John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the DeLay amendment. I think it is a great amendment, and I hope that it survives unscathed through both Houses of the Congress. This deals with the most fundamental obligation of government, the reason we pay all of the huge amount of taxes that we are having to pay these days. That is, it is the job of government to restrain men from injuring one another, to quote Thomas Jefferson. It is just unconscionable that these liberal judges, unelected by the people but in office for life, have taken it upon themselves, in some cases, to inflict this kind of injury upon a community. Think of the thousands and thousands of lives that have been ruined, in many cases, or severely impacted in others, by the types of crimes that have been committed. We did a study in our State legislature years ago, and it was a pretty established fact, as a result of the study, that two-thirds of the forcible-sex felonies are committed by repeat offenders, so that by dealing with this population and incarcerating them for long periods of time, we would dramatically reduce this type of crime. Indeed, that has been the case. In California and other States where they have had mandatory sentences and where they have long terms, we have spent an awful lot of resources in California locking people up, and we have overcrowded those prisons as much as we could, and I am glad that we have, because it has made our streets safer. We have now about 130,000 people incarcerated in the State of California alone. Look at our crime rates. They have been dropping dramatically. So taking off the streets this kind of offender was exactly the right thing to do. Yet to have some isolated, arrogant, liberal, unelected district court judge turning these people loose because of some benighted belief in upholding some prisoner's constitutional rights is totally wrong. Occasionally, there will be a conflict between the constitutional right of the prisoner and between the right of the public not to have dangerous criminals out in the street. The amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) simply says, Judge, do not make your remedy letting them go. You have other remedies. One of them is not to say, let these dangerous people back out on the street. The public overwhelmingly supports the policy reflected in the DeLay amendment. It is long overdue. I strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, the first amendment is quite clear, ``Congress shall make no law bridging the freedom of speech.'' And yet, the whole business of campaign reform as has come out before the Members of the House largely centers on how do we bridge the freedom of speech. There is a whole litany of ways, many of which are displayed before us. However, the bill by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer) is designed to protect the freedom of speech, the freedom of speech of those members of the unions who have the right to make sure that their money is not spent contrary to their own purposes. It is a good bill. It is one of the few bills out here I can say I support wholeheartedly today. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) cite the history of the Democrats' involvement with campaign finance reform. He quite correctly pointed out in 1974 they did pass the present law, the disastrous present law that skewed contributions to PACs over contributions to individuals. We never really heard of PACs before, until that became the law. By the way, 2 years ago, as recently as that, PACs was the great Satan; and today it is soft money. Soft money was given to us as well by this law, which places such severe restraints on direct contributions to candidates that money could flow then into the area of soft money, the unregulated area. Of course, this Congress seems to want to regulate many things; and, happily, we have been able to resist that because regulation oftentimes is not the answer. Regulation has compounded the problem in the area of free speech. Now, having limited the amount of hard dollars that go to candidates, we see efforts to limit and regulate soft money. And, yes, let us get those evil issue advocacy ads. I would say if we would go back and diagnose the problem correctly and recognize what it is, we could stop treating the symptoms of the problem and go right to the problem. The problem is too much regulation. I urge support for the Schaffer bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to praise the House leadership unabashedly for making the decision they did and allowing this to go before the House on a suspension calendar. I wholeheartedly endorse that decision. All of this folderol about the McCain-Feingold bill, it is a disastrous concept. It would hurt America. It would destroy our constitutional right to free speech. I hear such moral indignation from the other side, but when we see the myriad of campaign abuses written about, engaged in by one branch of government in particular, everything is so muted. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have not properly diagnosed what the problem is in our campaign system. It is severely flawed, and we need to correct it, but rushing out here with a bill that everybody is afraid not to support, although I am happy not to support it, and many others, more than some might think, would be happy not to support it, I think we would be premature in bringing it up in that fashion. This needs to be thoroughly discussed. The procedure of the leadership, as adopted by the supermajority, is entirely appropriate because the subject of this bill would hurt our constitutional rights.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, there is a crisis on our forests that has been well documented. The administration agrees that there is a crisis. The Forest Service chief has testified that 40 million acres of our national forests are in unacceptable condition, and this amendment by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is needed. The amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) would be very detrimental. How do we clean up the forests? We know we are going to have to have a substantial amount of cleanup involving the trees. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) talks about protecting the Federal Treasury. How are we going to protect the Federal Treasury? How are we going to protect the Treasury if we ban the construction of roads needed to take the timber out, and so then we go to helicopter logging, and we will be spending 3 or 4 times what it costs to take this material out over the roads. This is going to be highly detrimental to the taxpayer, but further than that, the forest fires that will result by this roadless policy being imposed will be much more detrimental in terms of lives lost by Federal firefighters and others fighting the fire, in terms of the costs of fighting the fire, and we as a Congress will step up and appropriate whatever it takes to pay for those costs. But the point we are trying to make is the Smith bill, which is trying to give effect to this amendment, is going to help reduce the threat of fire and danger to our communities. Why would anybody build roads that are not necessary? Roads are extremely expensive. Anybody who has ever built a road knows how expensive it is. I built a road, a half mile long, gravel, it was $26,000, and that was 10 years ago. I do not even know what the price is today. People do not go out and do these things because they are spending somebody else's money, they are spending their own money. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that this policy in the Smith amendment is needed. We are in compliance with all the environmental laws. The language of this amendment makes that clear. To take the next step and go to the Boehlert amendment to this amendment would basically say clean up the forests, reduce the fire risk; but, by the way, do not use any roads that might need to be constructed to accomplish that. Figure out some other way to do it. Go to helicopter logging, go to, I do not know how else to do it other than helicopter logging. This is absurd. It would be extremely burdensome to the taxpayer. It is a very extreme agenda. This is the extreme environmentalist agenda right here that we cannot even build roads to protect the health of the forest, to protect the endangered species that so many on this side are always upset about protecting, and indeed we will be wreaking havoc in the national forests. In our committee we heard testimony on this. Our forests today are in the worst condition they have ever been in the entire 20th century, and it is largely due to the tremendous overgrowth of the forests, the tremendous threat of catastrophic fire that we face, and the inability to effectively address this. When the Smith bill comes forward to try and proactively address this issue and respond even to the concerns of the administration, we are then going to be offered an approach such as that of a Boehlert amendment that ties our hands, and it will cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars if this policy is allowed to go into effect. So I will speak for the taxpayer and urge my colleagues to defeat the Boehlert amendment and to pass the Smith amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith bill, the Forest Recovery and Protection Act of 1998. Let me assure my colleagues that our forests are in danger. They are not in danger due primarily to the existence of the forest roads, which facilitate the proper management of the forest, they are in danger from the disastrous policies that have been pursued just in the last few years. But, indeed, we could go back over several decades and look at the cumulative impact of the way we have suppressed fires and allowed the tremendous buildup of fuel in the forest. These forests have to be managed. The forests we think of as the idyllic version back during the days of John Muir were, in fact, managed forests. We need to act now. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is right, this is a critical point. The greatest single danger to our forests, at least in California, is the threat of catastrophic wildfire. We learned in testimony the other day from the Forest Service and from other experts in forestry, a couple of very interesting facts. Fact number one, for every live tree that is harvested during a year, there are three dead trees in the forest. Fact number two, we add each year to the forest four to five times the amount of board feet of timber as we harvest. Our forests are choked with overgrowth. Just like in our garden, we get to a point with overgrowth, and we start crowding out the desirable species. We start crowding out life for a lot of the plants that are growing there. What we get is a tremendous potential for forest fire. We need to adopt the Smith bill. We need to treat now while we can the issue of the overgrowth and render safer our forests. Let me tell my colleagues, in my district, we had a catastrophic forest fire several years ago, the Cleveland forest fire. To this day, the hills are barren. There are tremendous problems with erosion. Let me assure my colleagues, if they care about the environment, they will support this legislation. The devastation that occurs from a catastrophic forest fire exceeds any devastation caused by other forms of forest management activity. There is no comparison. For that reason, we must have the Smith bill. The condition of our forest demands it. I strongly urge my colleagues' support for this legislation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today, Thursday, February 12, 1998 marks the 25th anniversary of Operation Homecoming, the day on which the first group of heroes whose experience as prisoners of war ended as they were released from captivity in North Vietnam. Our colleague, Representative Sam Johnson was one of those heroes. Sam Johnson began his 29-year career in the United States Air Force after realizing his love for adventure and his love of flying. Although his training prepared him for the war, his training did not prepare him for what he had to endure next. On April 16, 1966, Sam's F-4 was shot down over North Vietnam. It took only seconds for the enemy to capture Sam, but