Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1420, because: it clarifies that the mission of the refuge system, first and foremost, is to conserve fish and wildlife, with wildlife dependent recreation and education secondary, and other uses as its lowest priority; it establishes a more formal and public process to determine what uses are compatible on refuge lands; and it requires comprehensive planning with public participation. Theodore Roosevelt created the first wildlife refuge over 90 years ago to protect the wildlife at Pelican Island, FL. Today there are 509 wildlife refuges covering approximately 92 million acres of Federal land, protecting a wide variety of fish and wildlife. In my own district, two refuges have been established to protect endangered species: the Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge for the endangered Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, and the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge for the endangered Smith's blue butterfly. Americans benefit a lot from their wildlife refuges, enjoying their bounty and beauty for a variety of wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. Last year, over 27 million people visited national wildlife refuges to observe and photograph wildlife. Five million anglers and 1.5 million hunters visited the refuges, and nearly 500,000 students visited the refuges for environmental education programs. However, as I brought up in committee, I believe that the definition of a refuge should be as defined in the dictionary--as a place providing protection or shelter, a haven. Refuges exist to conserve wildlife, first and foremost, and public use at some refuges may not be appropriate. For example, at the Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge in my district, no public recreation takes place, due to the sensitivity of the habitat. The American public benefits greatly even when such restrictions are placed on certain refuges, in the knowledge that biological resources are being conserved, for present and future generations, and may be conserved to such a degree that some day populations may rebound to the point where they are no longer endangered. I appreciate the work that has gone into arriving at this version of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, and strongly support the belief that only uses that do not have a tangible adverse impact on the refuges ability to meet its conservation purpose or the mission of the system be allowed. The bill requires that these decisions be made in writing, based on sound science, and available for public review and comment, codifying Clinton administration policies. I also support the requirement that the Service ensure that adequate funds are available to administer public uses before they can be permitted: in other words that funds aren't diverted from conservation activities to public use management. I would also further urge that, although specific language to this effect is not present in this version of the bill, as it was in Mr. Miller's bill, H.R. 952, the Service should improve its wildlife monitoring as part of the comprehensive conservation plans that are required under this bill. A strong wildlife monitoring program is key to ensuring proper species and ecosystem management. I would like to end with a final, but very important matter: that of funding for our refuge system. Earlier this month, Reps. Gilchrest, young, Miller, Saxton, Abercrombie, and I, along with nearly 50 additional House Members, wrote to Chairman Regula and Ranking Democrat Yates to urge increased funding for the refuge system. This funding is absolutely necessary for the conservation goals of our refuges to be adequately addressed, and strongly urge support of this investment through the appropriations process.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want people to take a look at what they are being asked to do. They are being asked to vote for a bill and the title of the bill is the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. Now, what it is all about is the strength of American markets. The reason we have practices that say we have to fish safe for dolphins is because of these cans that we sell in American grocery stores, and on them is a symbol that says, dolphin-safe. What we want to do by this law is to change that. We want to change truth in labeling. This is all about labeling, Mr. Chairman. This is about the U.S. market, this is about the U.S. consumers, this is about us. What it is about is that this bill says because of a 1991 trade dispute, that we ought to let that dispute dictate how we sell products in American stores. This is all wrong, because what this bill recognizes is that in the process of doing that we will double the number of dolphin that will be killed. This is about access to American markets. It is about corporations who are using the American markets to sell their product, the tuna that are caught in the oceans far off our coastline, but because the American public buys so much tuna, they know they can only sell it in this country if they do it the way the consumers want to do it. Along comes a law and says, hey, let us change that. Let us change the labeling on the can, let us change the practices, so in fact we can go out and in the process we may kill more dolphins. That is not what the American public wants. The consumer does not want to be tricked, does not want to be cheated. Remember, the consumers are the ones that started this process. