Cal Dooley

Mr. DOOLEY of California

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this morning the President signed into law the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act, which was passed by the House earlier this month by a vote of 364-50. This was an exciting event for myself and my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture who have worked for over a year to develop a comprehensive agricultural research system. One of the most important provisions of this new law is the initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. This new program is intended to provide Federal research dollars to be awarded on a competitive basis to address emerging issues, including agricultural genome, food safety, food technology and human nutrition, new and alternative uses and production of agricultural commodities and products, agriculture biotechnology and farm efficiency and profitability, and natural resource management. Unfortunately, even before the President had a chance to sign this new law, the Subcommittee on Agriculture zeroed out the new program and used the savings to pay for other programs within its jurisdiction. I certainly recognize the difficulties the chairman had in providing funding to all of the important programs under his jurisdiction. However, I believe that zeroing out of all of the funding in the initiative was misguided. I am offering an amendment today that would partially restore funding for the initiative for future agriculture and food systems. The amendment is simple. It would delete funding provided under the special grant authority for earmarked projects and use that savings to fund the initiative. In S. 1150, the Congress sent a strong message that earmarked projects should be a thing of the past and that competitive research grants were the model for the future. This philosophy was repeated throughout our bill. In section 406 of the bill, we established a generic authorization for high-priority research projects. In the past, these projects would have been earmarks, but we were able to establish a system whereby all funds would be awarded on a competitive basis and matching funds would be required. In section after section, we repeated the pattern of requiring competition for research money. Now, before the program can even get under way, the bill before us today eliminates funding for this program and resorts to business as usual. Support for the initiative as a part of S. 1150 was overwhelming. It was supported by all the agricultural organizations, the land grant and nonland grant universities and others. Unfortunately, now they are placed in a difficult position, a position not unlike those of us in Congress. They would be asked to choose between funding for the initiative and funding for other important agricultural programs. It is unfortunate that we are all in this position, but I believe that redirecting research funding in the form of special grants back to the new competitive program is the right approach. I understand that many of the projects included in this section of the bill are important, but I believe that the goals of these projects could be reached through a competitive process. The interest of agriculture and the taxpayers would be better served through the competitive awarding of money. We need to ask ourselves whether we should be spending Federal dollars on research that would not be able to withstand a competitive process. We have scarce Federal dollars. No one knows that better than our colleagues who serve on the Committee on Appropriations. But I believe that it is irresponsible for this Congress to earmark funds for programs that are unauthorized. I know that this is a difficult fight. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment that will allow us to go down the path we voted on just a few weeks ago that ended the earmarking of research projects. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in regard to the comments made by the gentleman from New Mexico, I think that what I am simply proposing is that all the programs that have been earmarked are programs that could well have merit. But I contend that in order to do the best job in meeting the priorities of agriculture and the priorities of farmers in this country and at the same time ensuring that the taxpayers are getting the greatest return on the investment of their dollars that we should be funding agricultural research programs based on a competitive basis, and that many of the programs that are earmarked in the appropriations bill will receive funding on a competitive basis. But why should they not be required to compete with other agricultural research priorities? Why should we identify a set of programs to be funded at the expense of funding other programs when they have not gone through a competitive process? I am one of the strongest supporters of agricultural research. I think there are some great projects that are funded in the earmarks section of it. But why do we not do justice to the farmers of this country and justice to the taxpayers of this country to ensuring that the tax dollars that we invest in agricultural research will be done in a matter which ensure that they are meeting the highest priorities of the farmers of this country. