Cal Dooley

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today in order to pay tribute to the Fresno Service Center of the Internal Revenue Service which celebrates its 25th anniversary this year. The Fresno Service Center of the Internal Revenue Service has made countless contributions to its community. More than 40,000 local residents have received valuable job training and developed lasting careers at the service center. The Fresno facility has been commended for providing meaningful job opportunities to youth, veterans, and the disabled. In addition to job creation, the service center has played an important financial role in the community. Since it opened in 1972, the service center has contributed nearly two and a half billion dollars to the local economy through employment and related expenditures. Due to the generosity of the service center's employees, over two million dollars has been donated to local charities through the Combined Federal Campaign. I commend the Fresno Service Center's dedicated employees--past and present--for their admirable service, and I hope that their fellow citizens will continue to support them with vigorous appreciation.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today in order to pay tribute to the outstanding history of the Lemoore Volunteer Fire Department, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. This fine group of dedicated individuals first came together in 1921, and has been serving the Lemoore community continuously since its inception. Today, the members of the Lemoore Volunteer Fire Department provide an invaluable service to Lemoore by responding to nearly 200 fire alarm and over 600 medical calls each year. I sometimes hear a sentiment of regret from people that our communities are suffering because of an unwillingness on the part of its members to become involved in service activities. The Lemoore volunteer fire fighters certainly defy this supposed trend. They have contributed to their community with an overwhelming spirit of generosity and caring, from the practical services they offer by way of fire fighting to the little extras, like providing the city with its annual Christmas tree. I commend the dedicated individuals in the Lemoore Volunteer Fire Department for their remarkable 75 years of continuous service, and I hope that their fellow citizens will continue to support them with vigorous appreciation.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today in order to pay tribute to an important individual from California's Central Valley, Mr. Albin Gruhn. Mr. Gruhn is being honored during a special ceremony in Bakersfield next week as the Central Labor Council's ``Labor Leader of the Year.'' As the 27th recipient of this prestigious award, Mr. Gruhn has joined a legacy of key leaders in the central valley's labor community. With one look at his remarkable record, it's not difficult to determine why he is so deserving of this honor. For more than six decades, Mr. Gruhn has faithfully devoted himself to organizing successful worker unity campaigns. In July of this year, he retired from 36 years of service as president of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. While this position was perhaps his best known, Mr. Gruhn has also given his talents to the labor community in other capacities. Mr. Gruhn served as executive board member of Northern California District Council of Laborers for nearly 50 years, in addition to being appointed by State and Federal officials to several commissions and advisory committees. Mr. Gruhn, who triumphed as a potent force in the labor community more than 60 years after being blacklisted for union activities, is a natural choice for this award. I applaud Mr. Gruhn for his commitment and perseverance, and I hope that his enthusiasm for protecting workers' rights will live on within the valley's labor community.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today in order to pay tribute to an organization that is known in California's central valley for its wonderful entrepreneurial spirit. This organization is the Kern County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. More than a decade after its inception, the Kern County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has diligently served owners of minority businesses and has proven its effectiveness as a leader in the greater business community of Kern County. The Hispanic chamber came from rather humble beginnings--just 15 members attended its first meeting in 1985--but its founders were not lacking in vision nor in perseverance. The Hispanic chamber now proudly boasts an impressive 250 members and is still growing strong. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the Kern County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce for providing the Latino business community with such outstanding leadership. I hope that Kern County residents will continue to support vigorously the members and businesses of this well- respected organization.