Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

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

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long day and night. I want to say how much I appreciate the good leadership of the chairman in conducting tonight's business. I rise on a very sad note. It was a note that was just read by the Clerk, that the majority of that party in this House wants to strike all of the funding for the Corporation for National Service. We have funded, fully funded, an all voluntary military. We have partially funded, and I applaud that, funding for the Peace Corps. But when it gets to supporting our own, ensuring our own domestic tranquility and taking a program that is one of America's most successful, the American Corporation for National Service, or AmeriCorps, we cut the funding to zero. The time I think has come for Congress to realize the lasting contribution that volunteerism has given to America by fully funding the national service programs. This includes AmeriCorps, the National Senior Service Corps, the Service Learning Programs. I know the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), cares about this because he served in the Peace Corps at the same time I did, and we know the value of service. That is, as the American Heritage Dictionary reads, to give or to offer to give on one's own initiative. What we are striking and hopefully refunding tonight is these public- private partnerships that are transforming our communities and successfully challenging our young people to make something of themselves. As communities and as a Nation, we are stronger and healthier because of these volunteers. They tackle problems like illiteracy in America, crime in America, poverty in America, while instilling a commitment to public service for Americans of all ages in every community throughout this Nation. Our society works precisely because lots of folks 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 homebound seniors in need of food and a little companionship. We have families in need of homes. 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 to their fellow citizens. We can make a difference, but volunteers are critical to finding these solutions and touching these lives. That is where the Corporation for National Service comes in. AmeriCorps members and service volunteers fill these needs by providing 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, we have more than 62,000 Americans serving in AmeriCorps from 1998 to 1999, bringing the total number of current and former members to more than 100,000 Americans who have served in Americorps. 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 about 500,000 people. They have accomplished this all while generating $1.66 in benefits for each dollar that is spent. Most people do not know how AmeriCorps operates and assume that some top-down Washington bureaucracy runs the program and deploys members around the country. The opposite is exactly true. AmeriCorps is one of the most successful experiments in State and local control the government has ever supported. In fact, the bulk of AmeriCorps funding is in the hands of our Nation's Governors, who make grants to local nonprofits in our communities. The nonprofits then select the participants and run the programs. This is very important because studies have found that people are more likely to volunteer if they know someone who volunteers regularly or who was involved as a youth in organizations using volunteers. AmeriCorps members generate an average of 12 additional volunteers around the Nation. Not only are they helping our communities, they are setting examples for others to follow. It is critical to recognize that under the leadership of former Senator Harris Wofford, AmeriCorps has embraced its critics and reinvented itself as a leaner, more decentralized, and nonpartisan operation. AmeriCorps has devolved more and more of its authority to States and local nonprofits in recent years, including a major commitment to faith-based institutions.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, they have totally zeroed out this program. I ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Walsh) as chairman of this committee, when he goes into conference to fight as hard to get this reestablished as he did to get the Peace Corps funded, as I did to get the Peace Corps funded. We cannot just have a foreign Peace Corps and not have a domestic Peace Corps. This is absolutely essential to America to give youth a chance. To give America a chance to invest in an ounce of prevention, which is all these Members of Congress have said, is certainly worth a pound of cure.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, there are only five States that are affected by this amendment. It is interesting that the author's State is not affected. Thank God for the Antiquities Act. Thank God for the action of the President to take Federal lands and upgrade their status so that they are more protected. The reason the President had to do it by executive order is because this Congress under this leadership is failing to deliver these things. I introduced two bills in Congress on these issues that did not even get a hearing in the committee. The only member of the other party that has been supportive of all this effort is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). He has been the best environmentalist the Republican Party has because he is on the Committee on Appropriations and he can appropriate money. But to try to get a hearing in the other committees and try to get some substance out and get these lands protected, no way. Now they want to take them away. Give me back my monuments. Give me back Sequoia in California. Give me back the Grand Canyon-Parashant in Arizona. Give me back Agua Fria in Arizona. Give me back the California Coastal Monument. Give me back the Pinnacles National Monument in my district. Give me back the Canyons of the Ancients in Colorado. Give me back Ironwood Forest in Arizona. Give me back Cascade-Siskiyou in Oregon. And give me back Hanford Reach in Washington. This amendment would take all those away and take it away from the public who owns that land. This is your land, ladies and gentlemen of the United States. Defeat this amendment. Give them back to the people.