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I, too, join with all of our colleagues in commending the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) for the tremendous work they have provided on behalf of this country. I understand that this year we had one of the most difficult decisions and conflicts in trying to move the appropriations bills forward because of the tight fiscal constraints they were working under. It was very clear in the energy and water appropriation bill, which I support, that we were in a situation where we were not able to fund any new starts because we had to meet the priorities of continuing our funding for ongoing projects. Given the tight fiscal constraints, I greatly appreciate the efforts of my colleagues on the committee to provide much needed funds for other high priority water resource development and flood control projects that are vital to the safety and well-being of the residents of the San Joaquin Valley. However, I will continue to work to secure funding to address a particular flooding problem along a river referred to as the White River. The situation there is dire, and Federal assistance is vital to achieving a long-term solution. This past February the area around Earlimart in Tulare and Kern Counties was flooded for the fifth time in 40 years. State and Federal disaster assistance was granted to assist the town of 5,000 residents. It is this project which we need to fund at least for a reconnaissance study. I look forward to working with the committee to secure that.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Shays-Meehan substitute because it is the only bill I think that really truly provides comprehensive campaign finance reform. So many of the other bills do not deal with one of the greatest loopholes in our campaign system, and that is the lack of any restrictions on issue advocacy ads. Issue ads make a mockery of Federal election law because they are not required to report the source of their political contributions. Issue ad groups are entitled to speak, and I vigorously defend their constitutional right to do so. However, their speech should not be protected more than any other political speech. The public deserves to know who funds Federal elections. Is a foreign government attempting to elect one of their own to the U.S. Congress? Is an organized crime ring trying to defeat a Member who has been tough on crime? Without disclosures and limits we do not know. Shays-Meehan fixes the problem. Mr. Chairman, in my last campaign, issue groups brought ads worth over $250,000 to try to defeat me. When the press and Members of the public asked me who was behind these ads, I could only give them one answer: I do not know. While anyone can easily track who had paid for my ads, my opponent's ads, and both of our parties' ads, no information was available concerning the ads paid for by these groups. This chart clearly points out we are not trying to limit the right of someone to speak. We are just saying that anyone who tries to influence the outcome of an election who uses a name and likeness of a candidate 60 days before it should live by the same rules as anyone else that has participated by contributing to our own campaigns. A person who gives me $200, we have to know his name, his address, their occupation, the date of contribution, the amount of contribution, the aggregate. Yet in my last election, we had a group that came in and spent $250,000, and yet nobody knew their name. Nobody knew the source of the dollars. That is wrong. That is why we should support Shays- Meehan.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Yes. Can the gentleman tell us what he means by special interest?

Mr. DOOLEY of California. So the answer then is yes, it is a special interest. The gentleman is receiving money, gobs of it, from special interests and he honestly sits here and pretends that does not happen.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 3150. Is it a perfect rule? No. But is it a responsible rule? Yes. As my colleagues know, it is time for us to have fundamental reform of our Nation's bankruptcy, and it should be guided by 3 basic principles: restoring responsibility, protecting consumers and then sharing fairness. H.R. 3150, which preserves a historic fresh start for those who truly need it is a solution. Our Nation is witnessing an unsustainable soar in personal bankruptcies. Bankruptcies have increased by more than 400 percent since 1980 with one more million personal bankruptcies filed in 1996. Last year alone, despite a booming economy and low unemployment, a record 1.3 million people filed for bankruptcy, more than 1 in every 100 American households. The overwhelming majority of Americans who pay their bills on time are the ones who are paying the price for this surge in bankruptcy. It takes approximately 33 Americans to pay for one bankruptcy, and bankruptcy will cost each American household an estimated $400 per year in higher prices for goods and services. We must restore a sense of responsibility to our bankruptcy system and stop it from becoming a first step rather than a last resort. More and more people are choosing bankruptcy as a financial planning tool, and responsible Americans are the ones who are forced to pick up the tab from those who walk away from their debts. Mr. Speaker, 3150 would restore personal responsibility and fairness to our bankruptcy system. The bill would amend the bankruptcy code and employ a needs-based approach where debtors in need get relief but only the relief that they need. Anyone earning an amount equal to or above the Nation's median income and are able to pay at least 20 percent of his or her unsecured debt over the course of 5 years would be forced to comply with Chapter 13 which requires a repayment plan rather than Chapter 7. H.R. 3150 provides tremendous flexibility, and in turn it needs, allows, the court to consider extraordinary circumstances such as medical costs or sudden loss of employment. Most Americans agree that the time has come for meaningful and fair bankruptcy reform. Please join me in supporting this rule and this important piece of legislation so that our bankruptcy system can be approved for all Americans.