Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to engage with the gentleman in this discussion because, obviously, the gentleman saw yesterday that the Republican leadership in the Senate broke things, and the U.S. public is asking for a campaign reform fix. We have legislation here before us. In fact, the legislation before this House does not require that the Senate has to fix their side, we can fix just this side. I have H.R. 600, which has more cosponsors than any other bill in Congress. It is the bill that historically has passed this House under Democratic leadership. It is the bill that received the most votes when this issue came up before the 104th Congress. It is a bill that totally reforms campaign expenditures, campaign collections, the whole gamut from A to Z, and it is a substantive bill. The issue here is that we are the legislative branch of government. We are here to fix things that are broken. This is not just about hearing and smearing, it is about acting and doing. We need to have on this floor a vote on campaign finance reform. The gentleman and I cannot do much about it because we are in the minority party, but the majority party has indicated that they are some day going to do it. They have the ability to do it now, and we hope they will give us the date and the time soon and that there will be particular bills like this, H.R. 600, that are comprehensive, that allow us to have a vote on it, because I believe that this House, in a bipartisan way, can send a bill to the President that will reform campaign finance methods of collecting, spending and conducting campaigns in the United States of America for people who run for the House of Representatives. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership. The gentleman has certainly brought about the evidence that there is too much money in politics and that we can fix it together.

Mr. FARR of California. The question is how.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on rollcall No. 505. I was hosting an event with Secretary Shalala at the time concerning breast cancer awareness and could not make it back in the Chamber in time to vote. Had I been present, I would have noted ``aye.''

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning because the second vote we are going to take today is on H.R. 901, and I have an amendment to that bill that is on the floor. It is the second vote we will take. It amends the Land Sovereignty Act. I rise as a private landowner to urge my colleagues to protect private property rights. I rise as a former county supervisor to ask my colleagues to protect local control. I rise as a former member of the State legislature to ask my colleagues to protect State rights. And I rise as a Member of Congress to ask my colleagues to vote for that amendment to protect our information sources. Vote ``yes'' on the Farr amendment, the second vote this morning.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who served his country, his community and his family. Gerald David Lloyd, known to family and friends as Joe, was a man whose civic responsibility was the foundation of his life. Mr. Lloyd enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1968 where he served for 6 years, achieving the rank of Sergeant E-5 and receiving a number of prestigious awards and medals: National Defense Service Medal; Rifle Marksman; Vietnamese Service Medal with three stars; Vietnamese Campaign Medal with Device; Good Conduct Medal; and RVN Cross of Gallantry with Palm. In 1974, Mr. Lloyd served as a fighter with the California Division of Forestry. Immediately thereafter, he began a career as a plumber and maintenance worker. In 1980, he returned to Federal employment working for: the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, CA; the Department of the Army, Fort Ord, CA; and most recently, the Department of the Navy, Naval Support Activity Monterey Bay, CA. In his position as maintenance worker at the Naval Support Activity Monterey Bay, Mr. Lloyd was responsible for plumbing, carpentry, painting, and electrical work. As during his military service, Mr. Lloyd's career as a Federal employee includes numerous awards. He received the Special Act Award and Performance Act Award three times each. In May of this year, he was honored with the Unsung Hero Award. Just 1 month later, Mr. Lloyd performed the most heroic act of all, he gave his life while saving that of another. On the morning of June 9, 1997, while reporting to work, Mr. Lloyd heard gun shots. Reacting immediately, Mr. Lloyd ran to the assistance of James P. Gaughran who had been wounded in an unprovoked attack. Mr. Lloyd used his scan card to access a secured building so Mr. Gaughran could get inside to safety. In the process, Mr. Lloyd was shot and killed. He is survived by his wife Marilyn and their two children, Jennifer and Adam. This tragedy was a grievous loss to the entire community. Mr. Lloyd's death was mourned by the many who knew him through his involvement in the American Legion, as a coach and referee for the American Youth Soccer Organization and as a volunteer with Boy Scout Troop 285. The Department of the Navy, Naval Support Activity Monterey Bay, Naval Post Graduate school will present Mrs. Lloyd with the Good Samaritan Award for the selfless actions of her husband. This award also speaks to the kind of life Mr. Lloyd lived and hoped to inspire in others. Mr. Lloyd will be missed by many and admired by all who hear of his heroic act. This is a tragedy felt by our entire community. Our hearts go out to the Lloyd family.