Cal Dooley

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3242, the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004, albeit with reservations about the scaled down version of the substitute bill that comes before us today. When I joined Representative Doug Ose last year in introducing H.R. 3242, it was a natural reflection of my longstanding interest in a prosperous and competitive specialty crops sector. U.S. farm policy has long overlooked the importance of specialty crops, despite the fact that these non-subsidized crops account for the majority of crop production in this country. Instead, U.S. farm policy has tended to focus on so-called ``program'' crops, such as cotton, rice, sugar, peanuts, wheat, corn, oilseeds, feed grains, and others, which account for less than half of domestic production. H.R. 3242 was introduced not to bring fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and other horticultural products into the category of ``program commodities'' but instead to focus federal attention and resources on the problems facing this segment of U.S. agriculture. The bill as introduced included various regulatory reforms as well as a modest level of federal dollars to invest in non-market-distorting ways in the competitiveness of the U.S. specialty crop sector. As the lead Democrat sponsor of H.R. 3242, however, I am very disappointed that the version of the bill that moved out of the House Agriculture Committee and is before us today is significantly scaled down from the original bill. In particular, the federal funding provided by this substitute bill has gone from a mandatory spending level of $508 million per year for five years, to a discretionary authorization of only $54 million per year that is further subject to annual appropriations. This is a far cry from the level of federal commitment to the specialty crop sector that is warranted. Specialty crops have an annual farm-gate value of $52 billion and receive no federal subsidies. Program crops, on the other hand, have a farm-gate value of only $48 billion. Yet the program commodities received federal subsidies in the amount of $12-13 billion, the equivalent of 27 percent of their farm-gate value. This bill does not change the fact that producers of specialty crops receive no federal subsidy payments, and instead rely solely on the market for their income. No new federal price supports, direct payments, marketing loans, or counter-cyclical payments are created in this bill. A serious federal commitment to this sector, however, requires a serious level of federal dollars. The bulk of federal expenditures under H.R. 3242 would go to a block grant program that would distribute federal dollars to interested states for research, marketing, promotion, and other competitiveness- enhancing programs for their specialty crop industries. These funds are designed to increase consumer awareness and demand for specialty crop products and otherwise strengthen U.S. producers' ability to supply a safe, nutritious and quality product to both domestic and foreign markets. Unfortunately, the bill as amended drastically reduced the federal commitment to this block grant proposal, from $470 million in mandatory spending down to $44.5 million in discretionary spending. During the Agriculture Committee's markup of this bill, I attempted to restore merely half of the mandatory funds provided under the original bill for the block grant program. In order to keep the legislation revenue-neutral from a budgetary standpoint, I offered two separate alternative offsets--one based on a small, pro rata reduction in direct fixed payments to program commodity producers, and the other based on a bipartisan payment limitations proposal pending in the Senate (S. 667). My amendment to finance the cost of a mandatory $220 million per year block grant program for specialty crops would have reduced the annual federal subsidies received by program crops by merely 1.7 percent. As a percent of program crop gross income, this represents a 0.36 percent reduction. Yet even this minuscule reduction encountered strong resistance by those farm and commodity organizations benefiting from these federal subsidies today. The inequitable distribution of federal expenditures between program commodities and non-subsidized specialty crops must be changed. The United States can no longer afford to short-change the majority of its crop producers who rely on market forces--not federal program payments--to drive their income. The fact that the current farm bill, enacted in 2002, does not expire until 2007 is no excuse for not reallocating a small portion of federal expenditures by less than 2 percent. Some of my colleagues seek to support the specialty crop sector without simultaneously disturbing the enormous benefits enjoyed by the program commodities. However, federal dollars are scarce resources and a more equitable distribution of these limited resources is long overdue. I hope my colleagues will eventually agree. In the meantime, I urge adoption of this legislation today and hope that it will lay an effective foundation for a stronger federal investment in our specialty crop sector in future years.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Mr. Loron Hodge, the Executive Director of the Kern County Farm Bureau. Mr. Hodge will be retiring this fall after 25 years of advocating on behalf of the agricultural community in Kern County. Loron Hodge was born in Arkansas in 1939, where he lived until his father accepted a job as a foreman on a ranch in Tulare County, California. It was here that Mr. Hodge first learned about farming by working on a family farm with his brother. After working in the Central Valley's agricultural economy, Mr. Hodge worked in sales in Porterville, California until 1970. In 1970, Mr. Hodge moved from Porterville to accept a job as the Assistant Manager at the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hodge was promoted to Manager of the Chamber of Commerce. In 1979, Mr. Hodge became the Executive Director of the Kern County Farm Bureau. Since that time, his hard work and dedication have made him a valuable advocate for farmers and ranchers in Kern County, California. In his 25 years as Executive Director, Mr. Hodge made many contributions that improved the Farm Bureau's operations and expanded its activities. Mr. Hodge played a vital role in the acquisition of the former Chamber of Commerce building, which is now the current home of the Kern County Farm Bureau. In addition to helping to improve the infrastructure of the Farm Bureau, Mr. Hodge helped to expand the Farm Bureau's agricultural education programs, including Farm Day in the City and the Teacher's Ag Seminar, which educates students and teachers throughout Kern County and America about the importance of the agriculture industry. As a result of his hard work, the Farm Bureau's membership reached an all-time high in 2001. In addition to his role on the Kern County Farm Bureau, Mr. Hodge is a manager of the Water Association of Kern County and member of the Kern Taxpayers Association, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and the Committee of Industries. In the past, Mr. Hodge has served on the boards of the Kern Historical Society, Project Clean Air and is former secretary of the Coalition to Protect Private Property Rights. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my distinguished colleagues join me in thanking Mr. Loron Hodge for his dedicated service to the San Joaquin Valley and wishing him well upon his retirement from the Kern County Farm Bureau.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), as well as Senator Feinstein, for really puttingtogether a bipartisan product that is in the interest of all Californians. All too often in the past, during my tenure at Congress, when we had a California water bill on the floor, a lot of our colleagues would shudder because oftentimes that would end up in almost a civil war among the Californians because California water issues have been difficult to solve. It has been difficult to strike that balance between providing for enhancement of the environment and still meeting the economic needs of our State through our agriculture sector as well as our municipal sector. That is what is important about this bill, because it is a rare occasion, I hope marking a turning point, where we are solving our problems by coming together, understanding that we can provide greater certainty in the delivery of water to enhance the environment as well as to expand our economy by finding ways in which we can provide for greater conservation, greater storage, and more efficient management of our water supplies. I think that this, hopefully, is a turning point because all too often in the past we have seen too many of the interests in California water that have retreated to the courts, that have relied on the courts to try to solve some of the difficult choices that we have to make. And I think the leadership that was demonstrated by the parties that I mentioned earlier hopefully is a call to action among all the interests impacted by California water, that they need to come together in a cooperative and a constructive manner to try to build upon this effort to ensure that we are going to have that balanced approach in utilizing the water in the State of California that could enhance our environment and, once again, ensure that we are providing the economic future which is so important to the citizens of our State. I rise in strong support of the Senate amendments to H.R. 2828, the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act. Passage today will finally enable this vitally important legislation, long in the making, to be sent to the President for signature. The Senate-passed version we have now before us merges many of the provisions in the House bill with a handful of changes negotiated after the House passed its version on July 9 of this year. It reflects a careful balance and set of compromises that represent our best chance for this bill becoming law this year. The successful evolution of this bill is a credit to the leadership of many of my colleagues in the California delegation. I want to give special recognition, however, to Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Representatives Pombo, Calvert, Napolitano and Cardoza for their steadfast stewardship and commitment. On a bipartisan basis, these and other Members worked long and hard to bring parties together. We consulted a wide range of affected stakeholders, both regional and national. We tried to bring a visionary yet pragmatic approach to the management of California's water resources. During each step of the legislative process, we tried to improve on the bill and strengthen its base of support. This bill authorizes $389 million for water projects in the CALFED program over the six-year-period FY 2005 through 2010. It creates new water supplies, improves water quality and reliability, and ensures ecosystem restoration. It evenhandedly provides for California's different water interests, implementing the CALFED program in a balanced manner. One area of difference between the House and Senate-passed bills focused on the House provision that would have pre-authorized certain water storage projects, subject only to a Congressional disapproval resolution. I appreciate the interest of certain House Members to expedite the very lengthy process now involved in getting water storage projects from design to implementation. Nevertheless, the preauthorization provision of the House bill was met in the Senate with objections on both sides of the aisle and threatens to stand in the way of this bill becoming law this year. Instead of a pre-authorized provision, the Senate amendments explicitly authorize groundwater storage and feasibility studies for major new off-stream and expanded reservoirs, including the enlargement of Los Vaqueros reservoir, the raise of Shasta Dam, Upper San Joaquin surface storage, and Sites Reservoir. With these four storage projects, California could acquire an additional 3.2 million acre feet of storage. In addition, the Senate amendments include new procedures and safeguards if Congress fails to approve a storage project by the end of the Congressional session following the submission to Congress of a federal feasibility study. In such a case, the Secretary of Interior must, within 180 days, make a finding of ``imbalance'' and report to Congress on revised schedules and alternatives to rebalance the CALFED Program. Although the Senate amendment does not expedite the storage authorization process as directly as the House bill attempted to do, it is an improvement over the status quo. Moreover, an even larger point must not be lost in this discussion. Any water storage project, whether currently in the pipeline or subject to the new authority in this bill, requires appropriated funds. Due to the fact that Federal authorization for the CALFED program has lapsed, federal appropriations are not currently being approved for CALFED. This fact is disadvantaging water users and water projects throughout California. The time has come for Congress to reauthorize the CALFED program, and allow projects--for water quality, water supply, and fisheries protection--to move forward. I urge my colleagues to vote today in support of the Senate amendments to H.R. 2828.