Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], for her very articulate outline. I am an author of one of the proposals for campaign finance reform, and I am not going to dwell on my particular bill. But I am going to point out that we certainly need to address this problem. The American public heard the President right here in this room just a few months ago ask us in all sincerity to deliver to him by July 4, our Nation's birthday, a campaign finance reform bill. Tomorrow we will be recessing for our Easter recess, for our homework back in our districts, and we do not return here until April 8, I think it is. So April, May is a month, June a month. We have about two-and-a- half months left after we get back to meet the President's deadline. What have we seen? Absolutely nothing. There is no committee hearing scheduled, there is no work in progress on a bipartisan effort. I want to point out that this campaign finance reform has to be bipartisan. It has to have four principles that I think are essential in any bill. It has to be fair. This bill cannot be designed to help the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party. It cannot have the favor of one party over the other. Second, the bill has to reduce the influence of special interests. We have to bring down the amounts that political action committees can contribute. We also have to limit large single donors. I think we have to limit the amount that an individual can give, as the gentlewoman from Texas just pointed out, so that this House should be accessible to anyone, not just those who are millionaires and go out and spend their own money. Third, it has to have a level playing field. We have to make campaigns competitive. How do we do that? By enacting spending limits so that essentially everybody who is in this process knows exactly how much is going to be spent and those who just spend the most are not the winners. Fourth, the principle for campaign finance reform has to include access to the system by nontraditional candidates. I was sworn in in the very spot that the gentleman from New Jersey are standing in in a special election in 1993. It was the first time I stood on the House floor. I looked out, as the gentleman are looking at me today, to a sea of white males. Sandy was shocked coming from the California legislature, where it is much more gender balanced and ethnic balanced than the U.S. Congress, and it hit me that indeed, if this institution is going to be of, by and for the people, then it has to have people of America in here, and it is not doing that. We have 48 women in the U.S. Congress. There are more women in the United States than there are males. This ought to have a majority of women. How are women going to get elected to the U.S. Congress? How are people of color going to get elected to the U.S. Congress? We are only going to do that by a campaign finance reform system that is fair and makes it possible for minorities to run for this office. We cannot require that people have to raise all of their money in their districts. There are people here in very, very poor districts. Under the Federal law, anyone can move into a district to run. So if we limit the incumbent to saying you have to raise the money in the district, we will send a message out to anyone of wealth to say, aha, I can get elected to the U.S. Congress, all I have to do is move to a particular district, because that candidate is now required to raise all of her or his money in that district. That is not fair. That does not make the process accessible. So these ingredients of fairness, reduce the influence of special interests, level the playing field so that it is competitive, and to make the system accessible by nontraditional candidates I think are the four principles of campaign finance reform. Do Members know what? We have the bills to do that. We have more than just my bill. We have a bipartisan bill; different, not much different. We have different approaches. We have people who want to clean up pieces of campaign reform, those who want to clean it all up. None of these bills, none of them, have been able to be scheduled for a hearing. I speak tonight in this colloquy with my colleagues to ask the American public to rise up and demand that the leadership of this House, that the Speaker of this House, set for a hearing, set for a vote, a campaign finance reform bill. We must bring that to the House. I plead with my colleagues to help alert the American public that this process is broken and it is not going to get fixed, it is only going to get diverted by attention to what is going on in the White House, what is going on in the Senate, but not to what is going on to fix campaign laws in America. I would be glad to be involved in any discussion the gentleman wants to have.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the debate on the rule on paperwork reduction. This is a debate that determines the procedures of the House, and this is the only way in which we can deal with the law that will come after this debate, the law on paperwork reduction. The only way we can get a debate on a new law is to schedule that debate on the floor, and I rise to the issue that this rule does not go far enough because it has not scheduled the real paperwork reduction in America, which is the reduction in the amount of money that flows into campaigns. Mr. Speaker, we ought to be debating the law on campaign reform. It was asked for by the President, it was promised by the Speaker, and it is certainly in demand by Members who are here today on both sides of the aisle. We have bills before Congress. The work has been done on writing that law. There are many versions of it. But that law cannot reach the floor until the Committee on Rules sets the date, and the date ought to be before this country's next national birthday on July 4. If we did, indeed, deal with this rule, we would be talking about real reduction, we would be talking about reduction in the time it takes to raise money, time that could be better spent in managing this Nation's affairs. We would be spending less time, certainly less paperwork, because there would be less checks written to campaigns. There would be less money flowing into Washington. There would be less time fund-raising. There would be more time spent governing. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this rule because this rule does not go far enough, because this rule fails to bring what this Nation demands, and that is the real law of reform to this floor, which is campaign law reform.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. I thank my distinguished colleague from New York for yielding, and the Speaker tonight. We spent a wonderful weekend in his beautiful State of Pennsylvania. Walking over to the Capitol tonight to join in this colloquy on the arts, I could not help but think as I looked up at the sky and saw the crescent Moon up there, just the wisp of a crescent Moon over the Capitol, how this building is indeed a living museum of art. It is a living museum of history, a living museum of democracy in the United States. Yet more than ever what this building demonstrates is the creative talent, the historic talent of this country displayed in paintings, displayed in photographs, displayed in works of sculpture in Statuary Hall, displayed in the architecture of the building, displayed as a symbol to the greatest democracy in the world. And yet Members who serve in Congress like to think that there is an option in this country, that arts are essentially a disposable commodity, that it is something frilly. I cannot help but think, as we talk so much about the need for this country's underlying security and its economic creativity, that the most creative aspect of America is in the diversity of its arts. It is the engine of our economy, and where that begins is in schools. It also begins in the home. It also begins in the political families that we live with. This weekend when we went on the retreat, the bipartisan retreat to talk about how we can bring more civility to Congress, to this House, to this very Chamber we are in tonight, I could not help but think that as the families engaged in this discussion with their children there, that what the leadership of this House provided was essentially a weekend of arts for the children. That is what they chose, as we discussed among ourselves. They chose to give the children art so that the children could be very creative, and every parent blessed that. And yet some of those parents come here at the same time the next day or this next week or the next month and will do everything they can to discourage the funding of arts through the public sector. What we are about is education in America. What education is about is an educated work force. And what a work force is about is building an economy. And what that economy is about is in a global, competitive society, is being a little bit more creative. It is not just the creative mind. It is the creative fingers, it is the creative toes. Therefore, if we really want this country to be strong and independent, we have got to invest in the arts. When I was in the State legislature in California, I cochaired the Joint Committee on the Arts. We invested in the arts in California. Why? Not because it was an optional thing to do; it was because industrial development in California demands it. The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce demands that we invest in arts because they sell arts very well in Los Angeles. San Francisco demands that you invest in the arts because San Francisco is known for its arts. New York, where you come from, what would New York be without the arts? What would the city of New York be? Look how much money the city puts into it, private sector and public sector money. And yet again where we fail to really commit ourselves to the arts is in our public school education program. In California we have made it so important that we require that in order to graduate from high school, every student must take at least a year of arts, or we give them the option of a year of foreign languages. Both of those are, we think, skills necessary to compete in the 21st century. We are here tonight to remind our colleagues that the arts are not a frivolous, disposable commodity in America. They are essential not only to our cultural well-being but to our economic well-being. I applaud the gentlewoman for her dedication to the arts, for forming the Arts Caucus, for allowing high school children from all over the United States to be in competitive contests in their districts and hang their art here in the Capitol so that they can be role models to the thousands, to the millions of students who walk through this Capitol and see children their own age being able to promote the arts. I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me to join in on her colloquy on the arts, and I would remind all our colleagues that the arts are some of the most essential products of American freedom in a democratic society, an expression of one's self, of community and of nation.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in these hallowed Halls to remind us that the debate about this money really does not affect us, but it does affect the developing countries of this world. I have lived in one of those countries. I lived in one of the poorest barrios on earth, without any running water, without any electricity, where the birth rate was an average of 15 children per household. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Latin America, in one of the most Catholic countries on the earth. The women in that barrio, I was working with CARE as a Peace Corps volunteer, were requesting every day for information about family planning. They wanted to know about how to raise children and how to have a proper number of children. I also rise today as a father. I think the learned gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] just pointed out that we are as parents whose children will be growing up in a population that will double in our lifetime, reaching the world's maximum carrying capacity, maximum carrying capacity of this globe. If we do not provide information, just information to people about how they can properly have children, not too many, we are putting our children into a situation in a globe that is unbearable. We will not be here arguing about family planning money, we will be here arguing about Fortress America, how we will wall ourselves off from the rest of the world as supplies diminish. Please support this resolution.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, last week the President of the United States came to this Chamber, and he challenged us to give him a comprehensive campaign reform bill by July 4 of this year. Mr. Speaker, I responded the next day by introducing the campaign finance reform bill, H.R. 600. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you are committed to campaign finance reform, as your handshake with the President a year ago would lead us to believe, then I would urge you to take up this call and this bill and bring it to the House floor. Daily we are greeted with headlines in newspapers with stories about questionable campaign practices. Regularly we are confronted by our constituents asking for sanity in the election process. Always we are faced with the burden of our own campaign needs and how to meet them in a way that does not destroy the faith in the political process. We need campaign finance reform, and we need it now. H.R. 600 is one of the bills introduced in this House. It embodies comprehensive reform, and it meets the principles of reform that we can all embrace. First it is fair. Real reform does not favor one party over another or one candidate over another. Second, it reduces the influence of special interests. Political action limits, limits on large donors and the elimination of soft money can accomplish this. Third, it must be a level playing field. That is, campaigns are made to be competitive by enhancing spending limits. Fourth, there must be access to this body and to this system by nontraditional candidates. Women and minority candidates should be able to run as easily as anyone else. Mr. Speaker, many of us wrote you a letter requesting action on campaign finance reform within the first 100 days of this session. The President would like to sign the bill on July 4. You can make it happen if you are committed to reform. I am. The question is, are you? What day will we vote on campaign reform? The Nation is waiting for your answer.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the American Political Reform Act and am joined in that introduction by nearly 50 of our colleagues from around the nation. Last night the President challenged Congress to pass campaign finance legislation and we are here to tell you today that we are committed to doing so. This bill meets the basic principles of true reform: First, fairness. This bill does not favor one party over the other or one candidate over another. Second, reduce the influence of special interests. This bill includes PAC limits, limits on large donors and eliminates soft money. Third, level playing field. This bill makes campaigns competitive by enacting spending limits, giving all candidates a similar footing for financing their races. Fourth, access to the system by nontraditional candidates. This bill makes it possible for minorities and women to run. We meet these principles through reasonable and fair changes in the law. First and foremost, we cap spending. There will be no sanity in politics until we bring spending under control and a spending cap is the first weapon in the arsenal of campaign finance reform. Second, we reform the role of PAC money in the system. We reduce the individual PAC contribution and cap aggregate contribution levels. Third, we reform the role of wealthy donors, including the ability for candidates to use their own money in their campaigns. Fourth, we reform the role of soft money, essentially eliminating it, but allowing for grassroots operations at the State level among candidates of the same party. Finally, we try to put the brakes on the massive expenditures of money in the political realm that are now unregulated, undisclosed and outside the law--independent expenditures. We do this by requiring new levels of disclosure and by expanding the definition of express advocacy. The legislation we introduce today is reasonable, achievable, and supported by the White House and the Democratic leadership. It is the only legislation in the last Congress to get bipartisan votes. If it could last year, it can again this year. My colleagues and I look forward to moving this legislation forward and meeting the President's challenge of presenting him with campaign finance reform by July 4.