it took nearly seven years for Sam to see his wife, three children and his home again. The enemy tried to break Sam Johnson on numerous occasions, but Sam was unbreakable. His faith in God and his strong will to live enabled him to survive. Sam was an officer, a leader, and a teacher. He would secretly communicate with the new prisoners that were brought into Hanoi, teaching them how to survive. These were the qualities of a true leader, risking his life to protect his fellow man. Sam Johnson is a fighter. He fought for his country, his family and his faith. As a member of Congress, Sam valiantly wages this fight today--for all of us. Today we honor the heroes who endured the horrible pain and suffering as prisoners of war. Today is a celebration of Sam Johnson's strength and courage. He demonstrated an unfailing devotion to duty, honor, and country. Let us commemorate Sam and all American POWs for their courage and determination in upholding the principles of freedom and democracy.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1805) to amend the Auburn Indian Restoration Act to establish restrictions related to gaming on and use of land held in trust for the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California, and for other purposes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1805, the proposed Auburn Indian Restoration Act, would impose various State and local limitations, zoning requirements, and restrictions on gaming activities of the United Auburn Indian Community. It would also impose certain restrictions on lands to be taken into trust for the community for gaming as well as nongaming purposes. The chairperson of the United Auburn Indian Community, Jessica Tavers, in a letter to me dated September 15, 1997, stated that, ``United Auburn Indian Community has thoroughly reviewed H.R. 1805 and wishes to inform the committee that we have no opposition to this bill. Indeed, we believe that the measure sets fair standards and a workable mechanism for the resolution of any differences between the tribe and Placer County, where the tribe resides.'' I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to support this legislation. I move that the bill be passed. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2402) to make technical and clarifying amendments to improve the management of water-related facilities in the Western United States, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this legislation, the Water-Related Technical Corrections Act of 1997, and urge its adoption by the House of Representatives. H.R. 2402 is a compilation of amendments to the Federal reclamation law designed to clarify authorities to the Bureau of Reclamation or existing provisions of law. This legislation was compiled after canvassing members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Resources, members of the Western Water Caucus, and the Bureau of Reclamation about any such needed changes. Let me stress that most of these provisions are being sought to enhance water management capabilities at locations in several different states, Such as Oregon, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and move its adoption.

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 to include extraneous material on the last two bills just passed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to remember Arthur H. Cox, a man who served his community and his country with unparalleled distinction. Art began his life of public service in the Air Force during World War II. He continued to serve his country with honor during the Korean war and ultimately retired from the Air Force Reserves as a lieutenant colonel. For Art, however, public service did not only mean serving one's country; it also meant serving one's community. To that end, Art significantly contributed to the enhancement of all of the communities in which he, his wife, Yvonne, and their six children, Craig, Bryan, John, Dennis, Kevin, and Anne lived. As a young man, Art was elected the Mayor of the City of Pomona, and served as the youngest mayor in the State of California. His service was distinguished by four successful terms. While in Southern California, Art also worked tirelessly as the leader of numerous local agencies and organizations. He served as director of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, director of the Los Angeles County Watershed Commission, president of the Los Angeles Area D Civil Defense, director of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, president of the Pomona Valley Municipal Water District, and chairman of the Pomona Valley Stadium Commission. After moving to Auburn in 1974, Art continued to be an effective and dedicated community leader. Over the past 20 years, Art served both as mayor and councilman of the city of Auburn, president of the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce, vice chairman of the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee, chairman of the Placer County Office of Education Personnel Commission, and member of the Auburn Faith Community Hospital Board. Art's contribution to the Auburn business community was also exemplary. He served as executive vice president of Heart Federal Savings and Loan, manager of the Heart of California Corp., and was a real estate, life insurance, and securities broker throughout his business career. While Art's accomplishments and years of service to his country and community are exceptional, perhaps Art's greatest achievement was fulfilling his role as a husband of 50 years and father to his six children. Art was always a shining example of community service and family devotion to those blessed to have known him. His integrity, humanity, and stalwart dedication to family, country, and community are rare assets and are worthy of our recognition today. Last Sunday, surrounded by his loving and devoted family at his home in Auburn, Art Cox passed away. While everyone who knew him is saddened by his death, his spirit and enthusiasm for life will live on with us forever. Mr. Speaker, as a tribute to Art and his lifetime's worth of accomplishments, I would ask that you join me, our fellow colleagues, and the citizens of Placer County in remembering Art and extending our heartfelt appreciation for his tireless efforts, unmatched commitment, and impassioned service, toward making his community and country a better place for us all to live.