Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a beloved member of our community, Sohan Singh Randhawa, who died in a tragic accident last month at the age of 69. Randhawa was born in 1930 in Pakistan, and, as a young man became a police officer in the Punjab village of Dhano Vali, rising to serve in the national police force. He brought his family to California in 1968, eventually settling in Watsonville where Randhawa and his wife, Gurmej Kaur raised their four daughters, Kuldip Kaur, Manjit Kaur, Balwinder Kaur and Surinder Kaur. In 1978, Randhawa and three partners began Paul Trucking, which expanded quickly from one truck to ninety-five, and became an important element in the refrigerated agricultural shipping industry. Randhawa was a central member of the Sikh community, a past President of the Sikh Temple in Stockton and an active member of the Sikh temples in San Jose and Fresno. Randhawa showed a generosity of spirit toward the people whose lives touched his, becoming a father and advisor to the Indian community. He took a personal interest in helping with the problems of new immigrants, settling disagreements, looking for solutions to immigration problems, resolving business issues, and helping with cultural assimilation. Lifelong friend, and Mayor of Watsonville, Dennis Osmer spoke of his death as a loss to all of central California. We will miss this true advocate and benefactor, Sohan Singh Randhawa, but he is being survived by loving family and friends who will never forget his kindness.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, a young nation with a long and honorable history, Israel has been a symbol of hope and a land of opportunity for millions of Jews throughout the world. Surviving six wars, constant terrorism, and severe economic boycotts, Israel's 600,000 citizens have shown the world what it means to be committed to one's homeland. And like Israel, Naomi Lauter's independence, determination and strength have helped to build AIPAC into the leading organization for Jewish concerns. I would like to congratulate Naomi Lauter on 16 years of incredible leadership as the Western Regional Director of AIPAC. Naomi's commitment to AIPAC and her vision has been unwavering and inspiring for all those who have worked with her. The Jewish community has been served well by Naomi's spirit, innovation and devotion to Israel and pro-Israel legislation. Naomi has helped build AIPAC into what it has become in the Pacific Northwest, focused, effective, and powerful. We are all grateful to her for the work she has accomplished during her years of involvement with AIPAC. And we look forward to her involvement for years to come. While Naomi is leaving as the Regional Director, we should all be grateful that she is not leaving AIPAC altogether. Becoming its National Consultant, AIPAC is fortunate to be able to rely on her insight and institutional knowledge of this great organization. Every Jewish American can take pride in her dedication to bringing together persons of any political persuasions to sit up and take notice for Jewish and pro-Jewish communities. Thank you Naomi for your service to AIPAC. We are thankful for your work, and look forward to a continuing friendship and wish you a successful future.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who has, by his record of service to the agriculture industry, raised the standard for the profession. On July 27, 1998, Richard W. Nutter retired from 28 years of unparalleled service as Monterey County's Agricultural Commissioner and I wish to respectfully honor his deeds. Under Mr. Nutter's leadership, the Monterey County Agriculture Commissioner's Office has developed into one of the highest qualify work performance organizations in the Nation. The ``Salad Bowl of the Nation'' harvests eighty percent of all head lettuce during peak months and leads the Nation in the production of several other vegetables and strawberries. Recent statistics show that the county grows well over two billion dollars of crops annually including exports. Through Mr. Nutter's vision he lead the vanguard for farm worker safety, raised standards of quality for fruits and vegetables, and developed superior pesticide control programs that are recognized world-wide as innovative and effective. He fully assisted in the development of the California Organic Food Act, the registration of farm labor contractors, agricultural chemical recycling, field safety posting requirements and the functional equivalent of an Environmental Impact Report for pesticide application to protect applicators and the public alike. He initiated projects during his service to protect and promote agriculture, the environment, and the public welfare which is meant to assure consumer and business confidence in the marketplace. Those endeavors involved food safety, water use and conservation, land use, voluntary agricultural land conservation, farm worker pesticide exposure monitoring and he established standards to maintain the quality of products intended for export and international trade. By his record of accomplishments, Mr. Nutter has distinguished himself as a factual, logical, visionary resource to members of the agriculture community and is a reference to local, state and federal legislators. His long-term record of volunteer service to the community enhances his professional role and enriches those who benefit from his commitment. When I observe Mr. Nutter's accomplishments, I acknowledge a man of integrity and principle. He is an admirable public servant, and I am pleased to note, a personal friend. He is an ally of agriculture who never dodged his responsibility to those who nurture the corps that feed us and certainly not to those who depend on it's wholesomeness for sustenance. It is not at his retirement alone that he is honored, but rather for his tireless service to assure that his responsibilities were discharged with informed authority and with the intelligent dignity of a man so well suited to this important position of public trust.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, this has been a rough week for parents. I think every mother and father in America trembled when we heard about Matthew Shepard's beating in Wyoming, and anxiously waited for word of his condition. And we all must have wept at the thought of a child tortured and left to die on a country road. I hope every parent did what I wanted to do: hug your children, and hold them close. But along with the rest of the House and Senate, I am trapped in Washington while Congress debates our budget. And being 3,000 miles away meant, unfortunately, that I was not able to stand with my neighbors at the local events organized to remember Matt. This was a crime beyond words, and I have not yet found a way to sufficiently express my grief and compassion for the Shepard family, just as our nation has not yet found a way to respond to this tragedy. As a legislator, my thoughts turn to the actions our nation can take through our lawmaking process. It is a sad but bitter truth that no law can return this talented, kind-hearted young man to his family and friends. But we are a nation of laws, and our government cannot stand by without a response. In a year when voices from our Capitol have likened homosexuality to kleptomania, in a year when our newspapers and magazines have been filled with the harmful words of groups urging gay men and lesbians to change who they are, we must respond. We must counter these dangerous, hateful words, because they send a message to our nation's youth that the Matt Shepherds of our nation are not entitled to love who they want, be who they are and live lives of dignity, security and liberty. The cowardly thugs who left Matthew to die on that cold night used these words to take matters into their hands. I feel personally obligated as an elected official to make sure these criminals know their actions will not be tolerated. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of H.R. 3081, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This bill was introduced to Congress last year, and would classify crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation--as well as race, religion, national origin, religion, gender or disability-- hate crimes. That is a very important distinction. Hate crimes are a federal matter, which means their victims are protected by our country when local agencies fail them. This bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to treat hate crimes as a particularly dangerous matter, with research and prosecution funds to match. That seems reasonable, you must be thinking. But the Republican leadership has refused to allow Congress to vote on this bill. Our nation has paid the price for intolerance too many times. But we can turn this into a bittersweet blessing, if we open one mind or prevent one hateful act. I am reminded of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk's words: ``If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closed door.'' Nothing will reverse the fact that Matthew Shepard is dead. But we now find ourselves faced with two options. We can let this session of Congress end without responding, without taking the opportunity to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again. Or we can vow to do whatever we can to make sure that never again will a person's life be cut short so cruelly because of hate.