Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me just remind the other side that we have had a big debate tonight about appropriating money which is spending money. But the other side is collecting money. And the other side led the biggest tax cut, created the biggest hole in our ability to carry out the functions of this country. So let us be a little bit more reasonable about being balanced. It is an income and an outflow. This is the discussion about the outflow, but you have already taken the biggest bite in history out of the income, and that has also affected this picture; and that is what has caused the great big deficit that we have.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member, for yielding me this time. I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction in a colloquy. I appreciate this opportunity to have this colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) to clarify and explain certain language in the bill relating to Fort Ord in my district. The bill in section 130 prohibits the Army from expending any money to prepare legal documents relating to the title transfer of lands at Fort Ord that are intended for the purposes of housing development. If I may ask the chairman, is my characterization of section 130 correct to his understanding?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, if the Chairman will indulge me, I would like to explain to him and my other colleagues that this language was inserted into the bill not because of any action or misaction by the Army, but as a signal to the Fort Ord community that the thousands of acres of Federal land being given to the reuse authority for free should be used to mitigate the housing crunch on the central coast of California. Despite local governments acknowledging the need for upwards of 23,000 new units to meet the housing demand, the plans for housing development at Fort Ord contain insufficient, if not meager, units available to the local workforce. Instead, that free Federal land will be used to build megamansions out of financial reach for our local workers. With the language in this bill, title transfers are put on hold until the plans for housing development at Fort Ord reflect a better mix of affordable housing. The local reuse authority is aware of the urgent nature of this language and today's debate and has agreed to re-examine the housing development plans at Fort Ord. I feel confident that eventually this limitation on the Army can be lifted and land transfers for housing development at Fort Ord can proceed again. I appreciate the Chairman's support and assistance in the matter. He has been a tremendous help in signaling to the Fort Ord community its need to concentrate on affordable housing, given the valuable land that is being given to them.

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

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of this committee to speak in favor of the rule. But in doing so, I think it is necessary to point out for the record that the leadership of this committee, it is exceptional. It is truly bipartisan. It is led by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). The committee is not just a numbers committee. This committee is changing the definition of what is often said about men and women in uniform about their quality of life. We have dumped the old military style of designing and deciding what should be the appropriate size for a military living room or a military kitchen. We have turned this process into what all other communities do, and that is building to community standards. The housing that we are building for the military now could win architectural awards, and the people who live in them are absolutely delighted that they can live in some of the prettiest homes in America, which are really built for community standards, where there is child care, where they can walk to work, if possible, and all of the other concepts that cities around this Nation are looking towards. We are letting the military lead the way, and it is being done by the leadership of this committee. I stand here today in support of the rule and in support of the bill, but also in support of the attitude or the direction which this committee is taking to make sure that the quality of life for the military is an exemplary life for how all Americans can live, and that we do not in the future drive by military housing and military bases and say, oh, look at the way government builds its stuff. This is the kind of building and architecture that we are going to be proud of, and they are going to be proud to live in it. And if the welfare and morale of the men and women who are fighting for our country is upheld, I think their soldiering will be a lot better.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to welcome to the United States Capitol all the returned Peace Corps volunteers who have served this country overseas. Now, over 165,000 Americans have served in over 130 countries throughout the world, and they have come here to our Nation's capital to celebrate the anniversary of Peace Corps, which is 40 + 1 years old. We were going to have the 40th anniversary celebration last year, but 9-11 pushed it off to this year, so it is 40 plus one. I had the honor yesterday of introducing a bill about the Peace Corps, H.R. 4979. It authorizes appropriations for the Peace Corps to double the number of volunteers in five years; it restates the independence of the Peace Corps; it reports to Congress on new initiatives and security for Peace Corps volunteers; it makes a commitment to recruit and place Peace Corps volunteers in countries where they could help promote mutual understanding, particularly in areas with substantial Muslim populations; it develops training programs for Peace Corps volunteers in areas of education and prevention of AIDS; it streamlines and empowers the Peace Corps Advisory Council and creates a fund to promote the work of returned Peace Corps volunteers in fulfilling the goals of the Peace Corps and in facilitating the world-wide support of peace. I ask Members of Congress who are interested in this to cosponsor this great piece of legislation.