Cal Dooley

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to rise and pay tribute to my fellow Californian, Vic Fazio. As Members of this institution, we have occasion to observe many of our colleagues and we learn from our colleagues. I can honestly say that in my tenure in Congress, I have learned from no other Member more than I have learned from Vic Fazio. He epitomizes to me what it is to be a public servant, he epitomizes what it is to be an effective legislator, because Vic Fazio understands that you have to have the commitment, you have to have the compassion, and you have to have the drive to move forward in trying to solve many of the challenges which are facing American families. What Vic Fazio has also demonstrated is that the way that you get things done is not simply by running out and getting in front of cameras. The way you get things done is by opening up the hood of the car and being one of the mechanics of the institution, understanding that you have got to get your hands dirty and that you have to be able to work with people from all factions of this institution to bring them together, to find those common values and those common threads which will allow us to move forward in addressing the important issues facing this country. Vic Fazio has demonstrated that, I think, far better than any Member that has served in this institution, and he certainly has provided an excellent model for all of us. While I have heard some of our colleagues say, Vic Fazio, they are congratulating you and hoping the best for you on your retirement, what I am saying is that, Vic Fazio, you are retiring from this institution but I know full well that you are not retiring from public service, and the American people are still going to benefit from your tremendous work in the years to come.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, and to the misguided census process that this bill attempts to establish. The 1990 Census left out millions of people, resulting in the most inaccurate census in history. One out of every twenty Hispanics was not counted--meaning that a total of 1.1 million Latinos were completely excluded from our national census. To correct this problem, and to ensure an accurate Census 2000, many of us in Congress support the use ``sampling'', a statistical technique that will ensure we get the best count possible. And my California Republican colleagues agreed with me when we sent a delegation letter to the Census director in 1992, criticizing the 1990 census. In a bipartisan California delegation letter, Republicans and Democrats wrote, and I quote: It has been widely accepted that the 1990 census missed as many as 10 million people and was demonstrably flawed. . . We cannot simply ignore the inaccuracies of the current data. We are not professional statisticians and leave to those experts at the Bureau and the others in the scientific community. The letter went on to say, and again I quote: The decision on whether or not to adjust should not be a decision based on the politics of one region losing population while another gains population. Rather, there can only be winners if there is a process adopted to more accurately reflect the population of the United States. Well, I have news for my colleagues. We have a process to more accurately reflect the population of the United States, and it's called statistical sampling. Unfortunately, now, in spite of the empirical evidence indicating that statistical sampling is the best way to get an objective, accurate census, our Republican colleagues are doing everything in their power to block the implementation of a fair and accurate census. Making the census more accurate shouldn't be about politics and partisanship. It should be about making sure that every Amercian-- regardless of ethnicity or geography. I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan Amendment, which would move us closer to a fair and accurate census.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address a question to the majority leader. Yesterday in the Committee on Agriculture we had extensive hearings on the crisis that is occurring in many regions of the country as it is affecting farmers. Three weeks ago I joined with a bipartisan group of Members and the gentleman from Georgia (Speaker Gingrich) on outlining some relief measures that we can move through Congress in order to address and minimize future damage to the agriculture sector. On one of those which I think is most important to the agricultural sector, in fact, we have a coalition of 75 organizations that signed a letter supporting the funding of the International Monetary Fund. I did not hear, in the leader's identification of legislative action next week, any mention of the IMF. I was hoping that the leader could shed some light on when we would consider funding of the IMF, in order that we might prepare and be able to assure the farmers that we are continuing to provide the export opportunities that are needed.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just hope that we would not delay any longer. Obviously, that is of critical importance to the ag sector, the funding of the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I am joining with what I think is one of America's greatest Vietnam war heroes, a former colleague and our present ambassador to Vietnam, in asking all my colleagues to vote in opposition to this bill. The reason for it, I think, is clear. We have Vietnam now the 12th largest country in the world in terms of population. Almost 70 percent of those residents of Vietnam are under the age of 25, the vast majority of which were born after the Vietnam war. I think, clearly, this country has demonstrated, by a policy of economic and social and cultural engagement, we have been able to have the greatest impact in improving the quality of lives of those countries in which we reach out to. We make the greatest difference advancing human rights, the greatest difference in advancing the issue of religious freedom, the greatest impact in advancing the concept of democracy when we choose to economically and culturally and socially engage with a country. That is what it is all about, when we continue with the waiver for Jackson-Vanik. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the subcommittee, on a matter of importance to my district in the San Joaquin Valley of California. The agricultural communities along Interstate 5 in the San Joaquin Valley face chronically high unemployment rates that are, in part, as a result of uncertain water supplies. A coordinated water resources management plan that makes the maximum use of available supplies must be a central feature of any environmental protection or economic development initiative in the arid Central Valley. A partnership of public and private interests in the I-5 corridor has proposed a Water Resources Assessment Plan that will centralize information on the region's surface and groundwater supplies. This information will include assessments of water quality conditions, wetlands, riparian habitat and domestic industrial water needs. I look forward to working with the chairman and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), the ranking member, and the conferees in trying to identify funding for this important effort.