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, recently the House passed the conference report to accompany H.R. 3816, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997. This legislation includes a long-sought solution to resolve the issues concerning costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program. This language directs the Secretary of Interior to collect repayment of the cost of the Kesterson drain as described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, February 1995''. While all parties involved in the Kesterson cleanup issue are pleased with the solution of the repayment situation, there are several landowners who are involved in a lawsuit--Sumner Peck Ranch--that stems from the closing of the drain. The closing of the drain has led to the degradation of land in the area. In some cases this land has become incapable of being farmed. The basis of the lawsuit is that the landowners believe that the Federal Government should provide them with monetary compensation for the loss of the productive use of their land because the Federal Government is not operating a drain as promised in past contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. The case has not been resolved, and mandatory settlement discussions before the Ninth Circuit's chief mediator are ongoing. I want to make clear that the language contained in the fiscal year 1997 energy and water development appropriations bill in no way was intended to affect the outcome of the Sumner Peck Ranch litigation. The only purpose of the language was to resolve the long-standing dispute regarding the allocation of the repayment responsibilities.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today to recognize a legendary figure in Kings County's agricultural community, Mr. Holcomb ``Hoke'' Evetts. Because of his impressive accomplishments, which span the decades, Mr. Evetts is being honored by his community as Agriculturist of the Year. Mr. Evetts is most widely recognized for his involvement with what many consider to be the finest stockyard in the State of California. Mr. Evetts and his business partner purchased the modest Overland Stockyards nearly 40 years ago, and built it into one of the largest and most reputable agricultural establishments in Kings County. Mr. Evetts has served as a well-respected auctioneer for 55 years, and has even taken his talent to the world of motion pictures. Over 50 years ago, Mr. Evetts joined the Rodeo Cowboys of America, now known as the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association. As a proud and caring husband, father and grandfather, Mr. Evetts has shared his love of the rodeo with his family members, some of whom have competed in rodeo events with his same enthusiasm. As a leader in the effort to improve his community, Mr. Evetts has garnered wide respect. Mr. Evetts embodies what everyone seeks in a leader--a true individual who utilizes his talents in order to serve others. As an auctioneer, Mr. Evetts helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for dozens of needy organizations. There is no question that for Mr. Evetts, commitment to community and to agriculture is a way of life. He is a dedicated Valley resident who has played a major role in the development of Kings County agriculture. I applaud the Lemoore Chamber of Commerce and the Kings County Farm Bureau for recognizing his contributions.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Ganske amendment. Regardless of the merits of what he is trying to achieve, I feel very strongly that the language is far too broad. The broad implications of the language threaten to invalidate up to one-third of all the biotech patents in the United States. When we see some of the tremendous potential for research in the development of new gene therapies through biotechnology that hold the promise of finding cures to many of the diseases we face such as cystic fibrosis, AIDS as well as Alzheimer's, we cannot put in place an impediment that restricts the investment and research which can hold the promise to cures to these. Unfortunately I feel that the way that the Ganske amendment is drafted, it will provide that disincentive for investment in this emerging field which will not serve the interests of the people and the interests of the health of people of this country.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to thank both the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] for their hard work. Certainly I think it was their dedication to trying to move forward in a responsible manner on this issue that has allowed us to end at this point, where we have such strong bipartisan support for this legislation, where we have the President and the administration in support of this legislation, and where we have 14 Governors, bipartisan in their composition, representing 99 percent of the oil which is produced onshore which will be subject to these regulations, that are also supporting it. The reasons for their support, I think, are very clear and they have been enunciated by I think all the speakers that have spoken up to this time. This bill obviously is a good bill for producers and provides greater certainty. It is a good bill for taxpayers and will generate additional revenues. It is a good bill for both the State and the Federal Government because with delegating some of this authority to the States we have then an entity which has a vested interest and an incentive to move forward in a very expedited fashion to collect the royalties which are due both to them and to the Federal Government. Now, there might be some criticism that might be voiced, and it will be very limited in nature, where some people will be concerned that this measure is going to have the impact of perhaps limiting the ability of the Federal Government to collect on past royalties. That is not the case. This bill will only apply to royalties collected in the future. There is also perhaps going to be some reservations expressed with the statute of limitations, that this will impede the ability of the State and the Federal Government to collect those royalties. That is not true either. We are placing a 7-year time limit. There is absolutely no reason why the State or the Federal Government and those officials which are responsible for collecting those royalties cannot do so within 7 years. In those instances where a company might be guilty of fraud, that exemption in that statute of limitations of 7 years does not apply. Furthermore, if the State or the Federal Government or those officials assess a royalty and make a claim, that also then is not subject to that 7-year statute of limitations from that time forward. I think we have a bill which again provides protections to the taxpayers. It is a responsible bill. It is in the best interest of all parties involved. Once again I want to commend the bipartisan effort on behalf of the two subcommittee chairmen that really led to the development of this legislation.