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter/Horn/Johnson amendment to increase funding for the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The arts and culture have a lasting, positive impact on communities across the nation, yet for years these agencies have been sorely underfunded. It is critical that we give them the increases they richly deserve. The arts are an essential part of our culture, and the new millennium provides us with the opportunity to focus on the role that the NEA and the NEH play in projects that preserve our cultural heritage and promote our creative future. The NEH preserves our cultural heritage through its work to preserve the events and historical documents that shaped our nation. NEH projects serve to define who we are as a nation and where we come from. They allow us to pass along our ideals to the next generation. The NEH promotes our creative future through teacher training in the arts, arts in schools outreach, and after-school arts programs. The NEA has proposed a new arts education collaboration to involve youth in the arts. Research has proven that providing youths with access to the arts leads to higher academic achievement and fewer incidences of drug abuse and violence. Kids exposed to the arts and music earlier in life do better in their core academic subjects. The arts improve both their creativity and critical thinking skills and raise their self-esteem. We are only just beginning to understand how our youths' lives are impacted through the arts. Clearly, the arts and humanities serve as an essential and forceful vehicle to educate our citizens and help our struggling youth. They touch and enrich each of our children's lives. Yet, the United States spends the least among ten industrialized nations on the arts and humanities. Federal leadership and funding play the essential role in these efforts to make arts available in every community to every citizen. This debate is not a debate just about arts. It is a debate about whether we are willing to be creative in America. There is not an industry in the United States that does not depend on the arts, does not depend on the imagination, does not depend on the ability to look at things, as they say, ``outside the box.'' I'd like to leave you with a quote from the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, which established the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. A high civilization must not limit its efforts to science and technology alone but must give full value and support to the other great branches of scholarly and cultural activity in order to achieve a better understanding of the past, a better analysis of the present, and a better view of the future. We must ensure that these agencies have the resources they need to fulfill this mission. I encourage you to support the Slaugher/Horn/ Johnson amendment and increase funding for the NEA, the NEH and the IMLS.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to my very distinguished colleague, the Honorable Lois Capps, on her recognition as the Distinguished Alumni Award recipient this year at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Lois Capps represents a large Congressional district that includes Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. Lois received a Master's Degree from UCSB in 1990, at a time when the prospects ever serving in Congress would have seemed very remote. A loving wife of a University Professor, our beloved former colleague Walter Capps, and mother of three wonderful children, Lois earned her Master's degree from the School of Education in early childhood behavior. This degree improved her skills and leadership as a nurse in the Santa Barbara School District, as an instructor in early childhood development at the Santa Barbara Community College, and as the Director of Santa Barbara County's Teenage Pregnancy and Parenting Project and the Parent and Child Enrichment Center. The past ten years since she received her Master's Degree at UCSB have seen many changes in her life. Lois has earned the respect of her constituents and her colleagues here in Congress with her hard work, dedication to the family and childhood issues that are so important to her, and strength in times of unfathomable tragedy. As a member of the House, Lois has served as a member of the Science and International Relations Committees before assuming her current position on the Commerce Committee, where she serves on the Health and the Environment and Finance and Hazardous Material Subcommittees. Lois has made her mark in legislation where she is a vigorous advocate for the Patient's Bill of Rights, Medicare reform, mental health, environment, high technology, and telecommunications issues. Lois' recognition by the UCSB Alumni Association is altogether appropriate. She was a member of the University community as a spouse, student, and now as a distinguished alumnus and Congressional representative. She loves the UCSB campus, and the campus community of faculty, administrators, and students return that affection many thousand-fold. Mr. Speaker, we should all be proud of this recognition Lois Capps has received in her district. She continues to bring distinction to our institution and our state, and is an inspiration to all whose lives she has touched.