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I think every Member has to fully understand what would happen if you vote with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) on this point of order. You would ensure that we would not provide the largest increase in agriculture research which will benefit U.S. farmers in a generation. You will ensure we will not provide the crop insurance money which is vitally needed by a lot of farmers struggling out there. A year ago, we passed welfare reform by a large bipartisan margin. That welfare reform decreased AFDC benefits, it decreased food stamp benefits, and it was certainly not the intention of those who supported welfare reform to increase administrative payments to the States. What we are doing with this legislation is ensuring we are going to have a commensurate reduction in the administrative costs to the administration of the welfare programs. This is a sound fiscal approach. The States should not be allowed to double-dip when we are reducing their obligations under our welfare reform policies. Ensure that we can maintain the agricultural research funding. Ensure that we can maintain the crop insurance funding. Vote against the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for really continuing the tradition of the Committee on Agriculture to work in a bipartisan fashion to devise ag policy which is going to work in the best interests of our farmers. I think also that the environment that they have created in the Committee on Agriculture, that bipartisan environment, certainly has contributed to our staffs working in a very effective and bipartisan fashion, too. I rise today in strong support of the conference report to accompany S. 1150, the Ag Research, Extension and Education Reform Act. It has been a long road, but I believe that passage of this bill is imperative, and I am pleased that the House will vote on it today. As with any legislation that we consider in Congress, S. 1150 is a product of hard work and compromise. While there will be some here today who will criticize certain provisions of this bill, I strongly believe that we have crafted a good bill that deserves the support of the House. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Federal investment in ag research is the most vital component of the agricultural safety net for the future. Our country has a long and successful history of agricultural research innovations, and our system is the envy of the world. I believe that the research provisions of S. 1150 will lead to an even better agricultural research system in our country and provide farmers with the tools that they will need to be competitive in this international marketplace into the next century. Specifically, the conference report requires a competitive process for high-priority research projects and requires a match for those projects. The conference report does not contain any earmarked projects for specific States or specific universities, and I also think that the peer review and merit review provisions will improve the quality of research conducted at USDA. The most exciting provision of the bill is the establishment of the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. This new program, which is funded at $120 million per year, will provide a new and stable source of competitively awarded research money to be targeted at high- priority issues. I want to applaud Senator Lugar for his persistence in establishing this program and know that it will begin delivering benefits to farmers in the next few years. While the research provisions of the bill were a top priority, the crop insurance components are also very important, because they provide the needed ability for farmers to manage the risk that is going to be inherent in the marketplace certainly as we move away from many direct subsidies to farmers. But one other important component was the restoration of food stamp benefits for certain groups of legal immigrants and refugees and asylees. Many people in this body have criticized this provision, but I take exception to that. As part of the Balanced Budget Act we passed last year, we tried to provide some I think responsible reforms to the welfare act that many of us voted for in a bipartisan fashion. We are not turning our back on welfare reform. What we are trying to do is provide some important assistance to some people who we invited into our country that have been important contributors to our society. I am particularly pleased about this because in my district I am home to a large number of Hmong refugees who will be benefiting from these provisions. Oftentimes, we forget the sacrifices that these Hmong and Lao refugees have provided our country in participating in the secret war, participating alongside of our soldiers in the Vietnam War, saving many of their lives. I do not think we have to make any apologies for providing a restoration of food stamp benefits to some of these individuals who we invited into our country and provided service to our country. Mr. Speaker, I think we have a great conference report here that meets the needs of U.S. farmers and is a responsible bill. I urge the entire body of the House to vote in support of it.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. It was over 20 years ago the Republican President Nixon fought off the forces of isolationism and turned this country towards a direction of engagement with China. When I hear many of the speakers today that are suggesting that our President should not be entertained on Tiananmen Square, that are suggesting which door he should enter when he goes to the Great Hall of China, I am troubled by that, because it seems to me that we have seen clear demonstration over the last 20 years that this policy of constructive engagement has done more to advance the interest of human rights, the interest of religious freedom in China than any policy of isolationism could have ever achieved. Sure, there are still problems in human rights. There are still problems in religious persecution. But for us to suggest and to dictate to this President how and where he should be entertained is clearly not appropriate. It does not serve us well to dictate to the President that he should insult the host, the President of China and the citizens of China. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this resolution.