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, the relationship between elected officials and the media has historically been one of love and hate. Those of us in the public eye realize that by entering into the arena we are subject to criticism and commentary from the media. After you have spent time in public life you learn to accept the fact that there are going to be those who disagree with you on a variety of issues. Some commentators can give fair, and well-reasoned arguments for why they have a difference of opinion, and some choose to just throw mud. Herb Caen never threw mud. On Saturday, February 1, the people of northern California lost one of it's most beloved figures. Herb Caen was more than just a columnist, he was a towering figure in the city where he wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle for almost 60 years. Every morning thousands of people in the bay area and beyond awoke to read Herb's unique blend of local news, gossip, jokes, one-liners, and political commentary. In May 1996, Herb was awarded a special Pulitzer Prize for his ``extraordinary and continuing contribution as a voice and a conscience of his city.'' In addition to his column for the Chronicle, he also wrote magazine articles, and 12 books including, ``One Man's San Francisco'' and ``Don't Call it Frisco.'' In fact, the people of San Francisco admired him so much that upon his public announcement last summer that he had inoperable lung cancer, the city of San Francisco dedicated a 3.2-mile promenade stretching from China Basin to Fisherman's Wharf as Herb Caen Way. Besides being an entertaining writer, and political watchdog, Herb was a crusader, who used the power of the pen to tackle injustice, and to fight for what he believed in. Many credit Herb with saving the cable cars, and preventing the Golden Gate Park from being paved over by a massive highway project. But more than anything, it was the way in which Herb lived his life that he will be most remembered for. Whether it was dancing the night away to a jazz band, or just strolling along his beloved waterfront, he always had a good time. I am sure that I am joined by all of northern California in saying that we will miss Herb Caen.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness at the recent passing of my good friend, James Collins. Jim, who was a member of the Salinas City Council, died recently from complications caused by cancer. He was 66. For much of the past 20 years Jim has loyally and faithfully served the people of his hometown of Salinas. He is remembered by myself and colleagues as an active and devoted public servant with a keen sense of humor that often lightened tense debates. His devotion to education and public service was unequaled. Jim was born in Santa Rosa and moved to Salinas, CA, where he lived for 60 years. He attended the public schools in Salinas and graduated from San Jose State University in 1962. He taught physical education at local public schools in the Salinas Valley for 23 years. He was first appointed to the Salinas City Council in 1975 and remained there until 1983 when he stepped down. He ran again for election in 1989 and remained on the council until his death. Jim served as mayor pro-tem four times and sat on numerous committees and boards throughout Monterey County. He was the chairman of the Monterey- Salinas Transit Board, and was a member of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority. He was also a member of the California Rodeo Board for 30 years. Jim's commitment to the youth of Salinas was unsurpassed. He coached dozens of youth teams and spent many years officiating at high school football and basketball games. He was instrumental in creating the Breadbox Recreation Center for youth and he also helped to establish the Police Athletic League. Jim Collins' commitment to the city of Salinas was commendable. He will be remembered by his family and all of the citizens of Salinas for his 15 years of public service to the community. My thoughts and prayers remain with his family on his passing. He will be sorely missed by all of us.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable couple who have served and protected ocean waters and resources. They are impressive figures who have served the local economy as well as the local environment, both being strong participants in the fishing industry. I am proud to announce that Barbara and David Danbom have been named ``Ocean Heroes'' in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution's Ocean Planet exhibition now on display in San Francisco. Barbara and David are among a group of 10 individuals and families on the west coast who have been bestowed with this honor. The Danboms, the only commercial fishing family among those honored, have fished out of Moss Landing, CA, for over 30 years. Those selected for the ``Ocean Hero'' honor were chosen for their outstanding work in protecting ocean waters and resources. The Danboms are well known for the top quality frozen troll kings they process aboard their boat the Vega II: they are one of the few at- sea salmon freezing operations along the California coast, serving an upscale restaurant chain in southern California. As impressive as their business operation has been, their dedication to a sustainable fishery has been even more notable. Dave Danbom, was a member of the first California Citizens Advisory Committee on Salmon & Steelhead Trout formed in 1970; and has served briefly on the committee when it was reestablished in 1984. Dave Danbom was also a founding director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and vice president for 9 years. An early proponent of California's commercial salmon stamp, in 1982 Danbom instigated the expansion of that highly successful program, which is now the State's single largest source of dollars for salmon restoration. He currently sits on the committee overseeing the expenditure for monies from that fund. In 1983 Dave was a ``Highliner of the Year'' recipient, the fishing industry's highest award. He was the first salmon troller appointed to a seat on the Pacific Fishery Management Council, serving two terms. Barbara Danbom, an accomplished vessel skipper and fisherman in her own right, works alongside husband Dave during the fishing season. In the off season she tends to much of the business and correspondence while Dave is in meetings. Her support has made it possible for Dave Danbom to dedicate as much time as he has to the betterment of the fishery. In recent years the Danboms worked with myself and my predecessor to this office, now White House Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, for the establishment of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, which stretches from San Luis Obispo County to Point Reyes and is managed out of both Monterey and San Francisco. The Danboms' devotion to the preservation of ocean waters and resources is exemplary. It is an honor to have David and Barbara Danbom on the Central Coast of California. I know I am speaking for the residents of the 17th District when I say that we are proud of Barbara and David Danbom.