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 8, 1997, eight employees of the Bureau of Reclamation and a pilot were tragically killed when their charter plane crashed en route from Montrose, CO to Page, AZ. The downed plane was not located until that Friday, at which time it was determined there were no survivors. I would like to offer my deepest sympathies to the families, friends, and coworkers of these dedicated Federal employees and the pilot. The accident victims were: James L. Bloomfield, electrical engineer, Glen Canyon Field Division, Page, AZ, who was a Reclamation employee since 1983; William H. Duncan, Jr., manager, Glen Canyon Field Division, Page, AZ, a Reclamation employee since 1976; Delphina D. Holliman, computer clerk, Glen Canyon Field Division, Page, AZ, who was a Reclamation employee since 1996; Allen E. Inman, Jr. manager, Curecanti Field Division, Montrose, CO, who had been a Reclamation employee since 1980; Walter A. Kaltmaier, computer specialist, Glen Canyon Field Division, Page, AZ, a Reclamation employee since 1988; Jon E. Nees, safety and occupational health manager, human resources group of upper Colorado region, duty station at Montrose, CO, who was a Reclamation employee since 1979; Jeffrey E. Waite, power-plant operations manager, Glen Canyon Field Division, Page, AZ, a Reclamation employee since 1988; Catrina M. Wall, computer specialist, Glen Canyon Field Division, Page, AZ, a Reclamation employee since 1981; Robert Armstrong of Phoenix, AZ, a pilot with 10 years of experience with the airline. Nothing can replace these individuals in the lives of those who loved them. I would like their loved ones to know, however, that their service and dedication has been remembered by the Congress. May the friends and family of all these victims be comforted in their time of sorrow.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I submit what is ridiculous is that this Congress would continue to fund such as a disastrous program as Legal Services at all, let alone pass this amendment. Mr. Chairman, what is ridiculous is that we continue to fund a program that is so irresponsible that the Congress would actually have to take the kind of action we took in fiscal year 1996 and spell out what ought to be clear ahead of time for responsible people in an organization funded with Federal funds, and actually make explicit that they may not get involved in redistricting, they may not get involved in abortion litigation, or prison litigation, or welfare litigation, or pro-union advocacy, for heaven's sake, and union organizing, or fee- generating cases, or representation of public housing tenants charged with possession of illegal drugs or against whom eviction proceedings have begun as a result of illegal drug activity, and a prohibition on representing illegal aliens. Mr. Chairman, that is an indictment right there on the inclinations of the individuals in this irresponsible agency. Mr. Chairman, I believe as much as anyone in protecting the rights of poor people, but unlike my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and apparently some of my Republican colleagues, I do not believe we have to build a bigger and bigger welfare state, of which this is a part, in order to accomplish those objectives. If legal representation of the poor at public expense is so important, let the attorneys donate their time, let the States handle the matter, where they are a little closer to the people, where these kinds of abuses cannot continue to occur. And yes, they do continue to occur. When we are going to talk about protecting children, listen to this case. Here, how well are they following the law here? In 1997 Northwest Louisiana Legal Services argued for preserving a woman's parental rights for her children, despite clear evidence she had physically abused them. The case began in 1991. The State investigated it. They assumed temporary custody. Legal Services still got involved, claiming that terminating parental rights was improper. These children had been severely beaten and burned, and yet our taxpayer dollars went through Legal Services to defend this type of individual.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me respond to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, and say I know of nothing in the Constitution that requires that, and I know of no court, no Supreme Court ruling that has so interpreted the Constitution.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I cited, I believe, a couple cases. Others have cited other cases.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me say I do not think those go far enough, but I am happy to hear they are in the bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me just say with what time I have left, Mr. Chairman, that this is perfectly appropriate for local and State entities to carry out. I think we will not end the abuses as long as the remote Federal Government continues to fund and increase funding for a program of this sort. Obviously these organizations have no interest in respecting the intent of Congress, when we have cited repeatedly violations of the very restrictions that were already in the law that continue to happen. This is not the job, in my opinion, of the United States government. It is the job of the State governments or of local bar societies.

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

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

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We can cite numerous cases. I dread to think how many things are going on that we do not really know about yet and will continue to go on despite these attempts of cosmetic restrictions until we simply end this program, let it go back to the States where it belongs, not the Federal Government. Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Tierney