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make sure all my colleagues fully understand that we are soon to be considering a rule on the agricultural research bill, and I think everyone should understand exactly what is about to happen. Through the Committee on Agriculture, we were able to fashion an ag research, a crop insurance bill, as well as a food stamp reform bill that had broad bipartisan support. It was a bill that went to conference. It was signed by all the Republican and Democrat conferees. It was a bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 92-8. Last night, the Committee on Rules has reported a bill that is basically going to unravel this carefully crafted conference report. Anyone who chooses to vote for this rule has to understand what they are doing. They are taking a slap at every farmer in this country, farmers who are struggling to maintain their viability, because this rule will gut the crop insurance fix which is so vital. They will also be having a slap in the face to our universities who are performing the agricultural research, which is so important to our international competitiveness of the agriculture sector. And they are also slapping in the face all the legal immigrants who have the opportunity to get vital food stamps. Vote no on this rule.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I think everyone has to fully understand what are the consequences of this rule. To vote for this rule is to be turning our backs on American farmers, to be turning our backs on our agricultural research institutions which are performing a service that is benefitting consumers and benefiting our economy. There is no secret about the fact that we have almost every major agricultural organization in this country asking Members, Republicans and Democrats, to oppose this rule: the National Cotton Council, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Association, the National Pork Producers Council. Every major agricultural organization is saying to vote ``no'' on this rule because they know that it will jeopardize crop insurance and it will jeopardize ag research. The contentions of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) that Senator Lott can ensure that they can pass this bill with his amendment in it is absolutely false. Senator Graham offered an amendment that did something that was even less onerous in terms of its provisions on food stamps, and it failed 77 to 23. This bill dies if this rule goes through.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify one point in the amendment that is being offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) where he is saying he is addressing the issue of the unfunded mandate. But what is somewhat ironic and I think somewhat hypocritical is that, where he is contending that this is an unfunded mandate, his amendment is actually putting that money back in the bill. If we really are concerned about that issue, then we should not have the money in that bill at all.

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, the issue is, the gentleman is willing to have an unfunded mandate for some provisions and not others?

Mr. DOOLEY of California. So I think the case is really clear, that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has made a determination that it is all right to have an unfunded mandate for some provisions but not for others. It is clear why we have such a broad coalition which is opposing this bill. Every major U.S. agriculture organization is opposing it. Every group that is concerned about food and nutrition is opposing this rule. Every Member of this Congress should oppose this rule.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I take this time in order to inquire about the schedule for the week we return.

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, if I can further inquire, I know there is a lot of interest on both sides of the aisle for when we would, once again, revisit the agricultural research bill. I was interested if the gentleman has any plans on when that might come before the House.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, we all rise today in opposition of religious persecution. There is not one Member of this House that does not abhor the religious persecution that we find all too often, far too frequently in many parts of the world. But I guess where there is a fundamental difference is whether or not we are going to be most effective in turning back religious persecution by taking actions which further isolate some of the countries which are the worst perpetrators of that act. Many of us contend that by engaging both economically, socially and culturally, we are going to be far more effective in ensuring that the citizens of the countries throughout the world will not be subject to the degree of religious persecution that now persists. I rise in opposition to this bill today because I sincerely believe that we will be shutting the door on perhaps the greatest opportunity we have in order to improve the plight of people throughout the various countries of the world. I think when I look at the issues of sanctions, that is what brings me to the greatest concern. Because I think all too often we have seen the implementation of sanctions that in fact have actually worked to the detriment of the very people that we are trying to help. And I am also very concerned that when we also take actions that are going to impose economic sanctions that are focused primarily on preventing the exportation of goods which are produced by working men and women of the United States, it is going to be our citizens who are going to be paying a good portion of the economic cost of this legislation. We need to be diligent in our efforts to ensure that we are going to eliminate religious persecution, but let us not tie the hands of the administration, let us not tie the hands of our President. Let us not empower a director of this new department with the sole responsibility of making a determination on which people are being persecuted and which portion or entity of the government is responsible for that entity. I very much believe that this is a measure that once again will not advance the interests of freedom and religious freedom throughout the world, and I rise in opposition.