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. I rise on this rule on H.R. 408, the bill that deals with changing the law about truth in labeling. It essentially changes the law about how we label things in America. I rise to speak against the rule, because we are refusing to change the law that allows truth in America about how we run campaigns. The honorable chairman of the Committee on Rules just said this is a lot of hot air. The heat is being turned on because the American public wants to have campaign finance reform. The worst abuse of power about it all is when they, because they are in power, if they have the power to bring issues to the floor for debate, that is what is missing. That is why we ought to be defeating this rule, and every rule until we get a bill here on the floor, get a moment here on the floor where we can vote on choices for campaign reform. Look at this. We have had campaign reform voted on on this floor in the last four Congresses. Every one of those has taken up campaign reform. The President for the first time came right here in this room and asked us, by July 4, just a few months from now, to have that bill on his desk, and we have done absolutely nothing about it. That is the abuse of power. That is the abuse of power. The Republican leadership is avoiding the issue. The American public wants us to debate it, wants us to vote it, and wants us to reform it. All we are here to talk about is how we are going to take away the law about tuna in a can, how we are going to change that law, how we are going to tell people, they will misperceive, and people are not going to know whether the tuna in that can was fished safely or not, and yet we will not debate about how we are going to get people elected to the U.S. Congress. Congress needs to confront this issue. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and to insist that we honor the people of this country, that we honor the President of the United States, that we honor our own process and our own power by bringing to the floor those bills that have been introduced, all of those bills that have been introduced on campaign reform, and have an honest debate and vote them up and down. That is what we ought to be doing. Defeat the previous question.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to support passage of H.R. 911, the Volunteer Protection Act. A Gallup study found that nearly 20 percent of all nonprofit organizations in the United States have experienced volunteers withholding service or resigning due to fear of liability exposure. I want to clear up some misconceptions about the bill. H.R. 911 provides only limited tort claim liability protection for nonprofit or governmental volunteers acting in good faith and within the scope of their duties. H.R. 911 does not shield volunteers from lawsuits for harm caused by willful or criminal misconduct. Hate crimes committed by groups or individuals are fully liable for their actions and are not exempt from prosecution under the willful or criminal misconduct provision. The committee adopted an amendment clarifying that groups engaged in activities covered under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act are not exempt. One might wonder if it is necessary for Congress to enact legislation to protect volunteers. It is in the interest of the Federal Government to encourage the continued operation of volunteer service organizations and contributions of volunteers because the Federal Government lacks the capacity to carry out all of the services provided by such organizations and volunteers. In the spirit of voluntarism, we must find the ways and means to make citizen service the common expectation and the common experience of every American. This bill will open the door for the many Americans withholding their services due to fear of exposure to liability suits. I am pleased that the House approved H.R. 911 today.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to the conference that my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] just talked about. We are very blessed in this country to be surrounded by oceans and pay a lot of attention to it, but we really do not pay enough attention because the seas of the world are important to keep us alive. This is a water planet, we are, 78 percent of this globe is water and it is threatened. One thing that we found out in this conference is that everybody in the world agrees with that and wants to do something about it. If we could just dedicate enough of our commitment to research and science using the military, using the scientific community, the academic community, using the commercial community, and unlock the information about the ocean, at the same time to gather a lot more. In fact, this country spends more on studying the seas of outer planets than we do in studying our own seas, and that is wrong. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] did an incredible job for this country by leading this conference in the last 3 days. And I just want to urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, that this is not a partisan battle, this is a world struggle to try to keep our oceans clean, to try to keep our atmosphere from getting overheated so that the oceans will rise, we know those things are going to happen. We have to combat it. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] for his leadership and I look forward to working with my colleagues.