Cal Dooley

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute as well as the Democratic motion to recommit, and I support these alternatives to the risky Republican proposal because they embrace the philosophy and values that are important to American families. First and foremost, they are fiscally responsible. For the last 30 years we have a history of running annual deficits. I am very proud that this year we have turned the corner and we are actually running a surplus. And I am also very proud that over the next 10 years, we can project to run a $1 trillion surplus. But the American families, as well as those of us in Congress, should know well that it is not responsible, after 30 years of running a deficit, with 1 year of a surplus under our belt, and without having any money put in the bank, that we would embark upon a risky path of a $1 trillion tax cut. It is a risky proposition that we would take this path before we have even begun to pay down any of the national debt that we have developed over the last 30 years. It is a risky proposal to go down this path before we have protected Medicare and Social Security.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. As we approach this next century, it is appropriate for us to atone for the mistakes and our failed commitment to adequately engage Africa in this century. As we move forward in the next century, it is important that we move legislation such as this which will allow us to expand trade and economic opportunities for Africans and Americans alike. The African Growth and Opportunity Act would provide a foundation for economic growth and employment in sub-Saharan Africa by encouraging this economic engagement in expanded trade and investment. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is win-win legislation. It is a win for African nations struggling to move forward and integrate into the global economy. It is a win for the African people, who will benefit from the new jobs and economic growth that this legislation is certain to bring to their region. And it is a win for U.S. businesses and workers alike, who will benefit from a growing African economy and its increased purchasing power. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The world is going through one of the most fundamental changes in its economy in history. As we move from the industrial age to the information age, we are moving to an economy that is based much more on speed, whether it be the speed of commerce, the speed of innovation, the speed of communication. As we move into this information-based economy, we are seeing the world shrink. We are seeing national borders are becoming increasingly porous to the flows of information as well as capital. It is leading to the integration of our economies. The United States can no longer insulate itself from the affairs and the impacts of other countries and the financial situations and crises that occur there. So it is becoming increasingly important that the administration have the ability and the flexibility to use most effectively the Exchange Stabilization Fund. We can look back at how effectively it has been used to stabilize some crises in Asia, in South America, which is in the interest of United States' working people and the interest of United States' businesses. When we want people to advocate that this is something that Congress ought to take a role in to approve almost every loan that the United States might participate in through the Exchange Stabilization Fund, it certainly would be something that would almost render this inoperable, because in Congress, quite honestly, it almost takes us a year to name a Federal Post Office. To have Congress coming in and trying to okay and approve every loan is certainly going to be too cumbersome. That would render the effectiveness of the Exchange Stabilization Fund almost obsolete. This is a tool that is benefiting not other countries so much, it is a tool which is benefiting working men and women in the United States, and we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2465 and am particularly pleased with the work that was done in regard to the Lemoore Naval Air Station, which is located in my district in Lemoore, California. I would like to thank both Chairman Hobson and Representative Olver for all their hard work in ensuring that Naval Air Station Lemoore is prepared for the upcoming challenges the Navy will place on the base. I would also like to thank Representative Murtha for his continued support of much needed projects at Lemoore. I know that funding in this year's Military Construction Appropriations was under considerable budget constraints and so I am pleased that several vital projects for Lemoore were included in the final markup of the bill. Naval Air Station Lemoore currently supports 27,000 military, civilian, dependent, and retired personnel as the Navy's only West coast Master Jet Air Station. With Lemoore Naval Air Station being designated as the base for the new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Fighter Aircraft, it is projected that this figure will grow to 33,000 over the next 5 years. Considering the cost of training these additional pilots, as well as the critical importance of the F/A-18's Super Hornets to the future of the Naval air program, military construction projects at Lemoore Naval Air Station have become a vital component of not only the base's mission, but the mission of our National Defense. Due to this significant growth, secluded location and deteriorating facilities, quality of life construction projects have become critically important. A recent survey done at Lemoore confirmed this reality when pilots reported that living conditions diminish morale and threaten pilot retention rates when they are not addressed. I am confident that we can work to properly