue to finish this work. What this amendment is all about is recognizing, America has linguists and we have language teachers and we have language institutions but we have not brought them all together so we can make them skilled linguists. And in order to do that, I come from a district where we have a really relevant assets, relevant institutions to do that, to teach the languages. The largest foreign language school in the world is the the old Army language school now called the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and next to it a private nonprofit called the Monterey Institute of International Studies which offers the Nation's only masters degree in translation and interpretation. The committee has clearly identified one of the most acute problems in our intelligence collection efforts and that is how do you keep training and upgrading and learning how to train with the technology that we have skilled linguists. So I applaud my colleagues on the committee on their efforts to improve our Nation's assets by calling for the Intelligence Community Language University. There can be no doubt that the time is now to stand up this new foreign language school. It does not necessarily have to be a new place at a new university so to speak. It could be a university within a university and that is what the report will inform us. The committee adopted another initiative at my suggestion to foster a cooperative relationship between the National Security Education program and the Defense Language Institute to enhance the development of national security professionals and foreign area experts with high levels of foreign language proficiency. In the effort to help the Federal Government meet the challenge of hiring linguists more quickly, I was successful in adding report language to the DOD appropriations bill and the DOD authorization bill this year to create the National Language Skills Registry. What happens is that we train people as linguists, and as long as they are in the Federal employment, we can keep track of them; but the minute they leave the Federal employment, we have no knowledge of them. So by creating this National Foreign Language Skills Registry, it is a voluntary program where ones with these skills could be kept in a file and an electronic file, and we would know exactly where our language assets are around the United States rather than having, as we saw last year after 9-11, the FBI director having to go out and advertise for people, people that spoke Farsi and other languages. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report will look at the national foreign language skills registry as a starting point and consider the resources of the Defense Language Institute in making its recommendation to create a civilian linguist reserve corps. Taken together, I think my colleagues on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are taking the first real substantial step to close the gap in language capacity among our intelligence community. I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I really want to thank our colleagues. The hour is late. They have done a marvelous job, and I appreciate their focus on this very important issue.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being recognized. Let me ask Members to consider what this amendment is about. It is not about terrorism. It is about trying to destroy the amendment that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will offer that will allow Americans to travel to Cuba. Yes, this amendment coats itself in words about terrorism, but if it were serious you would not allow Canada to send all of their people to Cuba because of terrorism; you would not allow the European allies that are helping us send all of their folks to Cuba. In fact, what this amendments says is that travel to Cuba shall apply only after the President has certified to Congress that the Cuban Government does not possess and is not developing a biological weapons programs that threatens the homeland security of the United States. The President cannot certify that about our own country. Where did the anthrax come from? We allow our tourists to go to China. We could not certify these things about China. We allow our tourists to go to North Korea, and we could not certify these things about North Korea. We allow our own tourists to go to Iran, and we certainly could not certify these things about Iran. This is an issue to kill the Flake amendment. The only wise thing to do if you really want the ability of Americans to sell the American message, to sell what it is about America that we love and possess is to allow Americans travel to a tiny little island with 11 million people. We are asking the question in the Middle East, Why do they hate us? What do you think the Cuban people are asking? Why do the Americans hate us so much that they will not allow their own people to come here to our country? If we want to prohibit Americans from traveling to Cuba, then we ought to support the Goss amendment. But if you really think after 40 years of failed policy we ought to try something different, then you ought to join me in defeating the Goss amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake Amendment to end funding of the travel ban to Cuba. I heartily agree with the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) which stated in a recent letter to Congress that ``the right to travel is among those rights that our Nation's founding documents refer to as `inalienable'.'' Recently, we Americans have been asking ourselves: ``Why do they hate us? Why do other nations hate Americans, when they know so little about us?'' Many Cubans must be asking themselves the same question: ``Why do they hate us? Why does the American government continue to support a forty-year embargo of our country, which has contributed to the collapse of the economy, and has done nothing to increase personal and political freedoms?'' Cubans must think: ``if Americans only knew us--if they knew our culture, our language, our music--they would develop policies which would support exchange and abandon the failed policy of isolation.'' Isn't that what Americans think? If countries around the world opened their borders to American visitors, opened their markets to American goods, and increased people-to-people exchanges through programs such as the Peace Corps, hostility towards our country and our people will be reduced. Americans and Cubans are both right. It is only through greater openness and exchange that peoples of the world connect to each other-- through personal bonds, commerce, and for mutual political benefit--and break down barriers in their own countries and across borders. Ending the travel ban not only follows the spirit of the Constitution, it will be economically beneficially to the United States. According to the recent Brattle Group study, opening travel with Cuba will bring $415 million annually to the ailing airline industry; increase U.S. economic input by $1.6 billion; and create over 23,000 jobs in the American economy. Vote for the Flake amendment. Vote to uphold Americans' Constitutional right to travel whenever and wherever they want. Vote for lifting the travel ban to Cuba, and tear down this wall that separates our two countries once and for all.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this amendment. It is very important to this Nation, and let me point out why. First of all, there is a big myth going on that we need this oil and gas off the California coastline. These leases have been out there since 1968 and the oil companies did nothing with them. They did not drill on these leases. They have sat on them. They have been exempt from all the moratoriums and now they want to continue these leases. Why, we think? What has changed since 1968? What has changed is that California has invested in alternative energy. No other State has developed more alternatives. No other State has more geothermal, wind, biomass, hydro, nuclear, natural gas. In energy conservation, we have done more than any other State to make our State not dependent on one source of energy but independent by developing all kinds of alternatives. We want our State coastline back. Why? Because a majority of Californians live on that coastline. It is the most productive, prosperous, enjoyed, visited, photographed, painted, lived-in coastline in the United States. The people that come there to photograph it, enjoy it and swim in that ocean are your constituents. They do not want to come to visit offshore oil rigs. They want to enjoy the pristine California coast. So, Mr. President, do for California what you did for your brother in Florida. Buy back the leases.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, today we debate the level of our federal commitment to arts and humanities programs. We have an opportunity to ensure that the children who today dip their hands in pots of fingerprints and sit listening to storybooks will grow up to be active members of a creative nation, rich and beauty and ideas. We all deserve arts and humanities. All children and adults deserve the opportunity to learn to create, to express their ideas and their visions. They deserve the opportunity to learn history, languages, philosophy, painting, sculpture, music, and dance. We all need arts and humanities. Arts and humanities do more than just offer us entertainment and distraction from turmoil in our lives, they provide insight and perspective, they offer comfort and hope. Arts and humanities give us ways to understand and find meaning in what is happening in our nation, and what has happened centuries ago. They give us ways to share that meaning with our children. Last September, we witnessed some use their ability to destroy against our nation. We have endeavored to find ways to honor those who lost their lives in the destruction. I think one way to do so today is to support our nation's ability to create. I proudly support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson-Morella amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and I ask my colleagues to do same.

Mr. FARR of California

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