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable man who has served his community for more than 40 years. He has been an impressive figure of California's central coast and a strong leader in his home town of Monterey. It is with sadness that I announce that Sam Karas will soon be retiring from the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. Sam's long tradition of public service began in 1943 when he moved to Monterey as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. It was at this time that he also married the lovely Edith James. The Karas' have been blessed with three daughters, all of whom graduated from the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, and four granddaughters. When not doting on his family, Sam Karas has long been involved in community service. Employed in the wholesale meat industry for 35 years, Sam always found time to involve himself in a variety of activities and humanitarian causes, donating his time and talent as a fund raiser. He was one of the original board members of the Human Rights Commission, which led the fight against California's proposition 14, a discriminatory housing initiative. He has received awards for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Japanese American Citizens League for his outstanding work. Sam also served as an organizer and board member of the Monterey Peninsula Visitor and Convention Bureau. Additionally, Sam Karas served as board member for the Monterey Peninsula Visitor and Convention Bureau, and on the board of trustees of the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District from 1973 to 1980. During this time his contributions included fighting for a Magnet School Program and advocating for the integration of students, staff, and teachers. In 1984, Sam was elected to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors and has served Monterey County in that capacity ever since. He was elected chair of the board of supervisors in 1986 and again in 1991. In his role as county supervisor, I have had the honor of cochairing the Big Sur Multi-Agency Advisory Council with him where he always provides a fresh outlook and a candid perspective. Among Sam's many accomplishments is the work he has done on behalf of the farm worker community and in support of decent and affordable housing in Monterey County. In addition to this, Sam Karas created the Carmel River Task Force which successfully rebuilt community bridges and neighborhoods after two devastating floods in the winter of 1995. Sam also helped to protect the environment by coauthoring a countywide ballot measure to prevent offshore oil and gas development in the Monterey Bay--now part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Sam's contributions to the area have stretched far beyond the average capacity, adding to the artistic richness of the community as well. He has appeared in many local theater productions, including being asked by his friend Clint Eastwood to play a role in the Academy Award winning film ``Unforgiven.'' Sam helped to organize the famous Monterey Pop Festival, served as an original member of the board of directors of the Monterey Jazz Festival, and is currently on the board of directors of the Monterey Bay Blues Festival. He has received many honors recognizing his extensive talents. Sam's devotion to community service is exemplary. It has been an honor and a pleasure to work with him for the benefit of Monterey County. Sam has offered us concern, compassion, realism, and a spunk that we will miss greatly. I know and I am speaking for all residents of Monterey County when I say that we will be sad to see Sam Karas retire from the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, but wish him all the very best in his future endeavors.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, Monterey County and many northern California areas have been challenged by military base closings and resulting job loss. In Monterey County, local government and business leaders have worked together to develop economic plans for base conversion and the future. A key participant was Pacific Gas and Electric Co. [PG&E], which for its role was honored with the Edison Electric Institute's Common Goals Award for customer satisfaction. Tapan Munroe, PG&E's chief economist and manager of community economic vitality initiatives, came to Washington to receive the award from EEI President Thomas R. Kuhn in a Capitol Hill Ceremony. PG&E's local manager chaired the effort that founded the Monterey Bay region Futures Network, called FUTURES, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the economic vitality of our region while maintaining environmental quality and the social quality of life. Bruce R. Gritton, of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, who is president of FUTURES, says a PG&E-sponsored study ``Vision and Strategies for Shaping the Monterey Region's Economic Future,'' provides FUTURES' conceptual anchor. Rob Stump, of PG&E's Monterey Division, continues to serve as a FUTURES officer. After the study, the University of California at Santa Cruz, opened the Monterey Bay Science and Technology Center at Fort Ord, the first reuse of the former military base. I commend everyone involved in FUTURES Network for all of their good work for Monterey County. Congratulations to PG&E on winning the EEI Common Goals Award.