John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of my colleagues the testimony of Patrick Trueman, president of the American Family Association, who appeared before the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee concerning funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Mr. Trueman makes a compelling case for eliminating the NEA, claiming the agency poses serious problems in the prosecution of child pornography cases. American Family Association Pursuant to clause 2(g)(4) of the rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I certify that neither the American Family Association nor I have received any federal grant or contract during the current fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of American Family Association. As you are aware, for the past eight years AFA has been the leading organization opposing federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. In 1989, AFA president Rev. Donald Wildmon called to national attention the funding by the NEA of Andres Serrano's work ``Piss Christ'' which consisted of a crucifix submersed in the artists' urine. The fact that such a blasphemous work was federally funded outraged a great segment of American society and precipitated a battle to end federal funding of the agency. That battle will not end until funding for the NEA ends, rest assured of that fact. The federal government should not be in the business of dictating what art is. That is not a proper function for the government and, in the case of the NEA, such a function poses a potential conflict with the federal criminal law. Year after year NEA grants make possible the production and distribution of a variety of sexually explicit material. During the last part of the Reagan Administration and during the entire Bush Administration I served in the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington D.C. as Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. That office is charged with the prosecution of obscenity and child pornography crimes. Part of my job, as supervisor of the office was to review and make prosecutorial decisions on both adult and child pornography. Much of what we prosecuted in those two presidential administrations involved material of the same nature as that funded through the years by the NEA. Mr. Chairman, how can you expect common citizens to respect the rule of law, particularly the federal criminal law on child pornography and obscenity when Congress continues to fund the NEA knowing the agency has a pattern of conduct over the years and to the present day of funding material which may offend the criminal law. To continue to do so would be the height of hypocrisy. I submit that the NEA poses a direct threat to the prosecution, on both the federal and state levels, of obscenity and child pornography crimes. In obscenity cases a jury is required to make a determination that the material is ``obscene'' based on the three-part test established in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973): whether the material (1.) depicts specific sex acts in a patently offensive way; (2.) appeals to the prurient interest in sex as a whole; and (3.) lacks serious literacy, artistic, political or scientific value. (emphasis added) It would be a relevant defense argument that material similar to that charged in a particular prosecution if funded by the NEA as ``art.'' Indeed it may be appropriate, on motion from the defense, for a judge to allow a jury to view a specific NEA-funded work that is similar to the work charged as obscene in the case to aid the jury in the application of the Miller test. Surely you can understand the dilemma this would pose to a jury which must make a unanimous finding on the obscenity or non obscenity of the material. Just one juror trusting the federal governments' opinion on the nature of such material would cause the acquittal of a hardcore pornographer. The problems the NEA could pose in the prosecution in a child pornography case are somewhat different. The Miller test does not apply and thus a jury is not asked to decide whether the material is lacking in artist value. However, the imprimatur of the NEA on such material or similar material may play a deciding factor in prosecutorial discretion, i.e. whether a case should be prosecuted or not. Should a case be charged against a particular NEA grantee for a work considered by a prosecutor to be child pornography (not an unlikely scenario given the history of the agency) the dilemma is more direct however. It would be difficult if not impossible to keep from a jury a defense argument that the material charged is not child pornography at all but rather ``art'' because the NEA has provided funding for its production or distribution. The threat that the NEA poses in the prosecution on obscenity and child pornography cases is not merely hypothetical. The difficulties I have outlined in this regard were faced by the U.S. Department of Justice during my years in the criminal division with respect to the funding by the NEA of an exhibit by the late Robert Mapplethorpe. The American Family Association is convinced after years of monitoring the NEA that the agency will never change. While it is only a small portion of its annual budget the NEA continues to fund pornographic works as ``art.'' Some of the more recent and troubling works funded by the agency include grants to a group called FC2 and another called Women Make Movies, Inc. FC2 was provided $25,000 in the past year to support the publication of at least four books according to U.S. Representative Peter Hoekstra who has been tracking the NEA: S&M, by Jeffrey DeShell, Blood of Mugwump: A Tiresian Tale of Incest, by Doug Rice, Chick-Lit 2: No Chick Vics, edited by Cris Maza, Jeffrey Deshell and Elisabeth Sheffield and Mexico Trilogy, by D.N. Stuefloten. These books include descriptions of body mutilation, sadomasochistic sexual act, child sexual acts, sex between a nun and several priests, sodomy, incest, hetero and homosexual sex and numerous other graphically described sexual activities. Women Making Movies, Inc. received $112,700 in taxpayer money over the past three years for the production and distribution of several pornographic videos. Here are descriptions of but two taken from the groups catalog: ``Ten Cents a Dance'' a depiction of anonymous bathroom sex between two men; and another called ``Sex Fish'' which is ``a furious montage of oral sex.'' Oral sex is not art and the NEA and Congress should not pretend that it is. Please stop offending the taxpayers of America. Funding for the NEA should be eliminated.