John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2122) to designate the Lake Tahoe Basin National Forest in the States of California and Nevada to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, within the city of Las Vegas there are many areas where longstanding property line disputes exist. H.R. 2135 is meant to solve one of the most difficult, which is along the Decatur Boulevard alignment at the border between the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas. The original land surveys of the subject area were performed in 1881 and 1882. There is considerable evidence that points set by the original Government contract surveys were not stones as called for in the official field notes, but small mesquite stakes. Originally, the poor surveys did not affect anyone, but in the 1950's development began to move toward the outer edges of Las Vegas. As years passed and development increased it became evident that severe discrepancies existed among the property surveys in the area. In 1989, in response to citizens' concerns, the city of Las Vegas commissioned a survey of the properties in an area 4 miles north to south and 1 mile each side of Decatur Boulevard. H.R. 2135 will resolve the longstanding property line disputes that have prevented the affected landowners from being able to sell or even refinance their homes and enjoys the support of the BLM, the city of Las Vegas, and the affected landowners. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2135) to provide for the correction of boundaries of certain lands in Clark County, NV, acquired by persons who purchased such lands in good faith reliance on existing private land surveys, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 401 was reported by the Resources Committee by a voice vote on June 19. The bill enjoys broad bipartisan support, including the support of the Department of the Interior. H.R. 401 does several things, a few of which I will briefly mention. First, the bill solves a longstanding dispute between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Kenai Natives Association [KNA] over lands owned by KNA that are located within the Kenai Wildlife Refuge. KNA has been precluded from developing approximately 15,500 acres that were conveyed to them pursuant to passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971. Under H.R. 401, those 15,500 acres of KNA-owned land will be removed from the Refuge and all associated development restrictions will be lifted. Second, H.R. 401 will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire three highly desirable parcels of land owned by KNA and KNA's remaining land entitlement at appraised value. A total of 2,253 acres of KNA lands will be acquired with Exxon Valdez oil spill settlement funds for approximately $4.5 million. Finally, KNA will receive title to the old Kenai National Wildlife Refuge headquarters site in downtown Kenai, Alaska, which consists of a building and a 5-acre parcel--KNA would like to use this site for economic development purposes. The Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed in order to maintain natural resource protection and values, that Congress designate approximately 37,000 acres as a BLM Special Management Area in exchange for removing 15,500 acres from the Refuge. This proposal has been incorporated into H.R. 401. The Special Management Area would be created adjacent to an existing refuge in north-central Alaska. Management of the area will be subject to existing subsistence preferences and valid existing rights. Furthermore, public access will be protected and residents of surrounding villages will be given the ability to participate in decisions relative to management of the area. The Kenai Natives have waited long enough to resolve these land use issues. Hopefully the Senate will move similar legislation prior to the end of this legislative session. I urge Members support for this noncontroversial legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 401) entitled the ``Kenai Natives Association Equity Act,'' as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1467. This bill would authorize appropriations of $5.8 million for construction of a rural water supply distribution facility for areas around Fort Peck Lake in north-central Montana. The project includes upgrading an existing water treatment plant and installing water distribution pipelines. Currently, 95 percent of the residents of Valley County must haul their drinking water. In addition, this area receives more than 280,000 visits each year from recreational users at Fort Peck Reservoir, and a reliable supply of good quality drinking water is needed to serve these people. In September 1994, the Bureau of Reclamation and HKM Associates completed a final engineering report for the Fort Peck County Rural County Water District. The report examined 15 alternatives and recommended 1 that would construct a new intake in the reservoir and water treatment facility near Duck Creek. The reservoir is considered to be the best source of water for a municipal system because the water is of good quality and requires only conventional treatment. The Federal cost-share on the project would be 75 percent. All costs for operation and maintenance, as well as ongoing energy needs, would be the responsibility of the District, and title to the facilities will remain with the District. The bill contains a provision that terminates project authorization 5 complete fiscal years after enactment if the project has not received construction appropriations by then, except that the authorization shall be extended by 1 additional fiscal year if the Secretary of the Interior has requested an appropriation