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H. Res. 121, the resolution of disapproval regarding normal trade relations with China. I am concerned about the growing reluctance of the Congress to provide the leadership that is needed on international issues and to make improvements in trade relations and economic conditions throughout the world. Opponents of extending MFN have discussed China's human rights record, nuclear proliferation, religious freedom, and trade barriers. Clearly, problems exist with China and work needs to continue on all these fronts. However, Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon have all recognized that constructive engagement is a better policy than isolation is. The reality is that China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. From 1979 to 1997, China's real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 9.9 percent. Projected growth in China is estimated by some to be in the average rate of 7 percent a year over the next two decades. At this rate, China could double the size of its economy every 10 years. And this policy of constructive engagement is going to ensure that the working men and women of the United States have access to this growing market opportunity. I represent the San Joaquin Valley of California. This highly productive agricultural area produces agriculture commodities worth in excess of $22 billion annually, more than half of which is exported, and China is currently the sixth largest export market for U.S. agriculture goods. In 1996, China bought over $1.9 billion of U.S. agricultural products. With 1.2 billion people and limited arable land, China must rely on imports to satisfy its demand for food. USDA estimates that two-thirds of the future growth in U.S. farm exports will be in Asia and 50 percent of that increase will come from China alone. Again, this policy of constructive engagement is clearly in the interest of the U.S. farmers. Our ultimate goal must be to fully integrate China into the world trading arena as a full participant. That means helping to encourage WTO accession to China to ensure that they abide by internationally accepted trading rules. It also means continuing bilateral talks to address specific issues like intellectual property rights and non- tariff barriers. Madam Speaker, I recognize the problems that continue to exist in China, and I appreciate the efforts of some of my colleagues in remaining committed to making improvements in the areas of human rights, trade policies, and nuclear proliferation. On those issues, none of us disagree that there is the need to continue to define ways that we can see significant improvement. But I guess where many of us disagree is, is a policy that isolates the U.S. from China going to be more effective in achieving these improvements than the one of constructive engagement. That is where I clearly come down on the side that continued engagement with China is going to do more to ensure that the rights of the citizens of China are advanced both in the interest of human rights as well as religious persecution, and this policy of constructive engagement is clearly in the interest of the working men and women of this country.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an entire community in Kern County, California, at the Southern end of the 20th district. For twenty-four years, the unique Philippine Weekend Festival has been a way for the Filipino community of Delano to celebrate their culture and traditions over three full days. The festival is the largest Filipino cultural event held in the state of California, attracting over 10,000 people each year. Founded in 1975 by members of the Filipino Athletic League in Delano, the concept sought to bring community unity to the local Filipino populations: the manongs, or island-born, the mestizos, or U.S.-born, and the younger new immigrants in addition to already established and emerging Filipino organizations. Today, twenty-four years after its grassroots beginnings, a formal board of directors and two standing committees (the Philippine Weekend Committee and the Filipino Athletic League) oversee the more than twenty events which make up the celebration. A dynamic mix of young and old, male and female, rich and poor, gather together in an annual show of driving energy and creativity to celebrate Kern County's rich Filipino heritage. I am proud to be able to attend this remarkable event this year, as I have in years past, to join in celebrating the Filipino culture and traditions, and to take part in helping to keep those traditions alive. The Filipino community of Delano, and all across the San Joaquin Valley, is to be commended for their hard work on continuing to sponsor this wonderful event, and their profound sense of community strength and cultural unity. Congratulations on the 24th Annual Philippine Weekend Festival, and may there be many more to come!

