Cal Dooley

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. This bill would authorize the Forest Service to continue to maintain small water impoundment structures located within the Emigrant Wilderness Area of the Stanislaus National Forest in California. The legislation was reported unanimously by the Committee on Resources on May 5 of this year, and it has been further refined by the sponsor to reflect priorities of the California Department of Fish and Game. The 18 small dams and weirs at issue were built earlier in this century and were in existence long before Congress designated the Emigrant Wilderness in 1974. In fact, seven other structures are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. For many years after the wilderness was created, several structures were maintained for their recreational fisheries values by the California Department of Fish and Game. While it is clear that Congress was well aware of the water impoundment structures when the wilderness was created in 1974, the authority for continued maintenance has been brought into question. Accordingly, the purpose of this bill is to authorize a public process, consistent with NEPA, for the Forest Service to determine the levels of necessary maintenance. It is important to recognize that nothing in the legislation provides for any authority for motorized intrusion in the wilderness area. This is a very unique circumstance and the legislation is not intended to set a precedent for other wilderness areas. What is contemplated under the bill is that community volunteers would offer their time and effort and perform the necessary work under the supervision and according to standards set by the Forest Service. As amended, the bill provides that the 12 structures identified by the Department of Fish and Game be considered as priorities for retention. One or more of the other six structures may also be eligible for maintenance, subject to the consent of the Forest Service and the State of California. Madam Speaker, I also would note that the legislation has been endorsed by California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and the Backcountry Horsemen of California, whose members are interested in volunteering time to do the repairs. In closing, I want to recognize the work that the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) has done on this bill. I urge support for it from our colleagues. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, we have no objection to this legislation. The bill would extend the existing requirements that the administration report to Congress on certain subjects of interest to the Committee on Resources. These reports would otherwise terminate in December 1999 under the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995. H.R. 3002 was not subject to a committee hearing. However, since the committee markup, the CBO has concluded that the cost of extending the 128 separate reporting requirements would be about $1 million annually, subject to appropriated funds. And neither OMB nor the affected department or agencies have raised specific concerns about this legislation. Accordingly, since the administration has not objected to this bill and because it does not appear to be exceedingly burdensome or expensive, we support its passage in the House. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, California's San Joaquin Valley is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world. The lands that receive water from the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project are especially productive. Farmers here are highly dependent on reliable deliveries of surface water in order to sustain crop production in the valley. But even in the best years, water supplies from the Central Valley Project are often limited. Many farmers in California now improve the reliability of their water supplies by working out water transfer arrangements with other water users so that the limited supplies can be moved around and used more efficiently. But farmers in the San Luis Unit cannot freely participate in these transfers because the San Luis Act of 1960 prohibits the State of California from providing water service to the San Luis Unit. I believe this restriction makes it unnecessarily difficult for San Luis Unit farmers to take advantage of water supplies that might otherwise be available to them. I also believe this restriction in Federal law is outdated and inappropriate. H.R. 3077, as amended, will address these problems by eliminating the restriction on delivery of water from the State of California to lands within the Federal San Luis service area. This is significant legislation affecting water management in California. Its effect will be to allow the delivery of water from California's State Water Project to lands within the San Luis Unit. The State of California operates the State Water Project, and Governor Davis, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) cited earlier, has advised me and others that he supports enactment of H.R. 3077, as amended. Madam Speaker, I include the Governor's letter of November 5, 1999 at this point in the Record. Governor Gray Davis, Sacramento, CA, November 5, 1999. Hon. Cal Dooley, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Dooley: I am writing to advise you of my support for H.R. 3077, which you recently introduced along with Representatives Gary Condit, George Radanovich and Bill Thomas. As you know, H.R. 3077 would authorize water users in the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project (CVP) to purchase water supplies from the State Water Project (SWP). The bill amends the San Luis Act of 1960, which prohibits water transfers between the SWP and users in the San Luis Unit of the CVP. Given the likelihood of water shortfalls in the future, I believe that voluntary transfers will become an increasingly important water management tool to address future supply needs. Your legislation is consistent with current state and federal policies aimed at encouraging voluntary water transfers and will likely play a key role in facilitating such transfers. In