Cal Dooley

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, because I think in fact we should be moving toward the marketing loan. The marketing loan is a market-based mechanism that provides a safety net to farmers. It has worked in the past when commodity prices have dropped. It has provided a level of income protection to farmers that have ensured that we have not have widespread bankruptcies in the cotton sector. What I think the gentlemen who are offering this amendment should be opposed to, which really is a fleecing of America, is the $700 million in freedom to farm payments that are going to be made to cotton farmers next year, when we have the opportunity today to lock in a cotton price in the December futures that is ahead of the target price. That is what is the fleecing of America, a program that is being offered under the freedom to farm that is going to ensure taxpayers are going to be on the hood for $700 million in direct payments. The marketing loan is where we should be, because the marketing loan does provide that level of safety net, the level of protection that is market-based. That is the direction we ought to be going in. Just last year, for an example, the cotton program only cost the taxpayers of this country $29 billion. Next year when we are going to have almost identical cotton prices in this country under the freedom to farm, we are going to be making payments from taxpayers of $700 million to cotton farmers. That is wrong. But the marketing assistance loan is an important tool that ought to be maintained. The fact, in the freedom to farm proposal, there is a marketing loan that is provided for all commodities. Under this amendment, what you would be doing is that you would be eliminating cotton as being the only commodity that did not have a marketing loan. That would be a bad policy.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in remembering Guadalupe Montoya, a special woman from my district who died recently after years of contributing to her community. Lupe came from a family that has roots in California dating back to the early 1800s. Although born in Texas, Lupe's family returned to Southern California in the 1920s, where she spent most of her life. Despite a limited knowledge of English and only an eighth grade education, the example of community activism she set instilled in her children and her neighbors a desire to take part in the political process that endures to this day. As a neighborhood campaigner for a young Edward Roybal--then a candidate for Los Angeles County Supervisor--Lupe demonstrated how issues important to her Hispanic community could be addressed through political activism. By trade, Lupe was a seamstress and had several important clients from throughout the Los Angeles area. Along with her job, she managed to raise five children who have become active in their own communities. When Lupe retired, she became an active senior volunteer, receiving numerous certificates of appreciation from the City of Los Angeles. In addition, she earned a commendation from the California Assembly for her volunteer work. And she was recognized by the United States Retired Volunteer Program and received a letter of congratulations from former Speaker of the House Thomas ``Tip'' O'Neill. But perhaps the greatest testament to her legacy is the respect and admiration she commands among her friends and family, and the sense of community involvement she has left behind. Again, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the memory of Guadalupe Montoya.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, as one of the 68 Democrats that did support a 7-year balanced budget, I rise in strong opposition to this. We just heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], one of the leading Republicans, say this was not a perfect bill. I want to spend some time talking about one of the most imperfect parts of it, and that is what relates to the agriculture section. All of us know we need to make some reforms in our agriculture programs. We have to define what is the appropriate role of government in farm policy. Most of us would agree it is to provide a safety belt, it is to try to expand trade, it is to try to provide for additional research. But the Republicans have come to the conclusion that the appropriate role of government in farm policy is to have taxpayers write checks for $36 billion over the next 7 years. This $36 billion is going to be paid to landowners for no other purpose than they have farmed a program crop in one out of the last 7 years. This $36 billion is not going to farmers based on need, it is not going to farmers in those years of low commodity prices. It is only going just simply because they have enrolled in a program in the last 7 years. Mr. Speaker, this is bad policy.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to let the chairman know that I would also like to endorse the Fresno courthouse project, and mention that it was the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] who offered the language included in last year's appropriations bill. I want to thank him for that effort, as it has resulted in an excellent site for the courthouse that will enhance our efforts to revitalize downtown Fresno. As my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich] stated, it will also realize substantial savings to our taxpayers.