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise this Sunday afternoon here in Washington with, like the rest of us, probably really missing our families and wishing we could be with them. But I happened to think about my daughter who was about the age that I was when this town and this country was calling out for the best in people, asking them to bring out what is the best in America by joining the Peace Corps. I did that. In the Peace Corps I lived as minority in another land, and I learned the greatness of the United States. Incredible to see how much we can do around the world. And I knew then that I was going to enter a political career to try to right wrongs and make life better. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the 105th session, and I look back, and I think, oh my God, how mean has this country gotten? How mean is their right-wing leadership in their party? They want to take away public education and privatize it, remove the safety net. They want to make Social Security neither social, nor secure. They want to have people in their medical careers have to deal with insurance companies rather than doctors. I plead with my colleagues to get away from the meanness. Go back to the dreams of America. We can cure a lot.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) very much. She has really brought us together. It is interesting today. We have the Congress Member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). Congress Members from the West coast, obviously we could not get home this weekend, those of us from California, Oregon and Washington. We are here to talk about that this year is the 105th session of Congress. We should have been home, adjourned sine die, all the business done. If this were a school year or business year, we would be over, and everything would be done. Here we are on a Sunday afternoon talking about the failures of this Congress and particularly the failures in education. If the story is going to be written about education and the GOP leadership on education, I think the headlines would say ``Republicans: Underachievers and proud of it,'' because they have never been able to put together a substantive program for education to really address the needs that have been unmet: the unmet needs of school buildings that need money for construction and repair, the unmet needs for new teachers, the unmet needs for educational opportunities, zones to provide in those hardest of areas sort of an involvement to really deal with the root causes of people unable to get a good education, expanding the access to after-school learning, and expanding access to educational technology. They have all been the bills that the President asked us. As the gentlewoman pointed out, the President comes here and addresses the Nation every year and, in that speech, outlines what the goals for this Nation should be. He proposes to this Congress. We are supposed to dispose. The only way we can dispose is to put our cards in that slot right there and around this room and get the majority vote of 218 votes. Here today we hear the Republicans attacking the President of the United States for traveling, traveling on international business. I mean, he has had incredible successes in China, incredible successes in Europe, incredible successes in Latin America, and he is being criticized for it. He does not have to be here in this room to get his business done. Members of Congress have to be here. Where are they? They are not getting the business done. So the leadership of this House, the Republican leadership of this House should be ashamed of the fact that we are here overtime without a budget, underbudgeted for education, and not meeting the felt needs, the desires of the men and women who have sent us here to provide what is essentially the only thing that the Federal Government can do, and that is that safety net for education. We hear the debate here on the floor that we do not want safety nets anymore. We want to just privatize education. When the schools of the District of Columbia came up for funding, Congress did not approve that funding and turned around and said we want to privatize this education. What my colleagues are saying is this voucher system. It did not work in California. It was rejected there. They want to ram it down our throats and say, ``Californians, you were wrong. We are going to give you vouchers whether you like it or not.'' It is time that we, the United States Congress, go back to the basics of this country, go back to what supports the domestic tranquility. We cannot have peace around the world until we have peace at home. We cannot have peace at home until every father and mother, every parent of every child in this country has satisfaction that the schools they are sending their children to are safe, sound, and excellent centers for learning. We get there from here unless we adopt what the President of the United States asked this Congress to do. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman for allowing us to have this time to discuss that.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my statement that I made in the 1-minutes on the spirit I felt in this country when I remember first getting involved and getting committed. Many of us are sitting here as parents. I think we have children growing up, and as a parent, we are more worried about the future of this country and this world for their livelihood. We all want to make the world better. I do not think that our Congress, with all the capability we have, a lot of very bright people elected on both sides of the aisle, are really focusing in on trying to bring out the best that is in America. I think that is where we are failing. We can get into the specifics of a program, and whether it is a mood to go to what I think is a fear of privatization, let us remove the safety nets, the gentleman is right. The last speaker talked about it. It is not who gets the credit. I believe that. We can accomplish a lot in life if we do not care who gets credit for it. But we have to accomplish it. What we are doing is not accomplishing it. One of the speakers earlier said we have too much Federal money in education. That is just factually wrong. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. Of all the money spent in education in America, the Federal contribution is 7 percent. Seven percent. That is not too much money. There is not anybody in America that will not tell us that if we have a top priority, it is educating our kids to prepare them for the 21st century. We have heard a lot of reasons. It has been debated and it will be stated here again today, I am sure. Why can we not do that? The one thing we have never done in this country, the Federal Government has never put one Federal dollar into school construction, not even a penny. If we are going to have overcrowded classrooms, and we all agree they are, if we are going to have more teachers to have smaller classrooms, which everybody agrees we need, then we have to build more space. We have to do that by offering incentives other than the mechanisms that are there. My colleagues, the gentlemen from California, know that we have a requirement in California that to pass the school bond issue to construct school buildings, you have to get a two-thirds vote. In a lot of communities where the need is great, they can never get the two- thirds vote. There is no option. There is no option. Nobody is out there volunteering to build public schools for free out of their own private contributions. Mr. Speaker, we have to put some money into the school construction effort. The President, as we all learned in high school when we took government classes, the President proposes and we dispose. The President stood here in this very room and proposed to us that we put money into school construction. He had a clever idea, that we would give tax incentives so private individuals could pick up the interest rates on school bonds, as an incentive for schools to use more of the money for school construction, rather than less. What happened to it? It was destroyed here in Congress. We talked about putting 100,000 new teachers in the classroom. People say that is too much Federalism. If we go to a police chief in the United States today and ask if the Cops on the Street program is too much federalism, all of my chiefs of police that have received these Cops in the Street program told me they have never seen less bureaucracy. It is very easy, once you have made the decision that you want them, to get them. The program for schools would be the same way. There is not a lot of Federal bureaucracy there. Do Members know what it would do over the next 7-year period if we took the President's proposal and adopted it here? It would provide in our State alone, in California, 9,271 new teachers by the year 2005. We need those teachers. We need those classrooms. We need computers. We need all of the things that people talk about. But we are not going to get there if we are going to try to say well, the Federal Government should not help. I am passionate about this, because I think what we do in this country that is so great, and we are picking away at it and wanting to lose it, is that we have one Nation, indivisible. That indivisibility, it seems to me, is the safety net; that we will treat everybody, at least in this country, with a minimum amount of care. If we look at the education programs that we have created in the United States, they are that safety net. They are Head Start, they are ESEA Title I, they are grants to college students, Pell grants, they are things that are out there as safety nets. They are not the education system. The gentleman is absolutely right; America's education is run by the local school districts. But they cannot do it alone. We need to help them. Do not deny them the opportunity to do that.