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Roger Palomino's distinguished career in public service to California's San Joaquin Valley. Through a lifetime of dedication he has led a remarkable career advocating for and empowering low-income families to achieve self-sufficiency in this economically challenged region. A native of Fresno, California, Mr. Palomino earned a bachelor's degree in Criminology from California State University-Fresno in 1964 and quickly began a 30-year career in the juvenile justice system. During this time he served in almost every capacity of the juvenile justice system including as administrative director of both juvenile institutions and probation services. An expert in the field of juvenile corrections, Mr. Palomino has lent his expertise to countless local, state and federal juvenile justice agencies and task forces dedicated to eradicating juvenile violence and crime. It was his understanding of the root causes of juvenile delinquency that led Mr. Palomino to join the Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission, where he has spent the last 10 years working as Executive Director. The Fresno County EOC is one of the largest community action agencies in the United States, providing social services and promoting economic development through a variety of programs. Under his leadership and innovation Fresno County EOC has experienced both growth and programmatic expansion. With a current annual operating budget of more than $100 million and 1,400 employees, Fresno County EOC continues to function as a critical lifeline for many struggling families in California's Central Valley. The agency provides such critical needs as pre-school, vocational education, preventive health care, and job placement services. Mr. Palomino and the Fresno County EOC have truly undertaken a comprehensive approach to improving the lives of Central Valley families. Mr. Palomino's distinguished career has made him a highly respected community leader both in Fresno and the entire San Joaquin Valley. His dedication is evident in the number of local community organizations in which he participates in an effort to improve the local economy and create jobs. He is a gifted administrator and a tireless advocate for positive social change and the underserved. Throughout my years in Congress, I have come to respect Mr. Palomino for his passion in helping low-income Valley families. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Roger Palomino in celebration of his years in public service and contribution to the community. I wish him continued success.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this trade agreement, and I want to commend Ambassador Zoellick and his team at USTR for the negotiations of such a fine and fair agreement. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for the great work that they have done too. There is never going to be an absolutely perfect trade agreement. But we can come close, and this agreement does. And if we cannot pass an agreement with one of our strongest allies who has been a partner with us in every challenge to try to provide for greater international security in the last century, whom can we be an economic partner with? If we cannot pass a fair trade agreement and a free trade agreement with a country that has the same level of economic development that we have in this country, whom can we adopt a fair trade agreement with? If we cannot adopt a fair trade agreement with a country that has higher labor standards, as equal or better environmental standards than we have in the United States, whom can we adopt a fair trade agreement with? This is a solid agreement. It is an agreement that will provide greater economic opportunities for the workers in the United States and the businesses that employ them. We should be passing this agreement with a unanimous vote. It is unfortunate that we will get close but not quite there.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. I thank the gentleman for his consideration.

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. In the 2002 farm bill, an exemption from payment of promotion assessments was created for producers of 100 percent organic products. This exemption was established in light of the fact that commodity promotion programs do not focus on or promote organic products, which constitute only a small minority of agricultural production. Organic producers were paying assessments for promotion programs that did not benefit their specialized operations. Section 10607 of the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002 thus mandated a narrow exemption for producers of 100 percent organic products. The Secretary was specifically required to issue regulations for this exemption not later than 1 year after the date of enactment. Yet more than 2 years after enactment it still has not been implemented. The farm bill was enacted in May, 2002. The regulations should have been promulgated by May of last year, but they were not. The Department of Agriculture finally issued proposed regulations earlier this year and collected public comments, but final regulations have yet to be issued. When asked for a timetable for their completion, Department officials refuse to identify one. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to offer an amendment to impose a spending limitation on the appropriations for the Agricultural Marketing Service until such time as final regulations for this exemption are issued and implemented. But, frankly, organic producers should not have to wait until fiscal year 2005 for relief. I would ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his thoughts on getting this problem resolved.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1167, which seeks to correct a number of boundary conflicts that have occurred in the vicinity of the Mark Twain National Forest in Barry and Stone Counties, Missouri. The boundary conflicts at issue resulted from discrepancies between recent land surveys conducted by the U.S. Forest Service and decades- old surveys conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. As a result of the more recent Forest Service land surveys, private property lines adjoining Federal lands were moved and private property landowners discovered that, due to their reliance on the older Army Corps of Engineers land surveys, they had inadvertently trespassed on Federal lands. S. 1167 will remedy these boundary conflicts by authorizing and directing either the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Army to convey title to U.S. Forest Service land on which private landowners can demonstrate that they inadvertently trespassed due to their innocent reliance on a previous inaccurate Federal survey, or relied on a survey based on a previous inaccurate survey. This legislation largely mirrors H.R. 2304 which passed the House on November 17. While most of the differences between S. 1167 and H.R. 2304 are technical, S. 1167 gives the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Army more flexibility in resolving the boundary conflicts by explicitly allowing the appropriate Secretary to use existing authorities to resolve the conflicts, in addition to the process outlined in the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that these boundary conflicts can be resolved. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the terrific work they have done in crafting this legislation. Obviously, one of the greatest challenges we face in California and, indeed, the entire west, is how do we provide adequate water for all of our needs, whether they be consumptive needs, as well as the environment. And this legislation is a step forward to providing greater certainty that in the future we will have the water resources that are needed for the expanding population. We will have the water resources that are needed for our agriculture sector as well as our industrial sector. Most importantly, it also ensures that we are going to provide the protection that our environment needs. This legislation is clearly something that is going to meet the needs of all the citizens of California. And while there are some of our colleagues in California that do not think this is a perfect piece of legislation, I would agree with them that it might not be perfect but it would be foolhardy for us to not allow this legislation to move forward so that we could eventually see a compromise and a final consensus developed that will, in fact, contribute to the needs of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act and commend the leadership of my subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert and Ranking Member Grace Napolitano for bringing this important legislation to its place on the floor today. I also want to recognize the very significant role that the senior Senator from California has played in developing and moving a counterpart bill in the Senate on a parallel track, paving the way for a bill to become law later this year. This bipartisan water bill has been long in the making. Federal authorization for funding the Calfed Bay-Delta Program, commonly referred to as CALFED, expired in 2000--the same year that a consortium of Federal and State agencies issued a Record of Decision (ROD) setting forth a 30-year plan for CALFED. Since 2000, various versions of reauthorizing legislation have been under consideration by the Congress. Until today, however, none of the earlier versions was able to reach the House floor. The fact that today we finally have a bipartisan CALFED bill on the House floor reflects the long and arduous process of seeking input, balancing interests and making compromises. Many, many stakeholders were consulted in the development of this bill, including representatives of agricultural, urban, environmental, fishery, and business interests. None of them are likely to say that this is the ``perfect'' bill from their individual perspectives. But the bill we now have before us represents a constructive effort to forge a thoughtful and balanced approach to the management of California's water supplies. It deserves our support today. A sound bill when it was introduced last year, H.R. 2828 improved when it was marked up by the Resources Committee on May 5, and several provisions of Senator Feinstein's bill were incorporated. Additional refinements to the legislative language have been included in today's managers' amendment, enhancing the prospects for an expeditious conference with the Senate and enactment this year. Many in this body are aware of the legal conflicts and tensions that have evolved over the years on California water issues. The intent of this bill is to reduce those conflicts and tensions by providing guidance and authority for improving water supply reliability and water quality, while at the same time enhancing the environment. The bill recognizes the CALFED 2000 Record of Decision as the framework for implementing the program, and ensures that implementation moves ahead on a balanced basis. There are many important provisions in the bill. I will comment on only a few of them. For those of us in the Central Valley of California, this bill provides important assurances of improved conveyance of water supplies through the Delta. It authorizes evaluation and construction of much- needed new barriers and interties. It also recognizes the importance of improving drainage in south Delta channels to minimize impact on drinking water quality. It thus requires implementation of a program to meet water quality standards in the San Joaquin River and the Delta prior to increased pumping or deliveries. The bill is designed to give the Secretary more flexibility in meeting water quality standards in the Delta while reducing the reliance on the New Melones Project for meeting water quality and fish flows standards. To help meet this goal, the Secretary is authorized to use a variety of tools, including the purchase of water from willing sellers on the tributaries of the San Joaquin River. The legislation further allows the Secretary to use the CVP Restoration Fund to help pay for these water purchases and other designated actions. It is important to recognize that water purchases and the use of the Restoration Fund monies are merely tools that the Secretary may use to achieve a goal. They are not mandates that supercede existing water rights or water supply contracts or replace existing Restoration Fund priorities. The Program to Meet Standards created by H.R. 2828 does not give the Secretary any new authority to acquire or re-allocate water from anyone but willing sellers. On another issue--that of cost allocation--the Committee report on H.R. 2828 makes clear that the costs of implementing the CALFED program are to be allocated in a way that relates directly to benefits to be received. This ``beneficiaries pay'' principle precludes the imposition of water-use fee, tax or surcharge that would force water agencies or individuals to pay for CALFED projects or programs from which they do not benefit. Nothing in this legislation provides the basis for the imposition of such a fee or tax. Some critics of this bill are claiming that it cedes congressional authority over water storage projects. I wish to make it clear that such a claim is not true. The bill does give the Secretary blanket authority under the framework of the CALFED program to undertake feasibility studies for water storage projects. Such