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, thirty years ago, Title IX of the Education Amendments was enacted. This legislation represents the very best of what we come here to do. I am proud of Title IX. I am proud of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on which it was modeled. I am proud of the legislation which followed: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. I am proud every time our federal government reaffirms its commitment to the offer extended to us and to every one of our constituents. It invites us to come to it for assistance, for the education of our children, for the healthcare for our families, for the financial security of our parents, for the clean air and water for us all, or to simply come, participate as a citizen of this nation, and when we come to it, we know that our gender, our race, our religion, and our beliefs will not affect the treatment we receive. We are equal; we will enjoy equity. There have been times in our history when our government has put forth a lesser offer, or an offer not extended to all. There have been times when the offer was made only after fierce debates by this body. As we do not all agree now, we did not all agree at those times. The arguments that were made against equity then had been made before, and will probably be made again. We will fight them with a conviction embraced for the principles it represents, and guided by the knowledge of past arguments, fought and won. The equitable educational opportunities our daughters receive because of Title IX have prepared them to fight with us. They will create the legislation of which we will all be proud. They have experienced less of the injustices experienced by their mothers before the enactment of Title IX. This is a victory, and one of which we should all be keenly aware. Through Title IX, the federal government has made a promise to our daughters that they will not be discriminated against by it, or by any agency, organization, or institution that receives its support. Today we honor this promise, the work of all those who fought to establish it, and we recommit ourselves to its strengthening and its expansion.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) for yielding me this time. It is sad that the gentleman will be leaving us when he gets elected Governor of Guam, and we will not have the privilege of his great leadership on the floor. I rise in strong support of the Gilchrest substitute amendment to reauthorize the Sea Grant Program. I think we have all benefited here in Congress from the Sea Grant Program because they are also providing us with interns or fellows who are essentially people trained with master's degrees and above on ocean issues. They come and work in and around the legislature, and I have always thought there is a great need to have an understanding of science and politics. When we think about it, we rely on the facts of science in order to make public policy, and so often scientists do not have much knowledge about how public policy is formed or funded. This is a tiny way in at least on marine issues we can bring together scientists and policymakers. Over half of the Sea Grant funding comes from non-Federal sources, so we are not the only ones that participate, and that means we get a better deal for the Federal buck. I support the Gilchrest substitute because the gentleman is a leader on ocean issues, and I would urge all Members to support it. The increase in appropriations is necessary to face the growing challenges of the marine environments. We have talked about how important the ocean is to the world. Particularly, the ocean is the birthplace of weather on the planet. We know that we have to understand more about the ocean in order to protect not only our national security, but the world in itself, to be able to live peacefully on this planet. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has taken the pains to produce a substitute bill which took into consideration the concerns of both the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Science, and even incorporates helpful parts from the Senate version. Finally, this amendment strongly affirms that the place for the Sea Grant Program is in with NOAA, and I urge Members to support the Gilchrest amendment.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Florus Williams who passed away in April. Mr. Williams, a highly decorated community member for many years, is survived by his wife of 63 years, Frances, four children, 20 grandchildren, and 17 great-grandchildren. Mr. Williams was born in Fresno, CA, on January 2, 1916, but he lived in Pacific Grove, in my district, for 79 years. He served on the Pacific Grove City Council from 1971 to 1986 and served as mayor of Pacific Grove from 1976 to 1986. Mr. Williams also served as foreman of the Monterey County Grand Jury from 1987 to 1988 and was a member of Masonic Lodge 331 in Pacific Grove. He was also a recipient of the Masons's Hiram Award for his excellent service to the community. Mr. Williams was known for his firm convictions. He truly believed in his work, and worked to improve the quality of life on the Central Coast. His admirable career of public service was dedicated to the citizens of Pacific Grove, and his contributions have made a significant impact. I, along with the Central Coast community, would like to honor the life of Mr. Florus Williams, whose dedication and contributions will be greatly missed.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, Alex Steiner, Holocaust survivor and longtime resident of Highland Park, New Jersey, died May 23, 2002 in Oregon. Alex (``Sanyi,'' to his intimates) was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1920. He was a young man when World War Two came to his native land. Like many able-bodied Jewish male citizens, he was confined to a Hungarian labor camp for most of the War. After the War, Alex, his mother and older sister (their father, an older brother and many other extended family members did not survive), were displaced persons in Germany. They immigrated to the United States in 1949 to New Brunswick, New Jersey, where Alex's uncle sponsor and his family lived. Alex embraced American patriotism and bought into the American dream. He was hardworking and ambitious for himself and for his family. Among his occupations he owned a shoe store in New Brunswick and sold commercial real estate. He and