Cal Dooley

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R. 1304. I rise in opposition primarily because I think it is irresponsible for us to exempt this legislation from the budget rules, and this bill I think clearly violates the budget rules. Mr. Speaker, the original bill was scored by CBO as costing in excess of $11 billion. Even with the modifications that were added in the Committee on the Judiciary, it is still estimated to have significant cost in reduced Federal tax revenues of almost $11 billion if this was made permanent for the 10-year period. Obviously, it would be less if it only survives for the 3-year sunset period. But it also is projected to have costs not only to the government in terms of increased cost to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Federal employee health benefit plans, but it is also estimated to cost consumers, as we will see an increase in health care premiums as a result of this, which are estimated to be on average of almost 2 percent by the third year of the enactment of this bill. If we are going to maintain consistency with the budget rules that are to guide the legislation in this House, we should not exempt this legislation. We should not exempt legislation that is going to have budgetary impacts in the billions of dollars. I think anyone that prides themselves on being a fiscal conservative should not support this rule; they should send this bill back to the Committee on Rules where we will have the opportunity to bring this bill up when we can give adequate consideration to the fiscal and the revenue impacts they will have to the Federal Government and to the taxpayers of America.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

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

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform Members of the House that just this week we sent a letter from 25 of our Members to the President asking him to recognize that EU inaction and insist that our trading partners in Europe agree to mend the regulatory process in order to allow for a science-based approval process of new plant varieties, including varieties developed through the use of modern biotechnology. It seems that today science has taken a back seat to political considerations and as a result, our farmers are caught in an untenable situation. The situation was recently complicated further when our government agreed to enter into a consultative process with the EU. The U.S.-EU consultative forum has been formed to negotiate issues related to biotechnology. Discussion is always a healthy exercise, and under different circumstances, I and others who signed a letter to the President would unreservedly welcome the opportunity to sit down with EU representatives. In fact, we have welcomed the opportunity with open arms in the form of 30 other such groups that are currently discussing related biotech issues. However, we must now stand behind America's farmers who are losing critical markets. Corn farmers are losing an estimated $200 million annually, and hundreds of millions in other agriculture exports are being lost. We must send a message to the EU that while we welcome dialogue, we insist that the meeting of this particular forum be contingent upon agreement by EU nations to restart its approval process for biotechnology products. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important message that we are sending here tonight, and I urge thorough consideration by this body. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, while I am not in opposition to this amendment, I ask unanimous consent that I can control the 5 minutes.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, as our world's economy makes the transition from an industrial-based economy to one that is information based, what we are finding increasingly is that geography is going to become less important. We are going to find that national borders are no longer going to be barriers to the flow of information, to the flow of commerce, and to the flow of new ideas. What is important for us to understand, as globalization takes hold, is that we have these international bodies that can develop the rules of the road that can ensure that we can have a level of certainty in terms of how international laws related to trade can be effectively and equitably implemented. There is no country that has more at risk in this endeavor as the United States, with our country only having 4 percent of the world's population, 96 percent of the world's population outside our borders, when we look at the fact that we consume 25 percent of all the world's GDP. It is important for us to understand that we have more at risk than any country in terms of the opportunities that a consistent set of rules that help to guide international trade provide us. I also would make a strong case that, for those of us who are very interested in seeing how we can advance issues related to human rights, how we can advance issues that can elevate labor and environmental standards, is that the WTO has the potential to be one of the most effective vehicles in order to achieve that outcome. Because if we ever looked to see what would be the impact of this legislation passing today, it would, basically, leave us without an effective mechanism with which the United States can exert its influence among a world body. And so, that is why I think it is important for us to certainly vote against this measure today and dedicate ourselves to continue to have the United States provide the leadership through the WTO to advance the issues of labor and environmental standards. This will make good sense in terms of ensuring that U.S. workers have the economic opportunities the global marketplace provides and, also, to maximize the influence of the United States in developing countries.