address these concerns if we are able to construct and upgrade facilities that directly affect the quality of life of our nation's military personnel. The military construction projects in the Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations for Lemoore provide a good start in addressing these issues, but we must see to it that the Defense's million to improve morale and retain pilots continues to be implemented in the years ahead. The bill we have before us today, H.R. 2465, includes language supporting this effort and specifically directs the Navy to ``accelerate the design of quality of life projects at Lemoore Naval Air Station, and to include the required construction funding in its fiscal year 2001 budget request.'' I am happy to see this direction included and am hopeful that the Administration and Congress will act accordingly. Support of these military construction projects will help Naval Air Station Lemoore meet its national defense responsibilities in the coming decades.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think all of us are trying to strike a balance. We are trying to strike a balance between protecting our children and at the same time protecting our first amendment and protecting the Constitution. I oppose this amendment because I do not think we have achieved that balance that is going to allow us to achieve both objectives. I come to this conclusion because what we are trying to do is something that I think is almost impossible, by asking people who are manufacturing records and motion pictures or video games to come together and try to identify one standard that can determine what is something that is very nebulous in terms of what is too violent for our children, what age should children be able to view this material without suffering any undue harm; and it even goes beyond that in infringing upon our constitutional rights because it will inevitably result in the Federal Government setting that standard, which I fear can be characterized as nothing other than censorship. We need to indeed try to protect our children from violent depictions, but I also think that we have to come to grips, as I think I have with my own family, that that is a responsibility of myself and my wife. I have two daughters who are now in high school, a senior and a sophomore. I admit that they probably have seen violent depictions, but it did not encourage them to go out and murder people or commit acts of violence because they had been embedded with the values which are important to my family and to our community and knew how to respond to that. I do not think that we need to have our Congress putting in place crutches that are not as important as our families becoming stronger and spending the time with their children to ensure that they embrace the valves of all of us.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Once again, we are going down a path where we are going to be asking the government to set some standards on what really does constitute violence, and what will have the impact of encouraging our children to engage in behavior that could be destructive to other families and to our society. But I also take exception to that, because as a father of two teenage daughters, I know that at times they are exposed to violent movies and other forms of violence that could be destructive to them. But they do not act out in a violent way. It is because my wife Linda and I have done the job of instilling the values in them that allow them to be exposed to this material and still make the right choices. It is, quite frankly, a cop-out for parents and families and people to accuse people who are perhaps putting together information or videos or different material as being the cause of widespread violence that is leading to so much trouble in our communities. Once again, the responsibility lies with the families, with the community that supports the principles and the values of our country, and we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the induction of former Coalinga Police Chief, Luella ``Kay'' Holloway into the National Police Officer's memorial. Chief Holloway's law enforcement career began when she was hired as a police matron and file clerk at the Torrance police Department in August 1963. In June 1964, she became a Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff. The majority of her career was spent with the department until she relocated to the city of Coalinga as the Chief of Police. Chief Holloway was the first woman Chief of Police in California history. At the time of her service in Coalinga, she was one of six female police chiefs in the country. During Chief Holloway's three and a half years in Coalinga, she was responsible for obtaining several important grants and initiating several new programs for the community. On January 3, 1980, Chief Kay Holloway and her husband, California Highway patrol Officer Don Holloway, were killed in an airplane accident while returning home from a California P.O.S.T. training session in Sacramento. She died in the line of duty. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the induction of former Coalinga Police Chief Luella ``Kay'' Holloway into the National Peace Officer's memorial.