Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I embarked on a sea odyssey over 4 years ago to pass the Oceans Act to establish a commission modeled after the Stratton Commission, which was a commission that met over 30 years ago. If one thinks about it, most of the instrumentation we use to measure weather, measure the ocean, measure fisheries management has all been invented since the Stratton Commission desolved. We know a lot more now than we did then. Yet, we do not have a national policy on how this country ought to look into the 21st century about an ocean strategy. That is what this bill does. It really is a tribute to the hard work, bipartisan work of the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Saxton); members of the Committee on Resources, including the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member; and others on that committee. Let me just say in one quick statement what is of interest here. We just sent satellites, we sent astronauts around the globe to photograph the earth. They photographed the surface of the planet, not the bottom of the ocean. We know a lot about the surface of the Earth than the bottom of the sea. We know everything there is to know about the Moon, the entire Moon, the back side, top side, front side. We know very, very little, very, very little, less than 5 percent of what the ocean floor of the world is. The ocean floor of the Earth is 76 percent of the Earth. That is unknown: the canyons, the rivers, the volcanoes, the sulfuric vents, the depths, the heights. That is what this 21st century exploration is all about is to explore and to learn ways in which this Earth's resources can be properly managed. So that we shall not perish, so that we can manage to survive as a healthy planet. As we know, we cannot just continue to dump everything we do not like into our oceans. All the excesses of which we do not know what to do with on land, we just dump them in the sea. We think they just sort of disappear. They do not. They integrate with the life of the ocean. They can kill it. We have people fishing with cyanide. We have people fishing with dynamite in some parts of the world. We have runoff with toxic wastes, and so on. So now is the time in the development of a society that we need to have a better look at how we manage these resources. This commission that we will vote on will do that. The President is required to bring back to Congress a report on how we should legislate within the next 18 months. This is a very good bill. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This bill is a good bill, and I recommend an ``aye'' vote on it.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a national hero who has helped shape civil and human rights for the past five decades. Richard Criley, a native of Carmel Highlands, was an active member of the American Civil Liberties Union and a fighter for all members of the human race. He influenced countless people to work, as he had, for the betterment of humanity and society, and his effect on our nation will be felt for many years to come. Mr. Criley passed away on Sunday, June 18, 2000 at the age of 88. Born on October 20th, 1911 in Paris, Richard Criley moved to California with his parents in 1914. After graduating from Monterey High School in 1929, he attended Stanford University and later UC Berkeley. He received his bachelor's degree in history and began working on his doctorate when he started to get caught up in the bitter labor struggle that was taking place on the San Francisco waterfront. He eventually stopped school altogether to join the International Longshoremen and Warehouseman's Union. With this change came the beginning of an inspiring lifetime of activism. After being drafted into the Army and serving in Europe during the Second World War, Mr. Criley returned to Chicago, where he joined his wife in organizing labor unions. For the next 30 years, Mr. Criley was involved in, among other things, the abolition of the Chicago Police Department's ``red squad'' and the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was called before that committee on five separate occasions, each time refusing to testify. In 1976, he returned to Carmel Highlands where he was raised, and remained active in both local and national human and civil rights causes up until his death. Among the awards he has received are the Stephen E. Ross Award, presented by the Monterey Peninsula chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1998; the Francis Heisler Award, presented by the Monterey County chapter of the ACLU in 1984; the Earl Warren Award of the Northern California ACLU in 1985 and the Baha'i Human Rights Award in 1993. Mr. Criley was a thoughtful, intelligent and dedicated man who will be sorely missed by his wife, Jan Penney, along with his three step- daughters, Ann Edgerton of Carmel Highlands, Beth Penney of Pacific Grove and Jeanne Mileti of Cachagua; his step-son John Penney of Los Angeles; and his sister, Cynthia Williams of Carmel Highlands.