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just to bring my comments to a close on my own time, it is clear that this amendment would work against the interests of the working men and women of this country. When people talk about the standard of the working men and women in this country declining, that is wrong. When we start evaluating in terms of how many hours an average worker has to spend in order to afford a house, to afford a car, to afford a college education, it is much less today than it has ever been in the history of this country. In part it is because of our ability to access international markets. This measure, if it is successful in passing, will reduce our ability to ensure that U.S. workers have the ability to be as competitive as possible in the international marketplace, because it will allow this country the tools to maintain currency values, which is absolutely critical to our economic interest.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring this debate down to one which I think is very simple. The reason we need to oppose the Sanders amendment and maintain the flexibility with the Exchange Stabilization Fund is because it is important to protect U.S. working men and women. It is without contention that in our economy, so many more of our jobs in this country are becoming more dependent on international market opportunities. We only have 4 percent of the world's population in the United States. Ninety-six percent live outside our borders. Yet, we produce 26 percent of the world's gross domestic product. It is very clear that we are becoming increasingly dependent on the ability to export our products, export the labor of the working men and women of this country. The Exchange Stabilization Fund plays a very important and critical role there, because it can move rapidly to respond to financial crises, which can restore confidence in those international markets, which can restore confidence to those currencies and maintain their values. That is important, because when we see the decline in the value of the yen, that has the potential to make their exports more competitive with U.S. exports. If we do not find ways to stabilize the yen and other currencies, we are in fact jeopardizing the ability of the product of the labors of U.S. men and women to be competitive in the international marketplace. I would also state that here we have a program that has played a critical role, again, in protecting jobs in this country. It is one that has not cost taxpayers one dime. We have not lost money on utilization of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. In fact, when it responded to the crisis in Mexico, it contributed to our budget by adding $500 million that we derived from interest on those loans. I ask Members to please oppose this amendment, in the interests of the U.S. working men and women.

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Reclaiming my time, the issue here is very simple: Do we think that the voters of this country have the right to know who is trying to influence them?

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, the issue is clear, do we believe as a Congress that the voters of the United States have the right to know who is trying to influence the outcome of an election? Unless we close the issue advocacy loophole, we are not giving the voters that right. We would certainly be doing an injustice to the American people in our efforts to reform campaign law if we do not close the issue advocacy loophole.

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Let me give the gentleman a real, live example, if I could respond, with an independent expenditure that was issue advocacy on the Coalition for our Children's Future. They have a board of directors that was in place, and had an executive director that was approached by a party who asked them whether or not they would agree to give blank checks that were signed to a third party, and would also sign an oath of secrecy that they would not disclose the identity of the person that was trying to influence the outcome.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, the point I am making is the disclosure was on the bottom of the ad, Coalition for our Children's Future. But the board of directors of Coalition for our Children's Future did not know who was funneling the money through them. They also have an executive director that signed basically an oath of secrecy that he would not disclose who was funneling this money in. They also had an executive director that signed blank checks given to this entity that they had signed a nondisclosure agreement with so that they could keep that secret. This third party entity that was using Coalition for our Children's Future could have been a foreign entity, foreign sources, it could have been criminal sources.