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the underlying Alaskan oil export legislation, which passed the House on July 24 by a 324 to 77 margin, I rise in strong support of the rule and also the conference report for S. 395. With enactment of this historic legislation we will have a chance to benefit small, independent oil producers throughout this country. Current law may have made a great deal of sense in 1973. But like any other laws, it is having unintended consequences that were not foreseen by our colleagues. We therefore should repeal the Alaskan oil export ban and authorities exports carried in U.S.-flag vessels. What this will allow is to free up oil refining capacity on the west coast of the United States, which will help to encourage oil production and oil exploration in the west coast of the United States, much of that done by the independent oil producers. The California independent oil producers state a compelling case. Like them I was pleased that the Department of Energy similarly concluded last year that the export ban was depressing production and, if lifted, would benefit California and the Nation as a whole. The Department of Energy's comprehensive June 1994 study provides a strong factual basis to support this legislation. Among others, the following study concluded production will increase by 100,000 barrels per day, up to 25,000 additional jobs will be created, State and Federal revenues will increase by hundreds and millions of dollars, and these benefits will be achieved with little, if any, effect on consumer prices. We now have a unique opportunity in this Congress to spur additional energy production and to create jobs. With imports meeting over 50 percent of our domestic consumption because of falling production, we must do something quickly to increase energy production in this country. This legislation, this conference report, will achieve those objectives, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the report.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in remembering a former Member of this body and a true leader from California's Central Valley, B.F. Sisk, who died last week at the age of 84. As one who follows the tradition of moderate Democrats from central California who are dedicated to furthering the cause of valley agriculture that Mr. Sisk helped establish, it is an honor for me to offer this tribute. Mr. Sisk ran for Congress in 1954 while working as a tire salesman in Fresno and went on to become one of the most influential Members of the House by the time he retired in 1978. His contributions ranged from serving on the House panel that led the way to our country landing on the Moon to being one of the Rules Committee members who ensured that President Kennedy's civil rights and education initiatives were enacted. But back home, Mr. Sisk was perhaps best known for his dogged work that led to the building of the San Luis unit of the Central Valley project. The San Luis unit includes 115 miles of canals and the 2 million acre-foot San Luis Reservoir--the largest reservoir in the world without a natural stream. Because of the San Luis unit, millions of acres of farmland on the valley's west side have been brought into production. It is now one of the most productive agricultural regions of the world. In honor of Mr. Sisk's leadership, the dam creating the San Luis Reservoir has been renamed the B.F. Sisk Dam. Along with a host of other projects he helped bring to the valley, Mr. Sisk also left behind a political legacy. One of his top aides, Tony Coelho, was elected to replace Mr. Sisk when he retired in 1978. As we all know, Mr. Coelho went on to become the House majority whip. Throughout his career, Mr. Coelho cited the mentorship of Mr. Sisk as one of the keys to his success. Less directly, Mr. Sisk also had an impact on many current Members of Congress, myself included. He set an example of a nonpartisan, moderate Democrat who put accomplishments for his district ahead of party politics. It is an example that I and many others have tried to follow. Again, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the memory of B.F. Sisk.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, we have heard why there are good reasons for senior citizens to be very concerned about this reconciliation bill. We have heard very good reasons on why the working poor ought to feel threatened by the passage of this reconciliation bill. I am here to explain why farmers throughout this country, in particular dairy farmers, should be very, very concerned about the prospects of what is included in this bill. The dairy title in this reconciliation bill, if it was instituted, would require the immediate deregulation of our dairy industry. It would eliminate any type of dairy policy that has guided this country for the last 60 years, that has ensured stability of prices throughout this country. They would eliminate that overnight, which would ensure that we would have thousands of dairy farmers throughout this country being driven into bankruptcy. Every economist that has analyzed the deregulation plan has come to the conclusion that it would result in at least a 15-percent decline in prices, and dairy farmers cannot withstand that. This policy is also one which is not consistent with Republican philosophy, as far as I can tell, because the Republican proposals for dairy farmers in this, with their deregulation, they are willing to obligate taxpayers of this country to start writing checks to dairy farmers. In fact, the provisions of this dairy title would allow a dairy farmer today to sell his herd in the next month, and taxpayers for the next 7 years would be required to write them a check, even if they were not milking another cow for the next 7 years. In fact, a dairy farmer in my area with a 1,000 cow herd would be eligible under this dairy program that the Republicans are promoting for a $200,000 check next year, a $200,000 check coming from the taxpayers of this country. The Republicans campaigned on a Contract With America. They campaigned that they were going to do good things. They convinced some of their constituencies they were going to do good things, but this contract that the Republicans are signing for the taxpayers on behalf of the dairy farmers in this country is obligating them to a check that they are going to write that they cannot afford. It is bad policy and we ought to defeat this bill.