John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker. I am deeply disappointed that the final version of H.R. 6, passed today by the House, did not contain a reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act, which compensates counties for the large amounts of land the Federal Government took from them to create the National Forest System. This loss of land weakened the counties' tax bases, leaving them without adequate funding to provide basic public services such as schools and roads. The county payments authorized under the act fulfill a promise the Federal Government made when the land was seized. As the first session of the 110th Congress draws to a close, leaving these payments to expire, that promise is once again being broken, and the basic public infrastructures of our rural counties are left to suffer. In California, State law requires that layoff notices be issued to teachers and administrators by March 15 if the proper resources are not available in their budgets. Once layoff notices are issued, schools begin to experience adverse effects of the funding shortage even if the money is eventually recovered, which was the case this year. This means Congress will have a very short time to act in the new year, and I will continue to be a strong advocate for passing legislation that fulfills our commitment to rural counties. This language should have remained in the energy bill currently before Congress, and its omission is the primary reason for my opposition to the bill. In addition to the harm that is caused by failing to provide county payments in this bill, I am concerned that the bill excludes biomass from Federal lands as an alternative source of fuel. Much of my district is owned by the United States Forest Service, and these areas are prone to wildfires due to the large buildup of forest fuels. I have encouraged the removal of these materials, which serves the duel purpose of providing energy produced at nearby biomass plants and making our forests less prone to catastrophic wildfires. By exempting biomass from Federal lands as a source of alternative energy, H.R. 6 misses an opportunity to exploit a large source of alternative fuels while leaving our forests vulnerable to great harm from potential wildfires. It is imperative that Congress pass legislation to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act before school boards meet in February to discuss where cuts must be made. Furthermore, we must encourage development of alternative fuels such as biomass which are abundant and carry with them additional benefits. H.R. 6 misses an opportunity to accomplish both those goals.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, on September 29, 2005, emergency flight nurses Erin Reed, Lois Suzuki and pilot Steve Smith gave their lives when their helicopter lost ontrol in inclement weather conditions after delivering a patient to a nearby hospital. This accident, like many of the increasing number of emergency medical service (EMS) fatal crashes, occurred under so-called ``Part 91'' regulations, which allow an EMS crew to fly in conditions which are more dangerous than what is permitted when a patient or an organ is on board. Since her death, Erin's family has joined a coalition of friends and family members who have lost loved ones in a medical flight. Their efforts are devoted to making air medical transports safer for the flight crew and patients who take to the skies for emergency medical care. With the support of this coalition, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation today that will increase safety for all those on board an aircraft providing emergency medical services. This bill will eliminate the Part 91 regulations for certain flights and direct the Federal Aviation Administration to study and implement several other proposals to increase safety conditions for medical flights. I would like to recognize the efforts of the many families who have responded to their losses with determination to help others. I would particularly like to thank Stacey Friedman, Erin's sister, for her tireless efforts in advocating for changes that would protect caregivers like her sister. By enacting this legislation, we will not only honor the remarkable sacrifices of those who gave their lives while trying to save others, but in their honor we will also prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) of Auburn, California in celebration of 50 years of outstanding public service. Founded in 1957 as a result of the commitment of community leaders with an unusual sense of vision to develop and protect water resources within the County, the Agency has maintained the vision to address water resource needs across the 1,500 square miles of Placer County. PCWA obtained federal and state licenses and permits and developed its Middle Fork American River Project which consists of two main reservoirs, a series of hydroelectric power plants and 24 miles of tunnels. The project, which was financed by the sale of electricity, today produces approximately one billion kilowatt hours of clean, green electricity annually. The Agency has assisted water districts, cities and acquired and upgraded previously existing and antiquated water systems in Placer County, enabling it to provide retail and wholesale water to needy areas within the County; provided financial assistance to water districts within the County for the conservation and development of water supplies and facilities; and continues to focus on preserving water quality and enacting water use efficiencies that ensure a safe and reliable water supply for the region. PCWA understands its role as an environmental steward to the watersheds of the County and continues to work in good faith with federal, state and local community stakeholders. Madam Speaker, I commend and congratulate the Board of Directors, management and employees of the Placer County Water Agency for 50 successful years of vision, stewardship and dedicated service to the people of Placer County and for working to preserve the County's rich water resources while also working to provide clean, renewable energy for the benefit of future generations in Placer County.