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that campaign finance reform is not the issue. One of the previous speakers said, if we want peace, seek justice. Justice is exactly what we intend to seek. The question is, why is the Democrat leadership trying to turn the investigation away from the Clinton administration? Here is what they are trying to divert our attention away from. The President held 103 fund-raising coffees and 58 receptions and dinners at the White House. Here are a few of the disreputable individuals they invited: Wang Jun, the director of a Chinese arms trading company under investigation for illegally shipping 2,000 fully automatic, Chinese- made AK-47's to the United States, a guest at the White House. Jorge Gordito Cabrera, a convicted felon currently serving 19 years in prison for conspiring to smuggle 6,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States, another guest of the President and Mrs. Clinton at the White House. Eric Wynn, another convicted felon whose company, Wireless Advantage, gave $25,000 to the Democratic National Committee 2 days before Wynn had coffee at the White House. Wynn, who had already served 2 years in prison for a scheme that may have benefited the Bonanno crime family, is reported to have been seeking a pardon from the President. He was at the White House. Gregori Loutchansky, chairman of NORDEX, an Austria-based company, ``associated with Russian criminal activity,'' according to former CIA director, John Deutch, who refused to further discuss the company in an open hearing. He was at the White House. Mr. Speaker, everybody was not doing this. Let us not get distracted from where the real scandal is. Mr. Speaker, we ought to vote to fund the investigation led by a valiant, honorable, courageous, fearless man, Chairman Dan Burton, who will get to the bottom of this. I fully support this rules resolution, and the resolution to come after it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker I rise today in strong support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, just as I did a year ago. I would like to insert into the Record the following column by Charles Krauthammer, which destroys many of the myths surrounding this issue. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 1997] Saving the Mother? Nonsense (By Charles Krauthammer) Even by Washington standards, the debate on partial-birth abortion has been remarkably dishonest. First, there were the phony facts spun by opponents of the ban on partial-birth abortion. For months, they had been claiming that this grotesque procedure occurs (1) very rarely, perhaps only 500 times a year in the United States, (2) only in cases of severe fetal abnormality, and (3) to save the life or the health of the mother. These claims are false. The deception received enormous attention when Ron Fitzsimmons, an abortion-rights advocate admitted that he had ``lied through his teeth'' in making up facts about the number of and rationale for partial-birth abortions. The number of cases is many times higher--in the multiple thousands. And the majority of cases involve healthy mothers aborting perfectly healthy babies. As a doctor at a New Jersey clinic that performs (by its own doctors' estimate) at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions a year told the Bergen Record: ``Most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were.'' Yet when confronted with these falsehoods, pro-abortion advocates are aggressively unapologetic. Numbers are a ``tactic to distract Congress,'' charges Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National Abortion Federation. ``The numbers don't matter.'' Well, sure, now that hers have been exposed as false and the new ones are inconvenient to her case. Then, the defenders of partial-birth abortion--led by President Clinton--repaired to their fall-back position: the heart-tugging claim that they are merely protecting a small number of women who, in Clinton's words, would be ``eviscerated'' and their bodies ``ripped . . . to shreds and you could never have another baby'' if they did not have this procedure. At his nationally televised press conference last Friday, Clinton explained why this is so: ``These women, among other things, cannot preserve the ability to have further children unless the enormity--the enormous size--of the baby's head is reduced before being extracted from their bodies.'' Dr. Clinton is presumably talking about hydrocephalus, a condition in which an excess of fluid on the baby's brain creates an enlarged skull that presumably would damage the mother's cervix and birth canal if delivered normally. Clinton seems to think that unless you pull the baby out feet first leaving in just the head, jam a sharp scissors into the baby's skull to crack it open, such out the brains, collapse the skull and deliver what is left--this is partial- birth abortion--you cannot preserve the future fertility of the mother. This is utter nonsense. Clinton is either seriously misinformed or stunningly cynical. A cursory talk with obstetricians reveals that there are two routine procedures for delivering a hydrocephalic infant that involve none of this barbarity. One is simple to tap the excess (cerebral spinal)fluid (draw it out by means of a small tube while the baby is still in utero) to decompress (reduce) the skull to more normal size and deliver the baby alive. The other alternative is Caesarean section. Clinton repeatedly insists that these women, including five he paraded at his ceremony vetoing the partial-birth abortion ban last year, had ``no choice'' but partial-birth abortion. Why, even