Sam Farr

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an issue of great importance to the boating community nationwide; the problems caused by the marine diesel fuel tax provisions imposed under the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993. Under this provision, two types of marine diesel fuel are available to boaters. Clear, taxable fuel is offered for sale to recreational boaters, while blue-dyed non-taxable diesel fuel is offered for sale to commercial boaters. In effect, this provision forces commercial vendors of marine diesel fuel to either dispense two types of diesel fuel which must be stored in separate tanks, often at the unnecessary and excessively burdensome cost of building an additional tank, or to offer only one type of diesel fuel, usually the dyed, which is not readily available for sale to pleasure boaters. While this tax provision was meant to ensure that recreational boaters pay their fair share of marine diesel fuel taxes, it has instead created a disastrous situation where many recreational boaters cannot find clear, non-dyed taxable fuel for their use. This provision often forces boaters to travel long, often perilous distances at sea, in the search for diesel fuel. I am offering a practical solution to this problem. My bill would amend the marine diesel fuel tax provision to all boaters, both commercial and recreational, to purchases dyed diesel fuel and pay applicable taxes at the pump. The bill would make it easier for fuel vendors to offer taxable fuel for sale while making it easier and safer for recreational boaters to purchase this fuel. The greater availability of dyed diesel fuel could even lead to an increase in current revenues to the United States Treasury. Commercial boaters would remain exempted from this tax. Mr. Speaker, this problem is not specific to one particular district or State. Boaters nationwide are suffering from the unavailability of diesel fuel at local marinas. I urge my colleagues in the House to act on this legislation as soon as possible to ensure safe and fair access to diesel fuel for all boaters.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the ranking member, for yielding and stand in strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is not broken. It does not need fixing. You have excess Federal housing which is allowed under present law to be given to community nonprofits with independent funding and without requiring the Federal Government to make appropriations. We have in the largest base closing in the United States 26 community foundations, organizations, that are providing for the homeless at Fort Ord. This is a very successful program. If you take this away, you are going to require those agencies to go to the Federal Government to have housing for the homeless. Homelessness is a problem which our society has to deal with. Why take away the very one element of Federal law when you have excess land that allows them to get in and have that excess land where there is local approval? It is working at Fort Ord, Philadelphia, New York, Maine, Washington, and throughout a number of States in the United States.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman from Georgia's amendment to H.R. 1561, the McKinney Arms Code of Conduct. The Arms Code of Conduct is a rational approach. It implements a coherent and comprehensive arms control policy. This legislation would prohibit U.S. military assistance and arms transfers to foreign governments, unless the President certifies that the foreign government adheres to a national code of conduct. In order to be eligible for military assistance, the gentlewoman's amendment specifically requires that the foreign government head be elected through a fair and free elections process; that the country respect human rights and not be engaged in any aggression which violates international law; and must fully participate in the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms. The United States is the sole superpower in the world and the world's undisputed leader in arms exports. Today, U.S. firms dominate more than 70 percent of the international arms sale market, up from 57 percent in 1991. According to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's 1993- 94 report, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, the United States sold $10.3 closest competitor, which is Great Britain, which racked up $4.3 billion in sales. In 1994 alone, the U.S. taxpayer paid more to subsidize weapons sales than we paid for the Federal elementary and secondary education programs. Ninety percent of the significant ethnic and territorial conflicts in the world in the last 2 years involve one or more parties which had received some type of U.S. weaponry or military technology in a period leading up to the conflict. Additionally, in the war with Iraq there were countless documented and verified instances where U.S. troops faced the enemy who was armed with U.S. based technology and weaponry. Mr. Chairman, as the world's leading exporter of weaponry, the United States has an implicit responsibility to provide global leadership on this issue by formulating a policy of restraint. While the world's arms market is a lucrative venture, no country has been willing to take up unilateral steps toward control, fearing loss of exports to market competitors. Therefore, it is vital as the world's leading supplier, that the United States take responsibility for initiating a comprehensive and a rational approach to controlling arms sales, which will prevent repeat scenarios, such as those that occurred in Iraq where United States forces faced weapons supplied by the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the McKinney Arms Code of Conduct amendment. This amendment is supported by 103 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans alike, including the chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Approving this legislation will be one of the most significant steps this body takes to enhance our national foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Brownback amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is not even a pennywise issue. It is an issue that goes to the very heart of cutting what I think is one of the most important programs that this country has to offer, the U.S. Peace Corps. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, has already reduced the President's request for the Peace Corps by $3 million. In tight times, although I do not like the reduction, I think we can live with that, but this amendment goes far beyond that. Now is the time in American history when we need to strengthen American awareness and American involvement in cost-effective ways abroad, and I think the Peace Corps does that. Now is the time we need Americans working in Eastern Europe and South America, in Eastern Asia. I know, and nine other colleagues of mine in this body know what it is like to have been working in the Peace Corps because we were all former Peace Corps volunteers. The 2 years that we spent overseas really taught us, and I think each of us and all of the other thousands of returned Peace Corps volunteers have been able to come home with a language, with an understanding of a culture, with an understanding of foreign governments, with an understanding of how to build infrastructure in a cost-effective way. Let me give one example. We talk a lot about foreign aid and how we are going to try to get the world community into education. Most people do not realize that in developing countries, the youth of those countries in the rural areas have to deal with the basic necessities of life. Most of their time is spent gathering water. Indeed, if you want to have children go to school, you have to build a water system, because they are needed for the labor to support the families. That is not going to be done by sophisticated foreign aid projects or international diplomacy. That is going to be done by people in the very areas, in the rural areas of this world being able to work with the people to develop the self-help programs that they need, to develop the infrastructure so that indeed we can have a stabilized world. Also I would like to mention that the Peace Corps has been, throughout its history, strongly supported in a bipartisan fashion. I think to take this partisan amendment and to reduce the Peace Corps is essentially a blow to the strongest program that we have had throughout this world. There is not a country where the Peace Corps has served or is being asked to serve that does not realize the benefit that they provide in having a two-way system where volunteers from the United States of all ages can go and spend 2 years of their life working in a country, and at the same time come back with the strength of knowing the rest of the world. I am in strong support of reauthorizing the program. I regret that it is going to be even reduced by the $3 million from what the President has requested, but this amendment goes much further than that. It is very destructive, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this substitute measure authored by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. It is not a perfect fix of H.R. 961's problems, but it offers a rational middle ground that preserves the rights of H.R. 961 while turning back H.R. 961's most damaging proposals, and it is interesting to note that many of my colleagues served in State legislatures before coming here, and I would like to point out that in a letter that I received from the National Conference of State Legislators they indicate that unless H.R. 961 is significantly amended during the floor consideration, the NCSL urges them to vote against this bill, and they point out that the problems with the bill that is before us that are addressed by this amendment is that the bill in print limits State discretion to impose effluent limits which are different than Federal limits. It also reduces State authority to update and strengthen controls on toxic and other discharges by providing that effluent limitations only be reviewed every 10 years. So not only myself and others are urging our colleagues to support this, but the State legislatures are as well. The substitute amendment restores vital protections for wetlands, but makes commonsense exemptions for agriculture, flood control and other important activities. These provisions are based on wetlands language offered by the National Governors Association and increase the States' role in wetland's protection. The substitute amendment replaces the repeal of the Coastal Zone Management Act non-point source program included in H.R. 961 with amendments to improve the program proposed by Coastal States Organizations. Any legislator representing a coastal State knows the significance of having the ability to control non-point source run off because it runs into the ocean. Our local economies are based on the fact that people make livings off that ocean, both for recreation and primarily for commercial fishing, and if that environment is not safe, and sound, and clean, then we are going to destroy the very economic base of many of our coastal regions. Mr. Chairman, I think this bill in its drafted form goes a long way to doing that, so that is why I support the Saxton proposal, because it is a reasonable alternative, it is going to help protect clean water, and we need to do that because we are just borrowing time from future generations, and we need to turn over the world in a better shape than which it is in now. So I urge my colleagues to support this substitute. National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, DC, May 8, 1995. Re H.R. 961, Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995. Hon. Sam Farr, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Farr: On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures, I am writing to express concerns about H.R. 961 as reported by committee. Unless H.R. 961 is significantly amended during bill. In partnership with the federal government, states have worked diligently for more than two decades to achieve the Clean Water Act's goals of restoring and maintaining our nation's waters. The Clean Water Act serves as a baseline