addition, in furtherance of state and federal policies to encourage water transfers, it is appropriate to remove barriers that might otherwise restrict transfers between the two projects. I also support Representative George Miller's recent amendment to H.R. 3077 that conditions the transfer of water between the SWP and the San Luis Unit on measures to prevent irrigation drainage problems or degradation of water quality. I am pleased that you and your colleagues on the House Resources Committee were able to reach agreement on this language during the recent markup session. As the legislation moves through the House in the closing days of this year's session, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Sincerely, Gray Davis. An important issue raised by any proposal to provide additional supplies of irrigation water to the San Luis Unit is subsurface drainage. Discharges of subsurface agriculture drainage from the San Luis Unit contributed to the deaths of hundreds of waterfowl at the Kesterson Reservoir site in the mid 1980s, and, while farmers and water districts in the San Joaquin Valley have made great progress in recent years, drainage management in the San Luis Unit continues to be a critical and unresolved issue. I had the opportunity to participate with Secretary Babbitt just yesterday in doing a tour of the San Luis Unit and had the chance to see some of the terrific work that the water districts are doing there in order to try to manage their drainage water. The Committee on Resources accepted an amendment on this subject offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the senior Democrat on the committee. The gentleman from California's amendment would allow the State to deliver water to the San Luis Unit only after specific requirements have been met to protect water quality. The purpose of the Miller amendment is to ensure that irrigation water deliveries from the State Water Project to the Federal San Luis Unit service area are carefully managed and are not directed to lands that are known to contribute to agricultural drainage problems with the resultant adverse effects on water quality in the San Joaquin River, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, or San Francisco Bay. I was pleased to accept the gentleman from California's amendment during the committee's consideration of H.R. 3077. Governor Davis' letter also expresses his support for this amendment. Madam Speaker, San Luis Unit farmers are the only farmers in the State of California who must farm under an outdated legal restriction that prevents them from supplementing their water supplies. H.R. 3077, as amended, will correct this inequity and will encourage responsible water use and cooperation among California water users. I urge my colleagues to support the enactment of H.R. 3077, as amended. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support to draw the attention of my colleagues to a provision in this bill that would dramatically expand access to affordable health care for small businesses and working families. The bill allows small businesses and self-employed individuals to purchase health insurance for themselves and the workers through Associated Health Plans. We all saw on the news last week the ranks of those without insurance grew by 1 million last year, up to 44.3 million. It also was not lost on us that, of that number, 60 percent of those individuals are working for a small business. I support this legislation because it would expand access to health insurance to the working poor of our country. My district in the Central Valley of California has one of the lowest private insurance coverage rates in the State, and the problem is getting worse. It is also one of the lowest income districts in the country. These low- income families have few options for gaining health insurance. But an excellent solution to this problem has already emerged in the form of an Associated Health Plan that is already providing coverage to thousands of farmers, farm workers, and their families. In my district, where agriculture represents the heart of our economy, Association Health Plans have made a significant impact and can make an even stronger impact by providing health insurance to more seasonal and migrant farm workers. I would like to share with my colleagues just one story. The Lopez family from Visalia, California, in my district, has firsthand knowledge on how Association Health Plans can provide top quality care. Amalia Lopez works at a citrus packing house in Visalia and receives her health insurance through an Association Health Plan through Western Growers Association. Her daughter Lizette was diagnosed at age 10 with a heart ailment; and it became apparent, unless she had a heart transplant, she would die. In June of last year, Lizette was informed that a donor had been found in Western Growers insurance plan, helicoptered to the UCLA Medical Center for an operation. The operation was a success, and, today, Lizette is back in school and living the life of a normal teenager. The hospital bill for Lizette's operation was $270,000. But the Association Health Plan covered the vast majority of the cost and Lizette's family only had to pay $5,000. Lizette's story demonstrates that Association Health Plans work in delivering affordable health care to working families. They provide a compelling and cost effective means of providing affordable quality health insurance to a greater number of people. The issue for the Lopez family and thousands of other low-income families is not a choice between different insurance plans, it really is a choice oftentimes whether they will have health insurance through an Association Health Plan or no health insurance at all. Let us not deny low-income families an opportunity to have quality health insurance that can be provided through an Association Health Plan.