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan legislation to repeal the federal estate tax over the next ten years, and I salute Representatives Dunn and Tanner for their long stewardship of this bill. As a family farmer myself and as the representative of the most productive agricultural region of the country, I have seen the impact that this tax has had on small businesses and family-owned farms, and I believe that the repeal of the estate tax will help ensure the survival of these businesses into the next century. Seventy percent of family businesses are not passed on to future generations largely because of the burden imposed by estate taxes. In particular, I would like to point out the impact of estate taxes on family farms, since it is these family farms that drive the economy of California's Central Valley, which I represent. The estate tax has a devastating effect on family farmers who struggle to pass on their farms to the next generation. Since most family-owned farms do not earn the kind of profits necessary to pay large estate tax bills, future generations are often forced to mortgage or liquidate assets. As a fourth generation family farmer, I have seen first-hand the difficulty that family members face in trying to keep farms operating when each generation passes. Eliminating the heavy burden the estate tax imposes on farmers will help keep more of our farms in operation from generation to generation. I would also argue that elimination of the estate tax would have a positive impact on a number of the small rural communities that make up the fabric of my district and much of this nation. These small rural communities and the families that live there are highly dependent on the continued operation of family farms and small businesses in the area. These family farms and small businesses employ the vast majority of people in these small communities. If we are to continue to spread our unprecedented national economic expansion to every corner of this country--including our rural communities--we must work to ensure that family farms and small businesses in these communities stay in operation. Elimination of the estate tax will brighten these communities' economic future. I strongly support this legislation because I believe it will free our family farmers and small businesspeople of the estate tax burden that currently threatens their long-term survival, and strengthen our small communities in the 21st century.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of passage of PNTR and also rise to commend President Clinton and the administration for their terrific effort to negotiate an agreement that is good for U.S. workers, that is good for U.S. businesses, and that is good for U.S. farmers. It is such a wonderful deal because this is one of the few agreements that we have ever had the chance to vote on where the United States gave up nothing. We did not reduce a tariff, we did not reduce a quota, and in return we got significant across-the-board reductions in tariffs and increased market access, which is going to increase the influence that the United States has on the internal affairs of China. That is important, because many of us are very concerned about the progress on human rights and religious freedoms in China. But it is inconceivable that we are going to have more influence in seeing progress in those areas by adopting a policy which further isolates the United States from the affairs in China. We are going to do more to empower the Chinese citizens to make progress in their efforts to advance democracy, in their efforts to advance greater personal freedoms by extending the hand of economic cooperation. This policy of economic engagement is one which is going to ensure that China becomes a part of the body of nations that do comply with the rules of law. It is going to also be an instrument that is going to ensure that with additional U.S. investment and additional U.S. trade that we will see an accelerated enhancement of the per capita GDP and the standard of living in China that will also result in greater benefits and progress on human rights as well as labor and environmental conditions.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, but also express some regret that we did not have the opportunity to have this body act on an amendment which I think would have even been more in tune with the realities we are seeing in today's Information Age. When we look at the fact that we allow many sensitive weapons, such as tanks, high performance aircraft and missiles, to be exported from the United States with only a 30-day waiting period, it seems somewhat irresponsible and inappropriate that we would not apply that same standard to the exportation of high performance computers and technology. We are here today because we are recognizing that we are advancing from an industrial-based economy to one that is based on information, and the forces in an information-based economy are speed, whether it is the speed of commerce, the speed of innovation, the speed of communication, and we ought to be advancing regulations that are consistent with our transformation into an information-based economy, and a 30-day review period is more than adequate to allow us to ensure that we are not jeopardizing national security, and, at the same time, ensuring that we are not impeding the ability of our economy, which is committed to the technology sector to maximize their economic opportunities internationally. We have had some evidence where companies have been thwarted in their ability to make sales of computers. Just last fall Apple Computers developed a single processor that exceeded the export control limits, and were precluded from marketing this product in over 50 countries. We need to ensure that we do not have U.S. workers sacrificing market opportunities because we have a regulation on the books that is not in tune with the realities of this information-based economy in which we now find ourselves. I rise in support of this amendment. I hope as we continue this process though that we can hopefully get back to looking at the legislation that my good friends the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) would have introduced that would have only required a 30-day period.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. For the past decade, the United States has been an island of economic prosperity. We have seen the greatest amount of job creation, the greatest growth in our GDP, and we have seen real wages growing twice the rate of inflation. Times do not get much better than this. When we are in this time of economic prosperity, it is important for this country to reach out with a policy of economic engagement with many countries throughout the world who are struggling. The bill we are voting on today is clearly that policy. We are reaching out to our neighbors in the Caribbean Basin, we are reaching out to some countries and citizens of the world who are being left behind in sub-Sahara Africa. It is this policy of economic engagement which offers them some hope. I had the chance to visit Africa late last year, and it was distressing to see the human conditions in Africa and sub-Sahara Africa. In almost every country in Africa and sub-Sahara Africa, with the exception of one, their average life