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for all their hard work that brought this to the floor today. I appreciate particularly being able to work on section 404 of the bill, which expands the State Cemetery Grants Program. The need for additional cemeteries to serve our Nation's veterans is of critical importance to veterans of the California central coast. Not many people know that only two of California's six national veterans cemeteries are open for burials and cremations. Only two in the most populace state in the union. In my district we have over 40,000 veterans. We have a base closure, we have excess land, and we want to create a State-operated national veterans cemetery on the 156-acre portion of Fort Ord's army facility. When the President signs this bill into law, the State cemetery Grants Program will pay for 100 percent of the cost of the cemetery construction. While the State legislature will have to designate a cemetery at Fort Ord, passage of this bill brings the central coast's veterans and all veterans of California one step closer to realizing their dream for a new cemetery at Fort Ord. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a newspaper article regarding my comments on this subject. Veterans Carry on Campaign for Fort Ord Cemetery (By Larry Parsons) Central Coast veterans won't let a veto by Gov. Pete Wilson stop their drive for a veterans' cemetery at Fort Ord. ``We are going to figure out something,'' said retired Army Sgt. 1st Class Mark Giblin of Seaside. ``I'm not giving up on it.'' For the past three years, Giblin has helped lead a push by Central Coast veterans' groups to persuade the state to develop a veterans' cemetery on 156 acres on Artillery Hill at Fort Ord. But the campaign was dealt a setback last week when Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed a bill by state Sen. Bruce McPherson, R- Santa Cruz, that would have required the state to take a $20,000 look at the feasibility of a Fort Ord cemetery. ``(McPherson) was surprised and disappointed'' by the governor's veto, said the senator's spokeswoman, Tricia Meade. ``He worked on it so hard. The vets want it, and the land is available.'' Giblin said he wasn't surprised by the governor's opposition. An amendment tacked onto the measure in a Senate committee that expanded its scope from just the Fort Ord proposal to a $100,000 statewide study on veterans' cemeteries probably sealed its fate, he said. ``I feel our only next step is to wait until after the (November) elections and resubmit it,'' he said. In his veto message, Wilson said the legislation would have inappropriately given counties the power to force the California Department of Veteran Affairs to perform costly cemetery feasibility studies. ``These studies would require the department to redirect budgeted resources from other activities critical to the successful administration of veterans affairs programs,'' Wilson wrote. The governor also said the bill was unnecessary because California already has looked into state-run veterans' cemeteries. Traditionally, the federal government has paid for veterans' cemeteries. Area veterans say a local veterans' cemetery is sorely needed because an estimated 40,000 veterans live in Monterey County alone, and a total of 330,000 vets live in a six- county region within 75 miles of Fort Ord. The nearest veterans' cemetery to the Central Coast is a federal one located near Los Banos in Merced County. That's too far away for many survivors to travel, and it's not convenient to public transportation, Giblin said. A bill pending in Congress could improve prospects for getting the state to support the idea of a Fort Ord veterans' cemetery, Giblin said. The bill would provide 100 percent funding for start-up costs of state veterans' cemeteries, he said. Now, the federal government only pays up to 50 percent of the initial costs. ``If we can get the 100-percent bill through . . . the problem is how to fund the cemetery's ongoing operations,'' Giblin said. ``That's going to be a major question.''

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Plant Patent Amendments Act of 1998. Before I get started, I just want to say a few words about the cosponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), my chairman, friend, and a Willamette Bearcat. He is chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. He is leaving us at the end of Congress. He has served the Second District of Oregon and this Nation with honor and an acute sense of propriety. For that he is to be commended. I think that he does not want any accolades, but to all of us who have served on the Committee on Agriculture and watched his style, his humor, his ability to bring a consensus, he is certainly one of the most tenacious agriculture traders. He has taken the committee to other countries, and every time he has gone he has been able to sell an awful lot of American agricultural products. This country is going to miss him, this Congress is going to miss him. I wanted to take this moment to mention that. I also wanted to say that this bill is noncontroversial. There is no opposition to it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1197, the Plant Patent Amendments Act of 1998 and I thank you for allowing us the time to debate this legislation today. I would also like to thank Mr. Coble and Mr. Frank for managing this legislation that will make a simple technical clarification to the Plant Patent Act of 1930. Before I get started, I want to say a few words about the sponsor of this legislation my chairman and friend, the gentleman a Willamette Bearcat from Oregon, Mr. Smith who will be leaving us at the end of this Congress, again. The gentleman has served the 2nd District of Oregon and this nation with honor and an acute sense of propriety and for that he is to be commended. His authoritative voice will certainly be missed on the Agriculture Committee in the 106th Congress. I also know that the entire agriculture community from apple producers in Oregon or to flower growers in California, wheat farmers in the Midwest, citrus growers in Florida will miss our standard bearer for open, fair, and free agriculture trade. I know of few people that have traveled the globe more promoting U.S. agriculture products. Chairman Smith, you will certainly be missed as a legislator and a friend. I want to start my statement on H.R. 1197 by informing my colleagues that this should be a simple vote because this legislation has already been voted on and passed in this chamber as part of the Omnibus Patent Act of 1997 in April of last year. Unfortunately, the larger patent reform package, H.R. 400, is not expected to be completed before Congress adjourns. That is why we need to pass this legislation today so we can get this legislation through the other body and signed into law before the end of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, California leads the nation, holding a 22 percent share for the production of flowers, foliage, and nursery products in the United States. For California, this two billion dollars plus industry ranks in the top ten of all agriculture commodities in the golden state. Yet despite these positive statistics the number of American chrysanthemum growers has fallen by 25 percent, the number of carnation growers has fallen as by much as one-third and the remaining major commercial types of flowers have fallen in the double-figure range as well. There are two primary reasons for this spiraling loss of American agriculture production relating to flower, foliage and nursery products. The first, can be addressed today by passing H.R. 1197 and the second is a failed drug policy established in the Andean Trade Preference Act. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1197 is a simple technical clarification to a loophole in the Plant Patent Act of 1930. This legislation will fulfill the original intent of Congress by specifically providing that plant patents are extended to include parts of plants, thus halting the current abuse of U.S. patent holders and growers' rights of cut flowers, fruit crops, timber crops, and other propagated plants. Currently, plant breeders, patent holders and growers are being harmed by a loophole in the Plant Patent Act of 1930 which allows foreign competitors to asexually reproduce and propagate plants that hold U.S. patents. Without passage of H.R. 1197 during this Congress, the U.S. position as a world leader in plant research and development will continue to erode. U.S. and foreign growers of protected varieties, who are now paying royalties and growing U.S. patented varieties legally, are at an unfair competitive disadvantage to such infringing imports. It was Congress' original intent in the Plant Patent Act of 1930 that it should be illegal to sell the fruit, flowers, and other products derived from a patented plant reproduced without authorization. H.R. 1197 reaffirms this intent. This legislation has broad support from the American Nursery and Landscape Association, the American Bar Association, the International Rose Breeders Association, the Society of American Florists, the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association, the American Seed Trade Association, the National Association of Plant Patent Owners, and the Wholesale Nursery Growers Association. As I mentioned there are two primary reasons that we are losing this sector of American agriculture. The first, we will begin to take care of today with passage of H.R. 1197. The second, I will continue to push for in the next Congress. We need fairness for our farmers by ending a failed drug policy. Since enactment in 1991, the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) has provided duty-free access to the U.S. market for flower exporters in four Latin American countries: Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. For seven years it has allowed flower growers in these four countries to avoid tariffs normally imposed on their product, tariffs ranging from 3.6 percent to 7.4 percent. The ATPA simply provides Colombian flower growers an unnecessary edge in a market they already dominate--to the detriment of domestic flower growers. The International Trade Commission acknowledged in 1995 and 1996 that the ATPA has had a greater impact on the U.S. fresh cut flower industry than any other market examined. The purpose of this preferential treatment was intended to encourage Andean countries to develop legal alternatives to drug crop cultivation and production. However, coca eradication efforts to date in Colombia have been much less than anticipated. This policy has failed. For the third consecutive year Colombia has failed in its efforts to be fully certified or reduce the production of illegal drugs. In order to maintain an open dialogue the Administration recently made the determination to put forward a national interest waiver with respect to Colombia. The results in Colombia are particularly disheartening, given that eradication is generally a bilateral effort in which the United States supplies the funding, fuel, and herbicides with the host government providing the personnel. Mr. Speaker, In closing, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1197 and the American flower, foliage and nursery growers that are in a unique situation. They are the economic poster children for a failed trade policy and the sacrificial lamb in a failed foreign policy war to end drug trafficking.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today reminded of the first lines in the Tale of Two Cities ``It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.'' I am pleased that one of my bills, the California Coastal Rocks and Islands Wilderness Act of 1998, is included in the Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands Act. Unfortunately, because of the lateness of the legislative calendar, it will be difficult to reconcile the differences between the executive and legislative branches on how we go about protecting our natural resources. I am glad to have an opportunity to discuss the language that I introduced along with Messrs. Gallegly, Bilbray and several other California Coastal Members. I especially want to give my thanks to Mr. Gallegly for his hard work and efforts to get this legislation on the floor today. Unfortunately, in the hoopla of the moment I can not forget that this bill is destined to be vetoed. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Rocks and Islands Wilderness Act is to recognize the ecological significance of the tens of thousands of small rocks, islands and pinnacles off the California coast, by designating them as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. These small islands and rocks provide important resting sites for California sea lions, Steller's sea lions, elephant seals and harbor seals, as well as providing a narrow flight lane in the Pacific Flyway. An estimated 200,000 breeding seabirds of 13 different species use these rocks and islands for feeding, perching, nesting and shelter. Birds that use these areas include three threatened and endangered species; the brown pelican, the least tern and the peregrine falcon. The Wilderness designation afforded by this act would apply to all rocks, islands and pinnacles off the California coast from the Oregon border to the U.S.-Mexico border, land that is currently under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This includes nearly all of the federally-owned lands above the mean high tide and within three geographical miles off the coast. The designation would afford the highest protected status and highlight the ecological importance of all of the small rocks, islands and pinnacles off the California coast, which together comprise approximately 7,000 acres. Adding these areas would also further the Wilderness Act's goal of including unique, ecologically representative areas to the System. Rocks and islands which are already patented or reserved for marine navigational aids, National Monuments, or state parks will not be affected by the legislation. Mr. Chairman, this is a good, straight-forward, non-controversial proposal that protects a unique array of California ecosystems. Unfortunately it is coupled here with many questionable ones that threaten our precious parks and public lands. This omnibus bill is unacceptable in its current form, despite containing a number of worthwhile measures. Regrettably then, I must ask my colleagues to reject this bill but to continue to fight for the good measures that it contains. We must work together to protect our natural heritage so that we can leave a truly worthy legacy to our children and to future generations.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express our community's grief at the loss of Ernest Morishita who died September 6 of this year at the age of 57. Ernie was more than an effective and dedicated public servant, Ernie instilled a feeling of family to Monterey County administration. Monterey County was extremely fortunate to hire Ernie Morishita away from Fresno County in 1983 to become our County Administrative Officer. Ernie managed the 24 departments and over 3,700 employees with a combination of skill and good humor. It was under his leadership that an economic development program was implemented, bringing stability to County coffers in the face of such onslaughts as the economic downturns of the early 1990's and the erosion of property tax income due to changes in State formulae. Ernie had a way of streamlining bureaucratic processes and making them user-friendly. Planning and building inspection processes, cooperation between county libraries with city libraries and schools, health and medical departments and programs all benefitted from Ernie's intelligent oversight and fine leadership. Ernie could call upon his positive relationship with the agencies and the political structure of the county to negotiate agreements across agency boundaries. The City of Salinas was able to build playing fields and a golf course on County land, for instance. As the Emergency Services Director during five major, presidentially declared disasters, Ernie created a full-time emergency services office for greater inter-agency cooperation and effective emergency response. Ernie's droll humor brought warmth and loyalty to county administration, and his pranks are legend. He was not beyond impersonating the county environmental health officer upon arrival at a restaurant to see how it affected service. To better monitor operations and maintain accessibility to all levels of operations, Ernie often walked through county facilities, conversing with custodians and clerks. He was a mentor and advisor who developed affection and camaraderie at every level. Supervisor Simon Salinas once said ``He had the biggest heart of anyone in the county.'' Our heartfelt condolences go to his family, his wife Kay, daughter Emily, and son Mark, as well as to his father Irving and brother Ken. Ernie's legacies are beyond the stability and financial integrity he established within county operations. Ernie was a patriarch, and the county became a family through his wise guidance.