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding member of our military community. After two years of exemplary service as the Superintendent of the Naval Postgraduate School, Admiral Robert C. Chaplin's new assignment is in Yokosuka, Japan, where he will become the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Japan (CNFJ). As a former graduate of the NPS, Admiral Chaplin has offered a unique and insightful perspective as the Superintendent of his alma mater by ensuring that we have well-prepared and well-educated Navy officers to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Admiral Chaplin has tirelessly promoted NPS graduates as an existing and available resource for the Navy. He has pushed to create these stronger ties by establishing meetings between the school deans and Navy commanders, as well as between his students and the fleets. This ``technical to tactical'' bridge, as Admiral Chaplin has titled it, has proven highly successful, and will benefit the Navy long after his departure. The imprint that this extraordinary leader has left on academics at the NPS is equally commendable. Not only has Admiral Chaplin established two new programs--the Information System Operations and System Engineering Programs--but also he has governed the creation of three additional new curricula scheduled for implementation in September. Pushing the school to be on the cutting edge of distance learning, NPS recently graduated over a dozen students who have never been on the NPS campus. Admiral Chaplin has ably used technology and the Internet to ensure that Navy officers around the world are not denied a postgraduate degree simply by geography. Many of his accomplishments at NPS have been driven from his desire to foster stronger partnerships with many of the region's universities and the nation's top technology schools, as well as bringing together the high tech companies in the Silicon Valley with students at the school. As a valued member of the greater Monterey Peninsula Community, Admiral Chaplin will be missed by many. Our regret is tempered by recognition of the opportunity that lies before him. Admiral Chaplin is well suited by education and experience to be the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Japan. So, it is with great pleasure that I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the tremendous contribution Admiral Chaplin has made to our national security at Naval Postgraduate School and throughout his long and distinguished Navy career and to wish him many years of continued success.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this permanent status and in support of annual status. ``Dear Representative Farr/Sam, . . . [it is] the very strong sentiment of the Labor Council delegates that the agreement negotiated with China . . . is a bad deal for working people in this country. . . . It should not be ratified by Congress. We urge you to vote against it.''--Amy Newell, Business Agent, Santa Cruz Central Labor Committee, AFL-CIO, in a letter dated March 20, 2000. ``Dear Congressman Farr/Sam, I am writing to you today to let you know how important Congressional approval of the Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China (PNTR) is for Monterey County growers! . . . Both California and Monterey County stand to gain jobs and business growth from your approval of PNTR. . . . I urge you to look carefully at the PNTR China issue and lend your immediate support to this extremely important matter!''--Sharan Lanini, Executive Director, Monterey County Farm Bureau, in a letter dated March 24, 2000. How could two views on the same issue coming out of roughly the same regional community be so incredibly disparate? Yet, this is the issue I am faced with as a U.S. Congressman as the vote on China and WTO approaches. The issue at hand is whether the United States will grant China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR). The U.S. already provides China with NTR--Normal Trade Relations--status, a trade arrangement that is currently renewed or denied on an annual basis. China has been granted NTR (previously referred to as ``MFN''--Most Favored Nation status) for 19 years in a row. I have supported annual NTR for China in the past. The difference this year is not just whether to make permanent the annual NTR debate for China. The difference this year is that American approval of PNTR will provide the United States the same access to Chinese markets as other World Trade Organization (WTO) members. Without PNTR, the U.S. will continue to trade with China on a bilateral basis and under conditions separate and different from the rest of the world. PNTR would establish new rules between the two countries equal to the rest of the world and new grounds for settling trade disputes. Most people know that I am a strong believer in trade. My votes on NAFTA, GATT and WTO are no secret. I regularly defend the Market Access Program (MAP) which provides federal funds to advertise American products overseas as a way to increase demand in foreign markets for U.S.-made items. The fastest growing market for products coming out of the Central Coast--particularly agriculture--is in Asia. In fact, Asian markets accounted for over 285 million pounds of export products from Monterey County alone in 1998. This figure could easily grow exponentially if full and fair access to the China market were made available to our growers. According to statistics the Department of Commerce released last month, the Santa Cruz-Watsonville area saw an 839 percent increase in exports to China over 1993-98. Salinas saw a 743 percent increase in its exports to China over the same period. I want to see that kind of economic opportunity available to all California communities and all communities across the country. I want to see China open up to Central Coast agriculture. I want to see America finally get a break at marketing its goods to the potential billion Chinese patrons. Ultimately, that means more business for local growers, more jobs for local workers, increased shipping operations for local truckers, and better economic conditions all around. But in negotiating a trade deal with China (or any entity on any issue) we should look for the best deal that advances all of the United States' interests. Economics is not the only issue at stake here; there are others, including the non-tangible issues of human rights and personal freedoms. There is wide disagreement on whether PNTR helps or hinders these causes within China. If human rights and environmental stewardship are important interests to the United States, then it is right of us to try to find ways to advance these issues world wide. If China is a concern of ours, then we ought to try to sway Chinese leadership to move toward accommodation in these areas. The best way to do that is to require that China return to Congress each year to make its case that it deserves special trade status because it has made efforts to correct environmental and human rights deficiencies. PNTR eliminates that tool and robs us of the chance to hold China accountable. So, I will vote ``no'' on PNTR for China. I do so fully supportive of open and fair trade, but also mindful of using American influence to keep China on track to being a better citizen of the world.