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who blessed this world with his music. Jake Stock, who for more than 50 years was a permanent fixture on the American jazz scene, died recently at the age of 86. He will be remembered by all those whom he touched with his sax and song. Born in Savannah, GA, on July 10, 1910, and having lived an exciting life since, Mr. Stock moved to Monterey in my congressional district from Los Angeles in 1938 with his wife, Grace. He quickly started making music. Offered a job at the Oasis Club in Salinas, Mr. Stock assembled his prized Abalone Stompers, a jazz ensemble that entertained thousands for decades to come. The group, composed of anywhere from 5 to 15 players, performed in a variety of festivals and clubs throughout California and the west coast. In 1958, they opened the Monterey Jazz Festival and shared the stage with Dizzie Gillespie and Louie Armstrong. Throughout his career, Mr. Stock was the recipient of numerous honors. The inspiration for famed central coast author John Steinbeck's ``Sweet Thursday,'' he was named Citizen of the Year by Monterey's Parade of Nations in 1982. Mr. Stock was also honored by Monterey's Pacheco and Paisano clubs with a dinner called the ``Jake Bake.'' Until recently, he was a featured Sunday played at Big Sur's River Inn. He is survived by four sons: Jay of Pasadena; Phil of Murphys; Jackson of Los Angeles and Peter of Portland; three daughters: Judy Cooper of Lake Havasu City, AZ; Katy Stock of Carmel and Sally Beckett of Carlsbad; his brother, Morgan Stock of Monterey and five grandchildren.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a wonderful woman and a good friend, who recently passed away. Betty Jean Stanley Seyferth, who devoted much of her life to the people and causes of California's beautiful central coast, will be remembered as much for what she contributed to those around her, as who she was and what she stood for. You see, for as much as Betty was a model citizen, she was a model person. Selfless and kind, she brought a smile to those around her. I can remember that as Monterey County Supervisor, I had the honor of naming Betty to the Monterey County Housing Authority. She subsequently went on to serve as commissioner, vice chairwoman, and chairwoman, until her resignation in 1994. Prior to this, Betty attended Whittier College and received a bachelor's degree in psychology and education from San Jose University. She earned a certificate in human services from the University of California at Santa Cruz. Betty was a social worker for many years, working for Santa Clara County, Alameda County, and Monterey County. She retired from the Monterey County Department of Social Services in 1977. Besides her own work, Betty also worked with her husband Harold in the real estate business, developing shopping centers and housing developments in Santa Clara County. The couple owned and operated Boone Chance Kennels in Hollister and ranches in Santa Clara and San Benito counties. Betty was a member of a string ensemble and two piano ensembles as well as a skilled piano and organ instructor. She was an accompanist for vocalists, an organist for her church and belonged to numerous community and philanthropic organizations, including: the Railroad Brotherhood Auxiliary, the Order of the Eastern Star, several Parent Teacher Associations, the League of Women Voters, the California Federation of Woman's Clubs, the Girl Scouts of America, the Doris Day Pet Foundation, and the YWCA. Mr. Speaker, all who knew Betty Seyferth, miss her tremendously. She was an outstanding person and a fabulous wife, mother, and friend. I wish her husband, Harold, her daughter, Mimi, and the rest of her family the very best during these trying days.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I hope we have the political courage to make it permanent.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong opposition to the bill that is on the floor and in strong support for the substitute that we are debating at this time. I was a former local elected official as a county supervisor in California and after that a member of the State legislature. We learned from our local and State practices, and frankly, if we look at it, almost all laws are prosecuted in State courts under State laws using the State criminal justice system and juvenile justice system, and what we have learned is that no one sock or one shoe fits everybody. Each community, based on the resources and based on the attitude of the community, whether it is small or large, has a different approach to it. H.R. 3, as it has come to the floor, I think is very poorly drafted. I think it is contrary to the entire spirit of Philadelphia. Philadelphia and the Presidents all said that no one is broken so far that they cannot be fixed. This bill, as it goes before us, just says the solution is to lock everybody up and not to educate them, not to try to prevent crime. Frankly, I feel that Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Ford, none of them would support H.R. 3 as it comes on the floor. I urge all my colleagues to support the substitute. The substitute is a bill that is well thought out and looks at the way communities can do it. It does not have a Washington approach to everything, it has community-based support. Community action works. Please support the substitute.