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of two important veterans bills being considered on the floor today. H.R. 1703, the Veterans' Affairs Employment Discrimination Prevention Act, would establish a new VA office to resolve employment discrimination claims by veterans. Too often, our Nation's veterans are the victims of discrimination in the workplace, and this legislation would help ensure that their concerns are heard and resolved. H.R. 2206, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act, will provide needed help to homeless veterans and veterans of the gulf war. The legislation would reauthorize a number of important Federal programs for homeless veterans, and allow the VA to operate more care facilities for veterans suffering from drug and alcohol abuse. In addition, H.R. 2206 would expand medical care eligibility for gulf war veterans, so that any veteran with gulf war illnesses could receive health care from the VA--whether or not their illness can be proven as caused by exposure to toxins. The bill also authorizes $5 million in funds for researching new forms of treatment of gulf war syndrome. I represent both veterans and veterans' families who continue to suffer from gulf war illnesses, with no end in sight. Unfortunately, many suffering veterans don't get medical care because they cannot prove the cause of their illness. This legislation will ensure medical help is available for those gulf war veterans who need it. I am glad to see these two bills come to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support them.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor and privilege of representing California's 17th Congressional District and, on behalf of all the residents of the central coast, I would like to commend to my colleagues' attention the 25th anniversary of Monterey- Salinas Transit. The Monterey Peninsula Public Transit System Joint Powers Agency was formed by the cities of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Seaside, and the County of Monterey on October 1, 1997. As the predecessor of Monterey-Salinas Transit, it served the Monterey Peninsula area, later expanded to provide service to the cities of Marina, Salinas, and Watsonville, now serving all of Northern Monterey County. I am proud to claim that my district has been among the first in the country to promote community livability and sustainable development initiatives that enhance the quality of life for all its citizens. Monterey-Salinas Transit recognizes the benefit of sustainable development and the need to utilize clean technologies. One-quarter of the bus fleet is powered by clean natural gas [CNG] and future plans call for the total MST fleet and support vehicles to be fueled with CNG, a much more environmentally friendly source of fuel. It is the foresight of the MST member jurisdictions that has enabled the transit service to be on the cutting edge of technology and service, with ridership of some 4 million passengers each year, including a paratransit van service for disabled customers, and a waterfront area visitor express service for tourists. As we stand on the threshold of the 21st century, I am pleased to commend Monterey- Salinas Transit for providing 25 years of exemplary public service to the central coast of California, and ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to wish them well on the next 25 years.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, the question here tonight is why, why are we doing this? The American public knows the results of last November's elections. Look at those elections. There were six elections that were less than 1,000 votes. But look at the names: Fox, Tierney, Smith, Smith, Brown, and, guess what, one Sanchez. Why were not the elections where there was only 84 votes difference contested? Why was not the election of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] contested? He lives close to the Canadian border. Perhaps some people who speak English crossed over the border and voted for him. Why were not the Smiths and the Browns challenged? This is a challenge to Loretta Sanchez, a Latino woman. The State of California's secretary of state certified her election. She is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Do not abuse that.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of explaining my absence on the last vote. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent during the last rollcall vote No. 467, the passage of the rule on the Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report. I was in a lecture with a group of foreign military officers who are attending the naval postgraduate school in my district, and I was unable to return to the Chamber in time for the vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my colleagues what the problem is, as expressed in a letter from the Secretary of Interior, the Assistant for Water and Science, Patricia Beneke. In that letter to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], she points out that The intent of referencing the MOU seems to be to limit the scope of required environmental review, because the MOU itself is expressly limited to preparation and finalization of an environmental assessment. And she goes on to say, While the MOU itself does not preclude a full environmental impact statement, as well as full compliance with other environmental laws, its reference in the legislation, its incorporation in the legislation, could be construed as a limitation on the scope of the environmental review. This part of the bill thus arguably legislatively prejudges that the project will pose no significant impacts and that an environmental assessment fulfills our NEPA requirement. Similarly, in another part of the bill, the bill would mandate that any environmental review be completed within 90 days after the date of enactment. This too prejudices the project that the project will not require a full environmental impact statement. Moreover, a portion of the work is being conducted by the Authority's contractor, and Reclamation has no control over the quality or timing of the contractor's project. So there are, essentially, two concerns that the administration is raising about this bill which I bring to the House, which seems to me could be addressed by appropriate amendments. Those amendments have not come forth, and so at this point we object to the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 2007. Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the authorization for the Canadian River project in Texas. I think while the project underlying this bill represents a worthwhile effort to improve water quality for several communities in the High Plains of Texas, the bill itself is entirely unnecessary. The bill would grant the local water authority the right to use excess capacity of the Bureau of Reclamation facilities to manage non- Federal ground water through the Canadian River Authority's conjunctive use ground-water project. That project would make necessary improvements to the urban water quality. However, the project is already going forward under existing authorization for the Canadian River project. The Bureau of Reclamation has entered memorandums of understanding with the Canadian River Authority and has begun environmental review of the project. The Bureau can incorporate the ground-water conjunctive use project within the existing project's authority. There is simply no need for this bill. It is not only unnecessary but the big problem is, it would constrain the Bureau of Reclamation's review of the ground- water project under the National Environmental Policy Act. The administration has expressed continuing concerns regarding the bill's potential to override NEPA. Yet the bill proponents have been unwilling to remove the NEPA language from the bill. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], for the work his staff has put into improving the language of this bill. The bill now provides the Bureau of Reclamation to approve the engineering designs in order to avoid potential problems with the system. It also includes language to ensure the local water district that it pay for the expenses associated with the project. However, as long as the override of the NEPA policy act is in the bill, I must oppose the legislation as unnecessary and inappropriate.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], a long and experienced Member on these issues, distinguished Member of this House.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Continue the effort.

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Speaker, I think the point is so well taken, the fact that there is no effort in this legislative body, the only body that can change the law. We are having hearings here where people want to hear and smear or just listen and say, we will finish with that and come up with something. This House has been doing campaign finance reform when the Democrats were in control year after year after year. Why can we not do it now?

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to continue the discussion on campaign finance reform. As you have heard earlier, there is a big effort here in the House to come up with a meaningful package. I would like to remind everyone that this is not the first time that we have debated this issue. In fact, in the last Congress, in the 104th, which is the Congress that was elected in 1994, a bill came to the floor, a bill that I authored so I am very familiar with it, that was a repetition of the bills that had been here before that had been passed out of this House when Democrats were in control. And I think that the approach that we need to be reminded of, in this era when everybody wants some campaign reform, they will take the cream off the top and try to do something immediately, trying to do an easy fix. We do not even seem to be able to do the easy fix. We were shown the now historical handshake where the President and the Speaker of this House agreed that it would be campaign finance reform done in the last session. It has not been done. It was supposed to be done in this session. We have not even had a committee hearing or a scheduled vote. I want to remind people that the bill that has always gotten the most votes in this House, and that in the 103d and the 102d and the 101st sessions of Congress got off of the floor of this House only to be filibustered by Republicans in the Senate or vetoed by President Bush, was a campaign finance reform bill that was comprehensive that did set campaign spending limits. My colleagues, we are not going to have a meaningful campaign reform bill until we can limit how much candidates can do. We know from case law and the Supreme Court decision that we cannot, as a Congress, limit free speech, but we also know that we can set up a process where one can volunteer to set the limits for themselves in a campaign, and, with that volunteering, you trigger in such things as spending limits, as new PAC limits, as new individual contribution limits, as public benefits that have never been given before for those who voluntarily limit their campaign spending. It eliminates things like bundling provisions, it eliminates the soft money provisions, and it requires for independent expenditures for those organizations outside of this system, outside of a candidate's campaign, who are going to come in and comment on the campaign, who are going to run literature that says this candidate is a good or bad candidate, it requires them to disclose who they are and where their sources of funding are coming from. This is comprehensive campaign reform. What you have heard so far are bits and pieces of that. The bipartisan freshman bill, it is a good bill. It is a step in the right direction that deals with independent expenditure; other bills that deal with elimination of soft money; other bills that deal with public benefits. But none of the bills are comprehensive, that go all the way throughout the spectrum from campaign spending limits to overhaul of the benefits that candidates should get.