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today to pay a special tribute to Hugh Handley, who is retiring after serving 23 years as the agricultural commissioner of Kings County. Over that time, Hugh has not only kept up with the myriad changes in agricultural practices in California's Central Valley, he has helped develop them. His coworkers consider him an encyclopedia of information, and they no doubt will miss his expertise. As ag commissioner, Hugh has witnessed technological breakthroughs made by the farms in his county, and has tried to provide a supportive role to those breakthroughs. He managed to maintain this even as government budgets were reduced. One major development in the county that Hugh was directly responsible for was the building of a one-stop agricultural government center. The center houses all of the agricultural offices for the county, the U.C. Cooperative Extension, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, greatly benefiting farmers by simplifying the process of dealing with government agencies. While the center is only a building, it embodies the approach to his job that Hugh has maintained--he has always sought to make [[Page E 1957]] the complex world of government rules and regulations more manageable to farmers so that they can spend more of their time farming rather than digging through redtape. For that and his wealth of knowledge and impressive body of experience, the farming community in Kings County will miss Hugh. As a county farmer myself, and as a Congressman, I salute Hugh Handley and wish him a very happy retirement.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today to pay a special tribute to Jack Stone, a fellow Kings County farmer and rancher who has been honored by his community. A true pioneer of the San Joaquin Valley's west side, Jack is an especially appropriate choice as the first ever Lemoore Chamber of Commerce Agriculturalist of the year. Before World War II, Jack began farming land on the westside, growing grain and cotton. In those days his land was irrigated with well water pumped from underground. With construction of the San Luis unit of the Central Valley Project in 1968, Jack and his fellow west side farmers realized a life-long dream of bringing fresh surface water to their farms. That change helped transform the west side into one of the most productive agricultural regions in the Nation. But this transformation could not have been possible without the farsighted and stubborn commitment of farmers like Jack Stone. As one of the visionaries who helped make the VCP a reality, Jack was appointed to the Wetlands Water District Board of directors in 1972, and was elected president 4 years later. He led the district through years of significant change, including two sever droughts, the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, the Kesterson Reservoir controversy, and the CVP Improvement Act of 1992. Jack also has served on the boards of more than 20 community, farm, academic, and water-related organizations. He is past chairman of its producers steering committee; a past member of the International Cotton Advisory Committee; and past president of the Western Cotton Growers Association. He was the Irrigation Institute's Man of the Year in 1989; was inducted into the Cotton Hall of Fame in 1992; and is an active member of the Kings Country sheriff's posse. Jack Stone is a dedicated valley and west side resident who has played a significant role in the development of Kings County agriculture. I applaud the Lemoore Chamber of Commerce for Recognizing his contributions.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I commend and thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for all the good work the gentleman has done over the years in advancing legislation and I commend the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for his efforts too. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 70, I rise in strong support of the committee's proposed bill. Although current law may have made a great deal of sense in 1973, like many other laws, it is now having the unintended consequences of reduced domestic oil production resulting in job losses in many parts of the country. We, therefore, should support this legislation and repeal the ban and authorize exports of Alaskan North Slope oil. As reported by the Committee on Resources, H.R. 70 has been endorsed by the Clinton administration. The bill is also supported by small and independent oil producers, including the California Independent Petroleum Association and, in addition, because the bill would require exports to be carried on U.S.