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for H.R. 775, the Y2K Readiness and Responsibility Act. The Y2K transition presents a very unique set of challenges, and that is why I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation which has developed a very specifically and narrowly crafted piece of legislation targeted to address this one-time situation. H.R. 775 embodies a few key principles: Accountability, fairness and predictability. It represents a strong bipartisan effort targeted at addressing the potential Y2K challenges facing our Nation's businesses, consumers and public agencies by providing incentives and resources to ensure that businesses continue with their mitigation efforts. The bill also develops a roadmap for navigating potential Y2K glitches that may occur after December 31, 1999. The reason we need to do this is because some people have estimated that it might cost over $50 billion to fix Y2K problems. We need to continue to see these efforts move forward, but we also need to have a process put in place to ensure that we can resolve disputes should they occur. Since cosponsoring this legislation, I have had the opportunity to meet with constituent groups and business leaders representing all sectors of our economy, including representatives from the financial service sector in New York and high-tech leaders in Silicon Valley in Seattle. And whether I was talking to small business owners or consumers, technology executives or Wall Street traders, they all delivered the same message and expressed the same concerns regarding Y2K challenges: First, they are committed to fixing any potential problems associated with Y2K and are investing all necessary resources to prevent Y2K failures. Second, they want to be treated fairly. Many of them are both potential plaintiffs and defendants. They want assurances that potential problems will be fixed quickly and with minimal disruptions. They also want to ensure that they will be accountable for remedying their share of potential problems that develop and not expected to cure problems which they have no responsibility for. And third, they are looking for some level of predictability. Businesses and consumers alike are troubled by the current atmosphere of uncertainty and are looking for a predictable process to remedy potential Y2K problems and to mediate Y2K disputes. The high tech industry, which has been the driving force in our nation's unprecedented economic growth, is solidly supporting this legislation. Every major technology association, including: the Information Technology Industry Council; the Information Technology Association of America; the Semiconductor Industry Association; the Software Information Industry Association; the Business Software Alliance; the Telecommunication Industry Association; The American Electronics Association; the Computing Technology Industry Association; Technology Network; the National Association Computer Consultant Business; and the Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International have endorsed H.R. 775. These associations represent a broad section of companies, ranging from the smallest start-ups to industry leaders, but they are unified in support of our legislation because it will encourage mitigation above litigation, and will ensure the continued robust growth of the U.S. economy. I am also concerned that some may resort to litigation alleging Year 2000 failures against parties that truly bear no responsibility for any Y2K failure in a consumer product. I know that sometimes plaintiffs will sue parties for their deep pockets, and even when there is no liability, defendants wind up absorbing the cost of the litigation. I believe the legislation before us takes sound steps to curb this problem. In particular, it seems to me that when a retail seller or lessor of a computer product does no more than sell the product in the packaging in which it was received, and does not do anything to that product that affects the Year 2000 compliance, that seller or lessor should not be subject to liability in a Year 2000 case. I believe that the language of the legislation addressing the case where the defendant has sole control of the product, Section 301(1), properly provides for such a result. Make no mistake. The Y2K Readiness and Responsibility Act holds businesses and individuals responsible for their products and their actions. It ensures that individuals and companies who experience Y2K problems have their problems fixed as quickly and orderly as possible, and that they recover any economic loss that results from Y2K failures. There are no limits on economic damages, so plaintiffs are eligible to receive all potential economic losses resulting from Y2K problems. Like the securities litigation reform legislation that was enacted in the last Congress, the Y2K Readiness and Responsibility Act makes sure people are responsible for the share of any Year 2000 problem they cause, not problems caused by others. The Y2K Readiness and Responsibility Act would assign proportional liability for Y2K problems and failures. Our legislation encourages mitigation and remediation over litigation by creating a 90 day cure period to fix the problem before resorting to litigation. The legislation would require the submission of a written notice outlining the Y2K problem, give the defendant 30 days to propose a remedy to the problem, and would allow the plaintiff to sue if a plan had not been put forward within the 30 day period or within 90 days if they were not satisfied with the defendant's remediation offer. In addition, the bill promotes the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Some have argued that there is no demonstrated need for the legislation. In fact, Y2K litigation is already on the rise. According to a recently published story in Time magazine, the filing of Y2K lawsuits has increased dramatically with at least 78 suits filed to date and nearly 800 legal disputes in the process of formal negotiation. Lloyds of London insurance has projected that worldwide claims could exceed $1 trillion, which would prove to be a considerable drain on our strong economy by diverting resources from investment, research and income growth. We all hope that when the New Year comes that the investment in Y2K fixes will have paid off and that we will be faced with relatively few problems. The Y2K Readiness and Responsibility Act simply establishes a set of ground rules to minimize the potential effects of Y2K problems of businesses and consumers alike if failures do occur. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

