Cal Dooley

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the work of the American Legion Auxiliary Unit #124, the Merle Reed Unit of Delano, California, for their remarkable and outstanding community service in the 20th District of California on October 25, 1997, ``Make a Difference'' Day in Delano truly did make a substantive difference in the lives and well-being of the people of Delano. Thirty- five members of the Merle Reed Unit worked that day on seven different projects designed to benefit the community in a wide range of ways. They volunteered during the local Red Ribbon Week, promoting drug free awareness throughout the community. They collected yard sale items worth approximately $4,280 to sell at their ``Spring Day'', the proceeds of which will be donated to the Salvation Army and local church organizations. The Unit ran a canned food drive for the Holidays, recycled 583 pounds of bottles to benefit Veterans projects, and ran a comprehensive clean-up of the Auxiliary Post Hall, beautifying both the interior and exterior of the community center. Visits to the sick, local hospital volunteering and a joint luncheon for local Post Boys and Girls State participants rounded out an extremely beneficial day of service. I commend the members of the Merle Reed Unit for their excellent commitment to bettering the community and the lives of those who live in it through public service, and am proud to be able to make this statement to honor just one of the many outstanding examples of service done everyday throughout this nation. I hope their fellow citizens will recognize the great work that the American Legion Auxiliary Unit had done, and continues to do, for the community, and will follow their admirable example.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of sending this bill to conference. I think that many of us have heard the comments of many of the Members who have raised some concerns, not about the House bill but about the Senate bill. I think all of us who played a major role in crafting the bill that was passed, the ag research bill that was passed by the House, were motivated by some primary objectives. One is we have to ensure that the taxpayer dollars which are invested in agriculture research are going to obtain the maximum benefit to all of our society, all members of our economy. I think the bill that we passed made some major improvements to ensure that we will be getting the best return on behalf of the taxpayers. I would also state that many of us are sympathetic and sensitive to the issues in terms of how we will allocate any dollars that might have been saved in the food and nutrition side of this bill. But I would also point out that when we look at the major advocates in this country who spend so much time in trying to ensure that the needs of some of the most impoverished of our country will be met are supporting this bill going to conference. We can look at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who are asking this Congress to vote, yes, to send the bill to conference, the National Council of La Raza, the Food Research and Action Committee, and the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. We have a broad coalition of people, advocates on behalf of food stamp recipients and advocates on behalf of making the most appropriate investment of research dollars to benefit the ag industry are saying let us send this bill to conference in order that we can develop the compromises and the resolution with the Senate version so that we can bring it back so that we can have a bill that is going to be in the best interests not only of the agriculture sector through increased investments in ag research, but also on the interests of ensuring that we are going to help the most impoverished in our country.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], the chairman of the subcommittee which had jurisdiction, and thank him for his work and his willingness to work with myself and other members of the minority to putting forth, I think, a research bill, H.R. 2334, which really is going to position this country to move forward to ensure that the U.S. agriculture is on the leading edge of technology. Just last year when we modified and made major changes in our farm programs, where we were moving Government more and more out of the business of farming, we are going to be requiring our farmers to be relying more on the marketplace in order to achieve their financial benefits. This change in our farm policy is going to require an even greater investment in research, because all of us in agriculture fully understand that we are, in fact, in an international marketplace and the only way we can be competitive is by being on the leading edge of technology. Thus, the investments that we make in agriculture research are ensuring that our farmers will have the tools to assure they can be competitive, to assure they can be profitable. This bill embodies what I think are some modest reforms in our agriculture research program. It ensures we will have greater participation by stakeholders to participate. It will ensure that the research grants that are being offered will be subject to greater peer review and merit review. It will ensure that we maintain an infrastructure through our land grant colleges and other educational institutions that can provide us with the highest quality in agriculture research. Importantly also, it moves forward in a new area of providing the authorization for funding for the plant genome research program. I think all of us understand the benefits that can be derived not only to agriculture but to consumers and our economy by further understanding the intricacies and opportunities with plant genome research. There is more that can be done though, and I hope we will find a way that we can ensure that even greater competition on the allocation of our Federal dollars occurs so we can assure that our taxpayers get the greatest return from the Federal investment they are making in agriculture research.