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. Before anyone votes for this amendment, think what is going on in America. This is the harvest season. This is time we celebrate. People are eating corn on the cob, having back-yard barbecues, watermelons are being eaten. This is the is time we are celebrating county fairs all over the United States. We celebrate agriculture, our number one industry. Our number one industry needs to find markets. We grow more food in the United States than we can consume. If we are going to keep the prices of agriculture low (and frankly I think in many cases they are too low), we need to keep the markets open for growers to be able to sell their crops. So my colleagues, before voting for this amendment, which is a bad amendment, wake up and smell the coffee. Every time we watch television and we see Juan Valdez telling us to buy Colombian coffee, not to buy a particular brand but to buy Colombian coffee, that is market promotion. We see wine industries in Italy trying to sell us Italian wine. That is market promotion. American consumers are being sold by market promotion by foreign competitors all the time and we do not realize that we need to do the same for our crops in this global market. So wake up and smell that coffee. Strike down this amendment. It is a bad amendment precisely because it will not allow the small businesses, that this bill emphasizes, to be able to take advantage of this expanded program. Not those large corporations, which was falsely stated, that use to get a lot of the market promotion. That stuff was struck out in 1998. This market promotion helps keep agriculture viable in the United States. It is absolutely essential that we keep our markets open. And we have a trade surplus. That we keep this all in the black. So let us keep America strong, keep agriculture strong, and strike down this amendment. Thank you.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman. The concern here is that in a bipartisan fashion, we funded the farmers of this country who grow the food that feeds the people, that feeds the children through school lunch programs and school breakfast programs and infants and newborns, and feeds the elderly through Second Harvest and Meals-on-Wheels; but we cannot sell that food to countries like Sudan, Libya, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. We voted to lift those sanctions to allow that food to flow to those countries. That is what the concern is here, that the rule was adopted last night which does not allow this. The promise was made that it would be in another committee report, but it was not there. It was not there last night when I checked. I am very concerned about this.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a very proud member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations, and I have to say that it is an incredible joy to serve under the chairmanship of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member. I think the camaraderie on this committee is one of the most outstanding in all of the House. The underlying bill that we are debating today is about appropriating money for the U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture. The difficulty with this bill is the allocation that was given to the committee is far less than it was last year, so we have to squeeze a lot of funds; and in the end, we squeeze a lot of programs that probably should not be squeezed. We squeeze funding shortfalls for food safety. This bill underfunds the budget request for USDA by about $14 million. They inspect meat and poultry. I am not sure that people want us to have shortfalls and an inability to inspect meat and poultry. It shortfalls the resources to deal with market concentration and abusive practices. One of the biggest problems in America is that we are finding that the consolidation of markets is making the prices stay low. It is good for the consumers, but it is also putting a lot of restraints on the ability to get the best price for a farmer's crop. In addition to that, there are all kinds of slotting fees and other things. They underfund the request from the President, which was about $7 million; and they only gave them $1 million, a little over $1 million. It falls short by $53 million for new and the spreading diseases that we have in agriculture and pests. On conservation programs, the bill falls short $70 million from the budget request for conservation operations at the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The list goes on and on, and probably one of the most difficult or hardest hit is the rural areas of the United States. Speaking of the rural areas, I would just like to say, this bill is not about the sanctions that were lifted by this committee. It is about the fact that the sanctions were taken out by a rule. That greatly disturbs us.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is not that the gentleman does not have a good idea. The problem is that the ARS, which is doing a tremendous job, was underfunded in the budget by $44 million under their request. What the gentleman wants to do in his amendment, which I oppose, is he wants to take money from the Department of Agriculture's administration account, from the Office Communication account, and from the Office of Inspector General. Each of those accounts is way below, $6 million for the Department of Administration account below what they requested; $800,000 below the Office of Communication, what they requested; and $5.1 million below the administration. So, in robbing Peter to pay Paul, they are just squeezing and squeezing and squeezing. What we really need to do is to have more money in the ARS account. Unfortunately, if the gentleman had not supported the small allocation figure given to the committee, we probably could have funded it. It is a project that I would support on merit if the money was there. I think that we need to work, perhaps, in conference that we get higher figures on projects like that, but I do not think that his amendment is proper at this time because of the lack of funding. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, obviously there have not been enough words stricken on this issue, and we need to continue talking about it. This debate comes up every year. It is really a debate between those who support the candy industry and the soft drink industry who would like to have lower sugar prices, they buy a lot of sugar, and those of us that support agriculture. We hear, well, there is a different policy here for sugar than there is for anything else, which is not true. This is not part of the AMTA payments. We do not pay the farmers directly. What we do in America is we limit the number of imports, and we give preference to countries that we are trying to help, particularly in the Caribbean Basin and Central America, allow their sugar products to come in, mostly cane sugar. What do we do? We pay the price that we get for sugar in America, which is a better price than they get on the world market. So it is really part of our foreign policy, this program. Also my colleagues make it sound like we do not do anything for any other agriculture. In the last year, we have had the largest wheat purchase ever in the United States. We made another wheat purchase last April right after that for another $93 million. Then we assisted, went and purchased small hog operators, we helped them out. We assisted dairy farmers who were suffering low prices. Then in May of last year, we did the disaster assistance funds for farmers. In June, we put $70 million into livestock assistance. In July, we put another $100 to hog farmers. In December, we assisted tobacco farmers. In January, we assisted sheep and lamb farmers. In January, we also assisted other dairy farmers; in February, the cotton farmers; also in February, the oil seed farmers; in March, the livestock production; in March, the cheese production; in March of this year, another $231 million for drought relief. Then we have done crop disaster payments totally $1.9 billion. So America does help its farmer, and we ought to. We ought to make sure that they have a market that they can sell their product. For after all, if this all goes away, we all come here talking about what happens with urban sprawl and what is happening to rural America, I mean, rural America is our history, our culture. What we are really about is a people and where still our number one industry in this country is agriculture. We have got to be here as representatives of districts of agriculture, supporting agriculture. This program does it without spending taxpayer dollars. I urge that we continue to support the sugar program in the United States.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise tonight on the supplemental as a former Peace Corps volunteer who lived 2 years in Colombia. I am very concerned about the issues that the chairman of the subcommittee just talked about, Plan Colombia. We are sending $1.185 billion in aid to Colombia and, as the chairman said, not directly to Colombia but in many different ways. My message tonight is that with this funding comes a message from the American people to Colombia, and that is that we want to help the good, honest people of that beautiful country to end the violence in Colombia. With the money comes our voice. Our voice joins their voice in ``no mas,'' ``no more,'' no more drugs, no more corruption in their politics, no more violence in the campo, no more kidnappings, no more insurgence by political rebels who do not want to participate in the Democratic process that their Government guarantees. We are sending them helicopters but not troops, we are sending them professional training of their National Police and Army, but only if they assure us that they will not violate human rights and only if they assure us that they will prosecute such violators in civil court. If they use our helicopters to assist anybody that is not fighting the drug war, if they use them to assist the paramilitary, they lose it. If they use them to assist insurgence, they lose those helicopters. Let it be known to anyone who aids and abets Colombian insurgence or the paramilitary that they will lose any visas that they apply for or will lose any if they already have them, any member of FARC, any member of ELAN, any member of the AUC. They will also lose any deposit or investment of any illegally obtained monies. It will be impounded. Yes, we are aiding Colombia tonight in Plan Colombia. We send them a message. We send them a message that this aid is to help them out of violence, to help them become the democracy that they can be. We hope that it will work. If it does not, we will make sure that they do not get any more.