his wife Julie (``Joli''), a concentration camp survivor, extended themselves to provide a comfortable home in a good neighborhood for the family. Alex was always openly grateful to the United States for providing him a chance for the good life. He often insisted that few understood how unparalleled in goodness and opportunity our country is. After his retirement and his wife's death, Alex moved with his son to Portland where his lawyer daughter and her family lived. He was a loving, attentive grandparent to his two grandsons and an active optimistic person to the moment of his final illness. Alex Steiner was a lively, fun-loving, voluble, energetic social man. He was a talented musician who played several instruments and could readily pick up any piece of music. In Germany he led an orchestra that performed for American service personnel. When he came to America, he brought as an appreciative present for his young American cousin a full-sized accordion. He was a loving relative, whose closeness to his uncle and others was especially touching. Survived by his son, daughter and two grandsons, he will be missed as a bright spot in life by those who knew him well.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, California State Assembly Speaker pro Tem Fred Keeley. In his years of service to the communities of the Central Coast and throughout California, he has earned a reputation for professionalism, and the ability to fairly balance competing interests and find common ground between them. His legacy of tireless work has been an inspiration to me, his colleagues in the California State Assembly, and many others. Fred Keeley holds an unwavering conviction that Californians need, and deserve, a clean and well-protected environment, and that it is not necessary to threaten or damage the environment to meet the energy needs of Californians. Fred has been a strong advocate of energy conservation and efficiency programs, in addition to developing programs to encourage households to generate their own electricity with renewable energy. In March 2000, Fred's bond measure, Proposition 12, the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act was passed. In drafting the Marine Life Management Act, Fred brought together sport and commercial fishermen, environmentalists, and scientists to address the question of how to be good stewards of our ocean resources. Fred Keeley understands that the greatest of all of California's resources are its people, and that state, federal, and local governments should do all they can to invest in these people by investing in their education. The Central Coast is home to excellent institutions of higher education, many of which have formed partnerships with the research facilities located around the Monterey Bay. One of the ways Fred is helping college students and their communities is by addressing the need for student housing. Fred also works on behalf of younger students through his efforts to create a high school in Watsonville, and on behalf of our youngest students, through his efforts to improve availability of funding for the Healthy Start program. Term limits will force Fred Keeley to leave the California State Assembly, and his talent and vision will be sorely missed. However, I know that he will continue an active contributor to the communities of Central Coast, as he did in his years as a Member of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, and as my Chief of Staff when I served in the California State Assembly. I am proud to call Fred Keeley a friend, and happy to honor him for his commitment to public service.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I think the debate here is one where the Republicans are trying to make it sound good, but if you implement the law, it feels really bad. Let me explain. The law that they implemented trickles down the inheritance tax until the year 2010, and then it sunsets and comes all the way back. So any of you who are trying to plan an estate, you have no idea what you are going to have to pay, particularly unless somebody dies in the year 2010. Now they come in and say, well, let us just make it permanent. What they want to make permanent is obviously a very bad law, because the one thing they do not do is they do not step up the basis, and if you do not step up the basis, then the people who inherit that property when they have to sell it have to pay a humongous capital gains tax. There is a better provision here, and it is the Pomeroy provision, and I hope everybody and the Republicans listen to it, because it does a better job. It makes it more effective. You will have a better repeal next year, in the year 2003, than you do under the Republican proposal, and it does have a step-up basis. It is so tax-smart that the tax attorneys will tell you that the Pomeroy substitute is better law. It is better law for tax planners, it is better law for people who have to pay inheritance tax, and it is better for those who have to inherit.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two of my constituents on the occasion of their retirement. Jack and Wendy Stevens have given a combined total of more than fifty years of distinguished service to public education in Santa Cruz County. Jack has taught Sociology at Cabrillo College for thirty-four years, and served as Chair of the Social Sciences Division for a decade. Wendy has been a Special Education teacher for thirteen years, helping students with learning disabilities succeed in school. Jack and Wendy have loved their jobs and taught with dedication and devotion. They retire together this June, when they will also celebrate their thirty-sixth wedding anniversary. After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Georgia, Jack moved to California, where he met Wendy, a native of Stockton and a San Jose University student. They fell in love and were married in June 1966. Jack then earned a Master's degree in Sociology at the University of California, and later served in the U.S. Army as a First Lieutenant. Upon completion of his service, Jack and Wendy relocated to Santa Cruz County, where he had received a job offer to teach at Cabrillo College. Jack and Wendy have three sons, John, David, and Michael. After staying home with her children through their early childhood, Wendy