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in support of this bill. This bill passed out of this body last October. I regret that some of the strong provisions in the House bill were watered down in the Senate. However, the bill still retains many of the strongest provisions of the House-passed bill, particularly that which we just heard from Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, the optimum sustained yield standard. Is it is a remarkably strong standard we ought to have in law. The second is the fish habitat protections. In balance it is a good bill, and I commend the authors for their leadership and urge an ``aye'' vote. While I am here, I would like for a moment to just talk about the fact that this is perhaps Congressman Studds' last appearance on the floor, and I think it would be remiss if we did not recognize that history is going to be very kind to this man in his service to this Nation. As former chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and now, I guess, chairman emeritus, he was able to do some remarkable things. One of them was that he authored legislation to make oil companies liable for their spills. He created the Studds-Magnuson Act which extended the 200-mile limit to our coastal zone. When you think about it, that is the largest acquisition of land without any price paid for it and without a shot fired. It was bigger than the Louisiana Purchase, and it now allows us to govern out to 200 miles from our shorelines all around the United States and its territory islands. He also is famous, I think, for starting remarkable town hall meetings. Everybody knows his meetings in Massachusetts kind of set the stage for how we should all conduct our meetings at home. To pay the greatest tribute to him, I think because he was involved with so many fishermen of Portuguese descent in this committee, he went out and learned Portuguese. He has done many great things as chairman, and we are going to sadly miss him. This bill and the marine sanctuary bill are a real tribute to his years in Congress. We look forward to having many years of friendship with him after he is gone.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I really believe that in every community we have certainly wonderful natural beauty. I did not even mention the 27 golf courses. But I think every community in America has something historically beautiful about it, and certainly people went there originally, they ventured their risk capital, saying, ``We're going to settle here.'' I think we have to reach into that because if we find that same spirit, every town in America can be a tourist attraction.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am rising in support of this bill as an original cosponsor. I think Members have heard in the debate between the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and others that there is a lot of controversy regarding how we ought to form a national policy regarding tourism. It is a difficult issue. In an era when people think, well, tourism is a very lucrative industry and they ask themselves why does the industry need Government help. On the other hand, if we look at where tourists go, to the buildings, to the parks, to the communities, we will see that almost every community in America and certainly every State has a State-sponsored tourism office supported by taxpayers' money. Why is that? Why do we need to put taxpayer money into State tourism offices? Because it is the selling of a market. The market is the United States. There are other places in the world to visit. In fact, there are a lot of Americans who go to the other places, and many of those Americans could go and spend time in their own State and in their own country. So, we need to give them, the tourists, American and foreign, the option of understanding what is available. We only do that through tourist promotions acts which are generic and essentially do not advertise a particular place to go. The successful places, Disneyland and so on, are able to do this on their own. I have long been a supporter of a partnership between the private sector and public sector for the promotion of tourism. This act does not put public sector money in, but this act does create a public sector awareness and a public sector partnership along with the private sector in developing two things. What is does is create a National Tourism Board, made up of people appointed by the President of the United States, and that board does four thing. It utilizes the private sector and the public sector to create policy, a national policy, a generic policy, about travel and tourism. It also suggests to the President and Congress how we can increase market share. Why do we need to do that? Because when the tourists come here they spend tax dollars. They spend sales tax dollars. They spend room tax or TOT tax dollars. They spend transportation dollars on gasoline and airline tickets. Those expenditures benefit the local governments, the State governments, and the Federal Government to help promote things like tourism. The board will also advise the President and Congress, and it will guide the National Tourism Organization which is also created in this bill. So I take issue with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], in the fact that it does nothing. I think it does something. What he points out is that it does not deliver any Federal money. This is a conservative Congress. We are cutting