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for continued normal trade relationships with China. I have been amazed by some of the comments by some of the opponents of China MFN. One speaker earlier said that granting China MFN poses a threat to the industrialized world. What nonsense. The truest threat to the industrialized world is in fact to adopt the trade policies of the opponents of China MFN. The truest threat to the industrialized country of the United States, the truest threat to the jobs which are so dependent on international trade in the United States, is once again to adopt a trade policy that builds walls around this country. History has taught us that improving the human condition of people, enhancing the human freedoms of people, is best achieved by improving the economic condition of people. That is what we are doing by maintaining normal trade relations with China. China represents a great potential market for United States exports. China has 1.2 billion consumers who are living in a country that has experienced a GDP growth rate of 10 percent over the last 4 years. It is the United States who is accessing a lot of that increased market share. We have seen a rise of over 200 percent in the United States exports of telecommunications equipment to China. As a representative of one of the major agricultural regions in the country, I can state that we are benefiting greatly in the agriculture sector. We have seen it increase 175 percent of United States agriculture sales to China. China MFN is good economic policy for this country, and is in the best interests of the Chinese people.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side have 1 additional minute.

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Some of the prior speakers have said that they could understand why a Department of Energy bureaucrat would object to the cut of a little money. The bottom line is, there has already been $43 million cut out of this budget. That is 23 percent below 1995. That Department of Energy official maybe made a wise decision. They made a determination that by making this additional $11 million in cuts it is going to reduce the value of a government asset that we are committing to sell. Tell me what businessperson in America would make a decision that would result in the diminishing of the economic value of an asset that they know that they are going to dispose of in the future. That is the issue at hand here, that we might be finding $11 million additional to go for heating assistance this year, but next year and the following year, when we have seen the diminishing of the value and fewer dollars that are going to be available for any program, we will have even greater difficulty in providing for some of these needs. Vote ``no'' on this amendment. It is a poor decision.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. What the market Assistance Program is all about is trying to ensure that U.S. farmers get their fair share of expanding export markets. What the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is trying to do now is define a different criteria and that we try to say that only small businesses are going to be involved in achieving those expanded markets. As a farmer and as any grape farmer or wine grape grower out there will say, what is important is to increase the sales of wine. What is important is to assure that U.S. wineries have a fair playing field when they take on the European Union and the 6-to-1 advantage that they have in export promotion over U.S. wineries. What we would be doing in this case if we limit the money on where it goes, we would be saying to that small grower who is growing grapes that is selling them to a larger winery that they are not ever going to benefit from the Market Assistance Program. We would be saying to that winery out there and that winery who might be owned by an individual that might be farming 10,000 acres but has his own winery that he is going to benefit from the Market Assistance Program. That is not fair. What we are trying to do is to ensure that that average wine grape grower in California, or other parts of the country, that grows less than 100 acres of wine that they will have a tool that will ensure that U.S. wine will be at a competitive advantage or have a fair playing field when we take on the winemakers and the wine grape growers of the European Union.

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

Mr. DOOLEY. Reclaiming my time, what the issue is is that the U.S. farmer have fair access. In a perfect world if the European Union were not spending six times the amount that the U.S. Government was to provide exports, then we would not need this program. But if we want to ensure that the U.S. farmer has a level playing field, this Government needs to stand behind them, and that is what the Market Assistance Program does.