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a rule about the agricultural appropriations bill. The underlying bill is about America. It is about its land and its people. It is about the farmers that grow our food. It is about how we treat that food, how we deliver it, how we give it to poor people, how we give it to the school lunch program, school breakfast program, how we give it to women and infants, how we deal with poverty in America. That is what this bill is about. The people who produce that food came to this committee and they said, why can we not sell that food and sell our medicines to other countries? Why do we have sanctions against the products that we do such a good job in raising? Why do we not lift those embargoes that we have created in our country, embargoes against Sudan, against Libya, against North Korea, against Iran and, yes, against Cuba? Yes, these countries have been problem countries; but we have never, as the richest, most powerful Nation in the world, used the food as a weapon to hurt women and children. So this bill is about people. It is about food, and it is about medicine. This debate on this rule is a sham, because what the Committee on Rules did is they undermined the whole intent of bipartisan debate in the subcommittee, of bipartisan debate of the vote in the full committee; and the Committee on Rules comes along and waives all points of order except for one, and that is the point of order that deals with this issue. They waive another point, but they take care of it in another part of the bill. It is interesting what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) just said. Elian went home and he is free, and here the United States Congress is held hostage. It is a bad rule.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for working on this matter; and I look forward to working with him in the future.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to have a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the committee, but I just noticed that both the chairman of the Whole House and the chairman of the subcommittee are both retiring this year, and I have to express my own personal regrets that they are retiring. They are both very distinguished gentlemen, and I have enjoyed serving with them. I have really enjoyed serving with the chairman of the subcommittee, not only as a fellow Californian; but we have been engaged together in issues for the State, and I remember when I was in the State legislature his work with the supercollider, where I really got to know him well; and I have appreciated his leadership here in the Congress. I want to thank him for the opportunity to discuss with him the funding for a critical project in my district, which is the central part of California. This is the second year I have sought appropriations to carry out a preconstruction engineering design of a flood control measure on the Pajaro River, which runs right through the City of Watsonville, California, as well as funding for the Pajaro River Basin Study. This is an area in my district with substantial flood control problems, which threatens homes and businesses in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. I have worked extensively with officials in both of these counties and the Corps of Engineers to resolve this problem in order to provide safety for the residents there. I recognize that the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is under significant budgetary constraints this fiscal year and has thus adopted a policy to fund investigations at a level no higher than requested by the administration. The administration's request for investigations on the Pajaro River was $600,000, with an additional $50,000 request for the basin study. However, this request was prepared prior to the agreement between the Corps and the local sponsors, which subsequently set a higher level of funding for the project. The Corps has revised their earlier estimates, and has developed a new work plan and budget that calls for a total of $1.95 million in fiscal year 2001. They have submitted a revised estimate on their ability to spend which reflects this new higher amount. I would like to request that my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, amend the amount as we go along to allocate to the investigations on the Pajaro River to reflect this agreement with the Corps and the new estimate of their ability to pay.

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

Mr. FARR of California

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the chairman for giving us 5 minutes on this very important amendment. I rise with this amendment to restore the whacking that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has taken in this appropriation bill. The chairman of the subcommittee and I are fond of discussing that Kentucky does not have a lot of oceans, but I am fond of reminding everyone that this land is the land from sea to shining sea and that some of those ocean waters begin in Kentucky. My amendment restores the cuts to this year's current levels. I am not asking for an increase, merely a restoration of what the current level is, meeting the status quo. The earmark in the bill is 76 percent less than what the President requested. The subcommittee cut several programs from current levels. They cut the National Ocean Service. They cut the National Marine Fisheries Service. They cut the Oceanic and Atmosphere Research Service. They cut the National Environmental Satellite Service. They cut the Pacific Salmon Treaty program by $12 million, less than its current level funding. They cut the National Marine Sanctuary Program. The cuts, according to NOAA, will result in staffing cuts up to a thousand of our Federal employees that will have to be laid off at a time when we are in more need of good natural science information than any other time in history. These cuts have unintended consequences. We have programs in agriculture that need to be reviewed and need permits. We have