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I honor an outstanding legislator and trial lawyer who was a long time resident of Santa Cruz County. Former State Senator Donald L. Grunsky passed away at the age of 84. Born in San Francisco, Donald received a bachelor's degree from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1936 and a law degree from Boalt Hall in 1939. He practiced law in the Bay Area for two years before entering the U.S. Navy during World War II. After being released from the service as a Lieutenant Commander in 1945, Grunsky established his law practice in Watsonville. He was the founder of Grunsky, Ebey, Farrar & Howell, one of the largest and most highly respected law firms in the Central Coast counties. Donald began his political career at age 32, serving as an Assemblyman from 1947 to 1952 and a Senator from 1953 to 1976. During his tenure Donald authored important legislation including measures to revise the state's divorce laws, the prohibition of off-shore drilling, a master plan for education and important water conservation measures. Donald also served as a chairman of seven Senate committees, some of which included the Finance and Judiciary committees. Donald will be sorely missed by the many people who were privileged to know him both personally and professionally. He will forever be remembered by dear family and friends. Donald is survived by his wife Mary Lou Grunsky of Watsonville; brother-in-laws, Al Rushton and Joe Meidi; and several nieces and nephews.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Mr. Howard J. Morgens, a retired chief executive officer of the Procter and Gamble Co. and also a donor of property that made the construction of the Hospice of the Central Coast possible. Mr. Morgens passed away at the age of 89. Born in St. Louis, Howard was a graudate of Washington University and Harvard Business School. Howard then moved to Carmel Valley with his wife Anne in 1962. The couple moved permanently to Pebble Beach in 1990. Beginning in 1933, Howard worked for Procter and Gamble serving as chief executive officer from 1957 to 1974. He retired as chairman emeritus in 1977. In addition to his work in Procter and Gamble, Howard served on the boards of directors of several corporations including General Motors, Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., and Exxon. Howard was also dedicated to various civic, educational and charitable organizations, some of which include the American Museum of Natural History and the American National Red Cross and the Cincinnati Children's Hospital. On the Monterey Peninsula, Howard was a trustee of the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula Foundation and the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Howard will be sorely missed by the many people who were privileged to know him both personally and professionally. He will be forever remembered by dear family and friends. Howard is survived by his wife of 64 years, Anne; two sons, Edwin of South Norwalk, Conn., and James of Atlanta; six grandchildren and four great-grandchildren.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a woman who supported countless local charities in the community. Mrs. Evangeline C. Mills passed away at the age of 69. Born in Holtville on November 22, 1930, Eve lived in Salinas for 46 years. She played a very active role in the community including her membership on the advisory board of the Foundation for Monterey County Free Libraries, on the board of the Western Stage and also as past president of PEO, a women's philanthropic organization. In 1996 Eve and her husband were named Volunteers of the Year by the United Way of Salinas Valley where they served as co-chairs of the Alexis de Tocqueville Society. In the same year, the Development Executives Network and the National Society of Fund-rasing Executives, Monterey Bay chapter, honored the couple as Philanthropists of the Year. Eve was also a volunteer driver for Meals on Wheels of the Salinas Valley for over 20 years. Eve will be forever remembered by dear family and friends. She will be sorely missed by the many people who were privileged to know her. Eve is survived by her husband; two sons, David and Jim Mills, both of Salinas; two daughters, Susan Mills of Salinas and Kathy Mills of Pacific Grove; her parents, Ted and Loreen Todd of San Jose; and eight grandchildren.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a man who helped usher in the age of the health maintenance organization. Dr. Clifford H. Keene passed away at the age of 89. Born in Buffalo, NY on January 28, 1910, Clifford later on went to earn his medical degree from the University of Michigan Medical School in 1934 and was a surgical instructor there until 1939. During World War II Clifford rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel as the surgeon and medical administrator for the 24th Corps in the Pacific Theater. His career with the Kaiser-Permanente Medical Care Program began in 1954 when industrialist Henry Kaiser asked him to join the then- struggling Kaiser health care system. Under Clifford's leadership, Kaiser Permanente grew into the largest nonprofit health care system in the United States. Over the years, he held a number of various positions including the Regional Manager of Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan in Northern California, the Medical Program Coordinator for Kaiser Industries Corporation and the director, vice president and general manager of Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., and the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Clifford was also elected President of various Kaiser Foundation Medical Care Entities including the Kaiser hospitals and the Kaiser Research Institute and International Foundation. Clifford retired from active administration in 1970 and from the Kaiser Board of Directors in 1980. Clifford will be forever remembered by his dear family and friends. He will be sorely missed by the many people who were privileged to know him personally and professionally. Clifford is survived by his wife, Mary; three daughters, Patricia Ann Kneedler of Forth Worth, TX, Martha Jane Sproule of Palos Park, IL, and Diane Eve Simonds of St. Helena; a sister Harriet Krueger of Sarasota, FL; seven grandchildren and six great grandchildren.