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule, and I do so because we have two very important bills which have diametrically opposing objectives and it is senseless for us to consider them in one particular rule. The voucher bill will, without question, undermine our public education system. It will siphon money out of our public schools, which will ensure that we will see a deterioration in the education that can be afforded to our Nation's children. Vouchers will certainly undermine what has been one of the most important historical institutions in this country, which has led more to our economic advancement than anything else, our public schools. We cannot afford to go down that path. But there is a path we must take, and that is embodied in our charter schools bill. We need to unleash the creativity and the innovation in our public schools, and charter schools will provide that incentive. For all too long, we have standardized the process of education in our public schools. We need to unleash that creativity, and charter schools will release that creativity and innovation.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 297) pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this Forage Improvement Act. I think that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] needs to be complimented in his efforts to reach out to people in the environmental community and stakeholders, as well as Federal Government, in order to try to find a way that we can put to rest an issue that has been very contentious in its consideration in past Congresses. I think what the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has done is to embody some of the proposals that the Department of the Interior has been trying to utilize to ensure that we have greater cooperation from people throughout the community, as well as environmentalists so that we can ensure that the interests of the taxpayers and interests of the public trust is maintained. I think he is also moving forward in a responsible manner, too, by asking that we revise the formula in which we calculate the price per AUM and that this bill will result in an increase of almost 36 percent in the price of rangeland. And that means benefits that are going to accrue to the taxpayers. What is also important is, I think, he is putting it in a place in which we are going to have more of a collaborative effort to ensure that the public lands are used in a manner which is going to benefit all of us. I am certain that the effort of this legislation is going to ensure that our public lands that are devoted to rangeland are going to be in better condition, that they are going to ensure that there will be a financial return to them. They will also provide benefits in maintaining much of this land in open space. Once again, I just want to reiterate that I commend the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith]. I think this legislation is a balanced and responsible approach to dealing with grazing on public lands.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of our colleague and friend Walter Capps, whose generosity of spirit enriched this Chamber, the State of California, and this country immeasurably during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives. He brought to this House the same intellectual rigor and deep compassion that allowed him to excel as a professor of religious studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, as an author, as a U.S. Congressman, and as a husband and father. Representative Capps was a man of patience and principle whose leadership in the House, while brief, had a significant effect on his colleagues. He did not enjoy conflict, yet he fought with passion and sensitivity for the issues he felt were crucial to his constituents and to his own conscience. He did not make decisions lightly, but, once decided, his opinions were profoundly argued and vibrantly supported by his actions. He did not consider himself a politician, and resisted the deal-cutting and personal attacks that represent the worst part of government. Yet he himself represented the best of what politics can be, as an independent thinker, a sympathetic listener, and a devoted advocate for the concerns of his constituents and of all Americans. Walter was a man of faith, not only of the spiritual kind, but of the political kind. He had faith in the democratic process, and had faith that it would allow him to be elected even after an initial defeat. His victory proved to all of us in California and across the country that voters will choose substance over style, and that true leadership will be recognized no matter what the odds. To Lois and his children, I offer my sincere condolences, with the hope that they may find comfort in the tremendous good Walter has done in this House and within the 22d District of California. He will be truly missed. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the memory of our colleague, the Honorable Walter Capps.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Rohrabacher motion. Mr. Speaker, it is rare that the U.S. Senate casts a 99-to-0 vote, but that is what they did earlier this year when faced with a decision to eject nearly 1 million people from this country. The U.S. Senate said ``no.'' They said no because they knew that nearly 1 million people would be forced to leave their families, their businesses, their jobs, despite having a legal basis for obtaining permanent residency in this country. Mr. Speaker, these 1 million hard-working immigrants, some of whom reside in my district in California, have a legal basis for retaining residency, yet if we adopt this motion they will be required to leave the country and wait years to be reunited with their families in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the immigration bill last year, and there were some important changes that we made in the law to combat some of the problems of illegal immigration. But this provision of the law is unworkable and unfair, and it is inciting fear in many people who have built lives and families and businesses here and who are contributing to our communities and to our economy.