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, I urge the passage of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). I would say that we are dedicated to providing for true consumer protection. This amendment does, I think, take a balanced and responsible approach to ensuring that consumers and those who are incurring debt will have the information they need in order to make informed decisions about their purchases and about the debt that they incur. The amendment goes a long ways to ensuring that consumers who are faced with credit card applications coming to them in their homes are fully aware of the real rates that they will be facing and ensuring that the teaser rates will be clearly distinguished. It also ensures that our consumers that unfortunately use credit cards in a manner which is not consistent with their ability to repay will have the information that will be disclosed to them, if they did make that payment of the monthly minimum payment, how long, in fact, it would take them to repay the obligation that they have incurred. I would say this: That all consumers are going to have to accept the personal responsibility to show their due diligence; to understand when they get a credit card application that nothing comes for nothing; that they have to read the print, they have to understand the obligations that they are incurring when they do make a purchase and they do use this tool, which ensures that many Americans have more affordable and accessible credit. I think this is a great amendment and I think it will go a long ways towards ensuring consumers have the information to make responsible purchasing decisions.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple and straightforward. Simply put, it would require consumer credit counselors to meet basic professional standards established by the Federal Trade Commission. One of the most progressive and debtor-friendly reforms made in H.R. 833 is the requirement that debtors seek credit counseling prior to filing bankruptcy. Many consumers want assistance in dealing with their bills, not bankruptcy. Legitimate consumer credit counseling helped approximately 1 million debtors this past year. This bill provides the opportunity for many more to receive help. Done properly by a qualified professional, consumer credit counseling has proven highly successful in helping debtors regain control over their financial lives, a goal we all share. Many of my colleagues are familiar with the Federal Trade Commission's struggle to clean up abusive and fraudulent credit repair clinics that dupe debtors facing financial problems with promises to clean up their credit records. The FTC has worked to protect consumers through the provisions approved by Congress several years ago as a part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. However, as the opportunities for credit counseling would be significantly increased under this bill, we need to ensure from the outset that fraudulent and abusive credit counseling operations do not spring up and meet this new demand for services. My amendment is designed to ensure that consumers have access to qualified, professional consumer credit counselors and to prevent the proliferation of substandard counseling practices. The amendment will provide that the U.S. trustee or bankruptcy administrator can only approve credit counseling agencies which satisfy standards set in regulations promulgated by the FTC and are credited by the Council of Accreditation or equivalent third-party nonprofit accrediting organization. The FTC is able and experienced in addressing issues of this nature. With this amendment we have an opportunity to ensure that the credit counseling provisions of this legislation will function as intended from the outset and that consumers will have access to qualified credit counseling. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to be considering bankruptcy reform legislation, and I rise in strong support of it. In 1998 we had studies that showed that at least $3 billion was written off in bankruptcy by wealthy debtors who could have afforded to pay it back. More and more wealthy Americans are using the bankruptcy system to buy a throwaway lifestyle that they cannot afford, then expecting hard- working Americans who pay their bills each month to pick up the tab. That is not right, and Congress needs to do something about it. I also want to address some information that I think is not true by some of the opponents of this legislation, dealing with child support payments. Under the current system, child support and alimony payments rank seventh on the list of priority payments in a bankruptcy proceeding, behind such things as attorney fees; seventh. This legislation moves those critical family obligations up to the top of the list. Women and children come first under H.R. 833, the bankruptcy protection reform bill that we are going to be considering today. It is time to require personal responsibility. Support H.R. 833.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the community of Laton on celebrating their 100 year anniversary. In 1902, Lewelyn A. Nares and Charles A. Laton acquired land near Kingsburg known as ``The Laguna De Tache''. Nares and Laton transferred title of their holdings to ``Laguna Lands Limited'' and Charles A. Laton soon disappeared from the local scene. Years later, a man named T.J. Saunders, an Iowa native, brought a group of businessmen to the area forming the nucleus for the city of Laton. Laton has a rich history of community service. That tradition is exemplified by the strong ongoing commitment of the Volunteer Fire Department, the Lyon's Club, and other local organizations. In addition to providing a range of public services, each year the Laton community comes together for the Building Our Neighborhoods Drug Free (BOND) festival, which brings families together to celebrate Laton's drug-free environment. Community programs, including the BOND festival have made Laton one of the Central Valley's best places to raise a family. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the city of Laton in celebrating their 100th year as a successful and prosperous community.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to be an advocate for the United States making significant reforms in our sanctions policy. It is becoming increasingly apparent that an increasing share of our gross domestic product and indeed the growth of our economy is becoming related to trade. It is obvious, I think, too, to most Americans when we look at the fact that only 4 percent of the world's population live inside our borders, with 96 percent living outside our borders, that this country has to adopt policies to ensure that we will have the greatest access to these markets, because that is where the interests of increased job opportunities that are so important to the working men and women of this country as well as the market opportunities for the businesses lie. I have beside me here a chart which really demonstrates one of the reasons and makes one of the most compelling arguments for sanctions reform. We currently impose some form of sanctions on over 75 countries. The most distressing aspect of this is the fact that it is costing our economy up to $15 to $20 billion a year in lost imports, and that means we have $200,000 fewer jobs, high-paying jobs in this country because of the sanctions we have imposed. I have introduced a piece of legislation with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that is asking us to adopt a new policy to ensure that we will use sanctions only as a last resort. It does not say that Congress and this country cannot impose unilateral economic sanctions, but it does require that before we do so we have to do an analysis and make sure that when we impose a sanction, that it will indeed achieve the objective of mitigation of the behavior of a country which we are targeting. It also goes further, to say to Members of Congress that we need to have a study to analyze what will be the cost to our economy, what will be the cost in terms of jobs lost, what will be the cost to our economy in terms of markets lost to U.S. companies by the imposition of that sanction? I am confident that once Members of Congress have that information in front of them, they are going to realize that the policy and the utilization of unilateral economic sanctions is a policy that harms the interests of the working men and women, as well as the businesses in this country. A group of us who work closely with the New Democrat Coalition have made this one of our highest priorities, and we are also expanding our effort to deal with some issues which are important to the technology sector. It is clear when we look at the fact that the United States has almost remained an island of prosperity and economic growth in the midst of a world which is suffering from financial crisis, that in large part that is due because of the fact that the United States has the relative advantage internationally in the development of new technology. Yet, we have some sanctions and some export restrictions in place which jeopardize our opportunity to continue to have this advantage internationally. It is time for us to relax some of our restrictions on the export of technology, and particularly restrictions on encryption technology. Unfortunately, we have a policy that restricts the sale of some of our computers embedded with an encryption technology that is using a technology that is over 10 years old. The fact that we have a policy in place now that will preclude U.S. companies from marketing some of their computers and other technology internationally because of our restrictions on encryption, how ludicrous this is witnessed by the fact that anyone in the world today can go to the Internet and download encryption that is far more powerful than that we are imposing upon or restricting our companies from selling that product overseas. That just does not make sense any longer. We also have a policy in place in this country where we restrict the speed of computers and microprocessors that we can export outside of our borders. That might have made sense 10 years ago or even 5 years ago, when we were worried about jeopardizing the national security of this country by giving powerful computers and putting them in the hands of some of the people who threaten world peace. But unfortunately, we have maintained an old policy that has not kept pace with the advancements in technology. Back 20 years ago when we had our Cray supercomputers, that were certainly so powerful and so important that we needed to have responsible restrictions on them, today we have reached the point where there is going to be a computer sold today, or in this next 6 months, with a chip developed by Intel which will have the capacity to perform the number of operations per second, and that chip alone will exceed the restrictions we have in place. It is time for us to make some responsible reforms in encryption policy, our restrictions on computer technology, and the overall reform of our sanctions policy.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 84th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Like the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide stands as a historical example of the human suffering which persecution and intolerance have brought far too often this century. 