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Sanchez amendment to the Fiscal 2001 Department of Defense authorization which would restore equal access to health services for servicewomen stationed overseas by reversing the ban on privately funded abortion services at U.S. military bases. More than 100,000 women--some active service members, some the wives of military personnel--live on American military bases overseas. These brave women risk their lives to protect our freedom, often in lands with laws and customs very different from those we know and cherish in the United States. The availability of abortion services in their host countries varies widely according to many factors--location, individual physician practices, command interpretations and practices, and that nation's rules and laws. Our soldiers and their families deserve equal access to the same spectrum and quality of health care procedures that we enjoy in the United States. Under current law, however, these women are denied this access, effectively putting their lives and health in harm's way. The Sanchez amendment would rectify this grievous inequity by allowing women stationed overseas and their dependents to use their own funds to pay for abortion services at U.S. military bases, thereby providing them with access to constitutionally protected health care. The facts of this amendment are clear--Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to choose, and if abortion is legal for women on the American mainland, it should be legal for women living on American bases abroad. No federal funds would be used, and health care professionals who are opposed to performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle are not required to do so. This is a health issue, and we should be making sure that this procedure is safe, legal and available for our military women and dependents. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for all the members of the committee that are dealing with this issue. I am not a member of that committee, but I do have some experience in this issue. I represent the largest base closure in the United States where they closed the military hospital. Out of that developed a veterans health clinic. What I am seeing in this debate and I think our problem here in Congress is that we know about the promises and promises and promises that were made, but when we get down to trying to implement the promises, we find we have excuses, excuses, excuses. Those excuses are sort of promises dependent upon multi-layered solutions, promises dependent upon studies, promises dependent on delays on pilot programs and so on. I mean, the fact of the matter is that we have military hospitals and we have veterans clinics. I know that there is a different jurisdictional issue here, but to the people outside of this building, they do not understand that. Most hospitals in America are having a problem of being filled because our delivery of medicine is being more adequate. We have enough facilities out there. And what we have is a process that does this, they say they can go to a military clinic and they can get care and there is where their records are, those are where their identities are with their professional staff, but when they get to the age of 65, they are out, to go out in the private sector and, for the first time in their life perhaps, a doctor that will provide service for them and accept Medicare payments. This is a whole new series. Think if they are a widow who has been in the military service and has not been able to understand the private sector. So we kick people out at a very vulnerable time, they lose that rapport, their records are not in one place. What we are saying here is why not have, and this is where I think we are crazy on our budgeting of this stuff, why not allow a continuum of care at age 65 in the very same place they have been getting it, whether it is a veterans clinic or a hospital. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the legislative process and particularly the committee process is designed to draft legislation so that ambiguities are spelled out and worked out so that the bill as we enact it, as it becomes the law of this country, we can understand what it means. I think what the problem with this amendment is, and some of those that we have been speaking on today, I believe they are kind of reckless. This amendment deletes definitions. There is a whole section on definitions. If Congress has not defined what it means by the use of those funds, it leaves it up to others to define. As the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) said, it leaves it up to the States to define it, it leaves it up to the Secretary of the Interior to define it, it leaves it up to an uncertain process. Frankly, when it comes to dealing with land, management of land, acquisition of land certainty is key. By this amendment, we eliminate the line that says, ``The term 'wildlife conservation and restoration program' means a program developed by a State Fish and Wildlife Department and approved by the Secretary.'' They delete that, so they can do it any way they want. They do not need it approved by the Secretary. It goes on to say, ``The term `wildlife-associated recreation' shall be construed to mean a project intended to meet the demand for outdoor activities associated with wildlife, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, such projects as construction or deconstruction of wildlife viewing areas, et cetera,'' they delete all that. They leave it up to vagaries and uncertainty. That is not good law. Bad amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment because I think it is an amendment of unintended