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Helen Stanton, who is retiring this month from her position as executive director of The Creative Center, a performing arts program for developmentally disabled adults in Visalia, CA. Ms. Stanton began her service at The Creative Center 14 years ago, serving as program manager. In 1993, she was named executive director of the Center. There, she has supervised a staff of 12 instructors who help developmentally disabled adults in the Visalia area to achieve personal growth through expression in visual arts, music, dance and theatrical performance. Ms. Stanton has made special efforts to develop the Center's instruction in life skills. In these classes, Center instructors address such topics as independence, social graces, dealing with money, and self-advocacy. Under Ms. Stanton's leadership, the Center has undergone significant growth, expanding from 42 students attending part-time in 1985 to a present enrollment of 84 full-time students. Ms. Stanton has also overseen the opening of the Center's Jon Ginsburg Gallery. The gallery exhibits artwork produced by the Center's students and community members. Ms. Stanton's commitment to the performing and visual arts is also evident by her presidency of Arts Visalia, a nonprofit group devoted to developing an art gallery in downtown Visalia. Creative Center colleagues have been inspired by Ms. Stanton's devotion to the Center and its students. She has treated the Center's students with dignity and respect and provided them with countless creative opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Helen Stanton for her devoted service to The Creative Center. She has distinguished herself as a caring visionary and tireless leader. As she completes her service, we wish her a most happy retirement.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Fred Martella, who has been named the 1999 Agriculturist of the Year by the Lemoore Chamber of Commerce and Kings County Farm Bureau. Mr. Martella was born in Lemoore in 1917, the second of Louis and Elvezia Martella's seven children. He attended Hanford High School before leaving to assist with the family dairy operation. Mr. Martella started milking cows for $25 a month, and later held positions at numerous sales yards in the San Joaquin Valley. In 1944, Mr. Martella entered into a dairy partnership, selling the dairy two years later. In 1952, he entered into another partnership with his brother, Art. Throughout his career, Mr. Martella has also been active as a professional auctioneer, and has donated his services to Valley charities on countless occasions. During his 82 years in the Valley, Mr. Martella has been active in the farming community and the life of Kings County. He served on the Agricultural Kings Fair Board of Directors until 1986, was named Grand Marshall at this year's Kings County Homecoming Parade, and was named Citizen of the Year in 1993. Mr. Martella is also well-known throughout the Valley as a supporter of Kings County youth. He has been a regular fixture at the Kings County Fair's Youth Auction, helping 4-H and Future Farmers of America (FFA) participants auction off their projects at top prices, and assisting with their annual Lamb Barbecues. Finally, Mr. Martella is a dedicated family man. He is married to Ann Martella, and has three daughters, two stepdaughters, twelve grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Fred Martella for his contributions to the agriculture field and to his community. We send our sincere congratulations for the well-deserved honor of being named Agriculturist of the Year.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1402, and I do so because it is time for us to move in a direction that takes us away from a program that was developed during the depths of the Great Depression. As I have often said, it was Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace that introduced this program, many our farm programs, as a temporary solution to deal with an emergency. We no longer have an emergency in the dairy industry. We have some of the highest milk prices that we have seen in history, yet, we are still trying to promulgate and continue a policy that is not going to allow this industry to become increasingly competitive so we can provide consumers with a lower cost product and allow U.S. dairy farmers to become more competitive internationally. When we get right down to it, the issues are very simple. When we look at the cost of production of milk in the United States, there is a great disparity. If we look in the southeast of this country, it costs about $17.50 a hundred-weight to produce milk. We go to the northeast, it is in the $14, $14.50 a hundred-weight. We go to Wisconsin and Minnesota, they can produce milk at $12.25 a hundred-weight. We go to the Pacific Coast, they can produce it out there for a little over $11 a hundred-weight. We have in the United States, family farmers, dairy farmers that are able to produce milk at a third of the cost as other parts of the country. Yet, we are continuing a policy that is not going to allow those dairy farmers in those areas where they have a relative advantage to realize that advantage and opportunity. There is no other sector of our economy, no other agriculture commodity that we are growing that we have a farm policy that dictates that we are going to require consumers and processors to pay more for milk that does not have any direct correlation to market prices. That is what we are doing here. If we do not oppose H.R. 1402, we are going to ensure a policy where the Government is dictating what consumers and processors are going to have to pay for milk. When we are moving into a world which we understand and we have to become increasingly market oriented, we ought to allow the marketplace to dictate where milk is going to be produced. We should not have a federal policy that is going to ensure that we are going to have cows in the southeast where it is a very high cost of production when we know that there are family farmers in other regions of the country that can provide the same product at a lower price that can deliver that product to consumers through transportation of other means. Government should not be prejudicing whether or not a producer, a dairy farmer, is going to be supplying milk to a particular market because of the fact of how far they live from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. This policy is out of date; it is time to move on. It is time to allow the dairy farmers of this country which had the greatest opportunity and ability to produce milk at the lowest prices to realize that advantage, to realize that opportunity, and allow the marketplace to work.