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Let us take a look at U.S. agriculture. Currently one out of every three acres that is cultivated in the United States is used for the production of crops which are exported. Last year agriculture exports hit $60 billion in the United States. When we look at the growth that we are seeing in exports, in China alone we saw a 175- percent increase in U.S. exports; in Korea, 74 percent; in the Pacific rim, 33 percent. What we are talking about with the market assistance program is to ensure that the U.S. farmers have equal access to those markets. We have heard speaker after speaker talk about what our international competitors are doing. They are outspending us by six to one. If we are going to provide the farmers with the assistance they need to ensure they can take on these unfair practices by other countries, we have to provide the market assistance program. When we look at it in terms of benefits, what it has provided, a recent USDA study has shown that every investment, every dollar invested in the market assistance program, has generated $16 in increased sales. For every $1 billion in agricultural exports, we have generated over 20,000 new jobs. I think it is clear that the Market Assistance Program is a good program for agriculture, it is a good program for farmers. A gentleman earlier said there are no farmers listed as the primary beneficiaries. I can tell the Members, if you are a cotton farmer, you are not going to be making that sale to China. You are going to be working through a cooperative. You are going to be working through a major company. The same thing if you are a prune grower. You are going to be working through Sunsweet. If you are a raisin grower, you are going to be working through Sunmaid. If you are an almond grower you are going to be working through Blue Diamond. You are not going to have the ability and resources to enter into those international markets. The market assistance program does this: It provides that financial assistance that ensures that the small farmers of this country, working in cooperation with the businesses of this country, can ensure that we will see the promotion of U.S. agricultural products.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today to recognize a dedicated educator form my district, Dr. Arthur Mayer, on the occasion of his retirement. During my lifelong residence in Hanford, I have known few people more dedicated to the improvement of our schools than Dr. Mayer. Arriving in Hanford in 1979, he served as superintendent of Hanford Elementary School District until 1986. These were years of growth, and Dr. Mayer's leadership played an important role in improving the quality of Hanford Elementary schools. But it was at Hanford Joint Union High School District that Dr. Mayer has made perhaps his greatest impact. Starting as superintendent in 1986, he embarked on initiatives to improve school facilities, establish new management systems, restructure the curriculum, and set up an academy system that improved the interaction among the staff and the students. Because of these efforts, Hanford High School has been at the forefront of the restructuring efforts at the State and national levels, and has received several State and national recognitions. These efforts have paid off at the level that counts the most: student achievement. When Dr. Mayer started at the high school district, student test scores were in the lowest 25th percentile among State schools. Now, after 10 years of Dr. Mayer's leadership, the student scores are in the top 30th percentile. Knowing Dr. Mayer, I am sure this accomplishment is the one that he is the most proud of. I understand that although Dr. Mayer is retiring, he intends to remain involved in education continuing to teach college education courses. I, for one, certainly hope he does so--tomorrow's educators have a lot to learn from this distinguished superintendent. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a dedicated educator, who has always put the concerns of the children first, by congratulating Dr. Arthur Mayer on his retirement.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues once again in remembrance of the Armenian genocide. In commemorating this terrible human tragedy, it is important for us to remember other such tragedies that have occurred throughout history. In recent years, the horrifying reports of systematic ethnic cleansing and other atrocities in the war-ravaged former Yugoslavia have demanded the attention and response of the Western world. The Balkan conflict has proven to be a very powerful and chilling reminder that if such aggression is ignored, an event much like the Jewish Holocaust can all to easily occur again. The events of the Balkan conflict have brought the Jewish Holocaust back to the center of human consciousness regarding the history of human tragedies and genocide. While it is important to remember that tragedy, we must not forget that Adolf Hitler's plan for the final solution was rooted in the Armenian genocide. Today, we must remember the Armenian genocide and reflect upon the suffering endured by Armenia and her people. 