consequences. I represent San Benito County, California. It is a county of about 40,000 people. Probably the greatest recreational asset in that county is a national monument governed by the National Park Service. The monument is trying to expand, and has, with willing sellers, if we appropriate the money. The County Board of Supervisors, and there are only two towns in the entire county, they look at this asset as being one of the economic engines. Because what happens is that people come there and stay at hotels and pay the local hotel tax and pay the local sales tax. Because it is Federal land, as the gentleman knows, and I appreciate his efforts to try to make them even increase more, it pays payment-in-lieu taxes. So what the gentleman's amendment does is, it says a county like this cannot use any of these funds to further that economic engine, which frankly is an employment and tourism destination area. And where does it draw from? It draws from the Silicon Valley, which is not far from there. This is one of the main assets that the valley has to attract people to be there. So there are all kinds of unintended consequences by this amendment. Also there is the problem of the maintenance backlog. This national park monument was hit by the El Nino floods. Got wiped out. Maintenance is all bringing that back together. Under the gentleman's amendment they could not use the money for that. So the unintended consequences here is that the gentleman hurts very rural counties where the Federal asset is an economic engine driver. A lot of these amendments offered today would never be offered by colleagues if it was military land, which is also Federal land, which is also off the tax rolls. But somehow what we do in these amendments is we always attack the Land and Water Conservation Fund and say we are going to separate that fund out and do things and require things to be done to that land that we would never require for any other kind of Federal land. So this amendment of unintended consequences hurts the very rural county that I represent. I do not think the gentleman intends to do that, but the only way to stop it is to reject the amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), does he know what the problem with his language is? First of all, he is going to really muck up California law, because our State Constitution has had a long-standing and a well-litigated understanding of what adverse condemnation is. What the gentleman does, this is how he mucks up the legislation, and I do not think that was his intent, but he does it, he does not delete language in this legislation, he just adds to it. So with the provision that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) pointed out on page 31, starting with line 18, where the gentleman describes how land can be acquired, the gentleman then comes at the end of the bill and says ``none of the amounts made available by this title may be used for adverse condemnation.'' Now, the word the gentleman is adding in here which has never been put into law is what is ``adverse.'' They are going to have to have a finding of fact every time a person wants to sell property. Because most property, as the gentleman knows, is done by paper condemnation. That is, it is an advantage to the seller to go through a paper condemnation. Is that paper condemnation adverse or not? If it is adverse, they cannot use these funds. And what the gentleman is doing, I think he is trampling not only on well-established law of this country both at the Federal level and at the local level, but he is also trampling on the rights of property owners who may want to sell under adverse conditions. The gentleman defines that as ``may not be used.'' In the bill, it says ``any property unless the owner of the property concurs with the acquisition or the acquisition of that property is specified by an act of Congress.'' The gentleman has the adverse condemnation as an issue of fact of what is adverse or not adverse. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I represent probably one of the most productive agricultural communities in the United States. Our county alone produces 55 crops. We do about $2.4 billion in sales. This is the County of Monterey and the Salinas Valley, also known as Steinbeck country because that is the area that John Steinbeck wrote about. What is happening with the land use pressures in California where we have 33 million people in the State; we are growing very fast, and for these productive agricultural lands, the farmers are getting together. As the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) indicated, we also have the California Cattlemen's Association, which has created a private nonprofit to allow the transfer of a lot of easements, because that way the land still stays in private ownership, only what one is selling is the development rights. Now, what the gentleman's amendment would do is just prohibit these wonderfully new inventive tools that have been used by the private sector, by willing sellers. Nobody comes in and takes these things. Why they are so creative is that it allows the family that owns the land to have some income that relieves some of the pressures for ownership and some of the liabilities for ownership so that they are not taxed on best use and all of that. The gentleman's amendment would just not allow these people to be recompensated for those efforts. Now, what happens in land use, it is sort of like when one is trying to build housing. We do not just do this with one single source of revenue. What happens in California is that a lot of these, particularly in the farmland areas, is it is private money coming out of farmland trust. People give private contributions. It comes out of foundation money, conservative organizations like Hewlett and Packard Foundations. These are private sources money which are matched, oftentimes with local, like county money or State money that comes; we just passed a bond act in California that authorizes this. The gentleman is saying that we cannot pool any of that money with Federal money under this program and allow this to continue. I know what the gentleman is getting at, is that these organizations should