for state programs, while giving states flexibility to go beyond federal minimum requirements. Many of the problems facing our nation's water bodies are interstate in character and cannot be addressed by any state acting alone. Over the past two decades states have come to rely upon the state-federal partnership that is the cornerstone of our system of public health protection. While NCSL applauds H.R. 961's proposed increases in SRF funding, efforts to provide states with greater flexibility, and other provisions that directly benefit state and local government, we are concerned with other aspects of the bill. For instance, if enacted in its present form, H.R. 961 would permit increased degradation of our nation's waters and allow for delay in achieving the Clean Water Act's goals. We urge you to seriously consider any amendments which aim to strike a proper balance between increased state authority and preservation of minimum federal standards. One of our specific concerns with H.R. 961 is that it would reverse our nation's goal of eliminating the net loss of both wetlands acreage and wetlands habitat values. Wetlands are an integral component of both the environmental and economic health of our nation. They provide important economic and recreational benefits such as hunting, fishing, natural flood control, recharge zones for groundwater aquifers, reduced shoreline erosion and water purification through filtration of sediments and toxic pollutants from runoff. Given the direct and indirect economic benefits that are derived from wetlands, we are concerned by provisions in H.R. 961 that would encourage and increase development activities in wetlands. In addition to the above, NCSL is also concerned with other provisions of H.R. 961. For instance, as reported by committee, H.R. 961 would: Limit state discretion to impose effluent limits which are different than federal limits; reduce state authority to update and strengthen controls on toxic and other discharges by providing that effluent limitations can only be reviewed every ten years; relax effluent pretreatment standards for waste waters destined for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW's); and waive compliance time deadlines for any year in which actual funding levels fall short of authorized levels. While NCSL supports many of the bill's provisions that would directly benefit states and their political subdivisions, we nonetheless do have concerns with other aspects of the bill. It is our sincere hope that floor amendments during consideration of the bill will succeed in addressing and resolving our concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you. Sincerely, Jane Campbell, President, NCSL, Assistant Minority Leader, Ohio House of Representatives.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 961 and urge my colleagues to reject this overreaching piece of legislation. The Clean Water Act is really one of our Nation's most effective environmental laws, one of our Nation's most effective environmental laws. In 1972, the year of the Clean Water Act's birth, only one our of three rivers are clean enough for people to fish or swim. Now, the EPA estimates that over 60 percent of our waters are clean enough for fishing and swimming. I am the first to acknowledge that it is not perfect, and that sometimes it imposes rigid and unneeded requirements that it need not do. Unfortunately, the bill as written fails to target what is broken in the Clean Water Act and build on what works. Instead it throws out good along with the bad. H.R. 961 would remove 60 percent of our Nation's remaining wetlands from any level of protection. It would weaken standards that protect our waters from industrial pollution by creating dozens of waivers and loopholes. And frankly, it would repeal the entire coastal zone nonpoint source pollution program which on the coastal counties of California would severely hamper the State of California's efforts to preserve the waters off of our coast so that they can be indeed recreational and economically viable for the fish industry. These changes do not make environmental sense if they are going to gut the bill. And they certainly do not make any economic sense. The drafters of H.R. 961 have created a bill that accounts for the cost of everything but the value of nothing. I have no doubt that H.R. 961 will save a great many people a great deal of money. But is this good value for future generations? Clearly, the answer is no. Future generations will pay dearly in many ways to recover the environmental and economic damage that H.R. 961 will allow. The best feature of the Clean Water Act is that it is a prevention program. It stops pollution before it gets into our waters. H.R. 961 would make the Clean Water Act more like the Superfund, one of the most broken environmental programs. It litigates first and cleans up later. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk these days about contracts. There is the Republican Contract With America. There is the contract with America's veterans. There is the contract with Federal retirees. And there is the contract with senior citizens. So far this year, the spotlight has been on the Republican Contract With America. The Republicans are quite boastful about moving their contract through the House in 100 days. But what about the other contracts? What about the promises made to veterans, Federal retirees, and senior citizens? I am particularly concerned about breaking America's contract with our senior citizens. For years we have promised reasonable health care through the Medicare system. Now the Republicans are willing to sacrifice Medicare--and the seniors who depend on it--in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. If the Republicans want to meet the terms of this country's contract with senior citizens, then they should look elsewhere for their budget and tax fixes than the pocketbooks of our senior citizens.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman very much for that understanding, Mr. Chairman, and I say to the gentleman, I look forward to working with you.

