Cal Dooley

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this motion is not about condoning any of the human rights abuses or any of the infringements upon personal freedoms in Cuba. Those of us who are advancing this policy and this motion believe very strongly that a policy of engagement is one that is going to do more to improve the situation in Cuba, just as many of us believed when we were advancing a policy of economic engagement with China, it was a policy that was going to result in improvement in religious freedoms and human rights that are so important to the citizens there. Mr. Speaker, many of us would take exception to the characterization that in our offering of this motion, we are actually working to the detriment of the interest of people in Cuba and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. DOOLEY of California. We have at least three.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to provide some clarification, the motion and the Senate language retains section 908(a) which has the prohibition that does not allow for any public financing or assistance in the sale of products. So when Members are making contentions that this is going to result in a subsidization of trade and allow for public financing, this amendment does nothing of the sort because it retains the language in section 908(a). Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the motion that I am offering today is one which is advancing and continuing the policy of economic engagement that this country has embraced. It is a policy to ensure that we can provide economic opportunities for all sectors of our economy, whether it be the farmers in California, Missouri, or Washington, or wherever else in this country. It ensures that we are going to be able to provide for the sale of goods to Cuba, and to make one minor modification to our existing law, which is to allow private financing of the sale of those goods. This is an important step forward if we truly are committed to trying to provide for additional markets for our farmers in this country. It is also an important step forward because many of us believe by advancing a policy of economic engagement which is consistent with this motion, it will also do more than we could otherwise in terms of ensuring that we are going to see progress in the advancement of democracy, the advancement of personal freedoms in Cuba itself. We have been able, I think, to have a case study in terms of what a policy of isolation has done in Cuba over the past 40 or 50 years, when we have seen very little progress in seeing the advancement of personal freedoms in Cuba. We have found in other areas of the world where we have reached out and we have engaged in trade, we have actually seen not only economic opportunities, but we have seen significant progress on the social front with the advancement of democracy, the advancement of human rights, the advancement of religious freedoms. I am confident if this body instructs the conferees to adopt the Senate position, we will be providing benefits for U.S. citizens, but also we will be empowering the citizens of Cuba to be more successful in improving the quality of their lives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2646 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Dooley moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2646 (an Act to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2011) be instructed: (1) to agree to the provisions contained in section 335 of the Senate amendment, relating to agricultural trade with Cuba.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of KVPT Valley Public Television, which has made a significant contribution to the educational advancement of many people in my district. KVPT provides the Central San Joaquin Valley with quality PBS programs including Antiques Roadshow, Masterpiece Theater, and Sesame Street. Beyond that, Valley Public Television produces local programming such as Valley Press and Jobs, which broadcasts valuable local news and information about agriculture, employment, cultural events, and politics. Throughout the past 25 years, community support has been an integral part of Valley Public Television. Through financial support, volunteering, and technical advice, Central Valley residents have maintained the station's quality alternative programming. Without the assistance and generosity of local residents, KVPT could not have sustained the inspirational and educational programming that has contributed so much to the people of my district. Valley Public Television plays an important role in expanding educational opportunities for the Valley. It offers GED courses and has formed partnerships with local community colleges. These partnerships have resulted in the formation of on-air college courses that viewers can take for credit. KVPT also offers ``Ready to Learn'' workshops, which teaches parents, caregivers and teachers in a seven county region how to utilize KVPT's children's programming as an educational tool to help children get ready to learn before they enter the school system. Under the leadership of its General Manager, Colin Dougherty, Valley Public Television has been a leader in Central Valley broadcasting for a quarter of a century. Mr. Dougherty has been with KVPT since its inception in 1977. His work has been an important part of Valley Public Television's success. I commend Mr. Dougherty on his work over the years. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Valley Public Television on their twenty-five years serving the residents of the Central Valley.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today that we finally have put together a stimulus package that will enjoy significant bipartisan support, and it will engender this significant bipartisan support because it is focused. It is focused on enacting tax cuts that will really result in increased economic activity. It focuses on providing needed benefits to New York. It focuses on providing needed benefits to our unemployed workers. And unlike some of the past stimulus bills that were brought before this House, it is focused on tax cuts that will really make a difference in the immediate term. There has been some characterization that we did not have a stimulus bill signed into law before this or through the past 5 months because of a failure of one body or the other to take action. I think the reason we do not have a bill that is signed into law already was because we failed to work in a bipartisan fashion to structure a bill that would be focused on the immediate tax cuts that would provide that economic stimulus that was balanced to the appropriate benefits that needed to be provided to the unemployed workers in this country. I do not think we should be surprised that today when we pass this measure out of the House with broad bipartisan support that it is quite likely that we will see a bill that will be enacted and sent to the President's desk. There is a very simple lesson there, I think, that by working together and by being focused and finding a bill that can find that common ground, we can make a difference, we can advance policies that will ensure that we can see greater economic activity, and we can advance benefits that are going to provide some relief to a lot of the hard-working Americans who, unfortunately, have lost their jobs over the past few months.