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Stenholm-Pombo measure and would also like to speak in support of my amendment to theirs. What we are trying to do here is to provide dairy farmers with a risk-management tool, a tool that will allow them to manage some of the wide fluctuations in milk prices that occur throughout a year. This is an important opportunity that would allow a dairy farmer to voluntarily enter into a contract with a private processor. Now that sounds like something that is very reasonable, because as a farmer myself that is something I do almost every day, is I enter into a contract with someone that is going to purchase my cotton, my alfalfa, or whatever else I might be producing. It is somewhat remarkable that in our dairy laws today we have a prohibition that actually makes it illegal for a dairy farmer to enter into a private contract voluntarily in order to set a price. This amendment that we are dealing with at the current time is one that is a step in the right direction because it allows us to have a pilot program that will allow dairy farmers to contract forward on the milk that they are going to sell for manufacturing purposes. If we are, in fact, going to have a legitimate and comprehensive pilot program, we ought to expand it to all classes of milk. Why should we limit it solely to that milk that is going to be used for cheese or other manufacturing purposes? We ought to also be allowing the dairy farmer the option to manage his risk, if he is going to sell his milk to be used for fluid purposes; and that is what is at stake here, and that is why we ought to oppose Stenholm-Pombo, because I think it is important that as policymakers that we really do define what the appropriate role of Government is. How can we, in good conscience, say that the appropriate role of Government is to preclude dairy farmers from voluntarily entering into a contract with a processor of their choice? It just does not make any sense. So for all my colleagues that do not know a lot about dairy policy, that are listening, this is a very simple amendment. I ask my colleagues to oppose Pombo-Stenholm and support my amendment. I would also say that this is a measure that makes so much sense that all the dairy cooperatives in the United States already are using forward contracting. In fact, I have some letters here that are put out by Dairy Farmers of America that talk about the benefits of forward contracting. They say that the benefits of forward contracting is to protect profit margins. It establishes a known price for future production. It allows management of income in volatile markets. Now, if we have the dairy cooperatives of the United States that are already promoting to their producers the use of forward contractors why, again, would we as Members of Congress decide that it is inappropriate and it in fact should be illegal to allow dairy farmers to enter into a forward contract for the sale of fluid milk to a private processor? That makes no sense. Vote against Stenholm-Pombo. Vote for the Dooley substitute.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, once again, I just want to touch on a few of the arguments that some of the supporters of this amendment have made in terms of it undermining the ability of farmers to participate in cooperative efforts. I think as a Member of Congress, I probably am a member of more agriculture cooperatives than any other member of the 435 in our body. I market my cotton through a cooperative. We market a whole host of other products through cooperatives. I believe in the cooperative system. But I also believe very strongly that as a farmer, I should have the right to voluntarily enter into a contract to market my product. And when we talk about this is undermining the cooperative system, there is nothing in the proposal that I am advancing that would undermine that. What we are undermining, if we pass the Stenholm-Pombo legislation, is we are undermining the right of a farmer; we are undermining the right of a farmer to voluntarily enter into a contract in order that they may be better able to manage the risks associated with the volatility in milk prices. Now, that makes so much common sense that I, quite frankly, am surprised we are even having a debate on this issue. Why should we think that it is the appropriate role of government, once again, to deny farmers the right to enter into a contract. Could we imagine going into another sector of our industry and saying that we are going to deny the producer of orange juice or oranges the ability to enter into a forward contract with Sunkist who is a cooperative or Minute Maid and say, it is your right to enter into a forward contract if your oranges are going to be used for a fruit cocktail mix or something like this, but it is against the law for you to enter into a forward contract if you are going to sell your oranges for juice that is going to end up in the bottle for fluid consumption. That is absolutely absurd. But yet, that is what we are trying to do with this amendment is that we are going to say that it is all right for a farmer to voluntarily contract to sell their milk for cheese or butter or powder but if they want to enter into that same contract to sell their milk as fluid production to end up in a bottle, we are saying it is against the law. The Federal Government has no right to intercede in the affairs of a private entity and a farmer from entering into voluntarily a contract. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just ask my colleagues just to apply a little common sense in their votes on this amendment. All we are asking for is to allow dairy farmers the ability and the right to enter into a voluntary contract to sell their fluid milk. One cannot have a more compelling argument than was put in the information that was put out by the Dairy Farmers of America, one of our largest co-ops, when they were promoting forward contracting. They said, ``For the first time in history, you can manage future price risks on your dairy using the same proven tools that have been available to other commodities for many years.'' This amendment, the Dooley amendment, is going to provide those tools, those risk-management tools to dairy farmers. Let us give them the ability to manage prices in a volatile market.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I do so because, as a farmer and as a Member of Congress, and certainly as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, when I look to the future and where the market opportunities for U.S. agriculture are, they are certainly outside our borders. I mean, it is no secret that when we start looking at world demographics, the world's population, that we only have 4 percent of it which lives within the United States. Ninety-six percent of the consumers live outside of our borders. So it has been appropriate that this administration and past administrations have been diligent in trying to expand our opportunities to access those markets. But if we are going to make that one of our highest priorities, it is also very important that we have our domestic agriculture programs be consistent with achieving that outcome. I mean, already today we have over a third of our acreage which is devoted to the production of commodities which are exported, and that is going to increase. When we look at the potential opportunity in the developing countries and others, over 50 cents of every dollar in every developing country, every 50 cents of every dollar increase in per capita income goes to the purchase of food stuffs. That is the opportunity for U.S. dairy farmers, for U.S. cotton farmers, grain and wheat also. So it is important for us when we pass any type of policy that pertains to our domestic agricultural policy that it in fact be consistent with the trade agreements that we have entered into and have negotiated. The objective of the Manzullo-Dooley amendment is very simple. It is to ensure that USTR has the opportunity to review it, to ensure that it does in fact maintain a consistency with the trade agreements that we have already negotiated. I would say in terms of the trade objectives that our trade objectives are to reduce domestic interference and markets, whether they be with our trading partners or internally. We think that is important. Because if we are going to try to make our good-faith arguments in a consistent manner when we are bringing issues in front of the WTO and other trade dispute panels, resolution panels, we have to make sure that we are on the moral high ground too. If we are in fact putting forth a dairy program that is in fact interfering or is inconsistent with trying to move in a more market- oriented direction that is ensuring that there is not undue Government interference in the marketplace, we are in fact being inconsistent with the same policies that we are trying to advocate and trying to see implemented internationally. This measure I think is an important amendment. It is one which I think can just provide an additional level of oversight to ensure that we are advancing policies in Congress that are consistent with our overall international trade objectives and ensuring, too, that our domestic policies are going to ensure that we are rewarding those dairy families and farming families that have the relative advantage in our country to produce the highest quality product at the least cost. I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise also in opposition to the bill. It was back in 1933, during the depths of the Great Depression, that Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace introduced our farm programs with the statement that these are temporary solutions to deal with an emergency. Well, here we are, almost 70 years later, and we are still utilizing some emergency solutions, temporary solutions, to deal with a different time and a different era. The reason why we should oppose this legislation is it does not embrace the modest reforms that the Secretary of Agriculture put in place that would move our dairy industry in a more market-oriented direction, a direction that would ensure that dairy families, farming families, in an area that had a relative advantage, maybe because of climate, maybe because of feed cost, would be able to recognize that relative advantage. It is a step away from an old program that put in place arbitrary differentials, which means that we have the Government dictating that some dairy farmers in a particular region of the country are going to be getting more income, not because they are more efficient producers, but only because they live a further distance away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. That does not make any sense. It might have made sense in the 1930's, when we did not have refrigeration. But it is remarkable, today every house in America has a refrigerator. We did not have refrigerated trucks back then that could transport milk products to make sure that we could have an adequate supply of fluid milk in every region of the country. But today we have refrigerated trucks. We even have an interstate system today that allows us to ship milk from Wisconsin to parts of the country that, unfortunately, because of climate conditions and feed costs cannot be competitive in the marketplace with producing milk. Does this mean that we are attacking family farms? Nonsense. It means that we are ensuring that those family farmers that have an opportunity to be most cost effective, that have a relative advantage, will be able to recognize that. Where else in this economy do we dictate that we are going to have a Government program that ensures that we are going to have something produced in a particular region? Where else do we dictate by the Government that we are going to ensure that we have the production of a particular product in an area which might not have the level of efficiencies? This is a wrong policy to embrace. We need to move forward. We are making these modest reforms that ensure that we are not prejudicing those family farmers that do have the advantage. I would also like to state that there will be one amendment that I am going to offer that is going to do something that is very simple, that can make this bill much better, and that is to ensure that a dairy farmer can enter into a contract with a private processor, something that every businessperson in America can do today. It is a reform that will ensure that a dairy farmer will have the ability to manage the volatility and prices, to manage the risk that is incumbered upon them by fluctuating milk prices, and is something that will make this bad bill a little better. I hope people will support my amendment to Stenholm-Pombo.