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a remarkable woman, whom I have known for over 30 years. On July 20, 2007, Patti Winkler will retire after 34 years working for See's Candies. Patti Winkler was born in Canada and moved to the United States as a child. She lived with her mother, father, brothers and sisters in South Sacramento, CA, until the late eighties when the family moved to Roseville. Today, Patti still lives in Roseville and shares her home with her mother, Rita, her two sisters Maxine and Mary Jane, her nephew Robbie, and five dogs. Patti enjoys visiting her family cabin in Cascade Shores, where she and her sisters spend time boating in Scott's Flat Lake, pulling the children behind on tubes, and then returning to the cabin at the end of the day to play card games. In her life, Patti's family has always come first. She takes great pleasure in accompanying her mother to play bingo, helping her nephew through college, and cooking one of her famous BLT sandwiches for anyone in the family. Her loving and generous spirit is particularly evident during the Christmas season, as she cooks for her family and brings cookies and toffee in for her coworkers. As a frequent customer, I always look forward to seeing Patti when I visit the See's Candies store in Roseville. Patti began working for See's in November 1973 at the Arden Fair Mall. Both her mother and sister Janie also worked for See's. On September 29, 1988, she opened the See's store in Roseville, which she managed until 2003. Patti knows the workings of the shop better than anyone else, and is special not only to the store's customers, but also to the people she works with, who truly cherish Patti's friendship. She makes the shop warm and inviting to anyone who works there and goes out of her way to make everyone feel like part of the team. While her family will benefit from spending more time with Patti in her retirement, her coworkers and customers are truly sad to see her go. During her retirement, Patti is looking forward to splitting her time between her home in Roseville and their cabin in Cascade Shores. She also plans to continue traveling, as she enjoys taking cruises with her family to Alaska, Mexico, the Caribbean, and through the east coast. I join everyone who knows Patti in wishing her many happy moments in retirement, and thanking her for the joy she brings to everyone she knows.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a remarkable woman, whom I have known for over 30 years. On July 20, 2007, Patti Winkler will retire after 34 years working for See's Candies. Patti Winkler was born in Canada and moved to the United States as a child. She lived with her mother, father, brothers and sisters in South Sacramento, CA until the late eighties when the family moved to Roseville. Today, Patti still lives in Roseville and shares her home with her mother, Rita, her two sisters Maxine and Mary Jane, her nephew Robbie, and five dogs. Patti enjoys visiting her family cabin in Cascade Shores, where she and her sisters spend time boating in Scott's Flat Lake, pulling the children behind on tubes, and then returning to the cabin at the end of the day to play card games. In her life, Patti's family has always come first. She takes great pleasure in accompanying her mother to play bingo, helping her nephew through college, and cooking one of her famous BLT sandwiches for anyone in the family. Her loving and generous spirit is particularly evident during the Christmas season, as she cooks for her family and brings cookies and toffee in for her coworkers. As a frequent customer, I always look forward to seeing Patti when I visit the See's Candies store in Roseville. Patti began working for See's in November 1973 at the Arden Fair Mall. Both her mother and sister Janie also worked for See's. On September 29, 1988, she opened the See's store in Roseville, which she managed until 2003. Patti knows the workings of the shop better than anyone else, and is special not only to the store's customers, but also to the people she works with who truly cherish Patti's friendship. She makes the shop warm and inviting to anyone who works there and goes out of her way to make everyone feel like part of the team. While her family will benefit from spending more time with Patti in her retirement, her coworkers and customers are truly sad to see her go. During her retirement, Patti is looking forward to splitting her time between her home in Roseville and their cabin in Cascade Shores. She also plans to continue traveling, as she enjoys taking cruises with her family to Alaska, Mexico, the Caribbean, and through the east coast. I join everyone who knows Patti in wishing he any happy moments in retirement, and thanking her for the joy she brings to everyone she knows.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the most critical crisis in rural America, where there are large tracts of public forest land, is to deal with this issue of funding for the Secure Rural Schools. The funding did finally come this year, but it came too late, at least for my district, and I think for many. Our State law requires that if you are going to give layoff notices to teachers, they have to go out in the month of March. All the layoff notices already went out. Most of the teachers already left the schools to find other employment. The funding for this finally came through in late May, as I recall, in the supplemental, but by that time the damage had been done. We have to find a solution. This amendment that Mr. Peterson and I are offering is an approach. I know there is a point of order that has been reserved, but we have to have timely funding for our rural schools. If we put it in this bill, it doesn't actually increase the deficit as it would if it went as a new mandatory program, or if it went in the supplemental. By the way, this is important enough, I would certainly support either of those other approaches. But the fact of the matter is, we need to assure timely funding so that we don't have the situation where the funding comes in, but it comes in too late in order to really matter for the schools and the students. Plumas County, for example, one county in my district, issued layoff notices to 55 personnel earlier this year, and most of them are gone, even though the funding ultimately came through. So this is timely funding. It does it in a way that's least detrimental to the whole budget picture. I have worked, I have tried to work on every possible solution that I could think of. This is really a critical situation for all of rural America, where there are tracts of public forest land, and I really strongly hope that the Members will support us on this, help us to get a resolution to this crisis so that we can meet the needs of the people that we represent. Point of Order