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 the Armenian genocide took place. As recent events in the Balkans illustrate, to ignore 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 still refuses to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. The truth of this tragedy can never, and should never be denied. The ethnic Albanian refugees of Kosovo attest to the suffering which accompanies forced exile. This 84th 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 ensure 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?' Let us take this opportunity today to contemplate the Armenian genocide, and with the global community standing as witnesses, affirm that we do remember them.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today to pay tribute to the Sequoia Community Health Foundation, which is celebrating its twentieth anniversary this year. The Sequoia Community Health Foundation has made countless contributions to the residents of the Central Valley. Working as a primary health care provider for nearly twenty years, Sequoia Community Health Foundation has served tens of thousands of Valley families, ensuring access to basic health services including immunizations and prenatal care. Despite a brief period of administrative difficulties, the Sequoia Community Health Foundation has emerged stronger than ever in recent years and has restored and expanded the level of services provided to Valley residents. By partnering with local schools, recreation centers and churches, Sequoia Community Health Foundation has greatly facilitated access to health services in the Valley. Sequoia Community Health Foundation has provided more than 200,000 patient visits in the last four years, caring for 15,000 patients a year including many area farmworkers. Sequoia also serves as a vital resource for prenatal and pediatric care by performing between 60 and 90 deliveries each month and immunizing between 200 and 400 children on a monthly basis. Clinic services have been expanded to increase hours of service, expand health education programs, and add cardiology and psychiatry specialists on site. And the clinic has been a leader in recruiting and training Hispanic residents through the Sequoia Hispanic Residency Pathway. Through the leadership of their dedicated staff, Sante Health System and ``Blue Ribbon'' Board, Sequoia Community Health Foundation has maintained a high level of commitment to the Central Valley. I commend Sequoia Community Health Foundation's dedicated employees-- past and present--for their admirable service, and I hope that their fellow citizens will continue to support them with vigorous appreciation.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this measure, and I also take some exception to the criticism of the administration and their lack of action against the issue of the increased imports of steel. As my colleagues know, if we really look at the facts, we have seen since the administration has taken action that hot rolled steel has fallen almost 70 percent between November of last year to January of this year. When we look at two of the countries that have been identified as problems, Russia and Japan, we see that their imports have dropped 98 and 96 percent, and in fact when we look at the U.S. imports of hot rolled steel from all countries, we find that our January 1999 imports are at the same level, in fact lower than July of 1997. The real concern though of this legislation is the precedent that it would set. We are endorsing the establishment, the legislative establishment of quotas that go beyond the agreements that we have negotiated that come under the authority of the WTO. Passing this legislation sends a green light to countries throughout the world that they can put in place quotas that can work to the detriment of U.S. economic interests. Mr. Speaker, we need to oppose this legislation.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. In 1992, Mr. Speaker, when President Clinton took office, we were looking at budget deficits that were approaching almost $300 billion. Well, thanks to the good work of Congress and the good work of the administration, we are no longer talking about budget deficits, but we are, in fact, talking about budget surpluses. It is important for us to continue down the path of fiscal responsibility, and that requires this Congress to support the efforts of the administration and others who are committed to using the significant majority of the budget surpluses that we are going to see in the next 10 years to pay down the national debt and, in doing so, ensuring that we can preserve Social Security and Medicare. That makes good sense for our families and makes good sense for our businesses. Because if we pay down the national debt, which is costing us $243 billion a year in interest, we will be ensured that we can see a reduction in interest rates of over 2 percent. A reduction of 2 percent in interest rates means about $155 to people who have a home mortgage of $115,000. It means to farmers of this country, who have an operating loan of $250,000, a $5,000 savings. Let us take the path of fiscal responsibility. Let us pay down the debt.