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th District of California by the Secretary of State of California and was seated by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 7, 1997; and Whereas a Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California has met only three times; and Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting from a business, rather than a resident address; underage voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number of individuals voting from the same address. It was found that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were the legal residences of the individuals, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to compare their records with Orange County voter registration records, the first time in any election in the history of the United States that the INS has been asked by Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing supplemental information on that manual check to the Committee on House Oversight for over 5 months; and Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of State of California; and Whereas the Task force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California and the Committee have been reviewing these materials and has all the information it needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the information it needs to make judgment concerning those votes; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 9 months of review and investigation failed to present credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and unsubstantiated areas of review; and Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end and now therefore be it; Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 1534, the Private Property Implementation Act. I believe this bill takes a new, more modest approach to the issue of property rights and has received widespread bipartisan support. The legislation helps property owners by clearing some of the legal and procedural hurdles that make it both excessively time consuming and expensive to assert their claims. This bill proposes to do nothing except clarify the jurisdiction of Federal courts to hear and determine issues of Federal constitutional law. H.R. 1534 is vastly different from previous property rights bills. It does not attempt to define for a court when a taking has occurred nor does it change or weaken any environmental law. The bill would have no budgetary impact because, unlike previous bills, it contains no compensation requirement or trigger. Simply put, the legislation amends Federal procedural laws governing the jurisdiction of the U.S. district courts. H.R. 1534 would provide more straightforward access to Federal courts for property owners seeking redress of their fifth amendment rights. There has been a lot of controversy generated surrounding this bill. More of the criticism of this legislation is based upon the assumption that the bill cuts local governments out of the decisionmaking process when it comes to land use. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that H.R. 1534 applies only to Federal claims based on the 5th and 14th amendments that are filed in Federal court. The bill creates no new cause of action against local governments. H.R. 1534 is only a procedural bill, clarifying the rules so a decision can be reached faster on the facts of the case instead of wasting taxpayer money on jurisdictional questions. Local governments will have no new limits on their ability to zone or regulate land use. Local agencies will get at least two, maybe three, chances to resolve a land use decision locally before their decision will be defined as ``final''--once on the original application, once on appeal, and yet again on review by an elected body. H.R. 1534 doesn't provide a ticket to Federal court--individuals already have a right to go to Federal court. The bill simply provides an objective definition of when ``Enough is Enough,'' so that both parties in a land use dispute can participate in meaningful negotiations. I believe H.R. 1534 represents a moderate approach that Members can and should support. Let's not miss an opportunity to do something that will provide a direct benefit to our constituents.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Capt. Louis ``Deak'' Childress, Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station Lemoore, in Lemoore, CA. Captain Childress has demonstrated exceptional leadership throughout his service in the U.S. Navy and is an asset to the community of Lemoore. Captain Childress began his naval career by entering flight training at Aviation Officer Candidate School in Pensacola, FL, in July 1973. After completing training at Saufley Field and Whitley Field, he reported to Beeville, TX, in July 1974, and received his wings on December 20 of that year. After graduation from flight school, Ensign Childress was assigned to Oceana, VA, flying the F-4 Phantom from the decks of the USS Nimitz and USS Forrestal from 1975 to 1978. In October 1978, Lieutenant Childress served as an instructor pilot at NAS Miramar in San Diego and in November 1979, he was reassigned to the east coast F4-RAG in Virginia. In July 1981, he reported to the staff of Commander Carrier Air Wing 17 as landing signals officer and safety officer, flying once again with the ``Bedevilers.'' He completed the final east coast F-4 deployment in November 1982 and reported for temporary duty at Oceana while awaiting assignment in Lemoore, CA. While at Lemoore, he was the first tactical fighter pilot to instruct in Fighter Wing One's out-of- controlled-flight program, flying the T-2 and A-4 aircraft. In July 1983, he was chosen to serve as part of the early cadre of instructor pilots in the developing F/A-18 program. He performed duties as senior LSO for the Hornet RAG, and was one of the first three instructors selected for the newly developed Strike Fighter Weapons School Pacific, and served as the RAG training officer. In November 1985, Lieutenant Commander Childress reported as a plank owner, where he served as department head until August 1988. The squadron stood up in Lemoore, CA, and subsequently changed homeport to NAS Cecil Field in Jacksonville, FL. In September 1988, Lieutenant Commander Childress reported to Commander U.S. Sixth Fleet in Gaeta, Italy for a tour as Flag Secretary. He served on board the Flagship, USS Belknap, until October 1990. From November 1990 until June 1991, Commander Childress completed his PXO/CO training track and returned to NAS Cecil Field, FL. During that time, he was deployed to the Persian Gulf where he acted for nearly 4 months as senior naval representative to COMUSNAVCENT's contingency planning cell in Dharhran, Saudi Arabia. In August 1993, Commander Childress, reported as Chief of Crisis Action Plans for the J-3 directorate of Headquarters United States European Command in Stuttgart, Germany. In March 1995, he was promoted to his current rank of captain, and in July 1996, Captain Childress reported as commanding officer, Naval Air Station Lemoore. Since returning to Naval Air Station Lemoore, Captain Childress has dedicated himself to improving the lives of the sailors. The first phase of a new family housing project has been completed, with more units to be finished in the upcoming months. And, Captain Childress recently broke ground on a new state-of-the-art naval hospital. Captain Childress is well-respected in both the U.S. Navy and in the city of Lemoore. The support he has given to the Public/Private Venture has played an important part in the economic growth and development of the city of Lemoore and Kings County. Captain Childress is also a devoted family man. He and his wife, the former Mary Sue Duckworth, have two children, Brent (21) and Christopher (18). Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, please join me in wishing Captain Childress, devoted husband, father, community member, and dedicated serviceman, continued success.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodling amendment. Throughout this Congress we have had a lot of discussion about an increasing concern across this Nation about the growing differential in wages, the growing differential between the wealthy and those who are somewhat more impoverished. When I look at what the potential for voluntary testing provides, I think more than anything else it is going to ensure that all of our children are going to have the same opportunities to succeed. Because what we are talking about here more than anything else is how do we empower students, how do we empower parents, how do we empower our educational institutions as well as our communities? By giving them information on how students and how schools are performing, whether it be in Hanford, CA, or Waco, TX, or Boston, MA, we are going to allow parents to understand whether or not their children are gaining the proficiency in such basic subjects which are critical to their success. When I talk about the growing wage differential, what is absolutely critical is that when we look at the potential lifetime earnings of any individual, the greatest determinant is the level of education they receive. When we look at what institutions our children are going to be able to get into, oftentimes it is their ability to perform well on college entrance exams. And unfortunately, all too often, some children coming from some areas that might not necessarily be getting the level of academic training that they need, are not being accepted into these higher levels of academic institutions. What the voluntary testing will allow, it will allow that parent and those schools to gain a greater understanding of whether or not they need to be doing a better job, whether or not they ought to be making some improvements in the way they are trying to educate their children and how they make them more proficient in reading. We are going to be doing a better job in giving schools and again parents the information they need to know, whether or not they ought to be doing something and trying to define some of the basic math skills which are critical to an individual's future success. Mr. Chairman, I think the administration has put together a terrific program that would allow again the information which is critical to the future success of a child to be known through this voluntary national test program. These are some things that are going to allow the greatest influence to be utilized at the local level, and more than anything else it will give the information to parents so they can make the decisions, so that they can play a major role in the success of their children.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor C. William Jones of Firebaugh, CA, who served a distinguished 20 years with the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority. Mr. Jones is a well-known farming leader in the San Joaquin Valley, which is the richest agricultural-production region in the country. Twenty years ago, Mr. Jones founded the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Users Association and in 1992, he oversaw the transformation of the association to the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority. The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority is comprised of 32 water agencies representing approximately 2,100,000 acres of Federal and exchange water service contractors within the western San Joaquin Valley, San Benito, and Santa Clara Counties. During his tenure as chairman of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Mr. Jones ran the operations and maintenance activities of all Federal Central Valley project facilities south of the Delta, including: Tracy pumping plant, Delta-Mendota Canal, O'Neill pumping plant and the San Luis drain. He also provided leadership for the agricultural community's participation in Delta issues resulting in the Bay-Delta accord, Proposition 204, and the CALFED process. Mr. Jones' involvement in water and agricultural issues has extended far beyond his duties as chairman of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority. He has also found time to be active in the California State Water Commission, the Western Cotton Growers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Water Control Resource Board. Mr. Jones is also a devoted family man. He and his wife, Cornelia, have three grown children, including California Secretary of State Bill Jones, who have blessed him with seven grandchildren. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, please join me in wishing C. William Jones, devoted husband, father, and grandfather and active community member, the best of luck during his retirement.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. This amendment would eliminate funding for one of the most successful Federal programs that we have. It is unfortunate that the overwhelming support that this program has received over the years illustrates its importance. Think about this: The European Union's 1996 budget allowed for export subsidies for grains and grain products of $1.3 billion, for sugar of $1.9 billion, for fresh fruits and vegetables of $125 million, for processed fruits and vegetables of $18 million, for wine of $72 million, for dairy products of $2.5 billion, for meats and meat products of $2.4 billion and for other processed food of $752 million. This compares to a total for the United States of less than $150 million. The EU spends nearly $500 million on market promotion specifically. We are debating the fate of a $90 million program that provides the only market promotion funding available to agricultural producers in the United States. Since 1985, the MAP has provided cost-share funds to nearly 800 