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Captain Louis ``Deak'' Childress, who is leaving his post this month as the Commanding Officer of Naval Air Station Lemoore, in Lemoore, California. For the past three years, Captain Childress has dedicated himself to improving the quality of life of the Lemoore community and expanding the base's military capabilities. Captain Childress began his Naval career in 1973. He has held numerous assignments, including flying the F-4 Phantom from the decks of the USS Nimitz and USS Forrestal in Oceana, Virginia, serving as an instructor pilot at NAS Miramar in San Diego, and serving in the Persian Gulf as Senior Naval Representative to COMUSNAVCENT's contingency planning cell in Dharhran, Saudi Arabia. In March of 1995, he was promoted to his current rank of Captain, and reported as the Commanding Officer of Naval Air Station, Lemoore in July of 1996. While serving as Commanding Officer of the base, Childress has played a vital role in improving the facilities and quality of life at NAS Lemoore. Responding to the concerns of his sailors and pilots regarding living conditions on the base, Captain Childress facilitated visits to the base by members of the defense committees in Congress and high-level Navy officials. He has led efforts to build the base's infrastructure, which resulted in the 1998 announcement that five squadrons of the new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Fighter aircraft will be based at Lemoore, bringing an additional 6,000 personnel to the base. Captain Childress' continued efforts to improve conditions at the base is exemplified by the changes that have been made over the last three years under his leadership. Some of these accomplishments include his implementation of the innovative Regionalization Business Analysis, facility renovations in anticipation of the new F/A-18E/F program, and brand new housing facilities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Captain Childress for his devoted service to the Navy and the Lemoore community. He has distinguished himself as an innovative leader and dedicated Navy Captain. We wish him the best as he leaves Lemoore to continue his service to the Navy.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment to restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I represent a district in the San Joaquin Valley of California that, despite the good economic times in our State and our Nation, is plagued by 14 percent unemployment. I represent many people who are poor and, therefore, do not have the ability to access our judicial system. Their only option, oftentimes, is legal assistance through the Legal Services Corporation. Mr. Chairman, if a low-income elderly person is unfairly evicted from their home, if a young mother is unable to collect child support or is a victim of abuse and must go to the courts to intervene, they have no opportunity if they cannot afford legal representation. I find it somewhat ironic that the same week that this Congress will be considering a huge tax cut bill of almost $800 billion, that Republicans think is important to cut funding, or some Republicans think it is important for cut funding for one of the most important programs that assist the poorest of our citizens. The Legal Services Corporation fills our constitutional obligation to provide the poor with competent legal representation. Our country was founded on the principles of equal opportunity. If we turn our back on the poorest families and deny them access to due process, we are trampling on the principle of equal justice under the law. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Manuel A. Esquibel, who is retiring this month from his position as City Manager of Selma, California. He has dedicated his life to improving the quality of life for Selma residents. Mr. Esquibel was born and raised in Colorado, and earned a degree from the University of Southern Colorado. He has served in local government for over 25 years, holding the positions of Assistant City Manager of Pueblo, Colorado, and later City Manager of Lindsborg, Kansas. In 1990, Mr. Esquibel began his current position as City Manager of Selma, California. During his tenure in Selma, he has developed an effective community team approach and a motivational management style, generating excellence among city staff members. Mr. Esquibel has been a leader in promoting economic development in Selma, participating in the ``Team Selma'' program, which led to the creation of over 3,500 new jobs. During his term as City Manager, Selma has received regional, state, and national recognition in the promotion of economic development. Mr. Esquibel played a critical role in planning President Clinton's successful visit to Selma in 1995. Mr. Esquibel's tremendous dedication to Selma is surpassed only by his dedication to his family. He and his wife, Beverly, have two children--Renee and Tony--and four grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Manuel Esquibel for his tireless service and countless contributions to the City of Selma. We wish him nothing but the best as he retires from a long and successful career in public service.