not be compensated as real estate agents, but frankly, they are doing the real estate business under willing sellers. I think it is a bad amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I also rise as an appropriator. I hate to dispute my own chairman on this and my ranking member, but I think we forget where this money comes from. It also comes from sale of public resources. The oil and the mineral rights under the land owned by the public is sold and the revenues therefrom have been promised to the people of the United States for the history of this legislation. Only we in Congress have never fulfilled that promise. We have collected the money, we have promised it would be spent for these purposes and we have withheld it to use for other things. The same kind of argument we hear with the Social Security and other things. Now, this is not the only program where we have devised a formula to give moneys to States and local governments. We also do that with community development block grants. That is Federal money. We give it out there without a lot of strings attached. Look at what we do in transportation. The national Federal sales tax on gas sales at the pump, we collect that money, and we block-grant it back to States and cities and counties. It seems to me, if we adopt this legislation, what we are denying is a promise made to the people of the United States that the funds that we collected would be used for preservation of farmlands, would be used for improvement of camping facilities, would be used to help inner cities buy parks, would be used for habitat protection, would be used to enhance that growing America that is demanding recreational resources. This amendment continues to deny the promise made. That promise is that these moneys would be returned to the people in a way that they could enjoy the natural resources. It is a bad amendment. As an appropriator, I would argue against it.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, let me tell the Members why. I hope the Members will follow this along, this is really strong anti-property rights legislation. If we look at the bill, it prohibits the government from buying land that people may want to sell to the government, so you are a landowner next to a national forest, there is a lot of rural America that is in that, and I happen to represent one of those districts. And I actually have many people, more people want to sell their land because it is rural. They do not want to see it developed, they protected it as families, and their number 1 interest is selling that land to the National Forest Service; they are not an in-holding, but they are next to the line. Under this legislation, they cannot be a seller. They are prohibited from selling, and why that affects property values is there may not be another buyer around. So we are curtailing the free market, a lot of people have been arguing in legislation like this that it ought to always be one where there is only willing sellers. Well, here is the case where the willing sellers are there, the line is longer than the money we have appropriated, and we are denying them under this legislation, even when the money is there. Secondly, look what it is, it is not against cities that want to do this or Washington, D.C. that would like to expand in the urban area, this strictly limits recreational areas, the places where people in America like to go, the place that makes this country grand, this country magnificent, this country bold. It is our national resources that make people want to take pictures of and postcards of. This limits national parks, national wilderness preservation system, national wildlife refuge system, the national forest system, the national trail system, the national wild and scenic river system and the national recreation areas. That means if you are a private landowner around any of these areas, under existing law, you would be allowed to sell your land if you wanted to at a price agreed to by you, you could not do it. This is anti-property rights. I urge a strong no.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise as a former county supervisor remembering the debates about not wanting the Federal Government to leave to close bases, not wanting the Federal Government to abandon land. As a former State legislator, I have never seen a resolution by Idaho or any other State saying we really want you to join in petitioning us to get rid of Federal land. Do my colleagues know why? Because that Federal land employs people. That Federal land not only has Federal employees who pay taxes and their kids go to school, they pay those fees, the in lieu fees, but there are the recreational activities that come off of that land that supported private businesses. When I go down the Salmon River in Idaho, I see a lot of people making money off the boaters, staying in hotels, eating in the restaurants there before they go on the river and after they come out. Do we want to abandon that as an Idaho asset and say we cannot add to that without the permission of the State legislature? There is local control in the United States Congress. This is called the House of Representatives, because we represent small bodies of people and most of us are former State legislators.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues as a State legislator and as a former county supervisor why this language is really bad language. Whether we look at it from the top down from a Federal level, this is bad precedent. What they say with this language is, oh, local governments, if we want to build a post office in their community, we have the right to veto it, which they do not have now. We extend this thinking. Or how about if we want to build a military base or expand that. No, local governments can come in and veto it. Or how about if when we want to build a water system or a highway system or a jail system, prison system. Local governments can veto it. These are the kind of things people do not want in their backyard. I think we find a lot of cities kind of vetoing these things. This logic of allowing local governments to veto Federal decisions is bad, bad precedent. Let us take it from the other side. Let us be a State legislator and say we are going to expand the State park system. But now, for the first time in history, the city or county can come in and say, State parks, we veto it. This is a whole change in structure. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) is absolutely right in asking those questions because they have no idea about how the process works. Now, we have a way of allowing public information on all these actions, if that is what they want to get to, this sort of veto process. It is called an Environmental Impact Statement. In California it is called an Environmental Impact Report. They cannot make any decision relating to land in California, private or public, without doing an Environmental Impact Report, which is full disclosure of what is going to be done and allowing a public process and a public comment period. I will yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) to answer this question. I am reading the language from his legislation. It says, ``No funds made available under this act may be used by a State to acquire any land or interest in land if the political subdivision of the State in which the land or interest of the land is located has transmitted to the State agency administering the proposed acquisition a copy of a resolution adopted by the governing body of such subdivision disapproving of such acquisition with 90 days.'' My colleague gives local governments the total ability to veto any acquisition by a State for a State park purpose.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, on April 3, 1996, the Department of Commerce suffered the greatest tragedy in its history when 35 people perished in a plane crash while conducting a trade mission to the Balkans. Ronald H. Brown, then Secretary of Commerce, was leading a delegation of private sector businessmen and government officials on a trade mission to seek ways to implement the civilian aspects of the Dayton peace accords through trade ties and investment opportunities. Secretary Brown and his staff were accompanied by a group of chief executive officers of major companies who agreed to help restore Bosnia's buildings, its water and energy systems, its tourism and its banking system. The goal of the trip was to start our U.S. commercial presence, to start economic reconstruction and to include U.S. companies in the development of the region. It was a mission of hope for the war torn region and an opportunity for American business. The members of the trade mission thought they would be able to use the power of the American economy to help peace take hold in the Balkans. Their quest was cut short on an unwelcoming mountain in Croatia. Today, the families of all of those victims of that crash gathered here in Washington to unveil a memorial, a memorial that is a lasting testimonial written by the families of those loved ones who were lost on that fateful day. I took part in the dedication of that memorial at the U.S. Department of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the names of the people that were on that memorial and hope everyone will take advantage of visiting it in our beautiful Department of Commerce. ``All of them were so full of possibility, even as we grieve for what their lives might have been, let us celebrate what their lives were.'' President William Clinton Trade Mission Participants Staff Sergeant Gerald V. Aldrich II, Flight Mechanic, United States Air Force. Niksa Antonini, Photographer, Republic of Croatia. Dragica Lendic Bebek, Interpreter, Republic of Croatia. Ronald H. Brown, Secretary of Commerce. Duane R. Christian, Security Officer, United States Department of Commerce. Barry L. Conrad, President and CEO, Barrington International Hospitality, Inc. Paul Cushman III, Executive Vice President, Riggs Bank/CEO, Riggs International. Adam N. Darling, Confidential Assistant, United States Department of Commerce. Captain Ashley J. Davis, Pilot, United States Air Force. Gail E. Dobert, Deputy Director, Office of Business Liaison, United States Department of Commerce. Robert E. Donovan, President, ABB, Incorporated. Claudio Elia, President and CEO, Anjou International and Air and Water Technologies. Staff Sergeant Robert Farrington, Jr., Steward, United States Air Force. David L. Ford, President, InterGuard Corporation. Carol L. Hamilton, Press Secretary, United States Department of Commerce. Kathryn E. Hoffman, Senior Advisor for Strategic Schuduling and Special Initiatives, United States Department of Commerce. Lee F. Jackson, Executive Director, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, United States Department of Treasury, Stephen C. Kaminski, Senior Commercial Officer in Austria, United States and Foreign Commercial Service, United States Department of Commerce. Kathryn E. Kellogg, Confidential Assistant, Office of Business Liaison, United States Department of Commerce. Technical Sergeant Shelly A. Kelly, Steward, United States Air Force. James M. Lewek, Economic Analyst, Central Intelligence Agency. Frank A. Maier, President, Ensearch International Corporation. Charles F. Meissner, Assistant Secretary for International Economic Policy, United States Department of Commerce. William E. Morton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Economic Development, United States Department of Commerce. Walter J. Murphy, Senior Vice President of Sales/Marketing, AT&T Submarine Systems, Inc. Nathaniel C. Nash, New York Times, Frankfurt Bureau Chief. Lawrence M. Payne, Special Assistant, United States and Foreign Commercial Service, United States Department of Commerce. Leonard J. Pieroni, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Parsons Corporation. John A. Scoville, Chairman, Harza Engineering Company. Captain Timothy W. Shafer, Pilot, United States Air Force. I. Donald Terner, President, Bridge Housing Corporation. P. Stuart Tholan, President, Bechtel-Europe, Africa, Middle East, Southwest Asia. Technical Sergeant Cheryl A. Turnage, Steward, United States Air Force. Naomi P. Warbasse, Deputy Director, Central and Eastern Europe Business Information Center, United States Department of Commerce. Robert A. Whittaker, Chairman and CEO, Foster Wheeler Energy International.