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. OK. Mr. Chairman, on my own time, the issue raised here is whether this amendment really does anything to the bill. Remember, we are dealing with the issue of flood control projects. Flood control and the purpose of flood control is to control damage done by excessive water. I do not think that the amendment is material to really what the purpose of the bill is, which is to drive a hole in the Endangered Species Act by exempting from that act consultation for operations. Remember, there is nothing in the language in this bill that even mentions the word ``levee,'' yet everybody who got up and proposed it said that this was a levee bill. This is about operations of water facilities, operations forever, not just when it rains, not just when there is flood damage, it is operations. Operations is why so many people are concerned about this, particularly the fishermen. The reason, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] knows, is that in California with the Sacramento River the whole issue of water flow releases is to try to control the water temperature so that we can maintain a salmon run. If there is not enough water, the water gets too warm and then the species that lives in that water cannot survive. So the purpose of trying to make sure that when we are operating a flood control district, that we consult in this process, is so that we get all of the concerns on the table. The Corps of Engineers has interpreted this ``structures and projects'' to mean dams, to mean pumps, levees, dikes, channels, draining systems, dredging projects, reservoirs, and even beach erosion control. In the committee the issue was raised that it was going to include beach erosion control, and the author indicated that he would accept an amendment to that, although we do not see it in the bill at all. So the bill on the floor with the gentleman's amendment I do not really think ensures that we are going to be able to continue to maintain these facilities for all the interested parties that rely on water usage, and that is the purpose of flood control districts.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, why is the word ``levee'' in here? It is projects. It is all of these projects.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, while the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] is there, maybe I can have a colloquy with him. Is it the intent of the gentleman that his amendment will affect all of section B?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, there are dredging projects.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, we are here as lawmakers. I will not disagree with anything that has been said by the previous speakers, but I think they have failed to read the law that they are asking the Members to adopt. That law as it comes to the floor says that consultation conferencing is not required for any agency for the reconstruction, the operation, the maintaining or repairing of Federal or non-Federal flood control projects, facilities, or structures. Then it lists the reasons why. But it also says it will also apply when it consists of maintenance, and including operation of a facility in accordance with previously issued Federal license, permit, or other authorized law. What this says is that you no longer have to consult or confer with people when you are going to build a dam, when you are going to operate a dam, when you are going to build any kind of structure. Why is this consultation important? It does not say just in floods. It says any time, any time. It could be just clear, beautiful, sunny weather; ignore the endangered species, ignore the species, because endangered species goes into looking at all species. I happen to represent a lot of fishermen. Their fish depend on water quality and water flows. What this is saying is that the farming interests here or the interests of those who maintain levees should supersede the rights of those who benefit from the water. That is not what this Congress wants to do. The problem with this bill is not the intent, because I think the intent is supportable. The problem with this bill is the way it has been drafted and comes to the floor. It makes a hole so wide that nobody in their right mind would want to have these broad exemptions. Mr. Chairman, I have been through those floods that the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] talked about. I am a fifth generation Californian. I was through the floods of 1986 in the Sacramento Valley, and nobody raised this issue. There was as much water in 1986 as there was this year. I was through the floods in 1995, in the Salinas Valley. Do you know what? People said the river was not dredged because of the Endangered Species Act, but then they went back to the record and could find no proof there was ever any issue there with the Fish and Wildlife Service of any endangered species. The water has something to do with floods. I do not think we an ought to blame it all on the species, and some of those species we use for commercial purposes, particularly the fishermen. I stand in opposition to this bill, in support of a strong commercial fishery industry, in support of a balanced approach to problem-solving. If Members remove this, I will tell them what is going to happen. People are going to enter the opposition through lawsuits. The consultation process is to avoid lawsuits. It is to essentially mitigate disputes before they happen. If we want to exempt that in emergency purposes, then do it for emergency purposes, not just for all time, forever. Therefore, the bill in its present state is just too broad. It needs to be amended. It needs at this time to be defeated.

Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let us think about it for a minute. We would think that there was never a disaster in America before the Endangered Species Act. That act was adopted when Nixon was President in 1972. We wait until 1997 to get up and say that all the floods in California were a result of the Endangered Species Act? Then what they do is to bring an amendment to the floor which, frankly, the reason we are having such a long debate on is that it was very poorly drafted. It was poorly drafted because it opens a huge hole. If we look on page 2, and I hope all of us will read these bills, because that is what we are sworn in office to do as lawmakers, it says on line 21 that the consultation and conferencing under the paragraphs in this bill are not required for any agency; not required, not required. This is the big loophole. Mr. Chairman, before coming to the Congress I served in the California Legislature. I drafted bills that created water districts and irrigation districts. Before that I was on the board of supervisors. I sat on water districts and irrigation districts, and on air boards and transportation boards. The reason we have the consultation process in law is so we can avoid the unforeseen problems that come about when you start tampering with nature. If we are going to do levees and build dams and operate them, we are going to have downstream effects. Those downstream effects can affect people's livelihood. We do not want to exempt that process, because what happens if we do not have that consultation in the beginning, we are going to end up with someone filing a lawsuit in court, and if there is any way to delay a project, just get it tied up in the courts where nobody wins except the lawyers. I have all the respect in the world for the people that came and wanted to try to deal with the regulatory issues when it comes to floods, but this bill, the way it was drafted, is the wrong approach. I rise today in support of the Boehlert amendment. Many of the people who spoke in favor of this bill who gave these causes are California legislators. They never got up after the 1986 flood, where we lost lives, and blamed it on the Endangered Species Act. They never took action before when they were in Congress to amend the act. Do not make any bones about it, this bill, the way it came to the floor, opens a door far beyond what those who tell us they just want to kind of make the process a little bit expeditious really intend to do. Every time we make a decision to dig, drill, cut, build, repair, we are going to affect something. I assure the Members that they have to have a process where people talk about that before the effects are known, before the effects of the construction are placed upon those that have a negative effect. I urge Members to support the Boehlert amendment. It is a reasonable approach. It can get signed into law. If we really want to correct the problem, we want it to become law. That is what the President will sign. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that explanation. My point that I made to the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] was that I think the bill goes far beyond what he originally intended, because it goes into projects that are greater than levees. It goes into dredging, it goes into dams, it goes into beach erosion, and I do not think that was what the intent was as a result of the problem that occurred in the Sacramento Valley.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, as all those in the gallery may not recognize, but today is National Tourist Appreciation Day, and this week is National Tourism Week. It is time to reflect that travel and tourism in America is our largest service export industry, the second largest employer in the United States and the third largest in retail sales. In 1996, tourism in the United States generated an estimated $467 billion in total expenditures. It directly employs 6.6 million Americans and indirectly employs 8.9 million. In 1995, 236,000 new jobs were created as a direct result of domestic and international tourism in the United States. American travelers spent alone $685,000 per minute on travel and tourism, and international travelers spent $151,000 per minute in the United States. In my district, travel and tourism brings in $1.5 billion a year and more than 20,000 jobs. This week more than 3,000 communities across the United States will participate in recognizing the importance of travel and tourism. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. FARR

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I hosted a reception for the exhibition ``A Matriot's Dream: Health Care For All''. It is a collection of photographs and poetry that combine to educate the viewer on the plight of those who do not have access to health care. I was honored to be able to help bring this exhibition to Congress. Unfortunately, most Members were not in D.C. at that time and many staff did not stay for the reception. Thankfully, though, it will remain in D.C. for the entire month of May. I highly recommend all my colleagues make an effort to see the exhibition. This is a moving exhibition that I believe will serve only to increase everyone's desire to help those without health care. I believe it makes a compelling case for universal health care, even to the most dogged opponents. The photographer, Kira Carrillo Corser, quit her job at PBS more than six