John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana. It seems to me that this amendment really goes right to the heart of everything that we as Republicans stand for in the Congress, the idea being that we support the 10th amendment, leaving those things to the States that the Founders have set forth for them to be responsible for, that we support the idea that the Federal Government should not be making mandates on States and localities that it does not fund. I was a State Senator for a number of years and we always had a problem with this huge Federal mandate that imposed the requirement that moneys be spent, but we had to live up to whatever the Federal Government told us that we had to do, and the Federal Government does not keep its word very often and has not kept its word in this area. In 1975, when this program was authorized, it was set forthright in the legislation that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the cost of this program. At no time has it ever lived up to the law in that regard. In fact, the most it ever got to, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], our chairman, has informed me, was 10 percent. It is not even that this year. This is an opportunity to take some money and move it over to fund what is a very worthwhile program but a very expensive program. It is a start in the right direction. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is important that we at least start moving in the right direction even if at first we cannot put all the dollars into it that we would like. The McIntosh amendment tries to scrape up a few more dollars that can go into this program. That is very consistent with the Republican philosophy of not having mandates and where we do have mandates, of moving to fully fund those mandates, to pay for the things that we the Federal Government are imposing on the States and the localities, not just to pass the mandate and let them foot the bill. That is not our philosophy. I think it is very important to support this amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] because it moves us in the right direction, and it will help pick up a little more of the cost that we the Federal Government are imposing on the States and the localities for what is a very worthwhile program.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Water- Related Technical Corrections Act of 1997.'' This bill is a noncontroversial bill designed to correct and update certain provisions of law that affect the Bureau of Reclamation, an agency of the Department of the Interior. Perhaps the most substantive policy issue addressed in the bill is the section to amend the Warren Act of 1911. The 1911 Act was passed at a time when Bureau of Reclamation facilities were all single-purpose projects for the delivery of irrigation water. Therefore, the Warren Act authorized moving water surplus to the project's needs and nonproject water through Reclamation facilities only for irrigation purposes. Much has happened in the arid West since 1911. In 1939, Congress enacted legislation to authorize multi-purpose Bureau of Reclamation projects. Today, many Reclamation projects in the West do serve many purposes, including delivery of irrigation and municipal water supplies, hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife purposes, recreation and flood control. The Warren Act needs to be updated to enable surplus and nonproject water to be moved through federal facilities for various beneficial purposes. As water supplies in the West tighten, efficient water management is needed. An updated Warren Act can help water managers achieve that goal. In fact, legislation to enable surplus and nonproject water to be moved through Reclamation facilities has already been enacted for certain Reclamation projects in the West, including most projects in California and the Central Utah Project. There are pending requests before the Subcommittee on Water and Power to make this modification for two additional projects. The time has come to deal with this subject in a comprehensive manner, and not continue piece-meal efforts to provide water users, including urban water districts, with the tools they need for effective water management. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this provision, and the other provisions to clarify provisions of Reclamation law.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, our forests are really in deplorable condition. My colleagues can see and anyone who flies over the Sierra Nevadas can see just what a terrible state they are in, how years of drought and insect infestation have killed in some cases more than one- third of all the standing trees, a number of brown trees they can see flying over the Sierra Nevadas. We have had some devastating forest fires. And the prognosis is, unless we manage these forests, we are going to have fires on an even greater scale than we have seen so far, that will absolutely wreak havoc for years upon the environment and destroy the livelihood of all the people that live in timber-based communities. Mr. Chairman, the Quincy Library Group represents remarkable consensus amongst local residents, local timber experts, local businessmen, local environmentalists, all local people who have produced this consensus to properly manage the forests. The only group opposed to this legislation is the arrogant, left wing, taxpayer subsidized environmental lobby, because if we have consensus to manage our forests at the local level, they might not be necessary. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. We should approve this bill and finally send a message to the world that local people can govern themselves, so I urge the approval of this legislation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention a very momentous occasion which will be taking place in my district. Next week, in recognition of a 12-year effort that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, thousands of my constituents will join together to celebrate the recent incorporation of the City of Citrus Heights. On November 5, 1996, by a vote of 62.5% to 37.5%, Cityhood for Citrus Heights was finally achieved. Its 14.2 miles and 88,000 residents makes it the largest city to incorporate in the State of California and the first new city in Sacramento County in half a century. On that same day, the residents of Citrus Heights also elected five City Council members to represent them and carry forth the City's missing statement of commitment to providing high quality, economical, and responsive services to their community. It gives me great pleasure today to recognize those inaugural Citrus Heights City Council members before the U.S. House of Representatives: Honorable William C. Hughes, Mayor, Honorable Roberta MacGlashan, Vice Mayor, Honorable Alma E. Kenyon, Council Member, Honorable Tim Raney, Council Member, and Honorable James C. Shelby, Council Member. Ms. Speaker, you will also be interested to learn that Citrus Heights was first known in the 1850's as Sylvan and was settled by miners who raised livestock in the hills northeast of Sacramento. A real estate developer renamed the area of Citrus Heights in 1910 in an attempt to attract more settlers from the Midwest. In 1859, Sylvan School was built and, in 1862, moved to Sylvan Corners. In 1928, the school building was renovated into a clubhouse and moved to a half-acre lot on Sylvan Road, where it currently stands and where Citrus Heights' time capsule will be buried later this month. One of Citrus Heights' main streets, Greenback Lane, was a dirt wagon road in the 1860's and 1870's and received its name when the County paid landowners in ``greenbacks'' worth about 30 cents to the dollar. Citrus Heights has one of Sacramento County's leading retail centers--Sunrise Mall--which is hosting the five-day celebration of Citrus Heights' incorporation. The ``City Lights for Downtown Citrus Heights'' grand celebration begins on July 1 with the ``State of the City'' celebration and culminates with `The Ball on the Mall'' on July 5. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, the residents of the City of Citrus Heights and Sacramento County in celebrating Citrus Heights' long-awaited and well-deserved entry into ``Cityhood.''

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I listened. I have friends on both sides of this debate, and I happen to be on one of the sides, but it is almost as if we were debating two completely different sets or had two different sets of facts because the representations are so dramatically opposite. I would just observe, if my colleagues think about it, when has not privatization resulted, or competition, in a lowering of costs? I mean, we know that has been the case in the electricity industry. We know it has been the case in a number of other industries, transportation. We have seen it dramatically displayed, and countries all across this world are racing toward competition and privatization. But I am reminded when I hear the opponents oppose this amendment, all this amendment does is strike out some bad language that was inserted in the underlying bill. We know that privatization and competition result in a lowering of costs. Indeed, the Pentagon's own Defense Science Board has estimated that public-private competition will produce taxpayer savings of 20 to 30 percent regardless of whether public depots or private industry win the competition. McClellan and Kelly have already been slated for closure. The vote has been taken, they are in the process of closing. So they will not be Federal depots, but they are vast reservoirs of technology and of technological expertise in the employees that work there. Contractors can come in; we can have competition, and the Pentagon's own Defense Science Board says we will cut costs 20 to 30 percent. Why is that important? It is important obviously for the Federal Treasury, but specifically for defense it is important because the defense sector of the Federal budget is shrinking and has been for some time. So we will have to do more with less. How do we do that? Competition. Privatization. That is what the Everett amendment represents. I would just like to point out the Governor of our State which represents areas with closed depots like Sacramento and areas with healthy vibrant depots like San Diego and Twenty-nine Palms. He has just sent out in a letter dated June 19 his support for this amendment. He is the Governor of the whole State. Populationwise, it is probably greater than the existing depot areas and in the Sacramento area, but the fact of the matter he points out that this is important. He also observes, ``The existing bill may also involve hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden costs to the taxpayers because the 3 installations targeted for growth would have to undergo military construction upgrades to meet the 80 percent goal that is in this legislation.'' So, Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. It is an amendment that will lower our costs, that will be for the benefit of the military and the benefit of the taxpayers, and I urge people to approve it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the momentous occasion of the grand opening of the new Sutter Roseville Medical Center, located in Roseville, CA. The center will officially open its doors to patients on Sunday, June 22, 1997. Sutter Roseville Medical Center is an affiliate of Sutter/CHS, one of northern California's largest not-for-profit health care systems. The medical center will open with 168 licensed beds and the capacity to expand to 188 beds if the need arises. The inpatient areas of the new medical center will include a dedicated birth center, an emergency department and trauma center that is three times the size of the existing Sutter Roseville, and a beautiful, home-styled skilled nursing facility. The 315,000-square-foot medical center was designed by staff, physicians and members of the community to be responsive to patient and family needs. A critical aspect of the medical center's development is its incorporation of user-friendly outpatient services into its overall design. Another hallmark of the new Sutter Roseville Medical Center is the accentuation of the natural beauty of the Placer County oaklands, which provide a healing environment for patients and their families. It should also be noted that this remarkable facility would not have been possible without the tremendous commitment and support of the Roseville community. Forty five years ago, this community rallied to raise funds to make Roseville's first hospital a reality. Today, after years of planning and preparation and the raising of over $1.8 million, the Roseville community has once again shown what can be accomplished when people join together toward a common and worthy cause. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, our colleagues, the residents of Placer County and the city of Roseville in celebrating the grand opening of the Sutter Roseville Medical Center.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, while CATS appreciates the hard work of the Committee on the Budget and especially its chairman, we feel that more can and should be done to reduce the size of Government, lessen the tax burden on American families, and stimulate economic growth. Like the committee resolution, the CATS substitute balances the budget by 2002 while protecting national defense and transportation spending. Our substitute improves upon the committee budget, however, by cutting an additional $109 billion in discretionary spending and returning those savings to American families through lower taxes. Unlike the committee budget, the CAT substitute contains sufficient tax relief to fully fund the $500 per child tax credit, a 50-percent reduction in the capital gains tax rate, real inheritance tax relief, and expanded IRA's. The CATS budget pays for these tax cuts by simply reducing discretionary spending to the level set out in President Clinton's fiscal year 1997 budget. The choice tonight is not whether we should balance the budget, Mr. Chairman; we have won that debate. The real question is whether we think we can find enough wasteful Washington spending to cut so that, as we balance the budget, we can allow American families to keep a little more of what they earn. We think we can. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity to more than double the tax cut that will go to every person in the Nation. This is a chance to say no to Washington bureaucrats, yes to families, yes to economic growth. Vote yes on this substitute.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the House Conservative Action Team, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee budget resolution.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sessions].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think the Boehlert amendment is extremely ill- considered. I really wonder, as a member of the authorizing committee that passed the Herger-Pombo bill out, you read the language, it simply says, ``Consultation and conferencing is not required for any agency action that A, consists of reconstructing, offering and maintaining or repairing Federal or non-Federal flood control project, facility or structure.'' Mr. Chairman, this really is a good debate. I am glad we are having it. We have been trying to get to this debate for over 2 years now in the Congress. It really is going to come down, I guess, between a very extreme application of the law, as is presently the case, by the bureaucrats and the Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS and others, or whether we are going to have a reasoned, balanced approach. In our State of California alone, there are over 6,000 miles of levees. There is the picture of one, on the far right, that broke. We have 6,000 miles of aging levees that have been built over the decades. Only 2,000 miles of those are even federally constructed levees. The rest are non-Federal. Since we have had the Endangered Species Act and the very extreme interpretations and additions that have come about over the years, we now find ourselves with tremendous aging, unstable levees in much of our State. We know it has been documented. The scientists have said that we live in an era of heightened volcanic activity with dramatically increasing weather changes. Just to illustrate this point, we have a hydrologic history in our State that goes back to about the turn of the century, and yet the five largest storms of record have all occurred since 1954 in the State of California. We may be facing these kinds of floods every year for the next few years. We need to begin now. We need to protect public safety and human life so that we do not have repeats of this kind of a scene. My heavens, how can we be debating this in this fashion when we have seen scenes all over the country of people whose lives have been ruined, who have been up to their necks in water, who have been forced to move out? They showed a special, I think on Prime Time Live here last week, talking about New Orleans, the district of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] when they had the floodings in the 1920's. Seven hundred thousand people were rendered homeless. Are we going to countenance policies like we have in the law today that will preclude the adequate maintenance and repair of these levees in order to prevent this from happening? This is outrageous, Mr. Chairman. We ought to defeat the Boehlert amendment. It is a bad amendment. It is calculated to stymie this very legitimate effort to allow local agencies or the Federal or the State agencies to do what needs to be done to protect people's lives and property. I am sorry, that comes ahead of a bug or a plant. I think the issues are pretty well defined in that regard.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time to answer the question of the gentleman. You can have a 500-year flood every year in a row for 3 or 4 years. That does not mean they happen every 500 years. We had a 500-year flood. We had a 250-year flood a couple years before that in parts of the State. So, yes, I blame it on the Endangered Species Act. It does not allow flood control agencies to protect and maintain these levees without jumping through all the hoops that the gentlemen from California [Mr. Pombo] and [Mr. Herger] and others have described. It is absurd that we have to spend $10 million in mitigation on a project that costs $3 million to construct.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this is reasonable language that allows the maintenance and repair of levees without having to go through this absurd, years-long, multimillion-dollar process to protect people's lives and property. It is an extreme policy under the law now, and we are about to change it. Vote ``no'' on Boehlert and vote ``aye'' on the underlying language.