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to observe the passing of Frank Angelo Siino, who died in August 1998. He was a master boatwright who carried on the traditions of his family, a long line of boat builders. Frank and his brother Raymond followed in their father's footsteps by working in the Siino Boat Works on Cannery Row in Monterey, California. They build feluccas, boats built upon the ancient double-ended, lateen- rigged design used since time immemorial in the Mediterranean. Liboria, an Italian felucca which the brothers built and named for their mother, now hangs in the Monterey Bay Aquarium as a prime example of a craft used by fisherman in Monterey. Frank's skill at molding wood and repairing boats was innate. His friend Mike Maiorana said ``He was an authentic boatwright. When you'd see him at his band saw cutting out a compound curve, you couldn't tell where the wood left off and he began.'' Frank's knowledge of authentic wooden boat-building was sought out by many, and, as a consequence, Frank became a teacher and a mentor. Although today's commercial boats are fiberglass, steel and aluminum, wooden boats by Frank Siino still ply the waters of Monterey Bay. Frank built The Holiday from scratch, and she still works as a charter fishing boat. Her sister, the Miss Monterey, works out of Morro Bay as a charter boat. The last boat Frank made, the Anthony Boy, is docked in Moss Landing. As a part of his legacy, it must be noted that Frank created a boat for the Dennis the Menace Park, The Turkey, for children to climb on, and in doing so physically learn about the boat which so gracefully illustrates a way of life in our region. My thoughts are with the family, Frank's wife Lucille, his brother Raymond, his sister Rose, and his sons, Randy, Andy and Mark. Their loss is a profound one. Frank Angelo Siino created and maintained more than wooden boats in Monterey, he maintained our history.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and achievements of Linda McDougal who died on May 3 of this Year. Linda has been a guiding force in raising public awareness of the needs of individuals with disabilities to assure everyone equality of opportunity, independent living and economic self-sufficiency. Linda, one of six children born and raised in Benton, Arkansas, contracted polio at a young age. Through the loving determination and support of her mother, Pearl, and her siblings, Richard, Robert, Paul, Nina and Elizabeth, she attended public school. Each day she and her wheelchair were carried onto the school bus and up the steps of the school. After graduation, Linda attended State Teacher's College in Conway, Arkansas. By the early 1980's, Linda had set out on her course to train others about the rights of persons with disabilities. Linda took a major role in developing a housing project designed to allow people with many different disabilities to live independently. She spearheaded a Disability Awareness Day at the Arkansas State Capitol which was attended by heads of agencies, lawmakers, and by Governor Bill Clinton. Linda and her husband Robert moved to Santa Cruz, California where Linda continued to make a difference in people's lives and attitudes. In 1986, she urged the County Board of Supervisors to create a Commission on Disabilities to guide public decision-makers in eliminating discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, and in the provision of goods and services. She helped to bring county facilities into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Linda became the first and, until her death, only Coordinator of the Commission. Among the many projects she undertook, Linda initiated an annual Job Fair featuring exhibits by employers who welcome employees with disabilities. In her dealings with others, Linda was unselfish, seeing the good in everyone, gracefully accepting other points of view, willing to give credit freely, and tenacious as a bulldog. Friends describe Linda as a sweet woman, honest and forthright, never negative, and possessing a delightfully wicked sense of humor. She loved to have a good cry while watching old black-and-white movies about love and romance. The community will miss her dearly, but Linda McDougal will always be remembered for the pathways she cleared. My thoughts are with her family.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, as a cochair of the Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus, I am honored today to introduce the ``Value in Supporting International Tourism in the United States Act of 1998'' or the ``Visit USA Act''. My caucus cochair, Rep. Mark Foley of Florida, joins me in dropping this important bill. Why do we need an NTO? The reason is simple--it makes good economic sense. The travel and tourism industry is one of the Nation's largest employers, providing 16.2 million jobs. It directly employ 7 million people, and indirectly employs an additional 9.2 million Americans. 92 percent of the tourism industry is composed of small- and medium-sized businesses throughout every region of the country. The industry ranks as the first, second, or third largest employer in 32 States and the District of Columbia, generating a total tourism- related annual payroll of $127.9 billion. In my district on the central coast of California, it is the second largest industry, bringing in more than $2 billion and directly employing close to 26,000 residents. The industry has become the Nation's third-largest retail sales industry, generating a total of $489 billion in total expenditures. The industry generated $71.7 billion in tax revenues for federal, state, and local governments. While the private sector, States, and localities currently spend more than $1 billion annually to promote particular destinations within the United States to international visitors, the Federal Government spends zero dollars--zero dollars--promoting the United States as a tourist destination. In 1997, more than 54 million foreign visitors spent $98 billion in the United States. Imagine the benefits to our Nation's economy if we were to actively seek foreign visitors. In 1997, 17.9 million more people visited France than the United States. Yes, 17.9 million more people chose to visit France over the United States. One hundred nations around the world spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually to promote international tourism in their countries. And each year the United States loses more of its market share to nations actively promoting tourism. By dropping this bill, we hope to change this trend. The Visit USA Act will establish an Intergovernmental Task Force for International Visitor Assistance. The task force will examine signage and make suggestions where necessary to facilitate international visitors' travel in the United States. The task force will address the availability of multilingual travel and tourism information and the means of disseminating such information. The task force will also examine the feasibility of establishing a toll-free, private-sector operated, telephone number, staffed by multilingual operators, to provide emergency assistance to international tourists. Additionally, this legislation instructs the Secretary of Commerce to complete, as soon as may be practicable, a satellite system of accounting for the travel and tourism industry. The satellite system of accounting would provide Congress and the President with objective, thorough data that would help policymakers more accurately gauge the size and scope of the domestic travel and tourism industry and its significant impact on the health of the Nation's economy. Let me assure my colleagues who were skeptical of the NTO that this bill is not business as usual. The Visit USA Act requires the travel and tourism industry to match every public dollar spent on marketing the United States with private funds and requires the industry to pay the administrative expenses of the NTO. I encourage my colleagues to review this bill, think about the impact of the tourism industry in their district, and become a cosponsor of the Visit USA Act.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, hearing this debate leads one to believe that the only thing we have to fear is truth itself. The truth, according to the tax committee, is that we have in the next 5 years, according to this chart, we have a national fiscal situation that is still in deficit. $137 billion of the fiscal picture is in deficit. We have a $520 billion fiscal picture over the next 5 years which is in the plus side, and that is all in the Social Security account. There is no free lunch in this business. We have to rob from Peter to pay Paul. If we are going to give tax breaks, we have to pay for the lost revenue. And the only surplus that we are going to have is in the Social Security account. That is it. So, we will have to rob from the Social Security account. Now, if this tax plan is not an election year gimmick, I ask the Republican leadership, they have been in the majority for 4 years, if this was such a great tax plan, why did they not bring it to us before, instead of 6 weeks before the election? Mr. Speaker, this is not fiscal responsibility. This is fiscal foolishness, election year fiscal foolishness. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a very important issue: fast track authority. Fast track has been the subject of much debate and discussion, not just inside the Beltway but across the country. In my own district, many of my constituents have told me that they will benefit from new trade agreements reached with fast track; others have said that fast track ignores important global issues such as labor standards or environmental pollution. ``Fast Track'' sounds simple. Just give the President the authority to negotiate a trade treaty agreement and bring the end product back to Congress for an up or down vote. Sounds logical, doesn't it? But it's not that simple. Here's the reason why: Political battles are won by listening to, and acting on, the concerns of those who have a vote in the outcome. I have one vote. My constituents want me to use it wisely, looking out for the best interests of the Central Coast of California. They want me to think globally and act locally. Acting locally means protecting existing American jobs--local jobs dependent on reciprocal export markets for American products and goods. When you think about it, our economic future in agriculture and tourism depends on a healthy local economy. Look at agriculture. The Central Coast has been a world leader in specialty crops and one of our strongest specialty crops have been fresh cut flowers. The flower and foliage industry in California ranks number one in the United States with $702 million in sales in 1996, holding a 22% share of the U.S. market. But we're losing nurseries and jobs to foreign imports. Colombian flowers that are allowed into the United States without any tariff are our biggest competition. No other flower growing country has that privilege. The President has done nothing to right the wrongs created by the 1991 Andean Trade Pact, which put Central Coast flower growers at a severe disadvantage to Colombian fresh flower imports. The President has the legal authority to stop the closure of American nurseries that raise fresh cut flowers. But he is not using that authority because he is listening to the State Department, rather than American workers. So why should the President be given more authority to make more deals for more South American imports when he doesn't protect American interests under existing law? I support free trade. But free trade can't exist unless it is based on fairness. Fair trade means making deals for the United States that do not put our working men and women, our manufacturers and producers, and our quality of life at risk. Chile is a beautiful country. I have traveled there and met with political, labor and business interests. They import three times more U.S. goods than they export, with the exception of agriculture. Making Chile a full trading partner with Canada, U.S. and Mexico will only jeopardize more American jobs in the fresh cut flower industry, in addition to our fishing and wine industries on the Central Coast. So I will continue to oppose Fast Track unless we can see the following: (1) Lift the ``free entry'' of Colombian flowers to the U.S. marketplace. Treat Colombian flowers as all other flower imports are treated, with equal tariffs; and (2) protect the environmental and labor safeguards as strong as banking and security safeguards. Some people would say that my ``no'' vote on fast track is inconsistent with, or contradictory to, my ``yes'' vote on NAFTA four years ago. I disagree. Four years ago, the NAFTA vote was on legislation implementing a trade agreement negotiated by the President under fast track authority. This year's vote will not be on implementing a trade agreement but on renewing the power of the President to negotiate such agreements. When NAFTA was voted on, the fast track authority granted to the President did not contain instructions to him to include in the trade agreement provisions relating to the rights of laborers or meeting certain environmental standards. Knowing these issues were a concern to many members of Congress, the President negotiated sidebar agreements to supplement the underlying document. With these sidebars in place, I was convinced NAFTA would, in the long run, be a good thing for the United States. The underlying agreement would open up new markets to our producers and the added-on sidebars would help drive our trade partners to stronger labor and environmental protections. Although I must oppose the fast track legislation before Congress today, I have and will continue to support free trade. I will continue to examine each trade agreement reached with fast track authority on its individual merits, keeping in mind the need to think globally but act locally to protect American jobs on the Central Coast.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Thank you for this time, Members. I think we are recognizing today one of the finest people in public service in America in our time. I have known Vic for 30 years. I came to Sacramento as a young, ex-Peace Corps volunteer looking for work and one of the first staff members I met was a consultant to the committee, Vic Fazio. Vic was a leader at that time. This is the activism of the 1960s. Vic was always concerned about how we can portray government in the best light, how can we get people to be participatory in this democracy. At the time he had come out of the Coro Foundation, very involved in this idea of internship and the ability to volunteer in learning how government works and how business works. He was instrumental in founding a magazine that could report about government, the California Journal. It is wonderful when you are a founder of a magazine that writes nice things about you. It describes Vic as one of the California delegation's most respected members. I think he is one of California's most respected politicians, because he is the role model for the youth that are around here today, of bright young kids that come into politics. He is the role model for elected officials, whether it is at the State level where he rose to leadership positions very rapidly, served in the legislature, and then came to Congress where he rose to leadership positions in this House. Vic is a natural-born leader. Of that I think in an era when people are questioning government, when there is a lot of cynicism about whether you ought to participate, we ought to turn in this Nation to Vic Fazio and say, ``This is the kind of people we want in government and life.'' If you meet him, you will be engaged. So I speak today as a person who has known him a long time and watched him in his early years. He was just as effective in his early years in youth as he is in his senior years here as a Member of Congress. This House, this institution and American politics will truly miss one of the great leaders in America today, Vic Fazio.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Sardine Factory Cocktail Lounge and Restaurant on its 30th anniversary. The Sardine Factory is a local landmark, rising above Cannery Row. The founding owners, Ted J. Balestreri and Bert P. Cutino, have created a venue that is as trendy as it is historic. The old oak bar in the Sardine Factory is reputed to have sailed to the West Coast around Cape Horn in southern Chile in 1919. In the Captain's Room, elegant antiques evoke the opulence of an Old World drawing room, with a risque touch of the Barbary coast. Historic photographs and oil portraits of sea captains line the walls, overseeing diners enjoying a fireside dinner. The glass dome of the Conservatory reflects the sparkling cut-glass of a spectacular chandelier, which hangs over a marble fountain amidst the verdure of a garden setting. Ted Balestreri moved to the Monterey Peninsula with his family as a teenager and worked as a busboy to pay for his education. Ted, recognizing the possibilities of the hospitality industry, set out to Lewis Hotel Management School in Washington, D.C. to learn more. When Ted and Bert established the Sardine Factory, Ted took charge of the marketing and management, making sure the guests were warmly welcomed by personally greeting arrivals at the door. Bert Cutino grew up near Cannery Row in a fishing family. After his start as a dishwasher at age 13, Bert's innate ability in the culinary field took him to the position of manager of a full scale restaurant by the age of nineteen. Bert became the culinary heart of the Sardine Factory whose creations continue to receive national recognition. The Sardine Factory is widely known for its impeccably prepared fresh seafood, accompanied by superb wines, and exemplary service. Over these 30 years, celebrities, visitors and long-time residents and their guests, have sought out the Sardine Factory, to create new traditions in a setting evocative of long-ago times. The Sardine Factory has grown in success and stature over its first thirty years. May it continue to achieve similar achievements long into the future.