programs in the fisheries that need to be reviewed and need permits. We have programs relating to endangered species. We have programs relating to forest management. And these staff persons are the people that review these and grant the permits that are allowed to continue in those endeavors. If we look at where we are with NOAA, this is the 30th anniversary of that organization. We are very proud of its work here in the United States. But this bill's birthday present is kind of a slap in the face. This bill tells the story. The cuts to NOAA, essentially, went to pay for prisons. I know it is sad that we have to cut these programs from the current expenditure because of the allocation cap given by the Republican budget resolution. That figure did not say that we had to plus up the prisons at the expense of good science. Perhaps some cynic might suggest that the cutting of our environmental regulators will create more law breakers who have to then wait too long to get permits who violate the law and then we will have to put them in those new prisons that we are building. I do not agree with that. I think that this Nation's inhabitants and our own economic well-being depend on our ability to have clean air and healthy oceans. These cuts promote neither, Mr. Chairman. They must be restored. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is going to reserve his point of order. We will probably lose on a technicality. But I just want to emphasize my sincere concern that, in conference, that these monies need to be restored. The greatest populations of the United States live along the coastlines and they make their living off the coastlines. If we look at the cuts, these affect the essential coastal communities in the United States and their ability to do the job they need to do working in partnership with good Government. So these are going to have devastating impacts, particularly if we have to lay off a thousand employees who are now currently working for the Federal Government. So I would request that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) work in a bipartisan fashion to help in conference restore these funds.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, ``Volunteerism,'' as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary--``To give or offer to give on one's own initiative.'' The time has come for Congress to recognize the lasting contribution of volunteerism in America by passing the National and Community Service Amendments Act of 2000. This bill reauthorizes the national service programs administered or funded by the Corporation for National Service, including AmeriCorps, AmeriCorps*VISTA, the National Senior Service Corps, Learn and Serve America, and the Points of Light Foundation. These public-private partnerships are transforming our communities and successfully challenging our citizenry to make something greater of themselves. As communities and as a nation we are stronger and healthier because of the volunteers the Corporation for National Service provides. They tackle problems like illiteracy, crime, and poverty while instilling a commitment to public service in Americans of all ages, in every community nationwide. Our society works precisely because lots of folks are out there are helping other folks in many different ways. In fact, we have a social contract to help each other. In this country, we have young people in need of basic reading and writing skills, we have teenagers in need of mentors and role models, we have home-bound seniors in need of food and companionship, we have families in need of homes, and we have communities in need of disaster assistance. Solutions to these problems can best be found when individuals, families, and communities come together in service to their neighbors and fellow citizens. We can make a difference, but volunteers are critical to finding these solutions and touching these lives. That's where the Corporation for National Service comes in. National Service volunteers fill these needs by providing the essential people power at the local level. In my own state of California, we have more than 145,000 people of all ages and backgrounds working in 289 national service projects. Nationwide, more than 40,000 Americans served in AmeriCorps in 1998-99, bringing the total number of current and former members to more than 100,000. They have taught, tutored, and mentored more than 2.6 million children, served 564,000 at-risk youth in after school programs, operated 40,500 safety patrols, rehabilitated 25,180 homes, aided more than 2.4 million homeless individuals, and immunized 419,000 people. And, they have accomplished all this while generating $1.66 in benefits for each $1.00 spent. Volunteers also have a profound impact on the communities they work in by embodying the values of public service for all. Studies have found that people are more likely to volunteer if they know someone who volunteers regularly or were involved as a youth in an organization using volunteers. AmeriCorps members generate an average of 12 additional volunteers around the nation! Not only are they helping our communities, they are setting an example for others to follow. It's time we reclaimed the bipartisan tradition of support of national service that has long been the hallmark of American politics. Members of Congress now have a unique opportunity to separate policy from politics and reach a bipartisan consensus on the value of our national service programs. At this time of great concern about the future of our youth, it's essential that as many as possible be called upon to do something more challenging and rewarding--service to their fellow citizens. Support for the Corporation for National Service will build a stronger nation and ensure a brighter future for us all.