an authorization makes sense, given the fact that a Record of Decision for the CALFED program has already been issued and the extensive Federal-State-stakeholder consultation process within CALFED itself provides for due deliberation of project proposals. If as a result of a specific feasibility study, the Secretary determines that a particular project is indeed feasible, the Secretary cannot simply move ahead, but first must submit a report to Congress identifying project benefits and beneficiaries and a cost allocation plan. Congress then has 120 legislative days--not calendar days, but legislative days--to consider the report and recommendation, and pass a disapproval resolution if we disagree with the Secretary's recommendation. Such a disapproval resolution procedure, as we all know, is not an uncommon procedure for congressional oversight of proposed administration actions. In addition to the 120-day layover period, congressional approval through the enactment of appropriations for the project must occur. We all know this is no small step. So the bill does delegate more authority to the Secretary at the beginning of the feasibility process, enabling proposals to be explored and developed on an expeditious basis, but still retains the ultimate congressional authority to stop any particular water storage project as well as to determine its appropriations, if any. This process is thus a bit streamlined from the existing procedures for water storage projects. However, it provides adequate safeguards for congressional prerogatives while enhancing the expeditious consideration of worthy project proposals. Before closing, I wish to thank the staff of the Water and Power Subcommittee, on both sides of the aisle, for their hard work and cooperation in helping us arrive to this point today. Their openness and professionalism are deeply appreciated by me and my staff. Mr. Speaker, passage of this legislation is long overdue. If we are to have any chance of CALFED being reauthorized in this session of Congress, we must pass this bill today and forward it to the Senate for its consideration. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and vote ``aye.''

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Christina Sundstrom at the conclusion of a remarkable career in public service in California's San Joaquin Valley. After many years dedicated to improving the Valley's rural communities, Ms. Sundstrom is retiring from her position as Director of Empowerment Programs for the USDA Rural Development office in Visalia, California, the capstone of a distinguished career. Ms. Sundstrom began her career in public service working for the Army National Training Center at Fort Irwin in Barstow, California. After several years spent raising a family in Los Angeles, Ms. Sundstrom devoted a significant portion of her career to helping retirees and disabled citizens in the Social Security Administration office in Visalia. In this role she became intimately familiar with the needs of our vibrant, yet economically challenged region. Christina Sundstrom's tireless dedication to serving the Central Valley's families and her efforts to improve the Valley's communities earned her the respect of her peers in state and federal agencies and made her a key community leader in the region. I was fortunate to have her join my Congressional staff after my election in 1990 as my District Director. Over the next seven years, Ms. Sundstrom excelled as my representative in the district and as a skilled liaison between state and federal agencies, community groups, and constituencies. As my District Director, Ms. Sundstrom played a significant role in providing relief to many Valley agricultural communities following a crop freeze in the early 1990's. She played a key role in addressing this region's compelling needs by helping to secure key economic development grants and coordinating visits by Cabinet officials and by the President of the United States in the mid-1990's. As an extension of her proven commitment to the Central Valley's economic development, Ms. Sundstrom later accepted a position as Programs Coordinator with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Office in Visalia. In this capacity, she assisted many struggling Valley communities in their efforts to obtain grant funding, tax incentives, and other forms of assistance necessary to combat the Valley's persistent double-digit unemployment. Many local leaders have praised Ms. Sundstrom as an effective and invaluable resource to the region. Christina Sundstrom's retirement this week from the Department of Agriculture marks a significant loss for the San Joaquin Valley, which has come to rely on her as a one of its best and brightest advocates for positive change. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the distinguished career of Christina Sundstrom and her notable record of service to our community on this special occasion.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and I want to once again restate some of the facts because I think there has been a lot of false allegations here. Accenture is a U.S.-based partnership. Accenture was never an inversion corporation that moved from the U.S. to offshore. Accenture will be paying taxes on all the income that is going to be generated by this contract. And, in fact, if you look at recent history at the tax rate, the Federal tax rate that Accenture has paid in the past few years has been greater than that of the other competitors on this. Accenture is a U.S. partnership that employs 25,000 U.S. employees. All those employees that are going to be benefiting in this contract with a team and a partnership that will comprise 330,000 U.S. workers will be paying U.S. income taxes. I am very concerned about the precedent we will be setting if we adopt an amendment that is being offered today that a company has to be solely incorporated in the United States in order to compete for a government contract. If we adopt that standard and that standard was adopted by the European countries of Germany and France or Japan or China, we would be saying to the workers of IBM in the United States, the workers of Boeing, the workers of Cisco, the workers in Microsoft that you cannot compete for a contract that is being offered by the governments of Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain. That would be an injustice, and it would ensure that we would be adopting a policy emulated by those other countries which would hurt U.S. companies and would hurt U.S. workers. This is a precedent that could cause great harm to this country, and I hope we reject it.