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a leader in environmental protection, an author and scientist of the first order, and a teacher who has left a lasting legacy. Professor Kenneth Norris died August 16, 1998. Ken Norris received his bachelor's and master's degrees in zoology from University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). While studying for his doctorate, Ken was hired as founding curator at Marineland of the Pacific. It was there that Ken made discoveries that formed the basis for his pioneering studies of marine mammals, and the echolocation by which dolphins navigate, communicate, and investigate their watery world. In 1959 Ken received his doctorate from Scripps Institute of Oceanography, his doctoral dissertation winning an award from the Ecological Society of America. Ken returned to UCLA to teach herpetology and to research desert reptiles. However, Ken was lured back to the ocean when offered the position of founding scientific director for the Oceanic Institute, in which he served from 1968 to 1971. As a scientific advisor to the United States Marine Mammal Commission, Ken helped to write the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. It was in that year that he came to University of California, Santa Cruz to serve as director of the Center for Coastal Marine Studies. While in that position, Ken worked with others to develop the UC-Santa Cruz Joseph M. Long Marine Laboratory. Also in 1972, Ken created the UC Natural Reserve System which protects 120,000 acres of natural habitat throughout California. From 1977 to 1979, Ken chaired the environmental studies department at UC-Santa Cruz, teaching his popular and rigorous ``Field Quarter'' class which covered that natural history of California from the deserts to the forests, communicating his keen interest in ecological systems, and in rigorous scientific inquiry. Ken founded the Environmental Field Program which continues to support undergraduate research. He was a popular professor, whose ability to inspire respect for the environment spread well beyond his classroom through the host of his former students who carry his work forward. Ken retired in 1990. Ken attained international recognition for the many ways he engendered support for the environment, especially his leadership in the world wide campaign to reduce the number of dolphins caught in the nets of fishermen. In 1992, he received the John Burroughs Medal for his book ``Dolphin Days: The Life and Times of the Spinner Dolphin.'' He was named ``Man of the Year'' by the American Cetacean Society in 1996, and was a recipient of the Academy of Sciences Fellows Medal in 1977. Our hearts go out to his family, his wife, Phyllis; three daughters Susie, Nancy and Barbara; his son Richard; his brother Robert; and his six grandchildren. Ken Norris has gone far beyond leaving the world a better place, he has taught each of us a lesson about our ongoing responsibilities to the planet.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the formation of an historical partnership between local government and a non-profit organization resulting in great overall benefits to the community. On Tuesday, June 30, 1998, I attended a ceremony at which a California municipality, Sand City, and a sheltered workshop for developmentally disabled adults, Gateway Industries, finalized an agreement which will accomplish goals central to each of the organizations. I am pleased to have been a part of crafting this accord. In it, Sand City has given the clientele of Gateway Industries an opportunity to demonstrate their individual strengths and abilities in the mainstream workforce. Gateway Industries will provide the support needed for each of its clients who takes a job in Sand City. Sand City will employ three individuals with developmental disabilities to help maintain its appearance. Tasks will include litter pickup, graffiti abatement, and general landscaping. The work program will be managed through the Sand City Public Works Department and Sand City Police Department. Gateway will be responsible for pre-employment screening, on-the-job training, and the facilitation of the relationship between employer and new employee. Not only are Sand City and Gateway Industries stronger for this, but the community benefits as well. It is a win-win-win situation! The program will create a better understanding of the needs of persons with developmental disabilities by city agencies, and by the members of the community at large. The City will improve in overall appearance and the employed Gateway clients will gain job experience, self-work and independence. I commend Sand City Mayor Dave Pendergrass, and Ken Caldwell of Gateway Industries for the vision it took to develop this forward-looking arrangement. I would urge other entities to take note and to follow their excellent lead.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reflect upon the passing, on August 18, 1998, of Robert Orville ``Bob'' Bailey, known as the Father of Aptos California. Bob was born in Napa California, on December 8, 1924. His mother Hazel was a well-known elementary teacher in Watsonville, in Santa Cruz County. Bob attended Watsonville High School, Salinas Junior College and San Jose State University. he served in the United States Navy, on the S.S. Jeremiah O'Brien, from 1942 to 1946. Although he had visited Aptos as a youth, he did not actually move to the community until 1967. In that year he brought his wife Jan, and five sons to Aptos, becoming a member of the Rio del Mar Improvement Association upon his arrival. Seven years later, he established Bob Bailey Real Estate in historic Redwood Village. Bob worked to preserve and protect the old buildings, exhibiting the dedication to community that became his hallmark. Soon his sons Robert and Paul joined him and helped to build it to a healthy sixteen-agent business. In 1982, Bob established Bob Bailey Real Estate and Property Management Company on Aptos Beach Drive, with windows overlooking the then-neglected Esplanade. Working with the Sheriff's Department and the Community Enhancement Committee, Bob was instrumental in cleaning up the community and bringing it together. Rio del Mar Beach became known as ``Bob's Beach,'' while Bob became known as ``The Watchdog of Rio del Mar.'' Bob and his wife Jan received the Aptos Chamber Business of the Year Award in 1991. Bob was given the ``Man of the Year Award'' by the Aptos Chamber in 1997. Bob cared deeply for the health of local businesses, serving as a member of the Aptos Chamber of Commerce, and the Santa Cruz County Conference and Visitor's Council, as well as the Aptos Chamber Tourism Committee. Bob also volunteered for children and the schools, as an Eagle Scout and scoutmaster, and as a Shriner for 37 years, raising funds to fight childhood diseases. Bob Bailey is survived by his wife, Jan, by his five sons, Kent, Paul, Robert, Willis and Michael, by eight grandchildren, by his step-children, Yvonne Robera, Ronnie Obertello Jr., and Laura Helgueros, and by six step-grandchildren. Our hearts go out to his family. Since he first arrived in the little community of Aptos, there have been a lot of changes, many of them wrought by Bob himself. Through both his work and service, Bob created a sense of community in Aptos. His dry wit and deep sense of responsibility will be missed, but the many ways he beautified and promoted his community remain as his legacy.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to note the passing of a journalist, a community leader, a father and a friend, Harry Frederick Casey. Harry was born in Watsonville, California but by his high school years he had moved to King City which became his home. Harry attended University of California Berkeley, graduating in 1950 with a degree in journalism, and served in the United States Navy during World War II. In 1952, Harry became a co-publisher of ``The Rustler,'' the newspaper started by his grandfather in 1901, and his exceptional career in journalism began. By increments, Harry acquired other newspapers in the area, the Greenfield News, the Soledad Bee, and the Gonzales Tribune, He lent his expertise to professional organizations, serving as president of the California Newspaper Publishers Association in 1976, and as director of the California Press Association from 1986 to 1996 and president in 1993-94. Harry was nominated ``Publisher of the Year'' by Cal Press in 1981. Harry was intricately involved in the life of his community. He was a charter member of the King City Junior Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the Rotary, Knights of Columbus, Toastmasters, American Legion, the Monterey County and State Cattlemen's Association, and the Monterey County Agriculture and Rural Life Museum. He served in public office on the King City Council. Harry's contributions did not go unrecognized. He was named ``Jaycee of the Year'', in 1961, and ``Man of the Year'' by the King City Chamber of Commerce in 1981. My father, State Senator Fred Farr, acknowledging him as setting the tone for his community, always invited Harry to the annual Buckeye weekends. The guests at these get-togethers included the leadership on the interior and coastal areas of Monterey County. The friendly and festive atmosphere had the combined purposes of conviviality, and of reminding ourselves of how much we value, and must care for, our region. Harry's remarkable spirit is illustrated by the fact that he penned two novels, ``Land of the Eagle'' and ``Pen and Plow'' during his illness with cancer. A trilogy ``Centennial Edition'' has just been published as well. Our hearts go out to Harry's family, his wife Peggy; his sons Richard and Bill; his daughters Sharon and Patty; his step-sons Michael and Patrick Barbree; his step-daughters Kelly, Shannon, Laurie, and Kathleen; and his 17 grandchildren. Harry was a major influence in his community. His voice will be missed, yet his thoughts will remain a part of the cultural history of Monterey County. He was a friend. I miss him too.