-flag vessels, it also has the strong support of maritime labor. The legislation is particularly important to the independent producers who make up a vital element of the industry. The independent producers testified before the Committee on Resources that current law forces oil from the No. 1 producing State, Alaska, into the number three producing State in the country, California. By creating this artificial glut, the law continues to depress California heavy crude production. Though no one in 1973 would have predicted that the original export restrictions would force job losses throughout my State, today independent producers are forced to bear the unintended consequences of that action. The Department of Energy did do a study that many of us support, and a study where some of the conclusions, I think, may be a very compelling argument for this legislation: That oil production, because of the passage of this legislation, will increase by 100,000 barrels per day; that we will see up to 25,000 jobs being created by a result of increase in investment; we will see State and Federal revenues that will increase by hundreds of millions of dollars well into the future. These benefits can be achieved with little if any impact on consumer prices. When Congress enacted the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System in 1973, it did not ban exports. Rather, it recognized that exports might some day be in the national interest and as the Department of Energy studies demonstrate, that day has arrived. Mr. Chairman, we now have an opportunity to spur additional energy production and create jobs. With imports now meeting over 50 percent of our domestic consumption because of falling production, we must do something quickly to increase energy production in this country. Some of my colleagues have argued that this is not a good policy to allow for the export of Alaskan oil. But the bottom line is, this policy, if it is enacted, will increase the profitability, it will increase the financial viability of independent oil production, which will increase the productive capacity of oil production in this United States. That clearly contributes to increased energy independence and clearly is good policy. H.R. 70 will enhance our national energy security, it will create jobs, and it is good policy. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the pending legislation and against any weakening amendments.

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller amendment. I think we really need to step back and ask why are we here today. Why are we on the verge of passing H.R. 70? We are here because of a policy of the past which placed limitations on the utilization of oil produced in Alaska. We have a policy in place which is forcing the crude which is being produced in Alaska to be refined on the West Coast. This has obviously had the adverse impacts in parts of California and other parts of the country of diminishing the amount of oil being produced there and also of having adverse economic impacts. What this amendment is doing is pretty much just the same. It is saying that we will allow for some exportation of oil, but we are still going to continue Government policies which arbitrarily state that you cannot export any oil except for that that is over the 1.35 million barrels per day. Mr. Chairman, We do not know what the future will hold. However, there is one constant. If we have the faith in the market system, the marketplace will dictate where oil was produced, whether it be in Alaska, in California, or in many other parts of the world, where it will be utilized. The bottom line is that if the refiners on the West Coast that are currently using Alaskan crude oil, if they are willing to pay the market price for that crude oil, that oil will flow to those refiners, as it is today. They might have to pay just a little more of that to reflect what the real market price for that crude oil will be. If we place this amendment in place, Mr. Chairman, we are once again putting up an arbitrary restriction or impediment to how the marketplace should work. Clearly, that is not good policy. We also have provisions within the legislation which I think address some of the concerns of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. That is, if we do find that any oil producer or exporter of oil is engaging in any type of activity which could have an adverse impact on consumers or refiners, the Secretary of Commerce is then authorized to take actions and impose sanctions against that export. Therefore, I think we have the safeguards in place which will ensure that consumers and refiners are not adversely impacted. Mr. Chairman, I think this country will be far better served if we embrace a policy which is predicted on the marketplace providing the best determination to where oil produced in Alaska should go.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, this week all of us were greeted when we read our morning newspaper, regardless of where we were in the country, that the United States was experiencing the largest trade deficit in history, that we had an $11.5 billion trade deficit. It is ironic that today on the floor of this House, we are considering passing an amendment that would increase that trade deficit. Our agricultural exports are one of the few sectors of our economy to have a positive balance of trade. We are exporting over $51 billion worth of agricultural goods, creating a $20 billion surplus of trade in that sector. When we look at this, we are doing this in light of the fact that we are being grossly overspent by our competitors in the international marketplace. If we look what the EC is spending, they are spending 10 times as much as the United States is. On wine exports alone, the EC has their subsidies of $90 billion. That is more than we spend on the entire market promotion program. We talk about the arguments about the major corporations and cooperatives in this country, but the only way a cotton farmer in California or an apple grower in Pennsylvania or a dairy farmer in New York can market their products overseas is through some type of cooperative or some type of corporation. The MPP gives the tools to the farmers, to the cooperatives, so they can compete against the unfair international competition. Mr. Chairman, this program is a program that works. This chart clearly demonstrates that since MPP was instituted, our trade balance has gone up with our agricultural products. It is a success. Do not listen to some of the arguments of our urban neighbors and urban colleagues. Vote for MPP.