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Tomas A. Arciniega for his 20 years of distinguished service as the president of California State University-Bakersfield. His retirement in July 2004 concludes a remarkable career noted for his leadership in the development of CSU-Bakersfield as a major regional university. Throughout his career, Dr. Arciniega has been a tireless advocate for expanded access to higher education for low-income and minority students in California's San Joaquin Valley. Dr. Arciniega was born and raised in El Paso, Texas and earned a bachelor's degree in teacher education from New Mexico State University and a master's degree in educational administration from the University of New Mexico. His early career included military service as an officer in the United States Army and an appointment by the United States Foreign Service as a human resources advisor in the Dominican Republic during the late 1960's. Dr. Arciniega's teaching career began in El Paso, Texas and later he served as Dean of Education at San Diego State University and as Provost at California State University-Fresno. His appointment as the third president of CSU-Bakersfield in 1983 ushered in an era of steady expansion and achievement at the university. As a result of Dr. Arciniega's leadership, the university's multi-cultural enrollment has more than doubled and its budget has more than tripled. CSU-Bakersfield's success has been due in large part to Dr. Arciniega's efforts to focus public attention on the needs of low- income and minority students, who form the country's fastest-growing school-age population. Many of Dr. Arciniega's peers have credited him with helping to make higher education a reality for thousands of students for whom college would have been impossible a generation ago. He is a widely published expert on higher education administration, bilingual education, and multicultural education. During his distinguished career, Dr. Arciniega also served as a technical consultant to the Ministries of Education in Honduras, Bolivia, Panama, and Guatemala. Dr. Arciniega is a highly respected community leader in the Central Valley and continues to inspire young people around the country to pursue higher education as a means to improve their lives. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Tomas A. Arciniega for a highly successful career on the occasion of his retirement as president of CSU-Bakersfield. I wish him the best of luck and continued success.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in remembrance of the Armenian Genocide. This terrible human tragedy must not be forgotten. Like the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide stands as a tragic example of the human suffering that results from hatred and intolerance. The Ottoman Turkish Empire between 1915 and 1923 massacred one and a half million Armenian people. More than 500,000 Armenians were exiled from a homeland that their ancestors had occupied for more than 3,000 years. A race of people was nearly eliminated. It would be an even greater tragedy to forget that the Armenian Genocide ever happened. To not recognize the horror of such events almost assures their repetition in the future. Adolf 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. And we must also be mindful of the current suffering of the Armenian, where the Armenian people 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 many more have been displaced and are homeless. In the face of this difficult situation we have an opportunity for reconciliation. Now is the time for Armenia and its neighbors to come together and 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. 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 replace 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. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the efforts of Jeff L. Taylor, former General Manager/Chief Engineer/ Secretary of the Kings River Conservation District in California's San Joaquin Valley. Mr. Taylor passed away at his home in Fresno, CA on January 2, 2003, leaving behind a legacy of exemplary leadership in the construction of public works. After graduating from San Jose State College in 1957. Mr. Taylor began his engineering career with the Kern County Land Company and the Fresno Irrigation District before establishing his own engineering firm in Fresno. Following three years of engineering work in what was then East Pakistan, Mr. Taylor commenced a distinguished thirty-year career as General Manager-Chief Engineer for the Kings River Conservation District (KRCD) in 1972. While Mr. Taylor was responsible for establishing the KRCD as one of the San Joaquin Valley's leading water resource agencies, he will forever be remembered for his tireless dedication to the successful construction of the Pine Flat Power Plant, completed in 1984. The power plant, situated at the base of the Pine Flat Dam, was the crowning achievement in Mr. Taylor's visionary plan to best utilize the resources of the Kings River area through water supply and hydroelectric projects. The power plant possesses the capability to provide enough energy to supply a metropolitan area the size of Fresno. Mr. Taylor's peers credited his efforts in obtaining the original FERC license to construct the power plant and lauded him for his leadership over its successful construction and operation. During Mr. Taylor's tenure as General Manager, the KRCD also worked to protect Kings River environmental resources, promoted better on-farm water management, and confronted the area's groundwater overdraft problems. April 2004 marks the 20th anniversary of the power plant's original dedication, and the KRCD has voted to re-name the Pine Flat Power Plant the Jeff L. Taylor Pine Flat Power Plant. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the distinguished efforts of Jeff L. Taylor and his record of service to his community on this special occasion.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this amendment. I do not think this is the proper vehicle for us to be attaching this to. The issue of genetically enhanced products is something that we have spent a lot of time on. I think our existing regulatory structure gives us the opportunity to really get verification in whether or not any of these new approaches do pose any health risk to consumers. And I think now we can have great confidence that the products that are coming onto the market, that are containing genetically enhanced products are, in fact, determined to be safe for human consumption. I think when we have an amendment such as this it poses, I think, a situation where we will actually impede the development of an industry and of a technology that has the potential to actually have tremendous benefits in dealing with the obesity problem that we have in this country. There are a number of genetically enhanced products that are being developed now that are going to result in some of our oils being lowered and some of the trans fats and saturated fats that actually can be incorporated into some of our food products that are going to result in less obesity. I think we would be running the risk of setting back the industry and setting back some of the developments in new technology that actually could be a benefit in improving the nutrition of a lot of our food products and this amendment would actually pose an impediment, would impose a liability that would deny some of these new developments that actually can be of great benefit in terms of enhancing the nutrition that a lot of our citizens are consuming. Mr. Chairman, I hope we will oppose this amendment.