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state my concern with H.R. 4300, the so called Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. I want to talk about a problem that already exists and which will only be exacerbated by Title III of this legislation. Title III authorizes $65 million to the U.S. Agency for International Development to create and develop programs to urge farmers to stop growing crops that may be used to create illegal drugs and replace them with other crops. Since enactment in 1991, the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) has provided duty-free access to the U.S. market for flower exporters in four Latin American countries: Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. For seven years it has allowed flower growers in these four countries to avoid tariffs normally imposed on their product. These tariffs range from 3.6 percent to 7.4 percent. The purpose of this preferential treatment was intended to encourage Andean countries to develop legal alternatives to drug crop cultivation and production, the same intention of Title III that we are considering now. This policy has failed in Colombia. Coca eradication efforts to date in Colombia have been lest than anticipated. For the third consecutive year Colombia has failed in its efforts to be fully certified, or reduce the production of illegal drugs. In order to maintain an open dialogue, the Administration recently made the determination to put forward a national-interest waiver with respect to Colombia. Cultivation of coca, the raw material used to make cocaine, has dropped significantly in all of the Andean countries except Colombia. The Colombian coca crop expanded more than 30 percent from 1996 to 1997, from almost 51,000 hectares to over 67,000 hectares. Alternative crops developed in Colombia include cut flowers such as roses and carnations and then exported to the United States. Colombia now has the distinction of producing 80 percent of the world's cocaine and over 70 percent of the cut-flower imports into the United States. The latter has resulted in a steady weakening of the American flower industry. Since the enactment of ATPA, the number of American chrysanthemum growers has fallen by 25 percent, the number of carnation growers has fallen as by much as one-third and the remaining major commercial types have fallen in the double-figure range as well. California flower growers go out of business at a rate of 10 percent per year. California grows 22.1 percent of the Nation's cut flowers. In 1997 alone, flowers and foliage sales brought $729 million to the states economy. Although California is ranked number one in flower production, 77.9 percent of the industry is scattered throughout the United States, in my colleagues districts. In 1997 in California, more than 270 million rose blooms were sold for nearly $69 million. In my district in Monterey county alone, 75 million rose blooms were sold for more than $18 million. We must oppose the continuation or expansion of a policy that has proved effective and is, in fact, detrimental to our own citizens and businesses. Also of serious concern is the lack of reference to human rights protection in this bill. The countries who will ``benefit'' from this bill have some of the worse human rights abuse records in the hemisphere. Since 1988, an average of ten people per day have died as a result of the political conflict in Colombia. In Bolivia in the first few months of 1997 at least six individuals were killed in confrontations with antinarcotics police, including a 3-month-old baby, a six-year old child and a 53-year-old woman. There is no assurance that funds, equipment, or training intended for drug eradication will not be used against innocent citizens or for the benefit of the recipients. One Colombian General, when asked if counter-narcotics aid might be used against guerrillas struggling for political recognition, whether or not they are involved in drugs said, ``It's the same organization, and everyone in it is responsible,'' To avoid corrupt law-enforcement officials in Mexico, elite units were formed, trained, and given helicopters by the U.S. Now, two years later, some 80 members of these elite units have been under investigation on allegations that some took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to transport drugs to the U.S. Concerned Members have been fighting to stop the School of the Americas from training the next generation of human rights abusers, but this bill wants to create not one but THREE new academies to train individuals in so called ``drug-prevention efforts.'' These are nothing but human rights abuse academies. I have seen no convincing reason to believe that a new infusion of $2.3 billion for counter narcotics programs in Latin America will prove more successful, and less damaging, than the billions of dollars that have been spent on similar programs over the past fifteen years. Funds for international narcotics control efforts have increased 150 percent in the last ten years. Coca cultivation is 11.7 percent higher and opium production has doubled in the past 10 years. Colombia, the largest recipient of U.S. counter-drug assistance, has received nearly one billion dollars to date. Yet over the last decade, total drug production in Colombia has risen an estimated 260 percent. In short: drugs are a serious problem--but Congress and the Administration must pursue a more careful and intelligent policy toward Colombia--both to fight drugs, and protect the human rights and safety of the Colombian people.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Joseph Richard Zoellin, a business owner in Carmel, California, who was a model of small town merchants who have done, and continue to do, so much to make our country a better place to live. Mr. Zoellin was a lifelong resident of the district I represent. After many years working for one of our local banks, he bought the Carmel Drive-in Market in 1949 and operated it for 32 years after that. Mr. Zoellin was not only a merchant, but he knew his customers personally, and strived to provide the sort of personal service which helps a local community's business district to thrive. I remember going to the market as a child, taking bottles to redeem, and taking advantage of the Zoellin's good nature. Richard Zoellin was friendly to his customers, helpful, caring of his community and family, and, overall, a tremendous asset to Carmel. Every town needs people like him. Because of Mr. Zoellin, his community is a better place--this is not only an achievement of which anyone can be proud, but also one of the most worthwhile achievements of a person's lifetime.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) for yielding time. I rise, Mr. Chairman, to state my concern with H.R. 4300, the so-called Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. I just really want to talk about a problem that I am aware of. I lived in Latin America in Colombia when I was a Peace Corps volunteer. A lot of Members do not realize that in 1991, we signed the Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA. What we did in signing that act which President Bush brought to Congress where the act was intended to allow an alternative, a diversity of moving from growing coca and drug plants to growing flowers. Since that time, the Colombian and Andean trade pact countries have duty-free flowers coming into the United States. What has happened? They have now 70 percent of the American flower market. Who has been hurt by that? American flower growers. I mean really hurt. This is a noncompetitive advantage that we have. Any other flowers that we import from Asia or import from Europe have to pay a tariff. It is only the Andean trade pact countries that do not. So my concern with the bill is we are authorizing in the bill $10 million to urge Colombian farmers and others to stop growing crops that may be used to create illegal drugs. I think we need to deal with this issue that we have opened up in the Andean trade pact and not give them another $10 million until we have gotten something back like requiring them to pay tariffs on their imports. There is not an equal playing field here. I know this is not what the committee intends. I hope that we can in conference committee work these things out. Because frankly the American flower growers cannot be more adamant about the problems that have been created, the unintended consequences of the Andean trade pact on American growers. Frankly, the $10 million authorization is more than we are giving to the farmers in Texas and to the farmers in the Northeast and in the Midwest for all their droughts. Essentially we are helping farmers in foreign countries more than we are helping our own. I would hope that the committee would be sensitive to this so that we might be able to take a look at a quid pro quo in this bill that will equal the playing field and still result in the intended consequences of diversity away from coca crops. If the committee will look at that, I would appreciate it. I would urge my colleagues to be aware of that as this bill goes into conference.