years ago to start her own photography business. Having been healthy all her life, she decided to wait a year before getting health care, which was going to cost her more than five times what she was paying while at PBS. Murphy's Law, six months later she found out that she had ovarian cancer. At that point, no insurance company would take her as a client because she had a ``pre-existing condition''. Only through the assistance of friends and family was she able to get the treatment necessary to survive the cancer. Kira and her colleague, Frances Payne Adler, had worked together on past exhibits before and decided to focus on the necessity for universal access to health care. A few of the photographs in the exhibit show Kira's struggle with the cancer and lack of health care coverage. The other photographs are a graphic representation of the plight of others who are living without health care. The poet, Frances Payne Adler, developed the following definition for ``matriot'' which she chose for the title of her poem and the name of the exhibition. Matriot: 1) One who loves his/her country; 2) One who loves and protects the people of his or her country; 3) One who perceives national defense as health, education, and shelter of all people in his or her country. I am inserting the signature poem for the exhibition: Matriot (By Helen Vandevere, born 1904) There's not much that's important at my age except making the world a better place. What would I do? I say we damn well better get out on the streets again. Everyone has to put their hand to the wheel and get out and get off their butt like in the sixties. We had compassion then, and we've lost it. It breaks my heart. I've lived through two depressions. Two of them. Everyone at that time was just sick about the way things were, just like now, only it's worse I see everything falling apart-- People, starving on the streets. children, beaten in their homes. Sick people without health care. Imagine this, in a country that spends so much on the war machine. I'd spend the money on health instead. I'd see that children are born healthy and make sure they stayed that way. All children no matter what age. I'd clean the air, the water. I'd take away all that polluting shit they put on vegetables. I'd promote the use of sun, sea, and wind for natural energy. I'd save the forests, especially the redwoods. I'd ban firearms. I'd take away every nuclear device man to man. No more wars, ever. Now we're talking health. How are we going to pay for all this? No one ever says we don't have enough money to go to war. No one ever says we don't have money for national defense. This is national defense. For those of you who wish to see the exhibit from your home or office, it is available on line at http://www.monterey.edu/events/ matriot ____________________

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has made it his professional mission to serve the State of California and its 32 million people. William Baker, whose career has spanned more than three decades, will be retiring this year as vice president of university and external relations for the University of California system. Ever since starting work for UC some 33 years ago, Bill has been a steady force, helping to guide the university through its most formative years. Now with nine campuses, five teaching hospitals, and the three national laboratories it manages for the Federal Government, UC's $10 billion budget is larger than that of many States. Bill has been instrumental in maintaining the university's prominence as one of the top university systems in the country. I speak from personal knowledge, when I say that Bill Baker is an influential voice for education on Capitol Hill. A fourth-generation Californian and a native of Berkeley, Bill is a 1958 civil engineering graduate of the University of California, Berkeley. It was as an undergraduate that he began his university career as a mail clerk under former UC President Robert Gordon Sproul. Bill went on to become a licensed civil engineer and worked as a State engineer on the restoration of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Bill returned to university service in 1964 as an associate engineer in UC's systemwide office. In 1974, he was named director for capital improvements planning and budgeting, and was named assistant vice president for budget, analysis, and planning and special assistant to the president on April 1, 1979. He was named vice president for budget and university relations by former President David Gardner on October 1, 1983. Bill assumed his current title in 1993. Besides his professional pursuits, Bill has found time to give even more back to the people of both his State and country. Active in numerous national and State associations supporting higher education, he also participates on a State and national level as a mediator and arbitrator in the construction industry. Bill is a member of the board of directors of the California Council on Science and Technology, which I created with Bill's leadership, and of the American Arbitration Association. He is also a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about Bill Baker. To me, he embodies the very best in public service. Committed and compassionate, Bill has demonstrated every day and in every way that the best way to advance the public good is by doing good for the public. We are fortunate to have been touched by his works. He is a ``true blue.''

