Lynn C. Woolsey: “although I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts, unfortunately, I must rise in strong opposition…”

“although I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts, unfortunately, I must rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I must do so because this amendment directly and unfairly targets my constituents in Sonoma and Marin Counties, CA, who produce some of the world's finest wine. If this amendment passes, however, their world-famous wine would no longer be able to compete in the world market. This amendment would devastate the small wine producers in my district, who rely upon Federal export assistance to enter and compete in the global marketplace. Unlike Europe and South America, U.S. wine producers receive no production subsidies whatsoever. Furthermore, our competitors outspend the United States in export subsidies by more than 6 to 1! Mr. Chairman, small California wineries cannot compete in such a lopsided marketplace without some assistance. And let there be no mistake, this amendment targets small, family-owned businesses--89 out of 101 wineries that participate in the Market Access Program are small wineries. The Kennedy amendment takes this critical assistance away from small wine producers and, in doing so, It takes away jobs; it takes away trade; and, it takes away fairness. Mr. Chairman, we should be working today to help export California wine, Not California's jobs. Vote ``no'' on the Kennedy amendment.”