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, this year marked a real turning part in the recent history of our country as this was the first year in over a couple decades that we actually could no longer talk about our country running a deficit but actually talk about our country running a surplus. When I first was elected to Congress over 8 years ago, we were talking about budget deficits that were approaching $290 billion a year. Today, this year, because of the great leadership of President Clinton and Republicans as well as Democrats in Congress, we have made the tough choices that have put us on the path of greater fiscal responsibility. This year in Congress, we are once again going to be called upon to make some tough choices about how should we proceed in terms of making decisions to ensure that we maintain a path of fiscal responsibility. I am here to argue that it is the interest of our families, it is in the interest of our children that we commit ourselves to paying down the national debt, that we support President Clinton's decision to use these surplus dollars that we are going to be generating over the next 15 years to try to pay off the $3.7 trillion in national debt that have accumulated over the last 20 years. It does not matter if we are a supporter of defense or if we are a supporter of education. It is in all of our interest to pay down the national debt. The reason for that is very simple to understand. When we look at how the government spends every tax dollar that we receive, I think half of us would be surprised when we identify that the third largest expenditure of the Federal Government is on interest on the national debt. Fourteen cents of every tax dollar collected is going to pay interest on the national debt. By comparison, we are only spending $55 billion on education or 3 cents on every dollar. So the decision by the President and many of us in the Democratic Party to commit ourselves to paying down the national debt, what it means in effect is that we are going to reduce this $243 billion that we are spending every year on interest in order that we can ensure that we will have the ability to meet a lot of other pressing needs, whether it be national defense or whether it be education. As I said earlier, this is in the interest of all of our families because, by paying down the national debt, we are also going to be alleviating the burden on an average family of four today who is paying, in effect, $3,644 a year to finance that interest. We had earlier speakers that talked about what it means in terms of mortgage payments. If we paid down the national debt, we are going to see an expected reduction of interest rates of 2 percent, which again means the difference in a monthly mortgage payment of $155 a month. When people talk about making a tax cut or providing all of our citizens with a tax cut, I can think of no better tax cut than paying down the national debt because we are, in effect, reducing the burden of this interest payment. I myself, besides being a Member of Congress, am a farmer. As most farmers, we have to borrow money in order to operate our enterprises. An average operating loan of maybe $250,000 a year, that 2 percent reduction in interest rate means $5,000 in the bottom line in profits to a farmer. When we purchase a new piece of equipment, which are becoming increasingly expensive, an average combine today costing $200,000, again the benefits of paying down our national debt, which will reduce interest rates, will manifest itself in a total savings on interest on the purchase of one combine of over $11,000 a year. So in this Congress, when there is going to be a debate among those who are supporting a policy that the President is advocating of paying down the national debt in order to try to keep this economy on a sound path, in order to ensure that we can see even lower interest rates than we see today, that is a course we should take. I think we ought to be very cautious in succumbing to the allure of tax cuts which would pose a great jeopardy to the country if they are not paid for by reductions of spending in other components in our budget, because they have the danger of taking us once again down a path that will lead to increased deficits and increased national debt, which will undermine the solvency of our economy and certainly will continue to obligate our families and future generations the responsibility of continuing to pay the carrying cost of our excess spending of today.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I believe the President's behavior was irresponsible, inappropriate, and deeply disappointing. But, like most Americans, I have concluded that his actions do not rise to standard of impeachment established by the Framers of our Constitution. Make no mistake. The President is not above the law. He can be sued in criminal or civil proceedings for his actions in this matter when he leaves office. But as Members of Congress, we have a unique responsibility, and must adhere to the standards set forth by our founding fathers. Our founding fathers intended for impeachment to be a drastic remedy when the President has committed ``great and dangerous offenses'' against the nation. Make no mistake. The President's behavior was wrong. But impeachment was never intended to punish the President for wrongdoing. Impeachment was intended to remove a President from office when his or her actions imperil the future of our nation. Impeachment was intended for a President who commits `treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' against the nation. Congress should not lower the standard of impeachment, and reverse the will of the electorate merely as a means to express displeasure with the President's behavior. Against the wisdom of nearly nine hundred constitutional scholars, the majority has chosen to proceed with a bitterly partisan attempt to impeach the President. Against more than two hundred years of constitutional and historical precedent, the majority has chosen to proceed with a bitterly partisan attempt to impeach the President. And against the overwhelming sentiment of the American people, the majority party has chosen to proceed with a bitterly partisan attempt to impeach the President. Rightly, our founding fathers established a high standard for impeachment. Our founding fathers would view our action today as maligning their intent, and as an action that upsets the careful balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. We cannot afford to set this dangerous, misguided precedent, and irrevocably erode the standard for impeachment.