expectancy is declining because of the ravages of AIDS. When we see average per capita GDP, annual per capita GDP that is only a few hundred dollars a year, we can understand the quality of life these folks are being denied. The policy we are voting on today is one which is going to be an improvement in that. We are going to be engaging economically, which is going to help to accelerate and enhance the development of their economy and improve their standard of living. I would say, though, I think we came up short. We should have done more in terms of Africa, and I would also even say in the Caribbean nation initiative. It is time for us to set aside a failed policy of isolating Cuba for the last 40 years and welcome them in as we do every other Caribbean basin. It is time for us to embrace a policy of economic engagement with Cuba, as we are doing in Africa, as we are doing in China, as we are doing in Vietnam; and we will make greater progress in all those areas with advancing not only the economic interests of the working men and women in this country but advancing the cause of human rights and democracy throughout the world.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out in support of the United States Congress granting permanent normal trade relations to China. I rise as a Democrat, one who believes that this policy of economic engagement is in the best interest of the United States on a number of issues. When we look at the history of Congress and all of the trade agreements that we have had to vote on, seldom, if ever, have we had the opportunity to gain increased access to a market and not have to have given anything in return. This administration was able to negotiate an agreement that resulted in the United States not reducing their tariffs 1 percent, not reducing their quotas 1 percent, not giving up anything, and in return, we achieved significant across-the-board reductions in tariffs. We received increased market access into China. We received the opportunity to have direct investment to China to over the 50 percent- ownership level in most sectors of their industry. This is an agreement that is good for American workers, it is an agreement that is good for American businesses, it is an agreement that is good for American farmers. One has to understand what is going to be the repercussions of the United States Congress failing to support PNTR for China. If we fail to vote for this measure, we are going to ensure that there are U.S. workers that are not going to benefit from the significant reductions in tariffs. Just to put this in kind of graphic terms, if my colleagues can really think if the United States is still facing the same tariff schedule with China as we are today, and maybe it is in the exportation of auto parts, and if we are in competition with Canadian factories and Canadian workers who have supported the China PNTR who could experience a significant reduction in tariffs, it is clearly going to give that Canadian company the ability to gain that contract that will result in those products flowing into that China market. It will be U.S. workers that are on the outside. The other thing that is going to result in tremendous benefit to U.S. workers and businesses are the provisions of this agreement that provide for even added protection against import surges coming from China. This agreement will ensure that the United States even has greater protection than it currently does today with import surges. So if we are faced with a situation as we were in years past with a significant increase in the exportation from China of apple juice concentrate, which had a significant impact in any Pacific Coast apple- producing States, or even if we were looking at the importation of large amounts of steel, we would now have the ability to take action specifically against China in order to deal with the import surges that might have resulted in having adverse economic consequences in this country. Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of my colleagues that have brought up an issue which is one that we have to address, and that is the issue of human rights and religious freedoms in China. All of us would like to see greater progress in China. But many of us I think agree that the best way to influence the internal affairs in China is by embracing this policy of economic engagement. I was very honored and pleased to have the chance to visit with Martin Lee who is recognized internationally as one of the leading human rights activists in China, the leader of the Hong Kong Democracy Party. It was his commentary in terms of how we can make the greatest progress on human rights in China that I think resonated more effectively and with greater credibility than anybody I have heard address this issue. He is one who believes very strongly that if we do support this policy of economic engagement and supporting PNTR for China, that we will empower the reformers in China. We will empower the people that are trying to do away from the State-run enterprises. We will ensure that it is the people that are trying to carry out the reforms and bring China into a rule of law regime that their stature will be enhanced by our actions here. He went on to further state that if the U.S. Congress failed to support PNTR, what we would in effect be doing would be undermining some of the progress that we have seen over the past decades in human rights and religious freedom, that in fact we would be empowering the hard-liners there, the people that want to maintain some of the centralized control of their economy and their society. He cautioned us and actually implored Congress not to take action that would result in China's stepping back and not moving forward. Another gentleman from the Hong Kong Democratic Party also spoke, and he talked about what is happening with the introduction of the Internet into China. Just in the last year alone, we have seen Internet usage in China increase from 2 million people to 10 million people. It is expected that it is going to increase in this year alone to 20 million people. In the next 4 or 5 years, it is conceivable and quite likely that we will have 100 million people in China with access to the Internet. Why is this important? I think it is important because I believe the Internet is probably greatest tool for the advancement of democracy that we have seen in the history of mankind. It will be this increased Internet usage in China that will result in more people getting access to information that is not controlled by the Chinese government. Support China PNTR.