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, 82 years ago there began one of the most tragic events in modern history: the persecution of the Armenian population of Ottoman turkey, which led to the death or deportation of some 2 million men, women, and children--solely because of their ethnicity. Over a 10 year period, Turkish Armenians were subjected to arbitrary execution, torture, and forced labor. Armenian women were raped or forced into prostitution, and tens of thousands of men, women, and children were forced onto death marches that claimed their lives. When this horrified tragedy ended, as many as 1.5 million Armenians were dead, and hundreds of thousands of others became refugees. The Armenian genocide decimated the Armenian community in Turkey, reducing its size by some 90 percent. Many years have passed since these events, but we must never forget what happened to the Armenians of Ottoman turkey solely because of their ethnicity. First and foremost, it is a lesson in the terrible tragedy that can so easily result from hatred and bigotry--especially when a country sees political gain in supporting ethnic persecution. Sadly, our modern world is no stranger to events of ethnic atrocity. More recently, Bosnia and Rwanda have been scenes of massacres and human brutality caused by ethnic hatred and prejudice. It is for this reason that we must remember and commemorate the Armenian genocide of 1915-23, to remind ourselves of how prejudice can lead to acts of great evil. Let us join Armenian-Americans and others in commemorating the terrible events of 82 years ago, working to protect the human rights of all people around the world, and preventing such a tragedy from happening again.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Senator Peter Behr, a dedicated and inspiring public servant of California. Senator Peter Behr was an instrumental force in the California legislature who was driven by principles and a commitment to preserving our precious environment. In his nearly 30 years of service, Senator Behr served as an inspiration to both his colleagues and constituents, including me. He will be remembered for his unparalleled environmental activism and for epitomizing the characteristics of an inspiring leader. Senator Behr's admirable career in politics began as city councilman of Mill Valley in 1956. While serving in Marin County, he was recognized for leading a grassroots campaign to preserve and protect California's Pacific coastline. Through hard work and dedication, he moved up to county supervisor, and shortly thereafter he was elected to represent Marin in the California Senate. One of Senator Behr's most notable accomplishments was the save-our- shores petition drive, which was instrumental in the formation of Point Reyes National Seashore, a beautiful expanse of the northern California coast. Additionally, Senator Behr established The 1972 Wild Scenic Rivers Act, which provided protection for priceless rivers. After retiring from the senate, Senator Behr remained dedicated to preserving California's natural resources by involving himself with various organizations which strive to preserve our precious environment. He demonstrated his leadership among such groups as the Sierra Club Foundation, Friends of the River, and the San Francisco Foundation. Today, Senator Behr is recognized as an exceptional politician who earned the utmost respect from both his colleagues and constituents. He will be remembered as an avid protector of the environment whose visionary ideology will remain a model forever. I ask my colleagues today, to join me in recognizing Senator Behr's accomplishments and the legacy he will surely leave behind.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who is truly one of a kind. Larry Horan, who made his mark as a star college athlete before becoming a star director of the Peace Corps in El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Colombia, where I served, was honored last weekend for his many contributions as chairman of the board of the Special Olympics of Northern California. It was quite a tribute. Few men have had as positive an impact on those around him as Larry Horan. In my own life, Larry has been a model. A defender of the common man and woman, Larry has spent his career standing up for those values that represent the best in all of us. A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, where he earned both undergraduate and law degrees in the 1950's, Larry's first venture into the working world consisted of a 5- year tour in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office where he served on the senior trial staff and worked hard for the people. In 1960, Larry further distinguished himself by joining forces with my father, former California State Senator Fred Farr, in the Law Offices of Farr, Horan & Lloyd, and served with distinction until a greater calling came. Like many of us who followed the vision of our valiant President, John F. Kennedy, Larry decided the best gift he could give the world was one of service. He enlisted in the Peace Corps to make the world a better place and worked hard for 3 years to improve the plight of those living in the Central and South American