Mr. FARR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Santa Cruz Port District has offered to retain crew quarters in the current building. It has also offered to provide patrol boat berthing adjacent to the current Coast Guard building, and provide a communications network. The Port District would also maintain the premises and provide administrative support to meet any needs that the Coast Guard has in deploying resources to the Santa Cruz Harbor District. Personnel cost would be minimal as Coast Guard reservist would man the facility and a Coast Guard presence would be required only on weekends during summer months. Essentially, the community would provide for all costs associated with maintaining the substation. Does this sound like a reasonable solution?

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, am I correct in assuming that a substation could remain open according to this bill if a community could come together to create a reasonable solution to maintaining limited Coast Guard presence without incurring costs associated with maintaining a Coast Guard substation facility?

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy between myself and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble]. I rise today to engage in a colloquy to confirm my understanding of the impact of the Coast Guard reauthorization bill on Santa Cruz, CA. Am I correct in my understanding of the bill that the substation will not be closed if public safety is endangered by departure of the Coast Guard presence?

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, as we honor the brave young men and women who gave so much of themselves in the Second World War, I thought it an opportune moment to reflect on the meaning of patriotism with the words of a special young man from my congressional district. Josh Pritchard, a 5th grade student at Capitola Elementary School, placed first among all students for the following essay on the meaning of the American flag: What The Flag Means To Me (By Josh Pritchard) To me, the American flag represents a dream, a great dream. A dream that someday America will be a place where everyone is treated equally, and no one is judged by their creed or religion. When Betsy Ross made the American flag, she meant it to represent America and freedom. Around the time when Betsy Ross made the flag, everyone wanted America to someday be a place where everyone is treated equally, and no one is judged by their creed or religion. That wasn't true back then and it's still not true now. In the last 219 years, we've come a lot closer to the dream, but we're still not there. To me, the flag is something to be proud of. The flag is what reminds me that someday America is going to be an even greater place. The flag represents a place where there is no one creed but a place where all creeds join together as one. A place where it doesn't matter what religion you are, what color hair you have, or what kind of clothes you wear--as long as you are you. That's the end of my essay but the dream still stands. Maybe in the next 100 years, the dream will come true.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill to provide disaster assistance to farmers who have no other access to disaster assistance. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues, Mr. Doolittle, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Pombo, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Herger, Mr. Fazio, Mrs. Seastrand, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Brown of California, Mr. Rose, and Mr. Dooley. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the central coast and northern California have been racked with flooding. My own district around the Monterey Bay area has been the worst hit with more than $240 million in agriculture damage alone. But whereas small businesses and individuals have recourse to private flood insurance, to FEMA emergency assistance, and to low-interest loans from the SBA, most of the agriculture in my district has access to none of this help. Farmers who grow specialty crops--items like strawberries, artichokes, lettuce, and broccoli or flowers--are not eligible for Federal crop insurance. They are not eligible for FEMA assistance. They are not eligible for SBA loans. This situation is inherently unfair. A businessman whose business is washed out can apply for emergency grants and loans. A farmer with the same investment cannot, simply because his business is agriculture. Congress attempted to correct this hole in the safety net when in enacted the Non-Insured Assistance Program, or NAP. The purpose of NAP was to provide some assistance where none other was available. Unfortunately, even under this failsafe program, nearly 85 percent of affected farmers in my district are still not eligible for assistance. The problem arises in three areas: the definition of family farm; the threshold on income that determines eligibility; and, the amount of planted area that must be affected. In all these three cases, the criteria established looks reasonable on its face. But in real life, they deny access to aid to farmers who have suffered terrible crop losses. For example, the farms in my district--like most other districts--are run like businesses. The product is produce. Farms that are held by and operated by a single family are considered family farms in the traditional sense. But the NAP definition is unclear on this point and implementation of programs that use this definition have erred on the side of not including these family farmers simply because not every member of the family works on the farm, even though the chief operating officer is a family member. Another problem is that the NAP program disallows any farmer who has a gross income of $2 million. Many, many farmers have much more than this tied up in their farms. But after all is said and done, their net income is far, far lower than $2 million. But because the program looks at gross income and not net, these farmers are left uncovered. Finally, there is confusion over how much land and crop must be affected before a farmer becomes eligible for assistance under NAP. As I understand it, 35 percent of the area must be affected by the disaster. But area is not clearly defined. Is it county? Is it acres? Is it statewide? Also, NAP requires that a producer lose 50 percent of his crop before he can be eligible for aid. But what if a farmer loses 100 percent of his first crop but not of the two or three others he would have planted later? Has he lost 100 percent of his crop or