and squeezing the Federal Government. This was a decision that was made, that we are not at this point in time going to give Federal tax dollars to the National Tourism Organization. I expect, as the gentleman said, that there will be an opportunity in the future for us to come back here with a plan that will be well thought out, well supported at the local level, well supported by the private sector, indeed asking Congress to appropriate funding. We need to do this, frankly, because as Congressman Manton said, this is the largest growing industry in America. It is an industry, if we think about it, that has a lot of vertical access. There is no glass ceiling for women in this industry. There are no limitations on minorities. There are no limitations on people with handicaps. There are no limitations because of educational degrees. It is an industry you can get into and move up as fast as your own ability allows you to do that. It is a fast-growing industry, one of the fastest in the world. America is a beautiful place. Part of our democracy is coming to places like this. Although this is the seat of the Federal Government, this is also a tourist attraction. As the people are wandering around the Halls of this great building today, they are being tourists more than they are being civic-minded people. Let us realize that part of the selling of what this country is all about is in its tourism. That is why it is so important for us to be in partnership with those in the private sector who are taking and risking venture capital to make a living by promoting tourism. I am strongly in support of whatever we can do to try to create a Federal partnership, along with the States, along with local communities, so indeed, together, we can promote this great country, our great States, and our communities. So I urge my colleagues to join in support of this important measure. I just want to point out that I represent, as one of 435 Members here, a district like everyone else. I would hope that Members would take a careful look at their own districts. I happen to be looking at mine. I live in an area many know about, the Central Coast of California: the beautiful Monterey Peninsula, the Big Sur coastline, the Santa Cruz boardwalk, the Santa Cruz redwoods and mountains--an area that tells us that we have to manage our resources well. And frankly, the expression out there is, ``Green is green.'' The more environmental protection you have, the more money you will make. It is an area that produces $1.5 billion in agriculture without Federal subsidies. It is a region that draws $1.5 billion in tourism. So those two leading industries are both dependent upon good environmental stewardship. So the promotion of tourism is more than just selling hotel rooms and selling travel opportunities. It is also a way that we incorporate the quality of life issues, the local zoning matters, the local business practices, the way we promote our communities. We need to be in a partnership with the local, State, and Federal Government, because Government sets those laws and sets those patterns. I believe we cannot have an attractive community, we cannot improve our quality of life, we cannot develop the cultural aspects of our country without such a partnership. That is why I think we ought to have a partnership with the arts for the NEA, why we ought to have a partnership with the National Endowment for the Humanities. Indeed, if tourism is going to come back here and ask for money, we ought to be as supportive of that as we have historically been for the National Endowment of the Arts and National Endowment for Humanities. I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they get in this cut, squeeze, and trim mode will realize that this is all part and parcel of what is basic about America. It is about our people, it is about the things that our people have built, and it is about the land we have preserved. And in combination, we can indeed build an America in the future that is accessible and attractive and will provide a living for people for many generations to come. This bill is a good start in that direction. It is not the answer, but it is a good start. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FARR of California

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

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge an immediate and comprehensive congressional investigation of recent allegations of a connection between the Central Intelligence Agency and the introduction of crack cocaine in the United States. The San Jose Mercury News has published a series of articles providing considerable evidence that crack cocaine was introduced in the United States in order to fund the operations of the Nicaraguan Contras. Because the Contras were in turn established and supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, there is considerable question as to whether the CIA knew about this trafficking operations, or even supported it. This is a very troubling allegation. The possibility that our own Government supported, implicitly or explicitly, the sale of crack cocaine in the United States is deeply, deeply disturbing. I have written to CIA Director John Deutch urging a full investigation of this matter. But Congress, which is responsible for the oversight of our Government, must also investigate this matter independently. I thank the members of the Select Intelligence Committee, including Chairman Larry Combest and Congressman Norm Dicks, for their attention to this matter and the pursuit of an investigation in a full and expeditious manner. As long as the questions raised by the Mercury News story remain, we must examine the role of the CIA in drug trafficking in the United States. We cannot rest until this manner is fully and fairly investigated.