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, we are constantly asked to make decisions on what is the appropriate role of the Federal Government. Today I rise in support of the Roemer amendment because I think it is absolutely clear that the Federal Government has no role in mandating and micromanaging the affairs of the universities and the higher institutions of education in our country. I find it ludicrous that we would even ask our universities, and by imposing on them a mandate, that they would have to notify people 4 years in advance of a decision that they might have to make in order to eliminate or reduce an athletic program. This provision is absolutely insane in that it is, in fact, going to reduce the ability of our universities to allocate their resources, to ensure that they are going to be investing those funds in the most cost-effective manner. We would be hamstringing the board of regents in California and the admission of our universities that have been appointed to make the decision to ensure that they can create the academic experience and the college experience which is in the best interest of the students that are going to be attending. As I was listening to the last speaker, I thought it was somewhat interesting that he feels it so important that we provide students and families with the information about a potential reduction in an athletic program, but there is absolutely no attention being given to a potential decision that might result in the reduction of an academic program. I also find it somewhat ironic that many of the people who are some of the strongest proponents of asking for this 4-year notification were some of the same people that were opposed to giving the working men and women of this country a 30-day notification of a potential plant closure. When we have working men and women and their families whose livelihoods, whose ability to keep a roof over their heads, whose ability to provide food for their families, when we are opposed to giving them 30 days' notification, and yet we think it is appropriate to give 4 years' notification on a university decision to reduce an athletic program, that is just wrong and it is irresponsible.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion. Clearly, the United States has a vested interest in the funding of the International Monetary Fund. We have an interest because we can protect jobs, we can protect the economic interest of the companies which are exporting so much product to Asia. When we look at my home State of California, nearly 30 percent of our exporting is going to Asia. It is clearly in our interest to restore confidence in that market, to provide greater financial certainty for our businesses which are exporting critical products. It is also in the interest of the United States to provide IMF funding because it provides for greater international security. When we look at the potential consequences of a weakened South Korea, with their inability to deal responsibly with their financial crisis, we are on the verge of inviting potential conflict with North Korea, looking at perhaps a weakened neighbor to the south. Failure also to provide funding could further undermine the fragile investor confidence in the region and set off another round of global economic insecurity. If we do not arrest the financial crisis in Asia, we are inviting this to expand to other parts of the world, be it Russia, be it Latin America, which would further undermine the economic interest of the United States. Rejecting the IMF funding also threatens the leadership the United States is providing in the world, the leadership that we are providing in terms of providing economic stability as well as military stability. Clearly, this motion to instruct the conferees will ensure that this Congress will be able to act in an expedited fashion to ensure that our interest will be protected.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 83rd Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. This terrible human tragedy must not and will not be forgotten. Like the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide stands as a historical example of the human suffering that results from hatred and intolerance. One and one-half million Armenian people were massacred by the Ottoman Turkish Empire between 1915 and 1923. More than 500,000 Armenians were exiled from a homeland that their ancestors had occupied for more than 3,000 years. A race of people was nearly eliminated. However, great the loss of human life and homeland that occurred during the genocide, a greater tragedy would be to forget that the Armenian Genocide ever happened. To not recognize the horror of such events almost assures their repetition in the future. 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. This 83rd anniversary also brings to mind the current suffering of the Armenian people, who are still immersed in tragedy and violence. The unrest between Armenia and Azerbaijan continues in Nagorno- Karabakh. Thousands of innocent people have already perished in this dispute, and still many more have been displaced and are homeless. In the face of this difficult situation comes an opportunity for reconciliation. Now is the time for Armenia and its neighbors, including Turkey, to come together, to work toward building relationships that will assure lasting peace. Meanwhile, in America, the Armenian-American community continues to thrive and to provide assistance and solidarity to its countrymen and women abroad. Now numbering nearly 1 million, the Armenian-American community is bound together by strong generational and family ties, an enduring work ethic and a proud sense of ethnic heritage. Today we recall the tragedy of their past, not to place blame, but to answer a fundamental question, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Our commemoration of the Armenian Genocide speaks directly to that, and I answer. . . . We do.