only 33? If the decision is that he has lost only 33 percent of his crop, he cannot receive aid under NAP, but again, without assistance, he will have no funds with which to rebuild his farm or plant the other crops. Mr. Speaker, this is unfair. During times of emergency and disaster, this country has always risen to the occasion and provided relief to hurricane, flood, earthquake, drought, and fire victims, with one exception: farmers of specialty crops. Well, the livelihood of a strawberry farmer who gets flooded out is just as disrupted as the livelihood of a restaurant owner who gets flooded out. because one happens to make his living off the land. So today I and my colleagues are introducing legislation to correct this oversight. Very simply, this bill states that the Secretary of Agriculture shall be authorized to provide assistance from funds appropriated for disaster relief to farmers whose crops are otherwise not eligible for crop insurance coverage under existing department programs; and whose farm does not otherwise qualify for loans, grants, or disaster assistance from other Federal sources. What does this mean? This means, under those emergency situations where no other Federal programs are available for aid, the Secretary of Agriculture may--and I emphasize may; he isn't required to do so--open up existing agriculture relief programs to farmers who have no other recourse to assistance. This bill does not authorize additional funds but allows the Secretary to use already authorized funds in existing programs. Mr. Speaker, specialty crop farmers deserve no more than other farmers who suffer natural disasters. But they deserve no less, either. I thank my colleagues for joining me in introducing this bill and urge other Members of the House to support us in helping America's farmers.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 272, I was not present for that rollcall. Had I been here, I would have voted aye. I would like the Record to reflect that, immediately following the vote.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates-Vento amendment. Mr. Chairman I rise in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, without this amendment we will in one sweep double the cutting of timber from our national forests and virtually suspend all environmental laws protecting our forests. I urge you to support this amendment to strip the bill of provisions mandating specified levels of timber salvage sales. The bill would declare a 2-year emergency and direct the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to produce a minimum total of 3.115 million board feet of timber per year. Since when does Congress set minimum cuts? Is this an effort to reduce the risk of forest fires or an effort to serve special interest logging companies? The bill defines ``salvage'' timber to include the removal of live and healthy ``associated trees,'' the removal of insect infested trees and the removal of ``trees immediately susceptible to fire or insect attack.'' Mr. Chairman this bill is a radical and excessive chainsaw solution that requires the Federal Government to cut regardless of environmental impact and regardless of the cost to the American taxpayer. Vote for this amendment.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mineta amendment. It will take only a minute of my time, but I want to clarify for my colleagues what the amendment will do and what the amendment will not do. This amendment will result in greater disclosure of information to investors. It will encourage corporate officials to give investors useful information about their future plans. It will prevent the ``fraud-by-hindsight'' lawsuits that are crippling our high-technology industries. The bill will not give corporate officials a license to lie, because the authority of the SEC, the State regulators, the Justice Department and other law enforcement agencies will not be affected. It will not permit brokers or others to make promises about the company's prospects, because it clearly does not cover statements that are promises or assurances and it will not change the law of insider trading. If corporate insiders try to hype their company's stock and bail out before the investors know the real facts, they can be sued by the investors as well as by the SEC. This amendment simply says that when company officials talk about the future, the statements must be taken in context, and when they give clear warnings that their projections or estimates may not come true, they cannot be sued by private actions.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, Bud O'Brien was the kind of newspaperman--not journalist, mind you, newspaperman--who has become all but extinct. He got into the business not long after the end of World War II, when a way with words, combined with a feeling for people and real life, was considered as good as, if not better than, a college degree. After attending Adams State University in Alamosa, CO, Bud learned the newspaper business, both the good and the bad, first-hand from such smalltown editors as Harley Holden of the Loveland, CO, Daily Herald, Chap Wentworth of the Dunsmuir News, and Paul Bodenhamer of the Redding-Record Searchlight. By the time he arrived at the Register-Pajaronian in 1962, to be its wire editor and educational reporter, he was an accomplished and highly regarded professional. For three decades, as an editor and reporter, his substantial contributions helped the people of Watsonville enjoy the benefits of a first-class smalltown newspaper. His best work, which may be less directly visible to the public, came in the last 10 years, when he served as city editor and managing editor. His eye for talent brought a succession of fine people to the Pajaronian newsroom; his knowledge of the business and generous counsel helped scores of young reporters blossom to their full potential; and his rigorously reasoned and elegantly written editorials made a bracing and formidable contribution to the public debate. He was a man who loved his craft; who brought out the best in those he worked for; and who stood unflinchingly for what he believed to be right. His retirement is well-earned, but both the people of Watsonville and the newspaper business are worse off for it.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. So all of those cases that were brought here on the floor today where people talked about problems they were having with their constituents, none of those constituents, under the conditions they brought, will benefit from the gentleman's legislation?