the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which supports Clinton's veto, concedes that there are ``no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life of the mother and preserve the health of the women''--flatly contradicting Clinton. Moreover, not only is the partial-birth procedure not the only option. It may be a riskier option than conventional methods of delivery. It is not hard to understand that inserting a sharp scissors to penetrate the baby's brain and collapse her skull risks tearing the mother's uterus or cervix with either the instrument or bone fragments from the skull. Few laymen, however, are aware that partial-birth abortion is preceded by two days of inserting up to 25 dilators at one time into the mother's cervix to stretch it open. That in itself could very much compromise the cervix, leaving it permanently incompetent, unable to retain a baby in future pregnancies. In fact, one of the five women at Clinton's veto ceremony had five miscarriages after her partial-birth abortion. Why do any partial-birth abortions, then? ``The only possible advantage of partial-birth abortion if you can call it that,'' Dr. Curtis Cook, a specialist in high-risk obstetrics, observes mordantly, ``is that it guarantees a dead baby at time of delivery.'' Hyperbole? Dr. Martin Haskell, the country's leading partial-birth abortion practitioner, was asked (by American Medical News) why he didn't just dilate the woman's uterus a little bit more and allow a live baby to come out. Answer: ``The point is here you're attempting to do an abortion . . . not to see how do I manipulate the situation so that I get a live birth instead.'' We mustn't have that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. This amendment, although perhaps on its face it appears reasonable, is really a killer amendment. It will void the settlement agreement which has taken the irrigation district and the Federal Government 6 years to develop. If the amendment is adopted, the parties are right back where they started with the Federal Government on the hook for at least $51 million in damages and the irrigation district refusing to make payments on this defective irrigation system. If title is not transferred to the district, the Federal Government will still have to make the repairs to this lemon of a public works project. Given that the Bureau of Reclamation has had 30 years to get the project right, without success and with the greater costs involved whenever we get the Federal Government building something, I would say it is the taxpayers who will be taking a bath if the Miller amendment is adopted. That is why Citizens Against Government Waste is supporting H.R. 412. That is why the Clinton administration is supporting H.R. 412. I think we ought to give the irrigation district the chance to fix the system. I just remind you, Mr. Chairman, that indeed it was the Federal Government; they know this is such a bad project, they insisted that the district take title. The district did not want title but the Federal Government insisted that the district take title, and by giving the title of the works, this nonprofit entity should be able to get the financing it needs to make these expensive, far-reaching pairs. Despite what my colleague from California has been implying, this is clearly not a case of something for nothing. Let us look at what the district has agreed to under the settlement agreement: First, it has agreed to pay $350,000 in cash; second, to repair deteriorating water pipes at a cost of at least $14 million which the Federal Government will otherwise have to pay absent this settlement; third, it agrees to waive its claims against the United States which have been estimated by the Government to be at least $4.5 million; fourth, the district agrees to accept the United States liability for third party claims associated with the project; fifth, it agrees to reduce the time and the amount of power it will receive to help pump irrigation water, where under current law the district is entitled to unlimited power forever; and sixth, it will provide free water for federally-owned wildlife mitigation facilities. In turn, the Federal Government will, first, transfer the defective water system to the district which is causing untold damage to public and private property; and second, it will forgive the district's contract repayment which the Government estimates has a present value of $4.2 million, not 13.9, which is over 45 years at present value of 4.2 million, an amount even less than the value of the claims the district has waived against the United States. As my colleagues can see, enactment of H.R. 412 as reported from the Committee on Resources will save the Federal Government money according to the CBO. By voiding the settlement agreement and subjecting the United States to a lengthy lawsuit, the Miller amendment will only increase the exposure of the Federal purse and ultimately result in higher costs to the taxpayer. What is the market value of this defective water irrigation system? Zero. These works are not portable sprinklers, but are gigantic fixed pipes and flumes which have a single use, to supply the water for irrigation to the Oroville-Tonasket region, a job that it does quite poorly. The water in the system already belongs to the district so to what other use can the delivery system be put? I think these facts illustrate the real reason this amendment is being offered. Mr. Miller opposes transferring any Federal asset to local ownership. This local government unit can repair and operate this Government facility and save taxpayer money. The Government does not want this decrepid system and wants to avoid the substantial liability associated with it. This transfer will not serve as precedent. This lawsuit involves the total and complete failure of the Government to design, build, and deliver a working irrigation system, an event which I hope should be rare. In addition, the committee report clearly states that, H.R. 412 also should not be regarded as precedent for legislative action to transfer Bureau of Reclamation facilities at other projects. The litigation problems surrounding the transfer of the Oroville-Tonasket unit and continued provision of power at low project power rates are unique. This is one of those times when the Clinton administration and I agree on something. I urge the Members to oppose the killer Miller amendment and let the people in north central Washington correct this substandard irrigation works while saving the Federal Government money.