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate that H.R. 2869 is a first step towards addressing the clean up of brownfields, it is unfortunate that this bill does not provide the adequate incentives and protection to those willing to take the risk associated with brownfields remediation. Specifically, this bill does not address the entire universe of brownfields sites in this country. H.R. 2869 only includes a prospective purchaser liability exemption for sites contaminated with a ``hazardous substance'' as defined under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Petroleum is not considered a hazardous substance under CERCLA and is regulated specifically under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) statute. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that approximately one half of the 500,000 brownfields sites in this country are contaminated with petroleum. By excluding RCRA liability protection for petroleum sites, I am concerned that half of the sites in the country may remain contaminated, undeveloped and devoid of any productive use. Without the prospective purchaser liability protections for petroleum sites, developers will likely avoid remediating these sites. I am disappointed that we have not addressed this issue in this pending legislation and I encourage this House to address this issue as soon as possible.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Betty Ann Ong, the sister of my constituent and friend Cathie Ann Ong-Herrera. Betty was a woman of remarkable courage who was one of the many to die in the act of war perpetrated on our country on September 11, 2001. Betty Ann Ong was born in San Francisco on February 5, 1956 to Harry Ong, Sr. and Yee Gam Oy Ong. Betty was the youngest of four siblings, Harry Ong, Jr., Cathie Ann Ong-Herrera, and Gloria Ann Ong-Woo. Betty grew up in San Francisco's Chinatown where she attended Jean Parker Elementary School, Francisco Middle School, Washington High School, and the City College of San Francisco. She excelled in volleyball and bowling. Later in life, Betty also loved to travel, collect antiques and carousels, and had an extensive collection of stuffed animals and dolls. Betty began her career in the airline industry as a baggage handler and a ticket reservations agent with PSA and Delta Airlines. In 1998, Betty joined American Airlines as a flight attendant and later became a flight attendant purser. Betty loved her job and the people she worked with, and she was voted Flight Attendant of the Year five time by her peers. Betty's colleagues always described her as a very loving, caring, and always friendly person, both to her co-workers and to the passengers she served. Betty received numerous written compliments from her passengers. On that tragic date of September 11, Betty was serving as a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles. As terrorist hijackers took over the plane, Betty and her colleagues calmly reported to the ground grew vital information about what was taking place. She identified some of the hijackers' seat locations, which helped investigators later identify the individuals responsible, and asked the ground crew to pray for the passengers aboard. Under over-whelming circumstances, Betty's primary concern was the safety of her passengers. Up until the moment her life was tragically taken, Betty Ann Ong was a true professional who performed beyond her call of duty. Betty Ann Ong acted heroically under trying circumstances, and her heroism should be a sterling example of service to us all. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to Betty Ann Ong, celebrating her heroic legacy, and wishing her family peace for their loss.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and many others in drafting what I believe is a significant step forward in developing Trade Promotion Authority. Mr. Speaker, why is this important? It is important so the United States can maximize its influence and maximize its leadership internationally. It is important for the United States to demonstrate how we can lead and expand not only economic opportunities for the working people and the businesses in our country, but also demonstrate through this policy of economic engagement, which is embodied in our trade agreements, that we can do more to empower people throughout the world. When we look at those individuals in the developing world, every dollar in their per capita income that they see improved gives them greater purchasing power; but also with the improvement in their quality of life and their economy, we see the advancement of human rights, of civil liberties, and also the advancement of democracy. What we are able to do in this Trade Promotion Authority is to ensure that we are not only going to make progress in expanding the economic opportunities; but also for the first time, we are going to be able to provide the ability to see the enhancement of environmental and labor standards internationally through our trade agreements. What was also important for all of us to realize was that the only way we can again provide that leadership is to ensure that we can get these countries to the negotiating tables. A lot of the alternative proposals that have been offered for Trade Promotion Authority, unfortunately, would result in very few countries being interested to participate in negotiations with the United States. A failure to pass Trade Promotion Authority will have significant impacts. In the last few weeks we have heard that Brazil and Bolivia would fail to participate in a Free Trade Area to the America agreement without the passage of TPA. Following the Doha agreement, we have France that made a strong statement that they would not be interested in participating in the next round of negotiations if the United States President did not have TPA. This is important to our economy and workers, and also to the developing world.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2269, and I appreciate all of the work that has gone in to crafting this piece of legislation. In my estimation, this legislation is long overdue. What we are seeing is an increasing number of working people that are participating in plans that require a defined contribution. They need to have access to the information that allows them to make the decisions that are going to maximize the returns on their investments and their retirement accounts. This is inevitable, as we are seeing more and more people that are coming to expect that they will have more choices, more choices in the consumer products that they are accessing, as well as more choices in the financial alternatives they have to meet their retirement needs. I think this legislation takes a very balanced approach, and especially with some of the modifications that were agreed to by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) that were offered by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), and I think it also addresses some of the remaining concerns. It does provide for adequate disclosure. It does provide for fiduciary responsibility. Sometimes I think we are being a little bit condescending to a lot of the people who are participating in these plans when we are not giving them the credit for engaging in their own due diligence by trying to determine what the costs will be and what the values are of the various instruments of investment that they are going to be considering. Mr. Speaker, most people today are becoming increasingly aware that you have to consider the cost of a particular plan. Most people are becoming aware that there is increasing risk and volatility with different mechanisms that you could invest in. I remember when Mr. Lieberman was engaged in his last campaign and he said, it is interesting, when I would be making some visits to labor groups and, in particular, I went into a firehouse and met with some firemen there, and he said, their questions to me were not about some of the challenges they face in their jobs, he says, their questions were all about their 401(k) plans and the investments that they were making. He said they had more information than most people that he had come into contact with often on Wall Street. Mr. Speaker, this bill takes a balanced approach. I urge its passage. I thank all of the people involved in this.