Mr. DOOLEY

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in order to accommodate the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) catching his airplane, that he could take the first 5 minutes, and then I could immediately follow with 5 minutes.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4182, a bipartisan effort to address a problem that could impede advancements in many sectors of our economy. In many ways this legislation I think is a reflection of the transition our economy is making from an industrial-based economy to an information-based economy. We are seeing some of the most rapid growth in our economy now in this information sector, where a lot of those companies are making great efforts to recruit talent and personnel by offering them a stake in the company. By ensuring that stock options can be available not only to management, but to employees, we are going to ensure that that employee will have the opportunity to benefit from the technology and the product development that is adding so much wealth to our entire economy. I am real pleased that this legislation will certainly benefit not only the technology sector, but also a lot of other companies on the more manufacturing side of things, who are seeing some examples of how they too can reach out to make their employees more a part of their efforts to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I just want to join the chairman and the ranking member in their efforts in bringing this bill to the floor, and thank all of the efforts of the administration and other Members that have joined in support of this legislation.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker I stand with my colleagues in support of H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act. By approving this bill, we will make an important contribution to the efforts of the thousands of Hmong veterans and their families to become United States citizens. For over two decades, Hmong veterans have encountered serious obstacles that have impeded their ability to become U.S. citizens. This bill addresses this by exempting Hmong veterans from English language proficiency and residency requirements. Many Americans are only beginning to appreciate and recognize the invaluable service and bravery of Hmong veterans. Today, we have an opportunity to assure that their service to freedom and to the United States will not be forgotten. Hmong veterans fought in the Vietnam War alongside American forces at great personal peril and loss of life. They performed critical roles in dangerous missions, collected vital intelligence, rescued downed American pilots and defended sensitive American installations at remote locations. Tragically, at the end of the war and as a result of their service and bravery, tens of thousands of Hmong freedom fighters and their families constantly faced the horrible reality of life in prison camps and the threat of genocide. Many Hmong veterans and their families sought refuge in the United States. California's Central Valley, which I represent, has been a primary relocation site for them. I am proud that the Central Valley is one of the most ethnically diverse parts of the country and that the Hmong community has contributed greatly to that diversity and enriched us with their traditions. In light of their service, heroism and dedication to freedom, it is only fitting that America embrace those Hmong veterans that fought with distinction and honor. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in remembrance of the Armenian Genocide. This terrible human tragedy must not be forgotten. Like the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide stands as a tragic example of the human suffering that results from hatred and intolerance. One and a 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. It would be an even greater tragedy to forget that the Armenian Genocide ever happened. To not recognize the horror of such events almost assures their repetition in the future. Adolf Hitler, in preparing his genocide plans for the Jews, predicted that no one would remember the atrocities he was about to unleash. After all, he asked, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Our statements today are intended to preserve the memory of the Armenian loss, and to remind the world that the Turkish government--to this day--refuses to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. The truth of this tragedy can never and should never be denied. And we must also be mindful of the current suffering of the Armenian, where the Armenian people 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 many more have been displaced and are homeless. In the face of this difficult situation we have an opportunity for reconciliation. Now is the time for Armenia and its neighbors to come together and work toward building relationships that will assure lasting peace. Meanwhile, in America, the Armenian-American community continues to thrive and to provide assistance and solidarity to its countrymen and women abroad. The Armenian-American community is bound together by strong generational and family ties, an enduring work ethic and a proud sense of ethnic heritage. Today we recall the tragedy of their past, not to place blame, but to answer a fundamental question, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Our commemoration of the Armenian Genocide speaks directly to that, and I answer, we do.