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, ``Working Hard'' is a phrase often spoken casually in conversation and this act seen exemplified is rare. However, Mr. Ralph Thompson, Jr. did prove so as an Attorney on the Monterey Peninsula. Thompson understood the value of hard work in his career as well as his personal pursuits. Over his years, Thompson dedicated his time and energy to his ``labor of love''--Little League. Yet, on February 28, 2000, at the age of 80, Thompson's commitments to his laborious loves were ended. Born in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, Mr. Ralph Thompson, Jr., exemplified this in his daily work ethic. After earnings his law degree from Stanford University in 1948, he then moved to Carmel where he joined the Thompson & Thompson law firm. Following his initial success at Thompson & Thompson, Mr. Ralph Thomspon later became a partner at Hudson, Wyckoff, Parker, and Thompson in 1961. Thompson found later acclaim, in his personal life, as a Little League coach as he was awarded the Chief Justice Phil Gibson Award from the Monterey County Bar Association for his outstanding public service. Peers of Thompson, spoke of him highly, often noting that he would be remembered as a, ``litigator with a heart.'' Another friend of Thompson's recounted him as being a mentor and teacher, ``who taught [him] all that [he] knows[s] about practicing law.'' Thompson's courtroom life never strayed to his family life. Known as a `tiger in the courtroom', he was also seen as a ``warm, family man.'' As we remember Mr. Ralph Thompson, let us remember his many fine accomplishments as a husband, father, coach, friend and mentor. In time, hard work pays off and leaves pride in the hearts of those who knew and loved Thompson. He is survived by his wife, Joan; his four sons, Lawrence, William, R. Cole, and Douglas; two daughters, Nancy Eskilon and Beth Carpenter; and 14 grandchildren.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of my dear friend, Mrs. Virginia Best Adams, who passed away on January 29, 2000 at the age of 96. Mrs. Adams will be remembered for her love and dedication for Yosemite as well as her shared compassion for music. As a child, Virginia Adams spent her childhood doting over the natural beauty of Yosemite, and later as an adult it would be there that she would meet and marry the love of her life, Ansel Adams. Through her many accomplishments, Mrs. Adams will best be remembered for her contribution to the Monterey Peninsula culture. As a devoted mother, Virginia Adams will be remembered well by her daughter Ann Helms. Ms. Helms noted that her mother was, ``One of her dearest friends from the time [she] was a teenager on.'' Helms attributes this sacred friendship to her family's shared love for reading and history. Known within the family circle as, ``Nini'', Virginia Adams will be remembered formidably for her favorite shade of green. This shade of green, identified as, ``a little bit brighter than forest green'', is highlighted in Mrs. Adam's living room draperies. Later, this trademark green was used in the cover of a CD titled, ``Nini Green''. In addition to her daughter, Mrs. Adams is survived by her son, Dr. Michael Adams; five grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. Mrs. Adam's curiosity for the natural world will be missed, but will not die as we acknowledge the contributions she has made upon music. Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask you and our distinguished colleagues to join me in honoring the distinguished attributes of Mrs. Virginia Adams.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to honor Mr. Charles ``Charlie'' Isami Tanimura who contributed not only to the city of Salinas, but also in the agricultural community as co-founder of Tanimura & Antle, one of the nation's largest independent produce growers. Charles Tanimura will be remembered greatly for his spirit of true innovation. On February 27, 2000, Mr. Charles Tanimura passed away at the age of 83. Mr. Tanimura was born December 15, 1916 in San Juan Bautista, where his father had settled from Japan. One of 12 brothers and sisters, Charles saw farming as the family livelihood and later took on the farming operation with four of his brothers in the 1930's. As World War II began, many of the Tanimura family members found themselves being sent to internment camps. However, Charles had enlisted in the Army prior to the bombing. During the family's internment, the Tanimuras lost the leases on the land they were farming, however shortly after they were able to rebuild their operation to include thousands of prime agricultural acres. Friends described Tanimura as an, ``unassuming individual who preferred to stay out of the limelight''. Known as a member of the Japanese-American Citizens League, Tanimura will be remembered as generous in helping with the Buddhist Temple's annual festival in July. As noted by many individuals in the community, ``Just to be a Tanimura is to be famous.'' To be a Tanimura is to have left a valued contribution on society. Charles Tanimura exemplifies the spirit of resilience in his fight to persevere in the face of great obstacles. Mr. Speaker, it is with these words that I ask you and our colleagues to join me in honoring this example of a man. Mr. Charles Tanimura is survived by his loving wife, Fumiko; his three children, Gary Tanimura, Keith Tanimura and Bonnie Yokomata; his four brothers, George, John, Tom and Robert Tanimura; three sisters, Alice Sato, Betty Furushko and Rose Yuki; two grandchildren and numerous nieces and nephews.