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this particular amendment, but I remain opposed to the underlying bill. I oppose the legislation because it is clearly anti-small business, and it is also anti-consumer. We are moving into a new economy, an economy that is giving opportunities for small business people to participate by offering their products over the Internet. One of the greatest innovations and greatest opportunities that we are seeing in E commerce is the fact that we are almost eliminating all barriers to entry. We are allowing almost any company to set up and develop a web page, and they can immediately be in a worldwide business. What we are doing with this legislation is to preclude a lot of small business people that are involved in the wine industry, that do not have the volumes to work with the archaic structure that is currently in place in many parts of the country to distribute their product, from having the opportunity to have the access to consumers that they need. This is clearly not a direction that we should be going, and is clearly a direction that is inconsistent with the changes in the United States' economy and the changes in the international economy. This legislation is a heavy-handed approach that would chill the rights of adults to purchase wine over the Internet, unfairly discourage small wineries from marketing their products nationwide through E commerce, and create a new Federal remedy for a problem that is already addressed by State and Federal statutes. Supporters of this legislation contend that the bill is being done at the behest of States' rights, but nothing could be further from the truth. As we saw just in the last week, the National Conference of State Legislatures overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposing this legislation. The arguments that this is somehow going to result in more alcohol being in the hands of minors is also equally without foundation and substantiation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation. We ought to be passing policies which encourage and provide greater opportunity for more families to enter into business, for more families to live out a dream. What we are doing here, in so many ways, is impeding that opportunity. Also speaking as a wine consumer, I almost think it is un-American because I might live in a particular part of the country, in a particular State, that I am precluded from purchasing a bottle of wine over the Internet. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they passed the interstate commerce clauses. They had in mind that we would allow for free competition that would benefit consumers and benefit our businesses. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1907, the American Inventors Protection Act. The bill, introduced by Representatives Coble and Berman, and now cosponsored by a bipartisan coalition, will provide much needed patent protection to American inventors. This bill also makes the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) more accountable to its customers, and allows customers to recoup patent term lost during the patent process at the PTO. Without a doubt, H.R. 1907 is a pro-growth bill that would foster technological advancements without leaving the small businessperson behind. The United States is by far the world's largest producer of intellectual property. Many other nations have learned from our success, and have enacted laws targeted to protecting intellectual property developed by small businesses, inventors and industries. Major changes are needed in U.S. patent law to ensure that American inventors and businesses that are largely dependent on the development of intellectual property have the opportunity to compete and win in the global marketplace. Enactment of this legislation is crucial to promoting growth in the New Economy and to ensuring that the competitiveness of the U.S. high- tech sector, including biotechnology will be enhanced by this bill. The bill would require the publication of patent applications at eighteen months--a requirement that would make U.S. patent law consistent with the laws of our leading foreign competitors. Under the current two-tiered system almost 80 percent of all patent applications pending in the United States are also filed and published in other countries and printed in the language of the host country. This publication requirement means that foreign competitors may review the U.S. patent application. But because the U.S. system does not require patent publication prior to issuance, foreign competitors are not required to reveal the subject of their applications until after a U.S. patent is issued. Patent reform legislation also targets a practice known as ``submarine patenting,'' in which a patent applicant deliberately files a very broad application and then delays the issuance of a patent for several years until someone else, who is unaware of the hidden patent application, invests in research and technology to develop a new consumer product. When the product is developed, the holder of the ``submarine patent'' rises above the surface to sue those who have developed the technology. Submarine patent filings have risen sharply since the early 1980's. One of these submarine patents cost one company more than $500 million, not including court costs, taking R&D dollars out of the system. Reform is needed to prevent individuals from manipulating the system at great costs to others who are investing in research and innovation. The U.S. should promote industries and sectors of our economy that provide the U.S. with the greatest relative competitive advantage in the global marketplace. The U.S. is a leader in research, innovation, and the development of intellectual property, but this advantage could be jeopardized if U.S. patent law is not reformed to create a level playing field with our competitors. U.S. patent law should be reformed to ensure that our businesses and researchers are well positioned to compete in the global economy today and into the future.