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an entrepreneur who operates a successful restaurant in the Central Valley. Gilbert Cortez of Tulare County was recently recognized for his achievement by the Central Valley Chapter of the California Restaurant Association at its third annual Diamond Cuisine Awards Banquet. Gilbert Cortez has owned and operated his family's restaurant in Visalia, California, Las Palmas, since 1965. In the 33 years he has been in operation, Mr. Cortez has developed his business into a highly successful restaurant with excellent service both to its customers and the local community. Mr. Cortez has received the California Restaurant Association's Lifetime Achievement Award. In addition to his many years of success with Las Palmas, Mr. Cortez has also contributed generously to many causes in the community such as the Good News Center. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating this businessman for his remarkable achievements and in recognition of his service to the community.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an entrepreneur who operates a successful restaurant in the Central Valley. Mearle Heitzman of Tulare County was recently recognized for his achievements by the Central Valley Chapter of the California Restaurant Association at its third annual Diamond Cuisine Awards Banquet. Mearle Heitzman, originally from Utah, has managed several local restaurant establishments in the Central Valley since 1948. Mr. Heitzman has been honored by the California Restaurant Association as an inductee into its Hall of Fame. Since 1960, Mr. Heitzman has owned and operate Mearle's College Drive-In Restaurant across from the College of The Sequoias in Visalia, California. With his relentless penchant for hard work, Mr. Heitzman has turned his restaurant into a highly successful and well-known fixture, in the Central Valley. President Richard Nixon is among the various celebrities to have visited Mearle's College Drive-In Restaurant. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating this businessman for his remarkable achievements and in recognition of his service to the community.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to the underlying bill. Not so much because of the substance and some of the suggestions that are going to be made, but primarily because of the process. We have a piece of legislation that was introduced just a couple of days ago that has critical and far-ranging impacts, and also has the potential to set a precedent that will come back to haunt us on future trade negotiations. I also oppose this legislation because I think, quite frankly, that it undermines the integrity of the WTO. We, in the case of bananas and beef hormones, as a country, have won against the European Union in the WTO. What we are doing now, instead of allowing that process to continue, allowing USTR to take the actions which they think are in the best interests of the country, we are having Congress step in and prematurely set the terms of what those negotiations and what those efforts in retaliation should be, and that is not right. That is something that is going to set a precedent that will come back to haunt us on a lot of other different commodities and different trade issues that we might, we might find disagreements on. I think clearly this is a case where we are micromanaging the efforts of the USTR, and that is wrong. I think by having us identify these retaliatory actions prematurely we are, in fact, limiting the leverage of the administration and limiting the leverage of USTR, and that is clearly not in our interests. Mr. Speaker, I think that this legislation is ill-advised, and that we need to have USTR be able to run their course, taking actions which are consistent with the Uruguay Round and the WTO; and if we do so, I think we are going to be much better served.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Foodlink for Tulare County which is proudly celebrating its 20th anniversary on September 24, 1998. Foodlink, which was originally called Food Resources, was founded in the mid-1970's by a dedicated group of individuals who were very concerned about the growing hunger problem in the Tulare County, and equally concerned about food going to waste in this rich agricultural area. At the time, hunger in Tulare County was worse than the national average. Food Resources (Foodlink) worked with area farmers who were more than willing to donate agricultural surplus, culled vegetables, day-old bread, unlabeled canned goods, and other usable items to Foodlink to be distributed among the different foodbanks in Tulare County. After 20 years of growth, Foodlink is currently providing 5 million pounds of food to 82,000 hungry people through a network of nonprofit emergency pantries, soup kitchens, shelters, and youth programs. Foodlink would not exist without the many volunteers and donors who have dedicated their time and resources. On September 24, 1998 in Visalia, California Foodlink, will present awards to Kraft Foods as outstanding Food Donor and St. Vincent de Paul in Porterville as outstanding Food Agency. With such partners as these, Foodlink has been able to provide much needed assistance to many families in Tulare County. Unfortunately, the problem of hunger still exists in Tulare County. But, with contained support of the local community food donations from the USDA and others, Foodlink will continue their mission of ending hunger. I believe our community is lucky to have an organization like Foodlink to help those in need. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, please join me in wishing Foodlink a Happy Anniversary and a special thank you for all their hard work to end hunger in Tulare County.