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I have consulted with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and I ask unanimous consent that the debate on all amendments to H.R. 412 be limited to 10 minutes on each side.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, does the gentleman from California have further speakers? I know he wishes the right to close.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is very clear that both the Clinton administration and Citizens Against Government Waste and the bipartisan opponents to the Miller amendment understand that this amendment will cost the taxpayers money. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] argues in favor of the taxpayers, but advances a proposition that will expose the Government to much greater liability than it already has. For that reason we oppose the Miller amendment. For that reason, the Clinton administration has actually come out in support of this bill as the settlement was reflected in the bill. That is something I have noted that has been very rare. I cannot think of another time we have had that happen in the last couple of years, when the administration has actually supported something like this. Why? It is because they believe it is in the best interest of the Government. Over here, the taxpayer groups represented by Citizens Against Government Waste also believe it is in the best interest of the Government. The facility, as we pointed out, is in a terrible state of repair. There are significant claims that this district has that can be asserted against the Government. The Bureau of Reclamation has recognized that at least $4.5 million are valid claims, according to the Government, that the district has against them, and for that reason this settlement has been proposed. The Miller amendment is a bad amendment because it will nullify the settlement and will force renegotiation and force a court action. For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Miller amendment and a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 412.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note, in terms of the figures we have heard, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], represented that this is $14 million, but $13.9 million is the amount due the Government. But it is due over the next 45 years. It is not due today. So the present value, the accountants calculate that amount, $13.9 million over 45 years, today's value of that, is $4.2 million. Now, the Bureau of Reclamation acknowledges the validity of the district's claims against the Federal Government in the amount of $4.5 million. So already there is $300,000 more dollars that is owed to the district than they owe to the Federal Government based on the present value. There is also another 14 million dollars worth of repairs to the pipes that the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings], showed us in the pictures that are the obligation of the Federal Government. That obligation would be removed and would not be a burden on the taxpayer in this settlement. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure everybody understands that even the Government itself acknowledges that the district is owed money, more money from the Government than the district owes to the Government for this. Essentially, this disastrous project, which I called in the committee a lemon, has no worth. It was not the district that seeks title; it was insisted that title be given, that the lemon be stuck with the recipient, because the Government does not want the lemon. They are the ones who insisted on that title transfer from the Federal Government to this Oroville- Tonasket Irrigation District. This settlement saves the taxpayer money. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Hastings].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 412, the Oroville-Tonasket Claim Settlement Act approves the settlement of a lawsuit filed by the Oroville-Tonasket irrigation district against the United States regarding an irrigation works poorly designed and shoddily constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation in north central Washington State. Despite literally decades of repairs and reconstruction, the system does not work as planned and is very expensive to operate and maintain. When the bureau notified the district that the project was substantially complete in 1990, thus triggering a repayment obligation under Federal reclamation law, the district sued for $51 million in damages and relief from its repayment obligation. The Bureau of Reclamation, the Justice Department and the district have negotiated a settlement agreement for this lawsuit, which must be ratified by law by the date of April 15, 1997. Under the agreement the district agrees to release all claims against the United States associated with the faulty irrigation system estimated by the bureau at $4.5 million plus an estimated $14 million requirement the U.S. Government presently has to repair deteriorating pipes, indemnify the United States from third party claims, pay $350,000 and release the United States from its obligation to remove existing dilapidated structures and accept limited power generation for irrigation water pumping. In return the United States agrees to transfer title to the defective irrigation system of the district and forgive the district's repayment obligation calculated by the bureau to have a present value of $4.2 million. Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department in fact did participate, contrary to the representation that was earlier made. It recommends that this settlement be entered into. As we can see from the facts, the district has more in claims against the Government acknowledged as valid by the Bureau of Reclamation than it has those in the amount of money to be repaid under the contract. The district did not seek to take title to these irrigation works. That was a condition insisted upon by the Government itself. I would point out that the administration, even the Clinton administration supports this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will just observe that there are other claims as well that the district in the settlement will forgo against the Government. If we delay this settlement, in essence not delay it but we will abrogate the settlement by failing to pass this bill, the taxpayer is at far greater risk. Right now that $13.9 million of obligation for repayment by the district to the Federal Government is over 45 years. But, in fact, the net present value, which I think is undisputed of that $13.9 million, is $4.2 million. That is what the district is agreeing is the net present value and they are offsetting their payment to the Government of that $4.2 million against the $4.5 million that the Government acknowledges is valid in the district's claims against the Government. And then these other claims that are referenced in a CBO letter and that we have talked about, those other claims are also being forgone. So I think it is not fair to say the district is not paying anything. The district has been saddled with this thing for years. It does not work. The Government would not go ahead and admit that the claims by the district were valid if they did not feel that they had an overwhelming liability on their part. This is, after all, the Justice Department that is involved in this. The Clinton administration itself supports this. The Citizens Against Government Waste supports this bill. They are pretty good spokesmen, some think, for the taxpayers. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the bill of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] is a very timely bill. We support this bill, precisely because it saves the taxpayers money. We are not seeking to give anything away here. We are seeking to save the taxpayers money that will otherwise have to be paid when this goes to court and when the full $51 million in claims by the district is asserted against the Federal Government. They stand a lot to lose. They know that. That is why the Clinton administration itself supports the Hastings bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 412.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 63) to designate the reservoir created by Trinity Dam in the Central Valley project, California, as ``Trinity Lake''.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the joint resolution just considered.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 63.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a statement that I intend to submit for the Record. But in that this resolution indeed is authored by a member of our committee, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], I will reserve the balance of my time and yield to him to explain the joint resolution.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the changes contained in the gentleman's resolution are meritorious and desirable. They emphasize the principles of self- reliance and of the extended family, and I would strongly urge the House to approve this resolution. Mr. Speaker, these two amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 would have no effect on the Federal budget. However, they are important to the Native Hawaiian community and these particular provisions of the Hawaii statute cannot go into effect until this the Congress acts. Under the Hawaii Statehood Admissions Act of 1959, Congress retains the authority to consent to any changes to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. The State of Hawaii acted to create the Hawaii hurricane relief fund after the devastation of Hurricane Iniki in 1993 and included provisions for Native Hawaiians affected on Hawaiian home lands. Act 339 of 1993 of the State of Hawaii proposes to authorize the issuance of hurricane insurance coverage for lessees of Hawaiian home lands and revenue bonds to establish the necessary reserves for payment of claims in excess of reserves. This is the first amendment identified in House Joint Resolution 32. The second change to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act proposed by the State of Hawaii by Act 37 of 1994 permits grandchildren of a Native Hawaiian with at least 25 percent Native Hawaiian blood quantum to assume a grandparent's lease upon the death of the grandparent. It is not uncommon for Native Hawaiian grandchildren to be raised by their grandparents. This measure will support the traditional extended family values among the Native Hawaiian community. The House consented to these same changes to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act upon passage of H.R. 1332 in the 104th Congress. That measure, sponsored by Mr. Gallegly, then chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over these matters in the 104th Congress, contained language identical to the text of the current resolution by Mr. Abercrombie of Hawaii which is cosponsored by Mr. Gallegly and Mr. Faleomavaega. The other body was prepared last year to accept this provision as contained in H.R. 1332 and now as in House Joint Resolution 32, but adjourned before it could be taken up. Both of the proposed changes to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act by the State of Hawaii are meritorious and deserve the approval of the House today. These measure are sound and directly benefit Native Hawaiians by emphasizing the importance of the extended family and self-reliance. I urge my colleagues to approve House Joint Resolution 32 so that these measures can promptly begin to benefit Native Hawaiian families. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 32) to consent to certain amendments enacted by the legislature of the State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920.