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to this resolution of disapproval regarding normal trade relationships with China. Clearly, the United States' relationship with China is complicated. Recent events, including the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, China's reaction to the bombing, and evidence of spying in our national labs have only added complexities to our relationship. We are all in agreement that we must take steps necessary to protect our national security interests and to ensure that our counterintelligence programs prevent future security breaches. But at this critical juncture, we would be foolish to abandon our economic and political relationship with China and with it our ability to influence their economic, political, and humanitarian policies in the future. I agree with Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford that a policy of engagement is better than a policy of isolation. We cannot afford to embrace a Cold War mentality that would demonize and isolate China. A policy of economic and political engagement is the surest way to promote U.S. interests in China, to advance democracy and human rights within China, and to enhance future economic opportunities for U.S. workers and businesses. In addition to today's important vote, we must move swiftly to finalize a WTO agreement that will bring China into the international trade community. The United States is aggressively pursuing a WTO agreement for the past 21 months, and Ambassador Barshefsky should be complimented for the agreement that she has negotiated to date; and, hopefully, it will soon be finalized. While a WTO agreement would present tremendous opportunities for U.S. workers and businesses, bringing China into the WTO is more than just a matter of market share. China's accession into the WTO would lock China into a rules-based international organization and bring them into the legal framework of the international community through the WTO. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the problems that currently exist in China. I appreciate the efforts of some of my colleagues and remain committed to improving in the area of human rights and trade policy and proliferation. Since the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with China in 1979, total trade between our two nations has increased from $4.8 billion in 1980 to $75.4 billion in 1997. This makes China our fourth largest trading partner. China's economy is growing at an average rate of almost 10 percent a year, making it one of the fastest growing economies in the world. In order for the United States to remain the dominant economic power in the world, we cannot close the door on the most populous nation in the world. China will continue to have a growing influence on the world's economy. For U.S. businesses and workers to continue to prosper and grow, we need continued economic engagement with China by renewing Normal Trade Relations. In addition to today's important vote, we must move swiftly and finalize a WTO agreement that will bring China into the international trade community. The United States has been aggressively pursuing a WTO agreement for the past 21 months, and while an agreement has not been finalized, the deal currently on the table presents tremendous market opportunities for all sectors of the U.S. economy including agriculture, information technology, financial services, and manufacturers. Ambassador Barshefsky and her negotiating team are to be commended for their extraordinary efforts in reaching this unprecedented agreement. As a member who represents the nation's number one agricultural district, I want to thank the Administration for negotiating an agreement that presents tremendous opportunities for U.S. producers. With respect to agriculture, high Chinese tariffs on nearly all agricultural products would be reduced substantially over the next four years. It is projected that by the year 2003, 37 percent of the world food demand will come from China. America ranchers and farmers are the most efficient and competitive in the world. The WTO agreement on the table would move to level the playing field and allow U.S. agriculture tremendous access to the world's largest agricultural market. And agriculture isn't the only sector that would benefit. The agreement would also open Chinese markets to a number of U.S. industrial products and services including information technology products, automobiles, insurance and financial services. Quotas on information technology products would be reduced from 13.3 percent to zero, and China would agree to adhere to the Information Technology Agreement negotiated in 1996. In addition, the agreement offers U.S. investment in telecommunications and entertainment for the first time, and would subject China to WTO requirements on intellectual property protection to ensure respect for U.S. copyrights, trademarks and patents. Automobile tariffs would be reduced from 80-100 percent to 25 percent. American insurance companies would be able to sell a wide range of products throughout China, as compared to the current policy that limits life insurance sales to Shanghai and Guangzhou. And American banks would be able to operate anywhere in China. In addition to tariff reductions and other market access agreements, bringing China under the umbrella of the WTO would make China accountable for its trade practices and subject to WTO enforcement actions. I support the Administration's policy, and am encouraged by recent reports that negotiations will resume in the near future. In spite of the recent strains place on our relationship with China, it is in our overwhelming interest to finalize a WTO agreement and maintain our policy of economic and political engagement. A policy of continued engagement is the most effective tool we have to protect our national security interests and promote our economic political ideals. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the problems that currently exist in China, and I appreciate the effort of some of my colleagues in remaining committed to improvements in the area of human rights, trade policy and proliferation. However, I strongly disagree with the philosophy of isolation and disengagement, and believe it would be a mistake to disapprove the extension of NTR.