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, it isn't often that the world is graced with individuals who change the lives of others around them. However, Mr. John Gardiner's compassion for the sport of tennis transcended the tennis community and touched the lives of others around him. Gardiner's love for the sport propelled him to build a first-of- its kind tennis ranch in Carmel Valley. This love and devotion for the sport will forever keep Jack Gardiner's memory alive for all. John Gardiner's love first developed as a child in Philadelphia, where he would often play at the municipal tennis courts. His love was further developed once he moved to Monterey Peninsula. As a teacher and football coach at Monterey High, he led the Toreadores to victory in 1948 in an undefeated season in 27 years. Former student, Dan Albert recalls, ``Something special happened with that team and John Gardiner was the cause of that something special with that group of young men.'' Later, Gardiner's tennis resort would become most noted for offering clinics for adults and a tennis camp for children. I too have witnessed the, ``something special'' that Dan Albert spoke of. My first job was as a lifeguard at John Gardiner's Tennis Ranch with a pay of 59 cents an hour. Mr. Gardiner would often joke with me and reply with, ``It's the last honest job you've had.'' Without a doubt, John Gardiner has touched lives and made a difference in mine. In addition to his efforts with youth, Gardiner also exercised an equal compassion with his philanthropic nature. Gardiner established an annual Senators Cup Tournament, where 52 U.S. senators played tennis to raise money for charity. Through the course of 20 years, the tournament raised $4 million that was used to build a hospice in Scottsdale, Arizona, which was named in memory of Barbara Gardiner who died of cancer. Mr. Speaker, although Mr. John Gardiner may be gone, his spirit will live on with the love of tennis that he inspired in others as well. Mr. Gardiner is survived by his wife of 20 years, Monique Gardiner: two sons, John C. Gardiner, Jr and Thomas Gardiner; his two daughters, Tricia McKnight and Tenise Kyger; and eight grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and the other distinguished members to acknowledge the impact that Mr. John Gardiner has left on this world.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to honor the spirit and dedication of a man whose life was committed to world peace and community empowerment. Doug Rand will be remembered as a determined, compassionate, and inspirational man who was committed to the fight for social justice. On March 5, 2000, Doug Rand passed away at the age of 45. As a longtime member of the Resource Center for Nonviolence staff, friends recall the activist as persistent, yet that being his ``greatest strength''. Through his efforts at the Center, Rand's most noteworthy accomplishment came with the installation of the ``Collateral Damage'' statue. The controversial statue was dedicated in 1995, on the eve of the bombing on Hiroshima. The statue symbolizes the human cost of war. Rand's commitment to this project and others like it led him to further acclaim as a political minister. Rand was known to counsel men about the draft. In particular, he took up the case of Eric Larsen, a Marine who refused duty during the Persian gulf war. Rand later approached Eric Larsen to work at the Resource Center. This effort later led him to take other anti- militarist ventures, such as his anti-war toys campaign. Friends of Doug Rand quietly gathered after the death, yet this day would be committed to celebrating the accomplishments of Rand in his life. Rand is survived by his wife, Mathilda, loving friends and an aware community. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I ask you and our colleagues to reflect on the role that Mr. Doug Rand has had in his political journey for enlightenment and discovery for us all.

Mr. FARR of California

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, about 15 percent of AmeriCorps members serve in faith-based institutions, and the number is growing. Mr. Chairman, it is time that we reclaim the bipartisan tradition and support national service that has long been the hallmark of American politics. Members of Congress now have an opportunity to separate policy from politics, to reach a bipartisan consensus on the value of AmeriCorps. I might add in closing, Mr. Speaker, this is an election year, and we have 62,000 AmeriCorps volunteers in the field. Each of those has two parents, 120,000 voters, and each has four grandparents; 240,000 people out there who have sons and daughters and relatives that are in the Peace Corps, including staff that are in this room right now whose daughters are serving in AmeriCorps. We have to get this re-funded. It is absurd that the Republican party has decided to zero out this in our budget.

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