began teaching as an aide, and subsequently earned her teacher's credentials. She presently teaches at Harbor High School, from which John, David, and Michael graduated. Travel lovers, Jack and Wendy twice took sabbaticals to Europe with their children. They plan to continue traveling during their retirement, while maintaining their home in Santa Cruz and their cabin in the Idaho mountains. They also plan to visit extensively with their children and grandchildren in Idaho, Colorado and Washington, D.C. Jack and Wendy will also continue to be active participants in St. John's Episcopal Church in Capitola, where they are known for their compassion, sense of humor, and welcoming attitudes. Supportive of their friends in times of joy and of need, Jack and Wendy have opened their home for many community gatherings and holiday celebrations. Jack and Wendy Stevens have dedicated their professional lives to education and public service. I offer them my deep appreciation for their years of service, and best wishes for their retirement.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, it is a testament to the courage, strength, and honor of Americans that of the many reactions to the events of September 11, only few were expressions of suspicion and hostility against innocent residents of our nation. However, any reaction reflecting suspicion and hostility, any violence against those targeted because of their religion, country of origin, skin color, language, or dress is shameful, and we all must work diligently to prevent them. I am proud to recognize the Neighbor to Neighbor program in my district. Volunteers organized this program to protect the safety and dignity of all who live in the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural area of the Central Coast of California. Neighbor to Neighbor acts as a clearinghouse to pair community members who need help with those who need to help. Volunteers assist neighbors with shopping, running errands, short and long distance travel; they provide shelter, translation, safe companionship, vandalism cleanup, and other needed services. Assistance is free, confidential, and available all hours of the day and night. Collect calls are accepted. All nationalities are welcomed; those who request help need not speak English. Neighbor to Neighbor also recruits speakers for local schools and community groups to foster discussion, provide education, and attempt to dispel ignorance and fear. Neighbor to Neighbor asks that we prove to the world, to our children, and to ourselves that we refuse to succumb to hate, ignorance, and that we do not ignore the needs of our neighbors. The ultimate goal of the Neighbor to Neighbor program is the discovery that its existence is no longer needed, that our neighbors are living peacefully with each other. I look forward to this day.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life's work of Monterey County Superior Court Judge Richard Silver, 60, whose outstanding legal acumen has enriched society on the Central Coast for more than a quarter of a century. A graduate of the University of California's Boalt Hall School of Law, Judge Silver began his legal career as a defense lawyer with the Francis Heisler law firm. Among the cases that fueled his rise to prominence in the late 1960s was the Soledad Brothers prison-murder trial. At my urging, Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Judge Silver to the bench in 1977. Judge Silver became known for his expertise and efficiency in handling civil cases. He developed a case management system that makes civil justice more swift in Monterey County than in almost any other California county. He also built a reputation for settling tough cases before they went to trial. And he became known for tackling contentious issues ranging from land use disputes to struggles between teachers and school districts. Among those who founded the Monterey College of Law, Judge Silver remains on its board of directors. Although he is stepping down from the bench, Judge Silver is likely to remain highly active in the local legal community, by settling disputes out of court as a private judge and arbitrator. For this, all of us who have come to know him over the years on the Central Coast will be very grateful.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise with some concern about the process here in the United States House of Representatives. I am a proud member of the Committee on Appropriations, and I am proud of the work we do there. I am also very proud of the Chair, who I think manages that committee very fairly. But something happened on the way through the process here that stinks. The committee worked very hard to try to pay for the needed costs of what has happened in this country since we were here last year, the unexpected costs; and that is why this bill is needed. This is an emergency bill. It provides additional funds to pay for essentially contingencies that were not anticipated; and as we have heard, 9-11 is the biggest of those. But also there is an old adage here that says this is the only train that is going to make it all the way to the White House, and if you want to be on that train, you better load up. I think that the committee did a good job of making sure that this was not a big pork process and that it did not load up too much; and that is always a tough bipartisan effort to put out a good bill. But after the bill was put out of the committee, it went to the Committee on Rules, and there the word came down that this bill was going to be beefed up. It was going to be loaded up, and it was going to take care of the political problems that certain Members of this House were having. I am from California, and we all know that California is facing a big financial problem. It is in debt. It is a big State, the biggest producer of taxes in the United States, and the biggest contributor of taxes to the Federal Government. It is a State that probably can take credit for the surge in the economy in the last decade, and a State that was hardest hit in the recession, particularly to the dot-com industry that was such a success. So that is why the State is in debt. Its revenues just did not meet expectations. It had incredible costs to pay for energy, costs that we are now seeing were not the State's