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a young man who is being sworn in today as a citizen of the United States of America. Over the past 2 years, Miguel Arias has been a member of my staff in my Fresno, California and Washington, DC offices. Over that time, Miguel has shown that he is dedicated to his family, his friends, his community, and his country. I am honored to rise in this chamber and welcome Miguel as a citizen of the United States. Miguel was born in Apatzingan, a small city in the state of Michoacan, Mexico. He and his mother, Teresa Arias, immigrated to the United States when he was 2 years old. The Arias family settled in Mendota, California, a small farming community on the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley. It was in Mendota that Miguel began working in the fields picking onions, tomatoes, and melons to earn extra money for his mother, sister, and five brothers. In spite of his long and hard hours in the fields, Miguel excelled academically at Mendota High School and found time to participate in numerous extracurricular activities, including wrestling. Upon graduation from Mendota High School, Miguel enrolled at California State University, Fresno, where studied criminology while working for both the Mendota High wrestling team and the Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission. In May 2001, he became the first person in his family to graduate from college, earning a Bachelor's degree in criminology from CSU Fresno. Following his graduation, Miguel began working for me as a staff assistant in my district office, where he made a very strong impression both with me, and with the constituents contacting my office. He was promoted to caseworker, where he specialized in immigration issues facing the people of my district. It was in this role where Miguel provided his most significant contribution to his community. Miguel has become an expert in the process of immigration to the United States by helping many people in my district obtain visas, work permits, and citizenship. Miguel was a leader in developing and executing the Mendota Project, which counseled parents and students at Mendota High School on the timeline of the immigration process and advised students on how to continue their education in colleges and universities while they waited for their legal immigration papers. The Mendota Project provided significant assistance to many people in my district who were struggling with immigration issues. Because of Miguel's leadership and dedication to the people of his community, the Mendota Project was an incredibly successful immigration education venture. His expertise on immigration policy was also apparent when, earlier this year, he counseled a summer intern in my office through the process of obtaining citizenship. Miguel's commitment to improving and assisting the immigrant community has not only been important to my office, but to the residents of the San Joaquin Valley. I want to express my congratulations to Miguel as he reaches the culmination of a very long process that required a lot of hard work. Miguel has set a tremendous example for many of the immigrants he has helped while working in my office. Because of his hard work, determination, and community involvement, I have no doubt that he will continue to be an important role model in his community. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Miguel Arias today as he is sworn in as a citizen of the United States of America.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1274 as introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) and me, and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for their work in advancing this piece of legislation. The Eastern District of California is very pleased that they have decided to build a new Federal courthouse in the city of Fresno. The entire community, as well as the surrounding areas, is very pleased with this investment into the construction of a new courthouse which will serve the needs of the entire Eastern District of California. This legislation is also very important in that it will transfer the B.F. Sisk Building to the County of Fresno, with the appropriate stipulations that this legislation embodies, ensuring that it remains in public use for a considerable period of time. This also meets the needs of Fresno, it meets the needs of public service, and ensures that the taxpayers' interests are protected. I thank the committee members for advancing this legislation.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2366.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) be removed as a cosponsor from my bill, H.R. 3308. The gentleman from Texas had asked me to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3242, which I introduced, and was mistakenly added as a cosponsor of H.R. 3308.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced legislation to make permanent the authority for dairy producers and processors to have an important risk management tool known as forward pricing contracts. As the ranking minority member of the Agriculture Committee's subcommittee that has jurisdiction over dairy policy, I hope to move this legislation forward before the existing statutory authority expires next year. I am very pleased that my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Gutknecht of Minnesota, has joined me in introducing this legislation, along with 14 other of our colleagues. Forward pricing contracts allow farmers and their customers the opportunity to freely negotiate a long-term contract for the sale of their agricultural products at a fixed price. This risk management tool gives farmers greater predictability for income streams, which in turn allows for better management of farm and business operations. Buyers and sellers of many farm commodities rely heavily on forward contracts. According