countries where he lived with his wife Jean and where his youngest daughter, Maureen, was born. In 1967, Larry was named regional director of the Office of Economic Opportunity for the Western United States. Larry returned to California's beautiful central coast in 1970 where he became president and founding member of the Law Offices of Horan, Lloyd, Karachale, Dyer & Schwartz and Law & Cook Inc. While working to benefit his local community, Larry has also given of himself in countless other ways. Sitting on the board of directors of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, he also serves as a trustee of the Naval Postgraduate School Foundation, on the board of advisors of the Big Sur Land Trust, as an advisor of the Friends of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, on the Board of Directors of the Franciscan Workers and as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Special Olympics of northern California, the organization that honored him. I could go on and on about Larry Horan. To me, he symbolizes the very best qualities of the American spirit. Generous and compassionate to a tee, Larry is one of those very unique people who profoundly impacts all those he touches. He is a natural-born leader and deeply deserving of all the praise we can bestow upon him.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Let me explain that by going back to the State that I represent, California. When I was in the California legislature we had to run for that office with very tough rules in the State, disclosure rules. Essentially those rules have been drastically amended and modified by an initiative that the people enacted last November which severely restricts not only what contributions can be given, but how much one can spend in a campaign. The point is that running for public office is a very exciting opportunity. We ought to allow people to receive contributions. I think we can limit the amount of contributions, and we can limit the category of those contributions, but we ought not to limit the source of contributions. By that, going back to the gentlewoman's point, is that Emily's List, like others, there is the Wish List, a more conservative group, but there are groups out here that call out to people who are on their lists, who have signed up and said we are supportive of your cause. A mail solicitation goes out to those people and says, ``By the way, Mrs. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas is running for Congress. We support her activities. She is a woman, she has served in the Texas legislature, she has a distinguished background, and we think she warrants election to the United States Congress, and would you women around the country please send us a small contribution. Together we will put these contributions together; that is called bundling, and we will send them to Sheila Jackson-Lee.'' I do not see any problem with that. That organization does not come down here and lobby. It does not ask for any votes. It does not have an agenda in politics. What it is doing is trying to elect the right people to public office. There are a lot of groups like that. I do not think we ought to restrict them. Some of these campaign finance reform bills say that should not happen. I was a former Peace Corps volunteer. When I ran for Congress I wrote people that I served in the Peace Corps with. Why? They knew me. I was also in a university. I wrote to the people that were in my class in the university. I graduated from a high school. I wrote to the kids that were in that high school. Some lived in my district, some lived in the State, some lived out of State. When you run for public office, the way you get elected and the way you start a campaign is call up your friends and your family. I called up my family, and they are Republicans and I am a Democrat, and they said, we will support you. We probably never supported a Democrat before, but we will support you because we are your family. That is the way you get into public life. None of these bills should stifle that. What we are trying to talk about is finance reform. Take the incredible obscenity of having to spend $1 million to get elected to the United States Congress. The bill that I propose, and almost all of them, recognize that the average costs of a campaign to the United States Congress is a little over half a million dollars; $600,000. That is the cap. We say you do not need to spend more than that to get elected. We also say the way you collect money ought to be limited. You ought to have how much money you can raise from PAC's, and it cannot all come from there; how much can come from wealthy individuals, it cannot all come from there; how much can come from yourself, you cannot just pay for your own campaign out of your own pocket. That way we allow this diversity of contributions to be getting in, limiting the amount, limiting the total capacity of that particular area, and allow you then to run a competitive campaign for $600,000 or less.

Mr. FARR of California. It is too bad we have to schedule a special order to discuss campaign finance reform. We ought to be doing this in a regular session, in a regular time, to vote on a bill, not just to talk about the bill.