U.S. companies, cooperatives, and trade associations to promote their products overseas. In that period, total U.S. agricultural exports have more than doubled, from $26.3 billion to a projected $60 billion in 1996. During those same years, exports of U.S. high-value products have more than tripled, and now account for 34 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports, up from 12 percent in 1980. In addition, the U.S. share of world trade in these products has risen from 10 percent to 17 percent. Over the years the MAP and its predecessor programs MPP and TEA have been criticized for many perceived shortfalls. All of these concerns have been addressed either legislatively or through regulations. The 1996 farm bill made permanent program changes that address these concerns. First, participants are required to contribute up to 50 percent or more toward programs costs. Second, for-profit corporations that are not recognized as small businesses are no longer allowed to participate in the program. Third, funds can be used to promote only American grown and produced commodities and related products. Fourth, participants are required to undergo review, certification and a 5-year graduation from the program. Mr. Chairman, last year we undertook the greatest rewrite of Federal farm programs in nearly 60 years. The changes that we made make it imperative that the U.S. remain a strong force in the international market. The continued health of the U.S. agriculture sector is reliant on continued exports and future export markets. Our competitors have made a financial commitment to export subsidies and export promotion. We need to ensure that we continue our commitment to our Nation's farmers. I urge my colleagues to continue their support.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Budget Enforcement Act. For the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats who stood up and voted for the balanced budget agreement, we were in fact making a promise, a commitment to the American people that we are ensuring that we will balance our budget while protecting the priorities of our American families and also by providing a responsible level of tax reduction. What this bipartisan Budget Enforcement Act does is it basically provides the American people with an insurance policy, to ensure that Congress will not renege on the promises that are a part of the balanced budget agreement. It is a responsible measure that has the protections for entitlement programs in times of recession. For those people who contend that it is going to cut veterans benefits, it is going to cut Social Security, that it is going to cut entitlement programs, that will only happen if Congress and the President fail to live up to their elected responsibilities of providing some leadership to address some of the problems that emerge when we find that our spending is no longer in line with our revenues, by coming forth to the American people and telling them that we have to make some modifications in order to ensure that we can continue to provide the veterans with the benefits that they need. Also, it gives us the opportunity to tell the American people that we do not have the ability. This is the enforcement mechanism for us to provide the leadership that the American people deserve.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy-Porter amendment, in opposition to the Dicks amendment, and I do so not to engage in a lot of the rhetoric and whether or not there is, in fact, a subsidy that is being provided to the timber industry; I rise in support of this amendment because I think that if we are going to be trying to refashion government in the manner in which we are sending the appropriate signals to the timber industry, that this is an approach to take. What we are talking about now is how do we design a system so that we have more market forces coming to bear? I do not think there is going to be an overall change in the level of revenue which the Federal Government is going to achieve, because I, quite frankly, agree with some of the opponents' amendments in that the bids that timber companies are going to be offering for these tracts of timber are actually going to be lower. But what is going to change by accepting Kennedy-Porter is that we are no longer going to be insulating the determination in terms of what is going to be the cost for building a road from the market forces. We are no longer going to be, in effect, having a cost-based reimbursement, and that is what is important. We are now going to be putting in place a more market-based mechanism which is going to ensure that the timber companies which are bidding on these tracts of land are going to have a financial incentive to build these roads in the most cost-effective manner, and that is what is in the taxpayers' interest. Unfortunately, while some of the rhetoric is based upon what is going to generate, whether or not it is a subsidy or not, my interest in supporting Kennedy-Porter is how can we put in place a system which is going to ensure that the market forces are going to ensure that taxpayers are going to be getting the greatest return on their investment. And that, I think, is the most compelling reason, and why those who are most interested in ensuring that taxpayers of this country are getting the greatest return on their investment should support the Kennedy-Porter amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, every year that I have been in Congress we have had this debate regarding China. The one thing that has been very consistent and very constant is that all Members, regardless of what their position is on China MFN, do agree that there are serious problems with human rights in China, with nuclear proliferation, with religious freedom. And there certainly are trade barriers. But what there is great disagreement on is, how can this country be most effective in addressing and improving upon those problems? I agree with what every President since the 1980's has agreed to, that it is by maintaining economic engagement with China that we are going to be more successful in empowering the citizens of China to be able to be more successful in improving their human rights situation. Since many of my colleagues have discussed many issues surrounding the China debate, I want to spend a little bit of time talking about agriculture. As a farmer from the most productive agriculture region in the country, I believe that the most useful action the