problem, but a manipulation of the market by the private sector. Yet we find in California that we have a lot of hard-liners who feel that we ought to have constitutional amendments on requiring a balanced budget, as we do in California. The State is not allowed to go into debt; and, therefore, the legislature, at this moment, is cutting like mad and in fact doing some tough political things in an election year. They are even raising some new revenue. But Members of the California delegation who are here in the other party have come out in signing a resolution, H.J. Res. 86, introduced this year, to amend the United States Constitution to require a two- thirds vote if we are to raise the debt limit. But guess what, they are the ones, the first ones to criticize a Democratic Governor in California and then turn around in this House, put their name on a resolution to require a constitutional amendment to do the same as California. But this bill, because of the way it was amended in the Committee on Rules, it allows them to essentially duck a vote on the debt increase, a huge debt increase, of the Federal Government. We have a dozen Republicans from California that are coauthors of that bill who now run away from the responsibility of having a balanced budget to allow the United States Government to go into a big deficit. That is wrong. It is the wrong way to handle this emergency appropriations bill. We will see in the debate tonight a sort of in-your-face; that if you do not vote for this bill, you are not voting for the soldiers; if you do not vote for the bill, you are not voting for the firemen; if you do not vote for this bill, you are not voting for a half dozen other particular interests out there. That is not the reason why a lot of people are going to vote against this bill. The reason is that this process has been corrupted by essentially hijacking a legitimate bill and making it a bill with all kinds of other political riders on it, the kind of process that we around here always complain about; that we ought to be fair and open and full of transparency. The process was hijacked. And it is not the fault of the appropriators; it is not the fault of the good work of the Committee on Appropriations. It is the fault of the Committee on Rules taking mandates from Republican leadership. That is wrong. I just hope that tonight, as the debate goes on, that people realize this was a good bill, put out by a good committee, and it was hijacked along the way to do wrong for the United States and to do evil in the budgetary process. This essentially takes money that is in our Social Security account, takes money that is in the Medicare account and requires those monies to be spent on things that should not be spent on by those accounts.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Lantos amendment and the underlying bill, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act. The Afghanistan Freedom Support Act makes good on America's promise not to abandon Afghanistan. Our commitment to Afghanistan will be a testament to America's commitment to its allies in the war on terror. The most important commitment that the United States can make, however, is to support the security of our Afghan allies and friends. Without security, there can be no infrastructure rebuilding, no eradication of narcotics cultivation, no economic revitalization, no improved education and health care. None of our well-intentioned programs, which ultimately will be assumed by the Afghans themselves, will find any success without adequate security measures. Security is most certainly not a partisan issue. Here we all agree that security is fundamental to prosperity. I am sure then that many of my colleagues shared my dismay when President Bush announced that the U.S. would not support an extension of Internal Security Assistance Force, the ISAF, to other major cities in Afghanistan besides Kabul. It contradicted the President's announcement that he would like to see the Peace Corps' Crisis Corps and eventually the Peace Corps volunteers back in Afghanistan as soon as possible. Everybody in this body knows that I am one of the strongest supporters of the Peace Corps, having served as a volunteer in Colombia in the 1960s. I advocated strongly for expansion of the Peace Corps. I was the loudest to cheer when the President boldly committed himself to double the number of Peace Corps volunteers by the year 2007. I am also supportive of the President's intention to call upon the Peace Corps to help rebuild and revitalize Afghanistan. As their Peace Corps brothers and sisters went before them, the new volunteers will bring the great American gifts of optimism and enthusiasm to their important work in the Afghanistan villages. Nonetheless, we can not expect Peace Corps volunteers, even the Crisis Corps volunteers, to operate in a climate of insecurity that now reigns in Afghanistan. I would like to bring our attention to an editorial from The Washington Post from April 27 of this year. I will submit this document for the Record. The article was written by Anna Seleny, a political science teacher at Princeton, but also the last Peace Corps volunteer to be evacuated from Afghanistan in 1987 before the Soviet invasion. Miss Seleny believes, as I do, that the Peace Corps can play an important role in restoring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan. However, the ability of volunteers to play that role will be seriously compromised by the violence and impunity that still reigns there. Without security, the volunteers' mission will fail. Miss Seleny fears that they will be withdrawn again, and I fear worse. What is required now is to be realistic. Without security and order, there can be no peace and prosperity. If we want the latter, we must also provide the former. I think that helping Afghanistan is the right thing to do. But let us do the job right. Let us expand the security mission beyond Kabul to cover other cities to other provinces. Let us help the Afghanistan democratic process by protecting the Loya Jirga from threats and intimidations. Let us help make it safe for women and girls to go outside and walk the streets without fear of attack. Let us help create an environment where Afghans can afford to stop dwelling on the past and worrying about the present, and allow them to think about the future, to dream and to build better lives for themselves and their families. The Lantos amendment most reasonably asks the administration to prepare a strategy to meet the security needs of Afghanistan. It is an important first step towards meeting our obligations and laying the foundations for its successful U.S. policy in the region. I thank my colleagues for their attention and consideration and urge them to support the Lantos amendment and the underlying Afghan Freedom Support Act. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 27, 2002] The Peace Corps Will Need Some Backup (By Anna Seleny) If things go according to the Bush administration's plan, the Peace Corps will be back in Afghanistan soon. This makes sense; it could spur Afghan reconstruction while teaching idealistic young Americans about the realities of life in the developing world. But these laudable aims can be accomplished only if the administration agrees to extend the mandate of the international peacekeeping force there, and expand it to cover the provinces. I speak from experience; I was the last Peace Corps volunteer evacuated from Afghanistan in 1979 before the Soviet invasion. I arrived in Kabul in January 1978 and was assigned to work in a health clinic north of Mazar-e-Sharif, near the Uzbek border. Three months later bombs started to fall, as part of a Soviet-backed coup in which the Communist ``People's Democratic Party'' murdered President Mohammed Daoud, the last ruling member of the Mohammedzai dynasty. After several days of intense fighting, an eerie calm settled over a capital now under strict military curfew. My most vivid memory of the following weeks is of riding my bicycle past ever-lengthening lines of people waiting outside prisons for news of relatives who had disappeared. Many never got answers, and the new regime's duplicity and brutality were only the beginning of the country's long nightmare. Like other Peace Corps volunteers, I was given the option of leaving without dishonor or continuing my work. About a dozen of us stayed (out of approximately 150). It was no longer considered safe to work in the provinces, so I was reassigned to the Afghan Institute of Technology in Kabul. As the new regime tightened its grip, some of my friends and colleagues began to distance themselves from anything American, for self-protection; one even adopted Marxist rhetoric overnight. Others overcame their fears and continued to insist that I come to their homes. Eventually, after the assassination of American Ambassador Adolph Dubs, the rest of us were withdrawn, along with all but a skeleton embassy staff. Today, after more than two decades of war and poverty, most Afghans want U.S. help in restoring a measure of peace, prosperity and normality to their country. The Peace Corps can play an invaluable role in this delicate task: serving as goodwill ambassadors and helping communities provide basic services to a population in desperate need. For quite some time, however, the Peace Corps volunteers will have to go about their tasks in a highly unstable local and geopolitical context. Afghan internal rivalries are still erupting in fierce vendettas, and no national government can exercise credible authority, let alone punish the perpetrators of violence. Some regions of the country remain dominated by former warlords. Without an expanded international peacekeeping force, there could be a major conflagration between dominant groups holding power in Kabul and their provincial rivals. The administration is right to stress the need for reconstruction aid. But it seems poised to repeat America's mistakes in the region: committing too few resources for too short a time, and thus ultimately failing to secure hard-won gains. Before angry groups in Afghanistan can cooperate to put their country back on its feet, the peace must be fully secured--something beyond the power of the interim government, and probably the first post-conflict government as well. This is why the Afghans themselves have asked that the international peacekeeping force be significantly expanded in both time and scope. Without some kind of force in place capable of maintaining order, moreover, any new Peace Corps volunteers will probably have to be withdrawn as things fall apart, just as we were in 1979. This would not only be a public relations disaster and a waste of substantial rhetorical, military and political capital; it would also be a historic lost opportunity. Some speak of Afghanistan as if it had always been in turmoil, as if its ethnic and tribal groups had never reached a workable accommodation. Don't believe them. Before 1979 Afghanistan was miserably poor, but people did not starve. Daoud's government had serious flaws, but it was a moderate republic. There was increasing political and social pluralism, including enhanced freedoms and a range of professional careers for women. By the late 1970s Afghanistan had achieved a kind of rough tribal democracy that might well have developed into something better with time. The country also had a professional, multi-ethnic army of which many Afghans were justly proud, and a growing middle class. The potential for a more prosperous and peaceful Afghanistan is there. The Peace Corps is at its best when helping distressed nations dig out from under. But for the Corps to do its job, somebody else must first keep the peace. And keeping the peace requires a firm commitment that, like the mission of the Peace Corps itself, conveys to Afghans and the world the patient determination that is the hallmark of true world leadership.