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. Adolf Hitler, predicted that no one would remember the atrocities and human suffering endured by the Armenians, years prior to unleashing his plans for the Jewish Holocaust. After all, he claimed, ``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 81st anniversary also brings to my mind the current plight of the Armenian people, who are still immersed in tragedy and violence. The unrest between Armenian and Azerbaijan continues in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabagh. Thousands of innocent people have already perished in this dispute, and still many more have been displaced and are homeless. In fact, families from my own district in central California have become tragically involved in this conflict. In the face of this difficult situation comes an opportunity for reconciliation. Now is the time for Armenia and its neighbors, including Turkey, to come together, to work toward a sustaining peace and to rebuild relationships between countries. The first step, must be to recognize the facts of history, however painful or awkward that may be. 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 one million, the Armenian-American community is bound together by strong generational and family ties, an enduring work ethic and a proud tradition 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?'' Today our commemoration of the Armenian genocide speaks directly to that end, and I answer--We do.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today to recognize the city of Coalinga. On April 6, 1996, the city will celebrate its 90th anniversary, and I would like to honor the people of Coalinga by recounting a few of the highlights of the city's history. Coalinga came into existence as an oil and coal mining town in the late 1880s. At the base of the coastal mountain range on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, the town started out as little more than a coaling station for the Southern Pacific Railroad line that connects Los Angeles and San Francisco. The name apparently derives from its designation as Coaling Station A. The mining of coal, and later oil, caused an economic boom at the turn of the century. By 1910, 4 years after the city incorporated, the Coalinga oil field was the largest in California. Oil continues to be one of the city's economic mainstays, along with agriculture. As a relatively isolated settlement, Coalinga survived the aftermath of the boom years by relying on a tight-knit community. This close cooperation among its citizens was used to establish a drinking water supply in an area beset by hard water, to establish city-operated natural gas utility in a rural community ignored by the corporate utilities, and to establish a school and a library. This little community also had a strong patriotic element--it was World War I veterans from Coalinga who started the push to establish the American Legion in California in 1919. Coalinga is the home to American Legion Post 2, designated as the ``Mother Post'' of the California American Legion. This sense of community was put to the test in 1983, when Coalinga was devastated by a 6.7 earthquake that leveled a significant portion of the business district and caused over $31 million in damages. There was open speculation that Coalinga would not survive this disaster. Instead of surrendering to this speculation, the citizens rolled up their sleeves and rebuilt. In fact, the earthquake served as a stimulator, with the town leaders using the rebuilding effort as an opportunity to develop a new revitalization plan. That plan has resulted in the placement of a State prison near Coalinga--a $36 million industry--the development of a 40-acre industrial park, and the building of an $8 million airport facility. I am certain Coalinga will continue to persevere and to prosper into the future. It has 90 years of history to call on when facing the challenges of the years to come.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the Chrysler-Berman amendment. This amendment will repeal the antifamily, antigrowth provisions of the underlying bill. While I support H.R. 2202's attempts to control illegal immigration, I believe that the issue of legal immigration should be addressed at a later time by separate legislation. The issues of legal and illegal immigration are separate and distinct issues, and should be addressed in separate bills. As the bill is currently drafted, after a 5-year transition period, H.R. 2202 cuts legal immigration by 40 percent--a level unprecedented in the last 70 years. In one fell swoop, H.R. 2202 slashes family immigration by approximately one-third. In addition to arbitrarily reducing the number of family members admitted each year, the bill completely eliminates major eligibility categories. H.R. 2202 not only eliminates visa categories for adult children and siblings but would also unfairly wipe out the corresponding backlogs of visa applications. Individuals who have played by the rules, paid necessary fees, and waited patiently for as many as 15 years would be summarily rejected for legal immigration. The bill also places nearly insurmountable obstacles for parents and adult children who are attempting to legally reunite with family members. H.R. 2202's restrictive family based immigration policies undermine American families and American family values. In addition to my concerns regarding family based immigration, H.R. 2202 is an antigrowth bill. As our economy grows, the job base expands. Both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times editorial pages have noted that the U.S. economy benefits from legal immigration. In fact, in a recent Cato Institute study, not one economist surveyed believed that reducing legal immigration would increase economic growth. In addition, not one economist believed that reducing the level of legal immigration would increase Americans' standard of living. As drafted, H.R. 2202 is an antifamily and antigrowth bill. I urge Members to support the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback amendment so that we can address the issues of illegal and legal immigration thoroughly and responsibly through separate pieces of legislation.