Mr. FARR of California

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

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Speaker, the distinguished chair of our Committee on Resources, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], I want to also commend him on bringing this bill to the floor. The purpose of this bill, as amended, is to authorize the Federal program to finance strategies to encourage new research and development for methods and technologies for water desalinization. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other agencies, to award, as it was spelled out, contracts for studies regarding the desalinization of water and water reuse and demonstration projects, as so outlined. I see all these students in the gallery, and I am thinking that when I was a student one of the poems we were all required to learn is the Coleridge ``Ancient Mariner,'' where the great line is, ``Water, water, everywhere, but not a drop to drink.'' This bill allows us to drink that water, because what it does is it allows us to find the technology to solve the problems of water shortages and water contamination. Many people do not realize, but desalination of chemically and biologically impaired water can often be useful in solving problems of drought, of contamination, and an overappropriation of supplies. Both the speakers are from the State of California. Our coastline is surrounded by salt water. The coastal communities of our great State do not have any benefit from the great water project that we have in California. We rely on the water that comes from the heavens. Unfortunately, more and more people are living on the coast, and we are having a tremendous amount of water shortages. Everybody realizes it is only a matter of time before the technology of desalinization and the price for that technology will become available, so we can indeed tap into that great resource. The United States, interestingly, was once the leader of this technology. No other country knew it better. The world beat a path to our door. But severe budget cuts since 1981 have all but eliminated the funds for desalinization research. I want to really credit this bill to its author, to Senator Paul Simon, who pursued the desalination legislation with great determination for several years. Senator Simon, as we know, is retiring, and has made a significant contribution to the field of water desalination, and his efforts will be appreciated for many years. Therefore, the enactment of this bill will once again allow the United States to pursue water desalination as a means of reducing stress on our limited water supplies. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I assure this gentleman from Massachusetts that his spirit and his concern and passion for sound ocean management and sound ocean policy will continue in this House under the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], myself, and others who serve on that committee. I want to thank the chairman for his good work as well. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3487. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], for the great bipartisan cooperation in which we have come to work together to produce this piece of legislation. This bill continues our subcommittee's success under his leadership in crafting a sound, bipartisan ocean policy. When we first introduced this legislation, we had over 20 other original sponsors, equally divided between both sides of the aisle. We have worked hard in the spirit of close cooperation to resolve the problems we have faced in moving the bill through the subcommittee and the full committee. While it is a modest bill, this legislation will help the National Marine Sanctuary Program to continue as one of the most effective and most cost-efficient resource conservation efforts in America. America's 13 marine sanctuaries are the national parks of our oceans. They celebrate and preserve some of the Nation's most significant ocean resources. Like our landbound national parks, our marine sanctuaries focus our attention on how important sound environmental stewardship is to our quality of life and to the quality of economies in our local communities. In my own district, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary plays a central part in the recreational and economic lives of my constituents. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary embraces the entire coast of the central part of California. It is the largest protected marine area in the United States, second only to Australia's Great Barrier Reef in size. It encompasses more than 4,000 square nautical miles of open ocean along 350 miles of shoreline. However, the marine sanctuaries are not just about conserving resources. They are also about protecting coastal economies. The Monterey Bay Sanctuary is key to my district's $1 billion tourism industry. Indeed, one of this Nation's premiere tourist attractions, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, is a thriving business that depends upon the extraordinary marine life of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary. It is also the nerve center of the world's largest concentration of ocean scientists, working in 12 diverse marine research facilities. Finally, the sanctuary supports a prosperous fishing industry. All of this comes at a very modest cost. It is truly a bargain for our taxpayers. But, like all Government programs, the sanctuaries need to make the most of their funding. This bill helps them accomplish that by allowing sanctuaries to develop for the first time, trademark, and market logos and other merchandise to help supplement their funding. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize what was pointed out by the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the work of our colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Gerry Studds. Without a doubt, he is one of the most outstanding Members of this House. He has built the basis for American ocean policy as chairman of the former Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. This bill recognize that contribution by renaming the Stellwagon Bank National Marine Sanctuary in his honor. It will now be known as the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagon Bank National Marine Sanctuary. We will miss his knowledge and wit, but we will forever remember his name and contribution to our committee and to this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I am aware of no objection to the bill at this time. Many concerns were raised about this legislation when it was first introduced, and several of those issues were addressed by the amendments in committee. One issue, however, does remain outstanding. While there seems to be no disagreement over the transfer to the State of the buildings and facilities that compose the ranch itself, there is not agreement with respect to the transfer and future management of the surrounding land which totals, I think, about 680 acres. It is our understanding that the interested parties are continuing to work to address this disagreement and that the problem will be addressed in the other body when they consider this legislation. For that reason we do not object to the passage of this bill today. 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. (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)