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act. The bill takes a new, more modest approach to the issue of property rights and has received widespread bipartisan support. The legislation helps property owners by clearing some of the legal and procedural hurdles that make it both excessively time consuming and expensive to assert their claims. The bill proposes to do nothing except clarify the jurisdiction of Federal courts to hear and determine issues of Federal constitutional law. H.R. 2372 is vastly different from previous property right bills. It does not attempt to define for a court when a taking has occurred, nor does it change or weaken any environmental law. There has been some controversy generated surrounding this bill. Most of the criticism of this legislation is based upon the assumption that the bill cuts local government out of the decisionmaking process when it comes to land use decisions. But nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that H.R. 2372 applies only to Federal claims based on the fifth and 14th amendments that are filed in Federal court. The bill creates no cause of action against local governments. H.R. 2372 is only a procedural bill clarifying the rules so a decision can be reached faster on the facts of the case instead of wasting taxpayer money on jurisdictional questions. Local governments will have no new limits on their ability to zone or regulate land use. Local agencies will get at least two, maybe three chances to resolve a land use decision locally before their decision will be defined as final, once on the original application, once on appeal, and yet again on review by an elected body. H.R. 2372 does not provide a ticket to Federal court. Individuals already have a right to go to Federal court. The bill simply provides an objective definition of when enough is enough, so that both parties in a land use dispute can participate in meaningful negotiations. I believe H.R. 2372 represents a moderate approach that Members can and should support.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as cosponsor of H. Res. 396.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be joining the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and a number of other Members in the new Democrat coalition that are advancing a policy we think is very, very important, to allow the United States to maintain its relative advantage in terms of clearly being the leader in the world in technology. This is absolutely critical for the United States, because when one looks at that technology sector, it is an area where we have created more jobs, where we have created more wealth, where we are creating more opportunities for our families. What the H-1B legislation that we are introducing today is, in many ways, is going to ensure that the United States has the top 200,000 draft choices, the top 200,000 draft choices for the brightest, the most intelligent, the most capable engineers throughout the world. We should feel fortunate as a country that these bright minds are interested in coming and investing their time and energy in creating jobs, in creating opportunities which are so important to the longer term future of this country. We have also have made the commitment to ensure that we are investing in education and job training programs, which are going to ensure that we are developing the domestic talent that can eventually fill these positions. We have come forth with a balanced approach, one which will continue to ensure that the United States is providing the leadership in the technology sector and also a commitment to provide up to $200 million, in education for our high school students, for our college students, for our post- college students to ensure that they are going to have the academic skills that are needed to fill the tremendous demand for employees in the technology sector.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Carl R. Campbell, who made significant contributions to his community in the field of education. As Superintendent of the Kings Canyon Unified School District in Reedley, California, he made great strides in improving reading instruction for students in order to meet the state's goal of every child becoming a successful reader by the third grade. Mr. Campbell was born in Abilene, Texas on January 15, 1942. He received his undergraduate degree at California State University, Fresno majoring in Political Science. Upon graduation, he began teaching business and government classes at Clovis High School. He quickly took a leadership role at Clovis High, serving as advisor for the Student Council and coaching the junior varsity basketball team for several years. Realizing that he enjoyed being in a position of leadership, he earned a Masters of Education in Educational Administration and went on to become the principal of two elementary schools in Clovis. After several years as principal, Mr. Campbell was ready for a new challenge. In 1987 he became the assistant superintendent of Kings Canyon Unified School District in Reedley, California. In 1995, he became the Superintendent of the district. As superintendent, Mr. Campbell had a vision to improve reading instruction for students in the district. His vision included Reading Recovery Training for teachers, private-public school partnerships, and a new teacher training facility. On Friday, December 17, 1999, the Carl R. Campbell Education Center was dedicated in honor of his service to the district. The training facility will serve to provide literacy training for teachers, as well as in-classroom coaching experiences. A major role of the facility is to accelerate student learning. Carl Campbell was diagnosed with cancer in August of 1999 and passed away this week, on February 7, 2000 at the age of 58. He is survived by his wife and best friend of 34 years, Jayne; daughter and son-in-law, Jill and Mike Murphy of Washington, DC; son and daughter-in-law, Bret and Tianna Campbell of Fresno; parents, Fred and Daphna Campbell of Fresno; and brother and sister-in-law, Hollis and Margie Campbell of Fresno. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Carl R. Campbell for his tremendous contributions to education in Fresno County. Carl's friendship and leadership qualities will be dearly missed by his family and his colleagues in education.