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pombo amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the Pombo- Chambliss amendment to H.R. 2202. As a representative from one of the leading agricultural production regions in the United States, I am concerned with the potential impact of H.R. 2202 on the agricultural labor force. Measures in H.R. 2202 to control illegal immigration through effective border and interior enforcement and improving the employment verification system could significantly reduce the work force currently entering the United States illegally and working with false documentation, I support those efforts. At the same time, we must recognize that the agricultural industry in the United States has historically been faced with a need to supplement the domestic work force, especially during peak harvesting periods. Agricultural employers estimate that between 50 and 70 percent of the seasonal work force find employment using fraudulent employment eligibility documents. if provisions included in H.R. 2202 are enacted, agricultural growers could be facing a severe shortage of skilled seasonal workers during peak employment periods. History has shown that the current H-2A program has been a regulatory and bureaucratic nightmare, rendering the program unusable for the vast majority of agricultural employers. Thus agriculture has no reliable means for ensuring an adequate supply of temporary and seasonal workers if the border and interior enforcement measures included in this legislation are really effective in controlling the entry of undocumented workers. An adequate supply of skilled seasonal labor is necessary to maintain the competitiveness of U.S. labor intensive agriculture, and to maintain the jobs and livelihood of hundreds of thousands of farmers, U.S. farm workers, and workers in related industries. I urge you to support the Pombo-Chambliss amendment.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment I offer today is an amendment that I think is in the best interest of the taxpayers of this country and also is in the best interest of farmers. We are embarking upon enacting a new farm policy, a farm policy that has been identified as being freedom to farm. The premise behind this policy is that over the next 7 years we will obligate the taxpayers of this country to spend $36.5 billion to farmers regardless of what the prices of the commodities will be. I think it has become very clear that we are currently in a situation where you can forward contract on almost all the commodities that are under the program for December of this year as well as December 1997, enabling farmers today in the private sector to lock in a profit. Under the current program that we have, our current farm program, there would be minimal government outlays, but under freedom to farm we are going to be requiring the taxpayers of this country to make $36 billion in payments to farmers, $36 billion which I believe cannot be characterized as much more than welfare payments. What my amendment does is, it makes a minimal change. It says that we would be far better served, the taxpayers would be far better served, farmers would be far better served if we could just take $2 billion of that $36 billion over the next 7 years and invest it in agricultural research. It has been demonstrated that agriculture research will pay great dividends not only to farmers but also to our society as a whole. A recent study by the Economic Research Service has determined that there has been a return of 35 percent of all moneys that have been invested in agriculture research. That is the central issue that we are talking about today. That is what my amendment is all about. Are we going to get a greater return on the taxpayers' investment in farm programs by the $36 billion going in direct payments, or will the taxpayers of this country get a greater return on the investment of $2 billion in research? I think clearly it is very clear that everyone will be far better served. Our society will be far better served if we make this modest contribution in allocating these funds to ensure that we will have a more viable, a more productive agriculture research program in this country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the chairman. If we would have had one hearing on freedom to farm, we might have been able to have a discussion on these proposed amendments, but we did not have a hearing on freedom to farm. The bottom line is, the issue here, this is not new money going out. This is not additional money. The bottom line is, if we want to fund agriculture research, there is only one pot of money out there. It is the $36 billion that is going to direct payments to farmers, however, Members should want to characterize those payments. The bottom line is, if we want to fund research, if we want to make an investment for the future, the investment for the future of farmers and the investment for the future well-being of our society and improving nutrition, we need to support additional investment into research. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think that all of the Members of this delegation, of this body, realize that the idea behind freedom to farm is to move to a more market-oriented system. The proposal that Mr. Solomon and I are introducing today is a proposal that does, in fact, move the dairy industry to a more market- oriented system. If we look at it in contrast to the Gunderson proposal, we are setting up even more regulation under the Gunderson proposal. We set up a class 1 pool, we set up a class 4 pool, we set up a minimum price on fluid milk, we have set up national standards on solids. That is nothing that has anything to do with market orientation. What Mr. Solomon and I are proposing is a transition away from the current government programs that has a methodical transition in reducing the support price on butter, powder, and cheese over the next 5 years. Under the Gunderson proposal, they take an approach which is going to cause distortions in the marketplace, because what do they do? They immediately eliminate the support price on butter and powder, but they maintain it on cheese. The private sector is going to respond, dairy producers are going to respond, processors are going to respond because they are going to move the product that is currently going into butter and powder into cheese. This creates a distortion in the marketplace that is going to be predicated on unsound principles that are part of the Gunderson proposal. What the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and I are offering is a measure that will do more also for consumers. I do not think anyone here can argue that some of the figures that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] was just bringing up that is going to increase dairy farm income is coming out of the pockets of consumers and taxpayers. If we are moving to a more market-oriented system, producers should be deriving their income not from the government, but from what the marketplace will offer them, and that is precisely what we are trying to provide. This amendment also is one which has been identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to increase because it lowers a part, would increase the ability of U.S. dairy products to compete in world markets.

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the freedom to farm proposal. I think all of us would agree that there is an appropriate role for Government in farm policy. That is to provide a safety net for farmers in those years of a price collapse. It is to provide for assistance in breaking down unfair trade barriers that prevent our U.S. farmers from being competitive in the international marketplace, and also to provide assistance in the research that can ensure that our farmers will have the technology to be the low-cost competitors in the world. But it is not an appropriate role of the Federal Government to ensure that taxpayers of this country are going to be making $36.5 billion in payments to farmers over the next 7 years, regardless of what commodity prices may be. Today if Members would go into any of the commodity markets on the major farm programs, they could forward contract in December 1996 on cotton, corn, wheat, barley, and oats, at a price that is higher than the target price today, on which our subsidies are based. On corn and cotton, you can forward contract into December 1997, covering 2 crop years, at a higher price than the target price. Under the current farm programs, the taxpayers of this country will be making minimal outlays to farmers. But under freedom to farm, what happens? We are asking the taxpayers of this country to lay out $5.6 billion in this next year, and $5.4 billion in the following year. This is just not good policy, and it lacks all common sense. In fact, we can be thankful that the same people that put together this agriculture reform were not the ones that devised our welfare reform, for if they were, we would be ensuring that anybody who received a welfare payment in 1 out of the last 5 years, that we would give them a welfare payment, guaranteed, for the next 7 years regardless of what happened to their income. They could win the lottery and the taxpayers of this country would still be obligated to write them a check for 7 years. This is bad policy. It does not ensure that farmers in the future will have that safety net; not a safety net that guarantees them a profit, but a safety net that ensures that when we have a price collapse, when income is low, that the Federal Government will be there to ensure that we do not have widespread bankruptcies throughout this land. Oftentimes people have contended that this freedom to farm is a transition to an era without subsidies. The gentleman, the Republican from Oklahoma, just recently responded that he hopes we look at this as a transition, not to transition out of programs, but to move into a new era. He is still hoping we have some financial obligations or money going into the agriculture sector post-freedom to farm. What we ought to be doing is devising a farm policy in this country that ensures that our farmers are going to have the tools to be competitive in the international marketplace. Freedom to farm does not provide that.