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

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Today I rise in strong opposition to the Doolittle amendment. I think, if we really ask ourselves honestly, if we are indeed committed to enacting campaign finance reform, we have to do so in a manner which addresses the greatest loophole which we are currently facing, and that loophole is the one which allows for unlimited amount of funding of issue advocacy ads. Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat remarkable to me that we have spent a lot of time this year with congressional investigations into what have been perceived as illegal campaign violations. But the sad fact of it is is that one of the greatest problems we face is with legal problems with our campaign system. When we have a system in place that can allow for unlimited sums of money to come in to influence an outcome of an election, unlimited sums of money that can come in without any requirement that the people that are contributing that money be identified, we have a serious problem. What Shays-Meehan does, it clearly ensures that everybody that contributes to a campaign or to an effort in order to influence the outcome is that we ask them to be identified. We are not saying that we are going to restrict anybody's right of speech. We are saying that everyone has the right to participate; everyone has the right to express their feelings and their concerns about an issue and about a candidate. But what we are saying also is that the voters of any district, the voters of this country also have a right to know who is trying to influence those elections. And what the Doolittle amendment clearly does, it would undermine that. It would once again allow this loophole to continue, because it would allow printed material and campaign fliers to be mailed out to every household with what could be misleading information about a candidate's position. And those could be funded by anyone. They could be funded by foreign interests. They could be funded by a criminal interest, and there is no way for the voters of that district and the family in the household in which that mailer went into to know who was behind those and who was trying to influence the outcome. That is the problem. That is why, in order for us to have any legitimate campaign finance reform, we have to continue to be strong and vigilant in ensuring that people who try to influence the outcome have to disclose who the contributors are. I would identify just this one chart that I have here. It is somewhat, it seems to me, just inequitable that a person who makes a contribution to my campaign or anyone else's, who contributes in excess of $200, has to include their name, their address, their employer, their occupation, the date of the contribution, the aggregate amount of the contributions that I have received. But someone who contributes up to $250,000, maybe $1 million, and funnels that through an issue advocacy campaign effort, they are not required to identify themselves. They are not required to identify their address or their employer, even the country they might be coming from. Mr. Chairman, the American people understand that they want control of their elections. That is what we are trying to achieve here. The only way we will be able to achieve that is by closing the issue advocacy loophole. Doolittle tries to open the barn doors wide open once again, and that clearly is not in the interests of the American people and the interests of having fair elections.

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I clearly support that right, and the Shays-Meehan legislation is carefully crafted to ensure that voter guides will be able to continue to be published.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, as the authors of this legislation have clearly stated, the clear intention of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) was not to infringe in any way on the ability of the Christian Coalition, the Sierra Club, or anyone else who wants to provide information to the voters which is clearly designed to identify the source.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2282 and ask my colleagues to support this important bill. This bill, which passed the Senate last week by a vote of 98 to 0, makes important changes in the 1994 Arms Export Control Act to allow India and Pakistan to continue to use U.S. guaranteed loans to import American food, fertilizer and other agriculture commodities. The immediate beneficiaries of this legislation will be the wheat farmers in the Pacific Northwest who will be able to participate in the upcoming auction for 350,000 metric tons of white winter wheat to be sold to Pakistan. While I support this legislation, I feel, unfortunately, that it does not go far enough, because it seems unlikely that India and Pakistan will be interested in purchasing U.S. agriculture products over a long term if we continue to prohibit the sale of other higher-value products to these countries. While I have been listening to the remarks of some of my colleagues here, I find it difficult to see how we can rationalize that if it makes sense and it is in the interest of U.S. farmers to allow for their exportation of products to countries that are subject to sanctions, why does it not make sense for us to eliminate the sanctions on the production of any other U.S.- produced commodity or product? Clearly, it is in the interest of U.S. workers and U.S. companies to eliminate sanctions that penalize our working men and women. That is why we need to go further, why we need to support the legislation introduced by our colleagues, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) and Mr. Sharp, that we can provide a better framework for future U.S. economic sanctions policy. When we go beyond the sanctions, we have to move forward aggressively with our other trade issues and turn to the full funding of the International Monetary Fund, the passage of China most-favored-nation as well as the eventual passage of fast track authorization for the President. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak in support of S. 2282.