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for $4.7 million for the Federal courthouse project located in Fresno, CA. Because the Committee chose not to fund any new starts, this project did not receive any funding. However, I believe that the unique circumstances surrounding the Fresno Courthouse project merit further consideration by the Appropriations Committee. I am currently working with our Senators from California to ensure that funding is included in the Senate's Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, today there is a crisis in Fresno. The Fresno courthouse has fewer courtrooms than judges, and the court has projected that five more judges will be appointed within the next eight years. The Fresno Division of the Eastern District, which represents 2.3 million persons, has the largest population per judgeship of any U.S. District, and the Bureau of Census ranks Fresno as first among the fastest growing cities in America. The court system cannot handle its current case load with its available resources, and the only solution is to build additional courtroom facilities. When the GSA began investigating the overcrowding problem several years ago, they sought to identify all available options. GSA came to the conclusion that it would be in the taxpayers best interest to build a new facility rather than renovate the current building or build an addition to the current building. The City of Fresno has taken a responsible approach to helping the crisis at the Fresno District Court. They have agreed to donate 4.5 acres in the downtown region, not far from the current courthouse's location. The agreement between Fresno and the GSA will save the taxpayers $4.7 million since purchasing the land will not be necessary. I would like to stress that this appropriation would be for the design phase only and not for land acquisition as was requested in the President's budget. In addition to donating the land, Fresno will also complete all site preparation, and will build 392 new public parking spaces around the project. The environmental impact study has been completed and the last public hearings have been held (without negative reaction). Because Fresno is willing, at this time, to donate the land for the courthouse project, we need to act quickly to codify this agreement. By appropriating funds for this project now, we can save taxpayers the cost of purchasing land in the future. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, this is an unique situation. We have a demonstrated need for a new courthouse and we have the local government willing to assist this project thereby reducing the taxpayers burden to complete the Fresno Courthouse Project. This is the type of cooperative agreement the Federal Government ought to embrace, not discourage. By not appropriating funds for this project, we may not have the opportunity to enter into similar agreements in the future.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Danish Creamery Association, the Nation's oldest continually operated, farmer- owned dairy cooperative. Danish Creamery is celebrating its 100th anniversary. In the tradition of all agricultural cooperatives, Danish Creamery has a long history of bolstering the economy of the cities and counties of California. Since 1895, the association has helped valley dairy farmers provide markets for their milk and has supplied the entire State with quality butter and dairy products. The creamery and the member dairy farms are also important employers in the region. Over the years, the Danish Creamery Association has led the way in the advancement of dairy technology and in interstate and international marketing. It has also been an important voice in the development of national programs for the betterment of the entire dairy industry. Mr. Speaker, I commend Danish Creamery for reaching its 100th anniversary and wish the association continuing success in providing its members with this valuable service.