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I very much appreciate that. I'd like to ask Chairman Obey a question, if I may.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Actually, I want to ask you one too, so I'm glad you're both up here. Mr. Chairman, you have worked with us and tried to help us, and I would agree with Mr. Walden on that. You were kind enough to offer something a minute ago that I'd just like to, if I may, accept that offer. You said you would write a letter to the chairman of the authorizing, the respective authorizing committees, which I think are both Resources and Agriculture in this case. Could we, and with our ranking member, could I invite both you gentlemen to maybe submit such a letter to the relevant authorizing committee chairmen? I think that would be a step in the right direction here.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And I appreciate that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, sir. The problem we have had is, frankly, the authorizing committees, for whatever reason, have chosen not to act. And in that vacuum we've been faced with a crisis of what do we do with the teacher being laid off or in Oregon's case with people being let out of the county jails because they're lacking this funding. We've had to come up with some extraordinary ways to respond to it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I didn't mean to imply, Mr. Chairman, that this was just this Congress' authorizing committees. I'm reaching back in time to include the previous Congress as well. It did pass out of the Resources Committee. And I think the bill passed out handily. But it never cleared the other committee.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I do hope something can be worked out here, because hydropower is the original renewable resource. And there is starting to be a bias in this country against hydropower. There is also starting to be a bias in this country in some quarters in favor of tearing dams down. I think it is very, very important, and by the way with reference to hydropower, just look at California's greenhouse gas reduction plan. They do not give any credit for power generated by hydropower. I think that is very bad. I think Mr. Shadegg is on the right track. We have got to speak up for hydropower. We have got to slow down this effort to tear down dams. I know the chairman and ranking member have the best of intentions. I am glad they are running the committee. I would just like to lend my voice for this very responsible amendment that Mr. Shadegg has offered. I hope that we can work something out.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to, this has been quite a process since we got rolling yesterday afternoon, and I know there's some frustration over not moving more quickly. But I do think Mr. Boehner made the point very clearly last night and it needs to be reiterated often, that we are simply seeking to have the opportunity to review the earmarks as a body while we can have some impact on it, rather than to have them, as has been said, airdropped into a conference report, where conference reports come to the floor and you have two options only. You can't amend it. You can either adopt the conference report, or you can reject the conference report. As we all know, it's very, very rare to reject a conference report on an appropriations bill. I only remember seeing that happen once since I've been here. And I just think that, in light of all the rhetoric, particularly from the other side, about the need to have more transparency, and then an action is taken which completely eliminates the progress that had already been made relative to transparency and relative to accountability, and this whole process today really is about are we going to have the opportunity to review the earmarks in these bills, while we can make an impact on it, while we can single some out and remove them, while we can offer amendments, or are we going to simply turn a blind eye, let this be dropped into the conference report? Basically, only, you know, mainly one person is going to control this whole process, and the entire rest of the House is shut out from this process. That's why this process is moving so slowly, because of this fundamental battle. And, you know, it's seeming like every major media outlet in the country seems to be on the side of transparency and accountability, and yet the majority party continues down this road of avoiding transparency, avoiding accountability. And no good reason has yet been offered as to why we should take this extraordinary move going completely backwards on this issue, instead of having this out here in the light of day as it was intended, as we all argued for both sides should be the case. And that's what we're seeking to ultimately have prevail before this day is out. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the balance of my time to our ranking member, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I'll yield.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks of the gentleman, and I think he had some good points to make, but I do just want to point out that under the Republicans, the Democrat minority was allowed to determine which of their projects got funded. If Democrat projects were stripped out, it wasn't done by the Republicans; it was done by the Democrats on the leadership in the Appropriations Committee. I think this is important to understand. We didn't interfere with what Democrat priorities were, as I understand it. You got a certain percentage and were able to determine your own priorities. I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, I think he may be blaming us for something that we didn't do. Now, I am not here to lead a crusade against earmarks. The Constitution clearly specifies that the legislative branch is in control of spending for the government. We are entitled to set our priorities, and we would not be doing our jobs as Representatives if we did not indeed set those priorities. I do want to note with some of the things that have been said, in the final year of Republican control of the United States Congress, we cut nondefense discretionary spending for the first time in 19 years. The hardest thing we ever