for construction. The last section of the bill will allow safety-of-dams work to proceed expeditiously at the Cachuma Project, Bradbury Dam, California. This bill was noncontroversial during the Resources Committee markup. It is our understanding that the State of Montana and the entire Montana delegation strongly support the project and this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1467) to authorize the construction of the Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply system, to authorize assistance to the Fort Peck Rural County Water District, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning, design, and construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3660. This bill would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning and construction of additional water recycling and reuse projects. This water reuse program, administered by the Bureau of Reclamation, is an important tool for western communities. At a time when few dams and storage reservoirs are being constructed in the arid West, water reuse is an ideal means of increasing the water supply in certain areas. Several of the projects authorized in this bill would use reclaimed water for groundwater recharge, industrial applications, irrigation, or municipal landscaping. Using reclaimed water for these purposes stretches potable water supplies, and reduces the demand on overdrafted groundwater aquifers and surface water supplies. This bill limits the Federal cost share for most of these reuse projects to 25 percent of the design and construction costs, and does not authorize any funds for operation and maintenance expenses. Title to all projects under this bill, as well as those authorized under the 1992 act, would be held by the non-Federal project sponsors. In an effort to establish more stringent criteria for projects receiving initial Federal funding after January 1, 1996, the bill makes certain changes to the underlying 1992 act. Those changes include requirements that appraisal investigations and feasibility studies be conducted before funds can be appropriated for the project, and that a cost-sharing agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor be signed. Finally, H.R. 3660 establishes a cap on the Federal share of the costs for an individual project, not to exceed $20 million for any project not already receiving Federal funding. H.R. 3660 expands an important water reuse program that can help solve the growing water supply problems facing many western communities and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3660) to make amendments to the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3916) to make available certain Voice of America and Radio Marti multilingual computer readable text and voice recordings.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1179) to authorize appropriations for the preservation and restoration of historic buildings at historically black colleges and universities, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2709) to provide for the conveyance of certain land to the Del Norte County Unified School District of Del Norte County, CA, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill. Its intent is good; I agree with the gentleman, and its substance is good. We must have English as the official language. We are a great country, and the people of this country draw strength in many different roots, but we are one Nation under God. We need to have English spread throughout the land. We are not doing anyone a favor by encouraging them in essence not to learn English. This bill will provide some added incentive, I think, to do that without being unduly punitive to anyone, but English is the language of this country, and I think it is very, very important that we act today as the House and adopt this bill and send a clear message to the country so that we can help people help themselves.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule because it only allows two versions of campaign finance reform, both of which miss the mark. They are both based on the false diagnosis that campaign spending is out of control. They are both offering the false prescription that more regulation and limits are needed. With reference to the false diagnosis, indeed, looking back over history, we can see election spending since 1980 has been fairly constant, fluctuating between four one-hundredths of 1 percent and six one-hundredths of 1 percent of gross domestic product. Americans spend more each year buying yogurt and buying potato chips than they do on congressional elections. Clearly, we are not spending too much money when juxtaposed with other legitimate expenditures that we are making. As to the prescription that more regulation is needed, has anyone heard of the first amendment? Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. I listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin over here. Congress specifically and the people of this country specifically did not want government regulating this with all the force that government can bring. They wanted people to be able to vote, and that is how they would make their decisions. When we imposed campaign spending limits, we hurt the challenger. If you do not believe that, just listen to what Mr. David Broder had to say recently in the Washingtonian. He said, raise the current $1,000 limit on personal campaign contributions to $50,000, maybe even go to $100,000. Today's limits are ridiculous, given television and campaign costs. Raising the limit with full disclosure would enable some people to make really significant contributions to help a candidate. For these reasons, we should oppose the rule and the bills.