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Endangered Species Relisting Act of 1995. I represent the most productive agricultural region in the entire country, and as such, we have experienced our fair share of frustration with the Endangered Species Act. Of the 944 U.S. species currently listed as endangered or threatened, my home State of California has 107 of these listed species. This bill is not intended to be a comprehensive reform of the Endangered Species Act, but rather a focused approach to address specific issues that I believe must be a part of the debate on reforming the Endangered Species Act. I would like to take this opportunity to explain my legislation. First, I think it is very important that we not only amend the process for future listings of species, but that we ensure that those species already on the list meet a level of scientific scrutiny. For that reason, my legislation requires relisting of all species now on the threatened and endangered list. The concept is simple. if the science is there, the species can stay on the list. If the science isn't there, it come off. One of the most disturbing aspects of the current listing process is that a species like the San Joaquin kit fox, which was originally listed in 1967, was placed on the list with little or no scientific information. The second concept in my proposal is to require peer review of all science used in all stages of the listing and delisting process. This is a simple concept that merely ensures that one scientist or group of scientists doesn't unilaterally make decisions on a species. I think that this concept has been embraced by nearly all involved in the ESA debate. The next concept deals with the development of recovery plans. I believe that recovery should be the cornerstone of the Endangered Species Act. Leaving species on the threatened or endangered list for 30 years is not a productive way of protecting important species. I believe we must make a determination of whether a species can be recovered and implement a plan quickly. Without a timeline for recovery, landowners are left in a situation of not knowing what can and cannot be done on their property and how long these restrictions will last. My proposal would require the development of a recovery plan within 12 months after the listing of a species. More importantly, it would require the Secretary of the Interior to consider multiple recovery plans and to choose the least cost alternative. This provision is based on a provision of the Clean Water Act. It allowed for the development of a historic agreement on the bay-delta in California. Finally, my proposal address the issue of incidental take. As you know, under current law, a landowner must apply for an incidental take permit. This can be a long and frustrating process. However, without a permit, any destruction of critical habitat or killing of a listed species constitutes a violation of the law regardless of the intent of the landowner. This section of my proposal attempts to allow landowners to engage in certain activities that may result in the incidental take of critical habitat or a listed species without being subject to action under the ESA, without going through the present onerous permit process. As I stated earlier, the current endangered species list has well over 700 species listed. However, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service only 17 species have ever been removed from the list--and some of these have been removed because they became extinct, not because they were recovered. It seems that progress on recovering species is, at best, ineffective. At worst, the recover portion of the Endangered Species Act seems to be nonexistent. I hope that we will be able to make responsible reforms to the ESA to ensure that significant species are protected, while balancing the economic and social costs of such protection. I want to be able to point to an ESA that actually accomplishes the recovery of species and gives landowners some certainty of the availability of land for continue and future use.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Jerald R. Butchert, a personal friend of mine and a man who has worked tirelessly to make the San Joaquin Valley the most fertile agricultural land on Earth. Jerry is retiring May 31 as general manager of the Westlands Water District. For the past 18 years, Jerry has been general manager of the Nation's largest agricultural water district, a district which approximately equals the State of Rhode Island in area. Jerry has built a career on the prudent management of water, and has helped build Westlands into one of the most impressive water-delivery systems in the world. Jerry was a key participant in the negotiations that led to the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, legislation which forever changed the face of the Westlands' farming operations, and created new opportunities for young landowners and farmers. He also led the district's ongoing negotiations with the Federal Government on the need for adequate drainage service. More recently, Jerry was active in discussions that led to the historic Bay-Delta agreement, an agreement that helped bring stability to the Delta and to California's agricultural water supply. He is currently playing an important role in efforts to reform the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act. A civil engineering graduate of Fresno State College, Jerry began his career as an engineer for the Fresno Irrigation District. He later served as the executive officer of the Eel River Water Council, and as the legislative representative in Washington, DC for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. He has continued to be active in water organizations throughout his career, serving as a director of the National Water Resources Association, the Central Valley Project Water Association, and the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority. He is a member of the Drainage Oversight Committee of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, the Association of California Water Agencies, and the American Society of Civil Engineers. Jerry and his wife, Carrie Lou, have four children and five grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Jerry Butchert has a long record of achievement in his career. He has earned our honor and respect in his retirement. Mr. Speaker, please join me and my colleagues in recognizing by good friend Jerry Butchert.