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1838, the Taiwan Security Enforcement Act. While supporters claim that the bill will increase Taiwan's security, the opposite is true. This legislation could have serious unintended consequences that could potentially threaten Taiwan's security, undermine our own national security interests, and jeopardize our relationship with China. For more than 2 decades, under the leadership of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton, the United States has pursued an extensive and successful military relationship with Taiwan through defensive weapons sales and informal military assistance. The Taiwan Relations Act passed in 1979 has been proven an effective mechanism in helping Taiwan achieve security, prosperity, and freedom. H.R. 1338 is simply unnecessary. Section 3 of the Taiwan Relations Act already allows the United States to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in ``such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' The act further states that a determination of Taiwan's needs ``shall include a review by the United States military authorities in connection with the recommendations to the President and Congress.'' So as we can see, the passage of H.R. 1838 will not improve the existing act and provide additional security for the people of Taiwan, as supporters of the bill maintain. H.R. 1838 will instead undermine the principal objectives of the Taiwan Relations Act, which was to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the American Pacific. Passage of the bill would formalize a military relationship with Taiwan and would be a significant departure from the ``one China'' policy that has been essential to maintaining stability in the region. Not only is the bill unnecessary, but the timing of H.R. 1838 is particularly bad. Recent public statements by Taiwan officials concerning its relationship with China have moved closer to the concept of sovereignty, which has escalated tensions and complicated our ``one China'' policy. Furthermore, Taiwan will be holding a presidential election in March and a new administration will be formed in May. We have been urging both sides of the Taiwan Strait to avoid any actions that could increase the risk of conflict and take advantage of possible new opportunities for dialogue. In addition, passage of this bill could potentially jeopardize our efforts to improve our relationships with China. Let me make clear that I in no way condone any aggressive actions taken by China against Taiwan which threatens its security. But adopting policies that will further distance us from China and undermine opportunities for future dialogue would not be constructive U.S. policy. Undoing any progress that has been made in negotiations on such issues as trade and human rights will not only threaten the future security of Taiwan, but could impede U.S. abilities to advance democracy in the region. Mr. Speaker, a policy of economic and political engagement is the surest way to promote U.S. interests in China, to advance democracy and human rights, and to secure future economic opportunities for Taiwan, China, and the United States.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and Mr. Greenwood of Pennsylvania, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Ms. Dunn of Washington, and Mr. Tanner of Tennessee to recognize January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month. It is fitting that in the first month of this new year, at the start of a new century, we look to biotechnology as our greatest hope for the future. Mapping the human genome, for example, is ahead of schedule and nearly complete. That achievement, begun 10 years ago, will rank as one of the most significant advances in health care by accelerating the biotechnology industry's discovery of new therapies and cures for our most life-threatening diseases. Biotechnology not only is using genetic research to create new medicines, but also to improve agriculture, industrial manufacturing and environmental management. The United States leads the world in biotechnology innovation. There are approximately 1,300 biotech companies in the United States, employing more than 150,000 people. The industry spent nearly $10 billion on research and development in 1998. Although revenues totaled $18.4 billion, the industry recorded a net loss of $5 billion because of the expensive nature of drug development. In 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved more than 20 biotechnology drugs, vaccines and new indications for existing medicines, pushing the number of marketed biotech drugs and vaccines to more than 90. Total FDA biotech approvals from 1982 through 1999 reach more than 140 when adding clearances for new indications of existing medicines. The vast majority of new biotech drugs were approved in the second half of the 1990s, demonstrating the biotechnology industry's surging proficiency at finding new medicines to treat our most life- threatening illnesses. Biotechnology is revolutionizing every facet of medicine from diagnosis to treatment of all diseases. It is detailing life at the molecular level and someday will take much of the guesswork out of disease management and treatment. The implications for health care are as great as any milestone in medical history. We expect to see great strides early in this century. A devastating disease that has stolen many of our loved ones, neighbors and friends is cancer. Biotechnology already has made significant strides in battling certain cancers. This is only the beginning. The first biotechnology cancer medicines have been used with surgery, chemotherapy and radiation to enhance their effectiveness, lessen adverse effects and reduce chances of cancer recurrence. Newer biotech cancer drugs target the underlying molecular causes of the disease. Biotech cancer treatments under development, such as vaccines that prevent abnormal cell growth, may make traditional treatments obsolete. In addition, gene therapy is being studied as a way to battle