have done in Congress, you or we have done, is to cut spending. It is very, very difficult. Having said that, last year we actually accomplished it, and nobody knew it so I am going to say it here again today: the first time in 19 years, through the leadership of Jerry Lewis and the Appropriations Committee, we cut nondefense discretionary spending, the first time in 19 years. We did not cut mandatory spending, but we worked hard to slow the growth curve, and we did that. Mandatory spending, by the way, is where two-thirds of all spending actually occurs. And for the first time in 9 years, we slowed the growth of mandatory spending. Those are two huge accomplishments. I hope that the Democrat majority in the time they have will be able to show a similar accomplishment. I am not encouraged so far by what I see. I think with all of their rhetoric about openness and transparency and curbing earmarks, it bodes very ill, despite that rhetoric, in trying to tar and feather the Republicans with these slanderous statements that they have, indeed, overturned their own process and they are going to airdrop in the earmarks in the conference committee. Yes, it has been asserted there are no earmarks in this Homeland Security bill. That is right, but there will be, and they will be in this bill in the conference report where all we can do is vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' no chance to amend or affect the process. That goes completely against what the majority party asserted would be their policy. And we have to keep calling attention to this to have the world understand what is going on here. This is fundamental to the consideration of all the other appropriations bills. We have to get this process established. They ran their campaigns last November on the idea that the earmarks are going to be open and accountable, and the first thing they did was to go way back in time and do something where they are completely shielded from public view until the last minute when they get dropped in. That is wrong. We will not accept that, and we will not go easily into that good night until and unless you reform that policy. It is completely unacceptable to campaign about openness and transparency for earmarks, and then to go in exactly the opposite direction, have no openness and no transparency and no accountability. That is very, very wrong, and I hope that people will clearly see that. Mr. Chairman, I yield any remaining time that I have to Mr. McHenry, if he would care to offer any additional insights.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you to Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and Chairman Lantos. I'm very happy to see the strong support for Afghanistan manifested here by the statements on the floor and, obviously, by a bill like this with unanimous approval out of the committee. Mr. Chairman, we had some great initial successes in Afghanistan, and those are now threatened by subsequent developments that would be absolutely tragic and really intolerable for us to allow any reversals to occur. We need to build upon a solid foundation that has been laid, and I'd just like to briefly cite what I think the need for this legislation is. Others have alluded to it as well, but the fact is that remnants of the Taliban regime have regrouped and are using increasingly deadly tactics, including the introduction of suicide bombings against both U.S. and NATO troops, Afghan officials and civilians and international and Afghan assistance workers. Also, the poppy cultivation and opium production which directly support local warlords and sustain and finance insurgents, militias and terrorist organizations is increasing at a staggering rate. Indeed, the narcotics problem in Afghanistan threatens to overwhelm the entire country. More than 500,000 laborers and an unknown number of traffickers, warlords, insurgents and officials also participate in and benefit from the drug trade. The risk for Afghanistan to again devolve into a failed state is increasing. The ability of the Taliban and other insurgents to enjoy safe haven in Pakistan-controlled areas destabilizes the region and adds to the political tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm very encouraged to see that this legislation establishes the means for developing a long-overdue and coherent interdepartmental counternarcotics strategy that addresses a deadly and neglected illicit drug trade and its links to radical Islamist terrorism. Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I endorse this bill and encourage our Members to support it and pray that it may further strengthen our efforts to bring stability and peace to that vital region of the world.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a minute to pay tribute to a friend and staff member who will be leaving my employment soon. His name is Richard Robinson, my Chief of Staff. He is a man possessing great loyalty and integrity. I first met Richard when he interned for me when I was a State Senator in California. In 1991, he graduated from California Polytechnic State University and came to work for me as a full-time paid employee. It quickly became clear that Richard was a resourceful man whom I could count on for hard work, concise communication and keen strategic thinking. In January, 1991, I was elected to the United States House of Representatives, and I brought Richard with me to my Congressional office as a Field Representative. In 1994, he married Jennifer Michele Edwards, and today they are the parents of three beautiful girls: Allison, Taylor and Lauryn. Richard is a wonderful father and dedicated husband, and I can understand why, after sixteen years of intense work for me, he has chosen to look to a new career path that may afford him a more predictable and flexible work schedule. Richard will be sorely missed, but knowing Jennifer and the children as I do, I can understand his decision. I also know Richard to have a big heart. He was a night shift volunteer at the University of California Davis emergency room in 1999; he was a youth pastor of a high school Christian group from 1998 to 2003; and he was Director of Habitat for Humanity's Youth Build program in 1999. In 2002, Richard graduated from Stanford University, ranking first in his class, with a Master of Arts degree in Education. He also earned a California teaching credential at the same time. I can only imagine how difficult it was for him to attend school and raise a family, but I am not surprised that Richard was successful. His mother, Melinda, tells me that he began reading as early as three years of age and was elected class president in the sixth grade at Rock Creek Grammar School. At Placer High School, he played soccer, but particularly excelled at basketball, a sport made for a man six feet five inches tall. Richard's service to me has been notable because he has always been willing to put others ahead of himself. He has seen the benefit of developing a team based on strong relationships and mutual respect. Even at our most trying times, I always knew that Richard was acting with my best interests in mind. As he looks to new opportunities, (and I know they will be numerous for a man of his talents) I wish him and his family much happiness and success.