Federal Government can undertake is to expand market access for agriculture products. Few people realize that China is currently the sixth largest export market for United States agriculture goods. In 1996, China bought over $1.9 billion of United States agriculture products. When we look to the future with 1.2 billion people in China, with limited arable land, it is now expected that China will consume almost 50 percent of the increases in United States agricultural exports in the coming decades. China is already No. 1, the world's largest wheat importer, and in the last 4 years China's feed grain consumption has increased by over 50 million tons. We must ensure that this country can be a reliable supplier to China. We must not repeat some of the mistakes of the past when this country put in place a grain embargo, when we acted unilaterally. The only people who suffered when we put in the grain embargo were United States farmers. If we do not choose to go forward with China MFN policy, we will in fact be putting another embargo that will also be unilateral which will ensure that it be will the United States farmers who will have the most to suffer. Let us vote against this resolution.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pombo-Herger legislation and in opposition to the Fazio-Boehlert amendment. I believe very strongly that we have an opportunity to make a responsible modification to our Endangered Species Act to ensure that we can establish that balance in terms of how do we protect the health and safety of people and the economic livelihood of many of our communities, at the same time not unduly endangering many endangered species. A lot of people have to keep in mind that a lot of these flood control projects and levies were established, they had to go through a NEPA process, had to be developed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, had to provide mitigation at that time. And now all too often we are finding for them to do the ongoing maintenance of these projects is that Fish and Wildlife, unfortunately, is asking them for additional mitigation just to maintain the projects that were built according to the NEPA and according to our environmental laws. What we are asking here is just, I think, a responsible step forward. I would also point out that I think this is actually going to result in environmental enhancement, because if we have a flood control district and a levy district that knows that they can maintain their levies, that they will not be threatened if they allow for habitat to be established, they do not have that incentive to go out and sterilize these. I think the Pombo-Herger legislation is a responsible step forward, and I urge its passage.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] in congratulating the President and the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership that played such an instrumental role in negotiating what is a very responsible budget that is going to benefit all American families. It is going to build upon the good work that has happened in this House in the last 4 years, when we have been able to reduce the deficit from what was $290 billion to what might be $75 billion this year. It is almost one- quarter of what it was 4 years ago. This is not an achievement that belongs solely to the President; it is an achievement that also belongs to some of the Democrats who had the majority in the first 2 years of his Presidency, and also the Republicans who had control in the second 2 years. We have a package now that I think gives the promise and the hope to American families that we are going to eliminate the deficit in the next 5 years; that we will be able to start repaying the national debt while still protecting the priorities of our families in education and health care, as well as providing some much-needed tax relief with capital gains and inheritance tax. I thank the gentleman for coming to the floor today and honoring some of the leaders of this country who have put us on the right track.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, as the House debates H.R. 1048, I rise today to express my continuing concern regarding the negative impact of the welfare reform bill on the Hmong veterans who served along with our soldiers during the Vietnam war. I am pleased that the bill before us today recognizes the importance of this issue. However, the sense of Congress language does not go far enough to address the real need facing the Hmong community. I believe that every possible effort must be made to restore the benefits that were promised to these veterans. I agree that reform of the welfare system was necessary as a means to facilitate the transition from welfare to work and to encourage greater self-sufficiency for able-bodied adults. However, the legislation enacted last year will adversely affect the Hmong people of Laos who deserve special consideration because they cooperated and sacrificed for our Government and its Armed Forces during the Vietnam war. Because of a provision in the welfare reform law, legal residents, with a few exceptions, are ineligible to receive SSI. As a result, many of the elderly and disabled Hmong veterans and their dependents will be discontinued from the SSI program by August 22, 1997. During the Vietnam war, many of the Hmong people worked for our intelligence and Special Forces groups. It is wrong to abandon these men and women who served as valuable allies to us during the Southeast Asian conflict. Though not classified as veterans by our Government, the Hmong of Laos were engaged in covert operations directed by the Central Intelligence Agency. Since many served in non-uniformed units, it remains uncertain if ``veteran'' status can be proved. these Special Forces teams aided our efforts tremendously during the Southeast Asian conflict, but, at great cost and personal loss to themselves. Many of the Hmong lost their lives. They suffered innumerable casualties, and lost their homeland to Communist forces. After the war, the Hmong were forced to live in refugee camps, many in substandard conditions, and were later brought to our country as political refugees. The process of assimilation to the United States has been especially difficult for the Hmong. One major setback for many, is that their command of the English language is insufficient to successfully complete the naturalization process. This is partly because, up until the 1950's, the Hmong did not have a written language, which has made learning to speak, read, and write the English language extremely difficult. Further, the English-learning process has been stymied by the high rate of illiteracy among the Hmong in their own native language. Educational opportunities in their homeland, for the majority of the Hmong who were brought to the United States as political refugees, were seriously undermined as a result of the war-ravaged years in Laos. Aside from limited educational and work opportunities in the United States, the Hmong must overcome many other obstacles during their assimilation and adjustment process. First, many Hmong who survived the war are afflicted with physically-disabling conditions and mental disabilities such as post-traumatic stress syndrome. Second, they must adjust to a set of very different cultural practices and norms. Finally, the Hmong are subject to discrimination and prejudice in their new environment. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking a first step toward restoring benefits to this deserving group. It is imperative that we follow through on the statement in the bill today and ensure further legislative action is taken. I am committed to working with the committee to develop a workable solution to this problem. The Hmong, who sacrificed much to fight by our Nation's side during the Vietnam war, should not be forgotten. Waxao Xiong hmong, age 70 Waxao served as a U.S. recruited soldier in the Luangprabang area of Laos beginning in 1964. Because of his leadership in the war, he was a special target of the communists in Laos. He ran for his life, narrowly escaping capture, but leaving behind his wife, mother and father in Laos. In 1987 he received a special reward for his exemplary military service in partnership with the United States. Now he says he wants very much to be a citizen of the United States, especially because he was a leader in fighting against the communists for the U.S. ``I want to work to help this country, but I don't speak English. I went to adult school for one year. Now I am studying in English and citizenship classes in my apartment complex, but learning is so slow. I do not know how I can pass the test.'' Lor Vang hmong, age 74 Lor was once a well respected mayor of his village in Laos. Although Lor and his family had little formal education, he nevertheless owned and worked their own land. During the Vietnam War four of his six children and his parents were killed. Following the war he lived for 13 years in two refugee camps in Thailand and arrived in the United States in 1989 at age 66. Now, through tears, he grieves his losses and wonders how American friends can assist him now. In Laos he was able to support his family, but arriving in the U.S. with no skills and no knowledge of English made him totally dependent on others. ``The U.S. has been very good. But I had little education in Laos, and it is hard to learn English here. Because I can't pass the citizenship test, I am thinking about killing myself.'' Pao Doua Vang hmong, age 79 Pao Doua Vang served as a soldier allied with the United States in Laos during the Vietnam War from 1960-1975. His two sons served in the military as well, including one son who was only 13 when he was killed in battle. Pao was shot in the head by Communist soldiers and lost most of his hearing due to this injury. He also has a metal plate in his head from a bomb blast (although he does not remember the blast). He arrived in the United States in 1983 with his wife and daughters to live with his sister-in-law. Due to the death of his mother and father when he was very young, Pao never had an opportunity to go to school. Through tears Pao says, ``I have lost hope in my old country. Now America is my country and hope. My children are citizens. I want to be a citizen too--but I have failed the English part of the test. If I am not a citizen, I have no future. Please help. My family is doing all they can, but they have their own problems and not very much money. Please don't let welfare reform happen to me.''

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 82d 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. 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. However great the loss of human life and homeland that occurred during the genocide, a greater tragedy would be to forget that the Armenian Genocide ever happened. To not recognize the horror of such events almost assures their repetition in the future. Adolph Hitler, in preparing his genocide plans for the Jews, predicted that no one would remember the atrocities he was about to unleash. After all, he asked, ``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--to this day--refuses to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. The truth of this tragedy can never and should never be denied. This 82d anniversary also brings to mind the current suffering of the Armenian people, who are still immersed in tragedy and violence. The unrest between Armenia and Azerbaijan continues in Nagorno-Karabakh. Thousands of innocent people have already perished in this dispute, and still many more have been displaced and are homeless. In the face of this difficult situation comes an opportunity for reconciliation. Now is the time for Armenian and its neighbors, including Turkey, to come together, to work toward building relationships that will assure lasting peace. Meanwhile, in America, the Armenian-American community continues to thrive and to provide assistance and solidarity to its countrymen and women abroad. Now 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 recall the tragedy of their past, not to place blame, but to answer a fundamental question, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Our commemoration of the Armenian Genocide speaks directly to that, and I answer--We do.