cancer by starving tumor cells to death. Many biotech drugs are designed to treat our most devastating and intractable illnesses. In many cases these medicines are the first ever therapies for those diseases. For example, advancements in research have yielded first-of-a-kind drugs to treat multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis as well as cancer. Other medicines in clinical trials block the start of the molecular cascade that triggers inflammation's tissue damaging effects in numerous disease states. In diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's, clinical trials are under way to test a variety of cell therapies that generate healthy neurons to replace deteriorated ones. Recent breakthroughs in stem cell research have prompted experts to predict cures within 10 years for some diseases, such as Type I (Juvenile) Diabetes and Parkinson's. With more than 350 biotechnology medicines in late-stage clinical trials for illnesses, such as heart ailments, cancer, neurological diseases and infections, biotechnology innovation will be the foundation not only for improving our health and quality of life, but also lowering health care costs. In the past two years Congress has increased funding for the National Institutes of Health's basic research programs by 15 percent per year. We are 40 percent of the way toward doubling the NIH budget. Health- care research, however, is not one-sided. The public funds we provide are for basic research. The private sector takes this basic science and then spends many times more than what the government has contributed to create new drugs and get them to patients. In today's world, biotechnology companies are among the greatest innovators and risk takers. Biotechnology also is being used to improve agriculture, industrial manufacturing and environmental management. In manufacturing, the emphasis has shifted from the removal of toxic chemicals in production waste streams to replacement of those pollutants with biological processes that prevent the environment from being fouled. And because these biological processes are derived from renewable sources they also conserve traditional energy resources. Industrial biotechnology companies are the innovators commercializing clean technologies and their progress is accelerating at an astonishing rate. In agricultural biotechnology, crops on the market have been modified to protect them from insect damage thus reducing pesticide use. Biotech crops that are herbicide tolerant enable farmers to control weeds without damaging the crops. This allows farmers flexibility in weed management and promotes conservation tillage. Other biotech crops are protected against viral diseases with the plant equivalent of a vaccine. Biotech fruits and vegetables are tastier and firmer and remain fresher longer. The number of acres worldwide planted with biotech crops soared from 4.3 million in 1996 to 100 million in 1999, of which 81 million acres were planted in the United States and Canada. Acceptance of these crops by farmers is one indication of the benefits they have for reducing farming costs and use of pesticides while increasing crop yields. Biotech crops in development include foods that will offer increased levels of nutrients and vitamins. Benefits range from helping developing nations meet basic dietary requirements to creating disease- fighting and health-promoting foods. Biotechnology is improving the lives of those in the U.S. and abroad. The designation of January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month is an indication to our constituents and their children that Congress recognizes the value and the promise of this technology. Biotechnology is a big word that means hope.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. James D. Northway, who is retiring later this year from his position as President and CEO of Valley Children's Hospital in Madera, California. Dr. Northway was born in San Francisco on July 22, 1935. He received his undergraduate and medical degrees from Stanford University. After finishing medical school, Dr. Northway went to Salt Lake City in 1960 to begin the specialty to which he would devote himself throughout his career--pediatrics. There he began a series of residencies and research fellowships in the field of pediatrics. Dr. Northway is a veteran of the military, having taken a leave of absence from his practice from 1963 to 1965 to serve as Senior Surgeon in the U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit in Cairo, Egypt. Upon completing his tour of duty, Dr. Northway returned to the U.S. and proceeded to hold a number of teaching position at the University of Utah, Indiana University, and the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Northway still serves as Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of California, in addition to his other duties. Since 1983, Dr. Northway has been President and Chief Executive Officer of Valley Children's Hospital. There he has overseen a facility that serves the entire Central Valley of California. Dr. Northway has helped to build Valley Children's into one of the finest institutions of its kind throughout the country. In addition to his leadership of Valley Children's Hospital, Dr. Northway has been involved in a number of professional associations, holding the chairmanship of the California Children's Hospital Association and serving in the National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutes. Dr. Northway's participation in these groups has provided ample evidence of his unwavering commitment to the field of pediatrics and to the health of our children. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Dr. James D. Northway for his leadership in the field of pediatrics and for his contributions to his community. We send our sincere congratulations and wish him a very happy retirement.