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor K. Phillip Maroot, of my hometown of Hanford, CA, who is being honored today by the Hanford Chamber of Commerce as its 1994 Distinguished Citizen for his many years of service to his community. Phil Maroot is an attorney who has practiced in Hanford for more than 30 years, first as a Kings County assistant district attorney, then in private practice, where he is a partner in the law firm of Maroot, Hardcastle, Hatherly. While Phil has developed a successful law practice, he has contributed countless hours to improving his community. Phil has been very involved with our local schools, serving on the Hanford Elementary School District board of trustees, on the Hanford High School District budget and curriculum committee, and as president of the College of the Sequoias Foundation. Phil's community service has also extended to serving as president of the Rotary Club of Hanford, vice president of the Hanford chapter of the American Cancer Society, president of the Kings County Bar Association, and board member for the Kings County Salvation Army. Phil has long been active in the Hanford Chamber of Commerce, serving a term as president, and also chairing task forces on the restoration of Hanford's 100-year-old courthouse and the carousel in Courthouse Park. For the past 8 years, he has chaired the Visitor Agency advisory board, where he is also chairman of its downtown hotel development project. Phil Maroot's Kings County roots run deep. Born in Corcoran, Phil is the son of the late John Maroot, a former member of the Kings County board of supervisors. He graduated from Corcoran High School, where he was student body president, earned his bachelor's degree at Pomona College, and graduated from Stanford Law School in 1957. Upon graduation, he served as an Army officer before joining the Kings County district attorney's office in 1964. Phil's wife, Jeannette, is the owner of Carlson-Wagonlit United Travel Agency in Hanford. The Maroots raised two children, Greg an Becky. Phil Maroot's long and varied record of service to his community has truly earned him the title ``Distinguished Citizen.'' Please join me, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, in honoring Phil Maroot.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. This terrible human tragedy must not and will not be forgotten. Like the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide stands as an historical example of the human suffering that results from hatred and intolerance. More often than not, when people think of genocide or ethnic cleansing, it is the Holocaust that comes to mind. However, let us remember that the Armenian genocide was the historical basis of Adolf Hitler's plan for the Holocaust. Today we commemorate the Armenian genocide and reflect upon the suffering endured by Armenia and her people--to ensure that this terrible tragedy is not forgotten. One and one-half million Armenian people were massacred by the Ottoman Turkish empire between 1915 and 1923. More than 500,000 Armenians were exiled from a homeland that their ancestors had occupied for more than 3,000 years. A race of people was nearly eliminated. It would be a great tragedy to forget that this loss of human life and homeland ever occurred. Years prior to unleashing his plans for the Holocaust, Hitler predicted that no one would remember the atrocities and the human suffering endured by the Armenians. After all, it was Hitler who posed the question, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Our statements today are intended to preserve the memory of the Armenian loss, and to remind the world that the Turkish Government continues to refuse acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide. This 80th anniversary is underscored by the current suffering of the Armenian people, who remain immersed in tragedy and violence by the continuing unrest between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the region of Nagorno-Karabagh. Thousands of innocent people have already perished in this dispute, and still many more have been displaced and are homeless. Frustrating the situation is the continuing destruction of fuel and power lines, as well as the blockade of supply routes into Armenia through neighboring Georgia and Turkey. In the face of this difficult situation comes an opportunity for reconciliation. Now is the time for Armenia and its neighbors, including Turkey, to come together, to work toward a lasting peace and to rebuild relationships between countries. The first step in this process should be ending of the blockades that are hampering the recovery of Armenia and her people. Although Turkey has recently opened an air corridor to Armenia, the land blockade continues to frustrate humanitarian relief efforts. Meanwhile, in America, the Armenian-American community prospers and continues to provide solidarity and assistance to its countrymen and women abroad. Numbering nearly 1 million, the Armenian-American community is bound together by strong generational and family ties, an enduring work ethic and a proud sense of ethnic heritage. Today we remember the tragedy of their past, not to place blame, but to answer a fundamental question, Who remembers the Armenians? Today our commemoration of the Armenian genocide speaks directly to that end, and I answer, We do.