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, in 1908 in response to the mounting opposition to the creation of forest reserves in the West, Congress passed a bill which created a revenue sharing mechanism to offset for counties the effects of removing those lands from economic development. The 1908 act specified that 25 percent of all revenues generated from the national forests would be shared with the counties where those revenues were generated to support public roads and public schools. From 1986 to the present, these payments, because of the decline in timber sales, have decreased precipitously. Responding to this urgent need, in 2000, the Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act to compensate for the loss in revenue for these counties, providing the necessary funds for schools, roads and public lands. This funding benefited 4,400 school districts in 615 counties throughout 37 States. In September of 2006, this authorization expired, and in December the last payments were made. While several attempts have been made to reauthorize this legislation, none has succeeded to this point, and as a result, our counties are left without the funds that they were promised and they depend upon to provide public infrastructure activities to maintain their roads and send their children to school. The results have been devastating. In California's Fourth Congressional District, let me just talk about three instances. In Plumas County, where 70 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government, layoff notices went to 55 teachers and its school districts, and the county is compensating for this by increasing class sizes, closing all school libraries, closing cafeterias and possibly even closing entire schools. In Sierra County, which is 75 percent opened by the Federal Government, the county is planning to lay off almost 40 percent of its entire education staff, and the superintendent spoke to me about the potential of shutting down one entire school district and being forced to bus children across State lines into the adjoining State of Nevada to receive a public education. Finally, in Modoc County, which is 75 percent owned by the Federal Government, they will layoff one-third of its entire roads department and over 12 percent of its teachers. These hardships are not unique and have spread to other States. You will hear in a minute from Mr. Walden of Oregon. Before the government makes any new promise for funding, it should make good on the obligation it already made to the 615 counties across the country which are now struggling to deal with a lack of funding for basic infrastructure needs.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I would like to yield to Mr. Walden.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to Mr. Walden.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill makes numerous references to public infrastructure. We feel this, indeed, is public infrastructure, and that it deals with roads and schools. There are certainly needy counties by virtue of being included in this Secure Rural Schools Act. That's why we thought the amendment would be germane.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prevent the government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, from purchasing any mortgage from a lender where the person who received the mortgage did not use a valid Social Security number. In my State of California, it has been calculated that each legal resident in the State pays approximately $1,200 every year for illegal immigrants to use taxpayer-funded resources, including our highways, hospitals, and schools. Reducing the opportunities for illegal immigrants to purchase primary residences in the United States will be an important step toward decreasing the burden illegal immigrants impose upon our society. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac support the residential mortgage market by purchasing mortgages from lenders that, in turn, use the proceeds to make more loans available to home buyers. These organizations, chartered by Congress, should not be in the business of assisting illegal immigrants to purchase homes. The size of the GSE's portfolios represents a concentration of mortgage market risks, and this has been observed before, that led former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and others to urge Congress to consider ways to shrink the size of the GSE's asset portfolios. What better way to reduce the size of these portfolios than to prohibit mortgages for illegal immigrants. Not only will this change decrease the market risk, but it will also eliminate one more incentive that draws illegal immigrants to our country. When a person applies for a mortgage, he is asked whether the loan is for a primary residence, a secondary home, or an investment property. According to my amendment, only a person seeking to buy a primary residence would be required to have a Social Security number. Therefore, this amendment does not discourage foreign investment in the United States. Should a foreign investor wish to obtain a mortgage for a real estate investment, he would be able to do so. However, no person illegally in this country should be allowed to purchase a primary residence here. Since all people who are legally allowed to work in the United States are able to receive a work authorized Social Security number, this bill only targets those that are here illegally. Lending institutions should not be allowed to reward individuals violating U.S. law. Please vote ``yes'' on this amendment.