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. I understand the objectives of the authors of this amendment, but I think it is important that this country maintains the principle of ensuring that the labels we are putting on products are providing real information to people, information that has a scientific basis in terms of providing nutritional or safety information which is important to consumers. If we adopt this precedent of country-of-origin labeling, we are saying that we are going to then adopt a principle that we can label a product which has no scientific basis, no scientific justification. There is no indication that these products are less safe or less nutritious. I think it is important for us to maintain that consistency. If we go down this path, we are really starting a precedent that we can then succumb to calls for labeling products that consumers might want the right to know what type of pesticides might be used on them, what type of fertilizers, even though we now have laws in place and regulations which ensure that unless the health and safety of a product is going to be impacted we do not require that labeling. The other thing that I think is interesting, there is not a consumer anywhere, any of us in this Chamber today, that can go into a supermarket today and hardly pick up an apple, a plum, an orange that does not have a sticker on that individual piece of fruit. If there was value in that product being labeled from a particular country of origin or from the United States, there is nothing today to preclude a producer, a processor, a packager of putting that little sticker on that plum, peach, nectarine, or apple. Why do we believe that it is so important to establish another mandate by the Government on producers, on farmers, on retailers when there is the opportunity to do it voluntarily today? In light of the fact that we are not providing consumers with any information that actually goes to the health, the nutrition, the safety of a product, this proposal lacks merit. We need to ensure that we are making these decisions based on the long-held principle that the FDA and other agencies within the Government that it has to be based on science.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I rise asking my colleagues to support this amendment. I will tell you how it even impacts me personally. Over 10 years ago, when I came into Congress, I was a full-time farmer. At that time we were producing about on our cotton fields in the San Juaquin Valley about 1,000 pounds per acre of cotton. Today we are producing almost 1,800 pounds of cotton. The financial viability of my farm was not the result of program payments that are coming to us from the Federal Government. The profitability of my farm is much more a function of the investment in research that has resulted in improved varieties that have enhanced yields. That is the crux of this amendment. It is taking one cent out of every dollar that we would be providing in direct payments and investing it in research so we can continue to see improvements in yields, so we can see improvements in productivity. That has far more to do with the financial viability of farmers than the $100 million we are providing in direct payments to farmers. That is not an investment in the future. I just ask my colleagues to step back and take an honest and objective evaluation of what this amendment is all about. It is taking one penny of every dollar in taxpayer subsidies and saying let us invest it in research, let us invest it in the future, et cetera, et cetera. The farmers will see an enhanced level of productivity which will be more to their bottom line than these direct taxpayer payments. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is one which is designed to really reflect the priorities of American farmers. I am proud to be a fourth-generation farmer in the San Joaquin Valley of California. But really, when I look at the farm policy we are advocating today, this bill would provide almost $100 billion in direct payments to farmers over the next 10 years. This money, a lot of it, is much needed to ensure the financial viability of a lot of our farmers. But I also know that those farmers that are in the fields also understand that we have to have a balance, that it is important for us to also recognize that some of these Federal tax dollars could be put to good use by investing in research. And so what my bill does, it takes one cent of every dollar that we are spending on direct payments to farmers and puts it into a competitive research program. That $100 billion, almost $100 billion in direct payments that we are going to be providing over the next 10 years, it takes $1 billion of that and sets it into the competitive research program through USDA. These research dollars that will become available will ensure that we are investing in technology and improved agricultural practices that will benefit all commodities. It is unfortunate that that $100 billion that we are providing in direct payments to farmers in this farm bill is going almost exclusively to the producers of the major field crops, whether it be wheat, whether it be corn, whether it be rice, whether it be cotton. The specialty crop growers, whether they be grapes and the apple growers and the vegetable growers, get very, very little. What this amendment would do would be to ensure that those commodities, along with the major commodities, would get some money in order to invest in research programs at our leading research and academic institutions throughout this country that could be invested in a manner to ensure that it would enhance the productivity of our farmers, that it would enhance their profitability, that it would enhance their viability. I think if you asked the farmers throughout the country whether or not they were willing to set aside one cent out of every dollar they were going to receive in subsidies over the next 10 years, they would say yes. That is what this amendment does. It would provide $100 million a year annually for competitive research programs for agriculture, which unfortunately, has been flat over the last 20 years. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we had an agreement of 10 minutes and 10 minutes on this, 10 minutes in support and 10 minutes in opposition.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that exclusive of my time, that we would have 10 minutes in support as well as 10 minutes in opposition.

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