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the bill that is on the floor. And I rise in support of it for really one basic reason, because we are talking about fairness, we are talking about equity. We are talking about if this Government determines that it is in the interests of our greater society to provide for protection of a species, to provide for amenities that can benefit our life and our environment, that the cost of providing for that enhancement should not be borne solely by those who own private property. The basic principle is if we are going to provide for benefits and the greater society is going to benefit from them, the greater society at large should bear those costs. There have been some Members who have spoken that we are actually trying to change the Constitution with the amendment. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are doing is basically building upon the precedents which have been set by the Supreme Court. But what we are trying to do is to ensure that that business owner on Main Street, that farmer in Illinois or that farmer in Louisiana or the farmer in California does not have to spend the legal fees, does not have to spend his time in the courts spending thousands of dollars in order to achieve the compensation for what is a taking by a regulatory action. There are other comments that were made earlier about the fact this bill could bankrupt the country and there were some analyses that were made about a prior bill offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] that dealt with wetlands, that it would cost the Government $15 to $20 billion if we were to provide for compensation and that is precisely the point we are trying to get at, is that $15 to $20 billion is now being borne by individuals, individuals that oftentimes do not have the resources, individuals who are working very hard to maintain a living for their family, to generate the income in order to send their children to college and in order to provide for a lifestyle which everyone should have the right to expect. One other issue. There was some talk about the relationship to the Bureau of Reclamation being a part of this act. The bottom line is what we are talking about is that you cannot have the Government unilaterally abrogate a contract without compensation. What we are trying to do is extend some of the same concepts that the private sector currently is mandated to comply with, that if you enter into a contract you are bound by that contract. If the Federal Government chooses to change an existing contract, they should be honor bound and mandated to provide a level of compensation for that. I think that this is an appropriate extension of this act. I think by the passage of this legislation we are going to ensure a more judicious application of our environmental regulations, we are going to assure greater equity and greater compensation to all private individuals and private property owners.

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Goss amendment. I stand behind no one in my efforts to protect private property rights, but those of us in this delegation also have an obligation to protect interests of taxpayers. With the 10-percent threshold, we have established in this bill, we are creating the opportunity to create a tremendous windfall that, for those of us who are interested in protecting private property rights, insuring they are going to receive some compensation, if we leave it at that 10 percent, we are going to ensure that this whole system of compensation will implode, because 1 year after this bill would be passed and enacted, we are going to have so many cases and examples of people throughout this country who are gaming the system at 10 percent because they are going to be able to find an appraiser, a lawyer who is going to be able to market a service that they are going to go out to landowners who have seen, because of market fluctuations, a decline in value, and they are going to be able to tell you that on a contingency basis, ``I will go out and work your case, take it to an arbitration panel, and if I win on that and get compensation for 10 percent, I will take a portion of that fee.'' We are going to be creating a nightmare. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is bringing some reason to this; it is ensuring that there has to be a threshold large enough that it cannot be used--that has to be greater than what can be normal and traditional fluctuations in the marketplace. We all know, those of us in farming such as myself, we have seen fluctuations in market values over 10 percent every year. For those of us who have been involved in the Endangered Species Act, we have also seen cases in California in the last several years where we have had droughts where you have had the listing of endangered species, and how are you going to differentiate between what is the lowering of the value from the drought and because of the delisting of a species? There is no way you can do that. At 30 percent, we provide some reason and some balance. I think this is a reasonable compromise and makes this legislation far more effective.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, while we considered offering an amendment, we do not, at this time, believe that the bay-delta agreement is jeopardized by H.R. 450. We are, however, seeking your assurance that should questions arise during continued debate on this legislation, you will work with us to make sure that the agreement--which is so important to the agricultural, urban, and environmental interests of California--is protected from the requirements of H.R. 450.