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], I do not come to the well of the House as an expert on patent law either. But unlike the gentleman from Maryland, I come to complete disagreement in terms of what is the proper policy that we should institute in order to create a fiscal and financial environment that is going to ensure that our economy and in fact small businesses will prosper. When we look at what has happened in just the last decade when we have seen 40 percent of the growth in our economy has occurred primarily in the high-technology industry, we have to ask ourselves, how did that happen? It happened in a large way because we had a lot of small businesses that were able to attract capital, that were able to make the appropriate investments. That created jobs, it created products, it allowed us to become the leader in the information services and computer services and software services and the biotechnology industry throughout the world today. The changes we are considering making in our patent laws I am convinced are even going to do more to enhance that regulatory environment to ensure that a lot of our inventors that are out seeking capital will have greater access to it, because we will be able to find the investment community, and they will be much more willing to take a risk, to make a gamble on investing on the person who has an idea or an invention, if they have greater assurances that there is not somebody that is holding back a secret patent that could create financial jeopardy down the road. I guess that is where it comes to the fundamental disagreement in the discussion that we have had on the floor today, was whether or not the Rohrabacher amendment provides a level of protection on the submarine patents as does H.R. 400 offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble]. I have come to the conclusion that it does not. Part of that is based just strictly on the language, in that you can have an extension of the publication of a patent, if the office of director of patents and trademarks does not make a determination that there was not an effort being engaged by the individual that could demonstrate that they were diligently pursuing the publication of their patent. They furthermore go on to say that if you can have an amendment, and again, you have to have a determination made by the regulatory body that this amendment was not done so simply to prevent the publication of the patent. These are determinations that have to be made that are going to be very difficult. I am concerned that with those provisions in, we will not deal with the fundamental issue of dealing with the submarine patents, and that is what is impeding, I think, the flow of capital which is so important to U.S. inventors, people that have a good idea that can build products in this country, that can create jobs and be such a benefit to our economy. Mr. Chairman, I urge people to vote no on the Rohrabacher substitute, and support the bill offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble].

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act. I believe that this bill addresses an important issue facing families all over the country, the need to balance work and family. As more and more families have two working parents, the need for flexible work schedules has become more important. However, under current law a private sector employer is not allowed to offer an employee compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay. The availability of compensatory time for overtime work would address a real need for many working parents. I have listened to a lot of the debate today, and I have listened to a lot of the opposition to this bill. One of my greatest frustrations is that most of this criticism is based upon an assumption that employers are evil, that they are mean-spirited people who will use any means to take advantage of their employees. I am a private sector employer, and I take personal offense and find it insulting that so many of my colleagues would contend that we are going to take advantage of the people that work for us. I totally reject that premise and strongly believe that employers would be able to use the availability of compensatory time to help their employees voluntarily create a work schedule that meets their needs. I also find it extremely ironic that in my congressional office with my public sector employees, I can allow a person who is working on my staff to take time off to visit or to go to a teacher's training education day or a student conference day; I can allow them that flexibility in utilizing comp time. But yet we are trying to impose a double standard on myself as an employer in the private sector, that I cannot offer that same benefit that I can offer to members of my congressional staff to have the same benefits to attend something that is very important to their families and to their children's futures. I know that there will be a substitute amendment that will be introduced today that many of my Democratic colleagues will be supporting. But I caution them. I do not think this is the answer. While it has some modifications that are worthy, the bottom line is that we are trying to impose another mandate on employers by requiring them to provide the family medical leave another 24 hours. This provision does not make a whole lot of sense, because if you have an employer that is offering comp time, there is no employee out there that is going to make a decision in which they are going to take unpaid family medical leave time off in lieu of the comp time. It also is not appropriate and it is not fair for us, under the Miller substitute, to require private sector employees that are offering comp time to have to fully cash out accumulated overtime in the pay period in which they ask for it. As a private sector employer I could be facing a situation where I have an employee who might have acquired 80 hours overtime who might come into my office on a Friday and want to be cashed out and I would have to pay them that day. That is unfair. Please support H.R. 1.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. While on the surface of it, it may appear that there is some merit to it, I would say that in the implementation, trying to appoint a three-member panel that could accurately ascertain the fair market value of a project which is subject to a lot of exigencies and their impact in value would make it impossible for that group to come to an accurate conclusion. The bottom line is we have the Government agency which has the greatest knowledge about the value of this project that entered into an agreement willingly with the water district in order to transfer title to it. They made that decision in order to minimize the costs to the Federal Government and made that agreement in order that they would also be working in the best interests of the taxpayers of the United States. The Miller amendment, I fear, would scuttle this agreement; it would expose the taxpayers to greater potential costs. We should defeat this amendment, and we should pass the bill which has the support of the Clinton administration.