to a report by the GAO, forward cash contracting is the risk management tool most frequently used by producers outside the dairy sector. A majority of cotton (76 percent), corn (65 percent), and wheat (57 percent) producers use forward contracts to lock in their prices and revenue. Dairy producers have utilized this tool less, primarily because the legal requirements of the federal milk marketing order system have prevented dairy processors from offering this risk management tool to dairy farmers. In 1999, Congress decided to amend federal law to remove this impediment to dairy forward pricing contracts. A pilot program was established, allowing dairy producers and processors to enter into voluntary agreements for the sale of a set amount of milk for a fixed price over a specified period of time. These contracts are based on a negotiated price rather than the minimum price set monthly under federal milk marketing orders. The pilot program went into effect in July 2000, and is due to expire December 31, 2004. Although it has only been in place for a few years, it is an important tool for the dairy industry to have that deserves permanence. The bill that I introduced today would make this program a permanent authority and thereby ensure the availability of forward pricing contracts to any and all producers and processors who voluntarily want to use such a risk management tool. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and making it become law in the near future.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of both the Chilean and the Singapore free trade agreements. I want to compliment Ambassador Zoelick, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and others who played such an important role in ensuring that these agreements are advancing the interests of the U.S. businesses as well as the people they employ. In the passage of these measures, we are really reaping the benefits that result from the passage of Trade Promotion Authority last year, which gave the United States the ability to maximize its leadership internationally, to ensuring that we can advance a policy of economic engagement that will create additional opportunities for the citizens of this country, and at the same time ensuring that we can facilitate and accelerate the development of economies throughout the world, and, in this case, Chile and Singapore. These agreements are important because of the enhanced market access that they provide to U.S. farmers as well as many other products that are produced in the United States. These agreements are also important because they help to strengthen the partnership with the United States and Singapore that ensure that we have a platform in that region of the world that allows us to expand further opportunities. The same case can be made with Chile. With the agreement we have negotiated with Chile, we are once again demonstrating that the United States has a commitment to be a good partner with our friends in South America. This is going to be important, both in Singapore and Chile, so that we can advance our interests in terms of regional and multilateral trade agreements. We want to continue to build upon these agreements and see progress in the Doha Round of the WTO in order to once again ensure that we can benefit the entire international economy by seeing greater levels of market access. I am also pleased that we have been able to distinguish that we have to have different approaches in how we advance the issues of labor and the environment and different agreements with different countries. I think the way that we have advanced the issue of ensuring enforcement of domestic labor laws in Chile is appropriate, that we understand that we can invest in the ability and capacity of the government of Chile to enforce their labor laws. That is going to be an important tool in terms of seeing advancement in labor conditions there. We always hold out the tool and the enforcement mechanism of sanctions if we do not see progress. I think this is an excellent way to achieve the objectives that we all share and seeing the ability of the policy of economic engagement and trade to provide the ability to see greater progress in the improvement of environmental conditions. Once again, in closing, both the Singapore agreement and the Chilean agreement are very important to the economic welfare of the citizens of the United States and will certainly strengthen the partnership of the United States in two very important regions of the world, in South America as well as Asia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct. And what we are really trying to do in essence is to have this body of the House of Representatives join with a bipartisan majority in the Senate that passed by 76 votes a measure to ensure that we would guarantee seniors a prescription drug benefit. For those of us who are so supportive of the Medicare fall-back provisions in the Senate, this is crucial to Medicare recipients. If we are going to stand up and be able to promise to senior citizens on Medicare throughout this country that there will, in fact, be a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, we must accept the Senate fall-back provisions. Why should we do this? Because we have a clear example in the past, where we have allowed private plans to offer Medicare+Choice on the promise that every senior in the United States would have access to a Medicare+Choice plan. The private plans did not provide it. And the same thing will happen with the House-passed prescription drug plan. By offering a drug plan through private insurance, if there is no Medicare fallback as the Senate has, there is no guarantee, there is no ability that we will live up to the promise that we will provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We ought to have reason to be greatly concerned, because the Wall Street analysts, who really did an assessment of the likelihood of private insurers offering this benefit, have come to the conclusion that it is quite unlikely, because this is a stand-alone drug policy that is difficult to provide and they do not think the private sector will stand up and provide that. Furthermore, the approach that the House bill is taking is one which tries to bribe the private insurance companies to provide this prescription drug benefit. They come to the conclusion that if the private sector is not stepping up to provide this benefit that the Federal Government is going to step up and provide taxpayer money to further subsidize the private insurer to offer this benefit. This is not the approach we should be taking. If we are going to guarantee a prescription drug benefit, accept the Senate fallback provisions.