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, that is only partially correct. This bill takes it a lot further. One, it requires that the Government write it down, the analysis; two, that they publish it.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out the difference between the Porter amendment before you and the Tauzin amendment that you have adopted. If you are really interested in trying to solve the problem of the property owner, you will listen very carefully. Because what the Porter amendment says is government, take a look before you do anything. The Tauzin amendment does not ask government to do anything except to act, and then to come back and bite you by suing you in court. The Porter amendment says write down, government, what you are going to do and tell us what the impact will be. Is there a likelihood that there will be a taking? If so, write it down. Give us an assessment of the likelihood that that taking will occur under such action and write it down. The Tauzin amendment does not require that. The alternatives that the government has to look to that would achieve the intended purpose and lessen the likelihood of taking the property, the Porter amendment does that. The Tauzin amendment does not. Then you go to the other end and you say all right, what does Tauzin do? It says government, after you have done your action, the property owner has up to six months to write a letter and claim compensation for the portion of their property that has been taken. And if they are not satisfied, if the government does not pay them off right away, then what do you do? You go into the exact same court for the exact same reasons on the exact same issues that you go into court for the Porter amendment. The remedy is the same. It is the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, and that is not changed by either of the bills. To get some idea that the landowner is going to be more easily compensated, that the process is going to be cheaper, that the end result is going to be better under the Tauzin amendment, is absolutely wrong, and that is why the Porter-Farr amendment makes such good sense. It is sense because it reaches a solution for the problem that occurs on the land by the landowner. It requires government to look before it leaps, to think before it acts, and to realize that if there is compensation need, to indeed pay for it. It is a much more sensible process to problem solving. If indeed that is what we were elected to do, then you will you support the Porter amendment.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because the bill that we have just adopted, as amended, creates a massive hole in America's abilities to pay for its actions. We have just created an ability for anyone who feels that a portion of their property has been affected by a Federal decision can go into court and claim money for it. As indicated by a letter from the administration, this creates new bureaucracies and it costs several billion dollars to have to pay for it. The amendment that I rise in support of essentially recognizes what I think everybody in this room has been talking about, that there is a remedy to the problem out there, but that remedy is not in the bill that is before you. It is actually in the amendment that we are debating right now. That remedy says let us take a look at the way you make these decisions on property. Require Government to take a look at the likelihood that a taking of private property will occur if they develop a law or regulation or an Government to assess the likelihood that a taking of private property will occur if indeed you develop that regulation; and to require the Government to look into alternatives to the agency's action. So you sit down and are able to work out with the landowner, with the local government that is involved, a way in which you can reach your goals, mutually agreed upon, without having to cause the taxpayers to have to pay for it. This is a very sensible bill. It is so sensible that a former President recommended that agencies should follow this process. It is so sensible that the majority leader in the Senate has introduced similar type legislation. Why have both those Republican leaders gone that route, rather than adopt the bill or support the bill that is before you now? It is because they both know that the Tauzin amendment as just adopted will indeed bankrupt the American taxpayer. Now, look at the bill as adopted. Who are the special interests supporting this? The National Mining Association, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Independent Refiners Association, American Forest and Paper Association, and International Council of Shopping Centers. Those do not sound like small landowners to me. They are the ones that are supporting the bill that was just adopted in this House. We need this amendment to correct the error that was made, to make sure that we protect the taxpayers' dollars, and indeed put land use planning back in local hands and protect the rights of property owners. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an aye vote on the Porter-Farr amendment.