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Betty Gardner, who is retiring this month from her position as President and CEO of the Kings Federal Credit Union in Kings County, California. During her tenure, Ms. Gardner has overseen a period of tremendous growth for the Kings Federal Credit Union. In 1960, she began serving credit union members from her home, slowly building the credit union's customer base. Nearly forty years later, the credit union's membership has expanded to 11,000 members, serving more than 180 select employer groups. In the small rural communities of Kings County, the credit union has played a vital role in providing project financing and financial services for people who might not otherwise have access to those services. In addition to her leadership of the Kings Federal Credit Union, Ms. Gardner has been active in professional associations for the credit union industry. In 1990-91, Ms. Gardner served as chairman of the California Credit Union League, working to improve the league's voting procedures. Her advocacy for and interest in the credit union industry also led her to travel on behalf of the industry. In October 1992 for example, she spent five days in Gdansk, Poland, visiting new credit unions and assisting the Polish Credit Union Foundation in their development of new operations. Ms. Gardner has been honored by the California Credit Union League with a number of awards, including the 1994 Distinguished Service Award, and the 1998 Leo H. Shapiro Lifetime Achievement Award. She has also been actively engaged in the community, participating in Soroptimist International, the Hanford Chamber of Commerce, the Sacred Heart Hospital Board of Directors, the Business Development Committee, the American Cancer Society, and serving as a former chair of the Hanford Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Betty Gardner for contributions to the credit union industry and to the larger community of Kings County. We send our sincere congratulations and wish her well on her retirement.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Roger Robb, who is retiring this month as Manager of the Lower Tule River and Pixley irrigation districts in Tulare County, in central California. Mr. Robb was born in Garden City, South Dakota, on October 5, 1937. He attended junior college in Porterville, expressing an early interest in serving as manager of an irrigation district. He received his bachelor's degree in civil engineering from California State University, Fresno, and his Master's degree in Geotechnical Engineering from U.C. Berkeley. Early in his career, Mr. Robb held various positions with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service, serving in their Napa and Davis state offices. There he was active in a wide range of issues, including watershed management, drainage issues, small dams and irrigation efficiency studies. In 1976, Mr. Robb began work at the Lower Tule River Irrigation District and Pixley Irrigation District as a staff engineer. Only one year later, he ascended to his ``dream job'' of manager of the two districts. Mr. Robb took the position at a time when the Central Valley of California was facing one of its worst droughts in history, posing a challenge to the newly installed manager. Throughout his career, Mr. Robb has been active in a number of associations, including the Friant Water Users Authority, Mid-valley Water Authority, Association of California Water Agencies-Joint Powers Insurance Authority, and Central Valley Project Water Association. On the Tule River, Mr. Robb has overseen day-to-day operations for the Tule River Association, and helped lead the successful effort to establish a small hydroelectric power plant at Success Dam. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Roger Robb for his contributions to his field and to the Central Valley community. We send our sincere congratulations and wish him well on the occasion of his retirement.

Mr. DOOLEY of California

Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill and also in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), myself and a number of our colleagues. This legislation is a step forward to trying to ensure that consumers and businesses have a better ability to conduct commerce over the Internet. This amendment that we are supporting today provides for added consumer protections. It ensures that every consumer will have to opt in in order to participate. It ensures that consumers will have to acknowledge the conditions of a contract. It also provides assurances that a consumer will have to acknowledge that they will have to notify the business or the entity that they might be doing business with if they change their e-mail. This is not any different than what one would have to do with one's address at one's home if one is going to relocate. Now, if we want to have people to have the benefits that the Internet can provide and e-commerce can provide, we have to understand that we are dealing with a different medium, and this amendment goes a long way to ensuring that consumers will have those protections, that they will have the notifications that are important for them to understand their responsibilities and obligations. Mr. Chairman, I heard some folks earlier today talking in opposition to the underlying bill, but there are a lot of people out there that do not have a computer; there are a lot of people out there that do not have an e-mail address; there are a lot of people out there that do not know how to navigate the Web. Well, if we use that as a standard to preclude us from moving forward with digital signature, we are never going to get there. But we also have assured that any consumer that might not have a computer, that does not have e-mail, that they do not have to opt in to participate in a digital signature. We provide the consumer protections. This amendment is a good amendment; the underlying bill deserves passage.

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.)