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the House denied itself the opportunity to address a discriminatory practice affecting the women serving in our military. An amendment which would have required equal treatment of servicewomen overseas was prevented from coming to the floor. I consider this a great loss to all those who serve in our military and all Members of Congress who wished to express their conviction that our military can and must treat its members fairly. The military currently requires or strongly encourages servicewomen to wear abayas and headscarves, complete coverings of their bodies, while off-base in Saudi Arabia. The military makes no such recommendations to servicemen to dramatically alter their appearance. The government of Saudi Arabia does not require non-Muslim women to wear abayas, and the U.S. State Department does not encourage its female embassy employees nor tourists to wear abayas. I believe it is important to remember that the women who have served in our military have not always responded to a call. For many, they proudly volunteered long before a call was ever sounded. During the American Revolution, wives followed their husbands into war, mothers followed their sons. They brought water and supplies, they tended the wounds of those who were injured, and they took up the rifles of those who had fallen. In World War I, women were, for the first time, allowed to enlist. More than 30,000 did so, a third of them served overseas. Since then, women of all generations have served in wars and conflicts far from their homes and families. Discrimination in the military is an insult to the memory of those women who died in service to their country and a grave injury to those who currently serve. These women, who have helped foster freedom in nations on whose soil their blood has been shed, are owed the certainty that the military does not see them for their gender but rather for their courage and commitment to the ideals embraced by all of its military personnel. During the Gulf War, helicopter pilot Major Marie Rossi, now buried in Section 8 of Arlington National Cemetery, offered her thoughts on the work of women in the military, ``It's our jobs, you know. There was nothing peculiar about us being women. We're just the people called upon to do it.'' The more than 300,000 women currently serving in our military would tell you the same. The House of Representatives should have seized the opportunity to tell our military women that we agree: their contributions and sacrifices are deeply appreciated by their nation. The military must not treat them as second-class citizens.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the small business owners in my district and to celebrate Small Business Week 2002. Every morning, 25 million small businesses across the United States opened their stores and that number continues to grow. Small businesses account for 99.7 percent of all employers and it is time that we recognize them as the backbone of our economy. In my home state of California, women and minorities make up the fastest growing group of new small business owners. Overall in the United States, the number of woman-owned businesses has almost doubled and minority-owned businesses have nearly quadrupled in the past decade. In order to ensure that this positive growth continues, we must work along side the Small Business Association and with the Small Business Development Centers and Women's Business Centers around the nation to increase accessibility to business counseling, startup packages, and loans. Now more than ever, it is vital that we in Congress support the small business community so that in the wake of September 11th these businesses can continue to flourish. As Small Business Week 2002 comes to a close, let's remember to take time to acknowledge these Main Street businesses in our own towns and the important roles they play in maintaining a sound economy.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, memos released this week by the FERC, confirm what those of us from California long suspected: Enron reaped millions upon millions of dollars off the backs of Californians by manipulating the energy market, cheating consumers, and lying to energy regulators and the State. Recently released internal documents clearly illustrate Enron's strategies to game the energy trading system. The Enron documents describe knowingly and consciously submitting false information to the State in order to increases energy prices. Enron's overwhelming greed is beyond outrageous; it may be criminal. Clearly, the billions of dollars stolen from Californians must be returned. It is also imperative that FERC reopen California's long-term contracts to prevent us from being further gouged. Throughout the California energy crisis the Governor of California joined with the majority of California's congressional delegation to call on the Federal Government to do something to stop price manipulation. I want to share with my colleagues an editorial from today's Los Angeles Times, that sums up the consequences of Federal inaction. [From the Los Angeles Times, May 8, 2002] Make Enron Pirates Answer It was a scam after all. As California faced desperate electricity shortages in 2000 and 2001, power giant Enron was manipulating the market to drive up prices and turn modest power shortages into critical ones. This arrogant behemoth, since brought down by its own hubris, toyed with the public health and safety of California to boost its own profit, and there's finally a smoking gun to prove it. Internal Enron documents released by the bankrupt company's new management describe these unethical, if not illegal, trading practices in detail and indicate that other companies were doing the same thing. All the while, everyone from Enron's then-chief Kenneth Lay to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and regulators who should have smelled a rat were say it was all California's fault. For failing to build enough power plants. For adopting a power deregulation plan that wasn't free-market enough. For environmental laws with a Malibu mind-set. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission refused to accept its legal responsibility to rein in a wildly out-of-control market. Ultimately, commissioners said, the free market would work. For California, that meant a year of crisis, of rolling blackouts, of one major utility going bankrupt and another flat broke, of the state doling out $6 billion to buy daily power and an additional $40 billion for long-term contracts at what we now know are grossly inflated rates. FERC finally acted out of political necessity; it was too little, too late. The Enron memos go on in pages of sneering, ``gotcha'' detail about such things as how to get paid for not putting any energy on the grid. In another ploy, the firm would buy power in California at a capped price of $250 a megawatt-hour and resell it in Oregon for $1,200--at a time when California was flirting daily with blackouts. The schemes had cute names like Death Star and Fat Boy. When California complained and Gov. Gray Davis denounced the energy manipulators, an Enron official said, ``California is trying to perpetuate the greatest political dodge of the last 100 years.'' Yes, deregulation was flawed, California was short of power plants and a drought in the Northwest had reduced hydroelectric power. Davis was slow to react to the crisis. But these factors alone did not cause the state's power costs to go from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion the next year. FERC should help the state obtain substantial refunds from the power-generating companies that charged exorbitant prices. The state has asked for $9 billion, an amount that federal regulators had deemed far too high but that they now should regard as just about right. The Justice Department should investigate possible criminal violations. The state should demand that all of its long-term contracts, signed under the duress of the inflated market, be nullified and renegotiated without delay. And FERC should extend its modest market controls beyond the present Sept. 30 expiration. Electricity is vital to public welfare. It must not be held hostage by manipulators piously invoking the free market. They scoffed in Washington and Houston when Davis called the energy manipulators pirates. Now we know why he was right.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I represent the most productive agricultural congressional district in the United States, not only in production, but in diversity of crops, and I go home every week and I talk to my farmers and they ask me, when is somebody going to get up and say that these farm bills really do not protect farmers? I have heard a lot of discussion here today. What this protects is farmers if they grow those crops in your district or in your State, but the majority of people out there who are planting the seeds that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) talked about do not benefit from that program. They go to market and if the market price is low, they have to eat it. If the crop fails, they have to eat it. They do not get help from the Government. I think that the problem with the farm bill is it states for the next 5 years what our U.S. policy, and U.S. policy about agriculture is that if you are in a special commodity program, the Government is going to help you. If you are outside of it, you just have to take the risk and bear it. Until we get a farm bill that is fair to everyone and fair to totality, the holistic approach to our community, to land use, to animal husbandry, to humane practices and to making it fair for every farmer in America, we are not going to have a good farm bill. I urge a no vote.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the contributions and accomplishments of The Santa Cruz Community Credit Union. In celebrating their 25th anniversary, we not only celebrate their longevity in our community, but the important assistance they have provided to thousands of residents in Santa Cruz County. The Santa Cruz Community Credit Union was founded in 1977 by a small group of activists concerned by the disparate levels of opportunity afforded individuals within the community. The Community Credit Union's mission to promote positive social and economic change has been the driving force behind their 25 year journey. And their mission has worked. Over the last 25 years, the Santa Cruz Community Credit Union has received the federal designation as a community development institution, received more than a million dollars to support their Individual Development Account Program, and the national Louise Herring Award for Philosophy in Action for their ``Asset Development for Low- Income Members Program.'' The work of the dedicated staff of the Community Credit Union over the last 25 years has had a lasting impact in our community, helping those who need it the most. The Santa Cruz Community Credit Union now serves more than 8200 members in the region. Their 25 years of service have proven beyond a doubt that a simple idea to help others help themselves by tying community development goals with traditional financial lending practices can have a positive impact on those seeking the American dream of economic independence. The Santa Cruz Community Credit Union is an invaluable asset to our community, and I hope that they continue their good work for many years to come.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the contributions made by two longtime community leaders. Mas and Marcia Hashimoto have been working tirelessly for years to educate our local communities about the World War II incarceration of Japanese and Japanese Americans. Mas and Marcia created the idea of ``Liberty Lost . . . Lessons in Loyalty'', a re-enactment of the incarceration of Japanese and Japanese Americans and inspired in the larger community a call to action to commemorate an event of enormous historical significance to the Pajaro Valley and the United States. ``Liberty Lost . . . Lessons in Loyalty'' honors those incarcerated as well as those who, in single acts of kindness and compassion bravely and generously supported the internees. It also has captured the courageous stories and memories of Japanese and Japanese Americans incarcerated during WWII in a series of invaluable oral history recordings that will forever be treasured. ``Liberty Lost . . . Lessons in Loyalty'' educates the entire community about the dangers of wartime hysteria and racism and serves as a forum from which new cross cultural understanding of alliances may be formed. Mas and Marcia are recognized community leaders and have each served as the president of the Watsonville-Santa Cruz JACL and where, in their capacity as leaders, they have encouraged, motivated, and inspired all with which they have worked. Mas and Marcia Hashimoto have greatly contributed to the strength and vitality of the Watsonville-Santa Cruz JACL, the Japanese American community, and to the Pajaro Valley. As a team, Mas and Marcia have shared their lives, their warmth and enthusiasm, and their energy and passion in creating ``Liberty Lost . . . Lessons in Loyalty.'' Their work, and this project, shall be forever cherished for all to remember.