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

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. I would like to point out that that handshake is reflective of something that Congress has been able to do. We have been able to pass campaign reform. In 1976 was the first effort to try to set the limits that are now in law, much of the law in this country.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2233. This bill will help provide much needed funding for research and conservation projects at coral reef ecosystems. The health of these ecosystems is in decline globally due to a wide range of threats, including nonsource pollution, destructive fishing practices, unwise coastal development, and global climate change. If we do not act decisively and soon, there will be no reefs left to save in just a few years. Why is it important to save it? The reefs essentially are the rain forests of the ocean. That is where most of the biological life live. If we lose these reefs, we lose much more than just their picturesque beauty, we lose a world class storehouse of marine biodiversity and a renewable economic resource that is vital to coastal and insular nations. H.R. 2233 is a good first step in addressing these problems. The amendment before the House requires a match for every Federal dollar so that research funds can even go further than originally drafted. I support the amendment. I urge all my colleagues on this side of the aisle to do so as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman, because this is just one of many steps that he is going to take in his committee to try to strengthen the awareness and the law as it regards the oceans. We spend a lot of time on this floor debating how we are going to help disaster stressed communities. We usually look at natural disasters and base closures as sort of the two major reasons that we need economic relief. I happen to represent the city of Monterrey, CA, which at one time was the largest sardine port in the world, certainly well known by the writings of John Steinbeck in ``Cannery Row.'' Sardines disappeared. They are coming back in small numbers now. But they are mostly a bycatch rather than the main catch. But that was in the late 1940's and early 1950's. Everybody has agreed that the reason they disappeared is that they were just overfished. It shut down an entire industry, entire community. It was before we knew about disaster relief. I think what we are seeing with the impact of the pfiesteria infection on the Maryland shores is that we have got to have a much better awareness of what is happening to animals, to fish, and to marine life, because we are really dependent on it. We may not be totally dependent on it for food stocks, but we are dependent on it for economic survival in our communities, for recreation, for tourism, for restaurants, and, essentially, if the ocean is not healthy, then our communities cannot be healthy. So this attention that the gentleman's resolution and other bills that he is working on and I am working with him on, I think, is going to go a long way in bringing America to the forefront of being a pioneer, a new pioneer in the oceans, as we have been in the last decade. I thank the gentleman for his efforts. I encourage all my colleagues to take this issue seriously, because it is about our future. It is about our weather. It is about our knowledge of weather, our knowledge of oceans, and essentially the quality of life on the planet Earth.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 131. Mr. Speaker, the U.N. General Assembly has declared 1998 to be the International Year of the Ocean. That is probably one U.N. action that everyone in this House can support. It has been nearly 30 years, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] pointed out, since the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, commonly known as the Stratton Commission, took a comprehensive look at the U.S. ocean policy. A large group of Members of Congress have recently urged the President to hold a White House conference on the ocean, and there will be an international exhibit on the oceans in Lisbon, Portugal, beginning next spring. Without a doubt, the world is becoming focused on the oceans and 1998 is the year. It is time for all the world's seafaring nations to reexamine their ocean policies. The once boundless resources of the oceans have proven to be finite when pitted against our incredible technology. Many of our great fisheries have been decimated. Coastal ecosystems are severely stressed by development and by pollution. Yet, we depend on the oceans more than ever for food, for transportation, and for recreation. We need to take a long, hard look at how we interact with the oceans, and define a new relationship based on sustainable use, I repeat that, on sustainable use, of our ocean resources. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is an excellent way for the House to launch that effort. I join my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] in urging bipartisan support. The gentleman from New Jersey is chair of the subcommittee. He has been a remarkable leader on this issue. It is very interesting that today a Representative from New Jersey and a Representative from California get up to support this, because we are separated by land mass, but our two districts are joined by the oceans, the long way around, I might add. But the fact is that what affects one affects the other, so this resolution will help bring a sense of Congress that this is an important issue, and that we ought to, in this Congress, be spending more attention and more moneys on oceans than we are on outer space, because the oceans are our future, how we are going to survive on this planet. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.