John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. We had an agreement worked out. Many of us thought this should have been zeroed out immediately rather than phased out, as was the agreement that was worked out. Now we have an amendment before us that will approximately double the funding provided. The fact of the matter is, we have got a budget to balance. It seems like in this body there is no program that can be eliminated. Every single thing has its adherents. I would submit if we ranked the things this Federal Government funds, Legal Services would be at or near the bottom just on the merits of the relative order of importance. Yet here we go again, there is always some group of individuals within this body that feels they have got to try and maintain another one of these programs. This is what is sinking America, Mr. Chairman: All these programs designed to help somebody and, in fact, they are crushing everybody by destroying our economic growth. We talk about helping those who need legal services. Where in the Constitution in the powers given under article I to the Congress is that one of our responsibilities? We are a Nation made up of sovereign States. If these things are important, let the States handle them. That, in fact, is what was the practice until whenever Legal Services came into being, I think some time in the 1970's. I do not know if the Members are aware but there are over 900 organizations that provide pro bono services, lawyers that donate their time, that do not get Legal Services Corporation funding. Why do we have to have the Federal Government involved in everything? The answer is simple. The reason a lot of Members want to keep this is because it is an advocacy group for liberal causes, as we have heard the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] allude to. The fact of the matter is, we cannot afford it. We do not need it. It should be terminated. Certainly this amendment should be rejected. Let me share a couple of examples here, in terms of the ample resources that are available to the poor in the event they need legal help: Chicago Volunteer Legal Services provides legal aid to the poor without LSC funding by using seven staff attorneys and 1,500 pro bono lawyers. The Indianapolis Legal Aid Society last year received all of its $458,000 budget from private sources, primarily the United Way. In Tampa, FL, the Courthouse Assistance Project, which receives no Government support, assists 300 low income individuals a month right in the county courthouse. Similar programs are being set up in 14 other cities. In New York State every county has set up a community dispute resolution center to handle legal disputes through mediation and arbitration. Each center receives half of its budget from the State and half from local governments and private groups. In 1994, the center handled 25,000 cases at a cost of $68 per case. The United Charities Legal Aid Bureau of Chicago handled 25,000 inquiries last year with a staff of only nine attorneys and a budget of less than $2 million. Its cost per case ratio was $80 compared to $250 for the 79 staff Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, which receives over 60 percent of its $10 million budget from the Legal Services Corporation. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment we ought to reject. We ought to maintain the agreement entered into. We ought to phase down this funding as proposed in the bill, and we ought to let Americans have a smaller and better and more efficient Federal Government.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. And I would observe that we have been on track. In fact, the figure in this bill reflects the agreement. Now it is being changed.

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Different agreement but the same philosophy, the philosophy that returns power to the people and cuts their taxes, not bigger and more expensive government.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. This was an agreement amongst the Republicans with the Republican leadership.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And that is reasonable.

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

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is my understanding.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have heard it represented and a number of very unkind things have been said about Mr. Hurwitz. I have never met Mr. Hurwitz. So I find it fascinating to see such intensity coming out of the other side. When Mr. Riggs' predecessor offered the amendment 2 years ago on the Head Waters, we were going to spend $1 billion, and you all voted to pay Mr. Hurwitz $1 billion for some 56,000 acres. That was OK, because that is more Government land, and that is a positive good.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is exactly what I said.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, suppose Pacific Lumber Co. jumped through all the hoops to get a habitat conservation plan, spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars and took the months or years to accomplish it. Do we have information that suggests what activities they might be permitted to carry out on their land, having spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the months to obtain such a plan?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That was a bailout for Charles Hurwitz. That was OK in that day. Today Mr. Hurwitz is the subject of attack. I fought Mr. Hamburg on this, by the way. I just want to point out when you want to shoot the rich, Mr. Hurwitz, it is the working person that takes the bullet. Here is a book on the Pacific Lumber Co. You heard they now have 1,600 employees, up by over 500 from when the merger occurred. You have the Blakeleys and the Andersons. You have the Phillips, a number of people, a whole book. These are flesh and blood people that work for a living. They are not the Fortune 500. They are people that get up every morning and go to work and they are thankful they have a job. And this mean-spirited attack is going to basically throw these people out of work, just as has happened in my district with the shutting down of timber, and in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] as well as the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and a number of districts throughout the Northwest. And here the Clinton administration comes again. They are everybody's friend. Just like they did in their great timber summit, we lost two- thirds of the timber jobs; and with their growth proposal, we went to four-fifths of the jobs that were lost. I do not want that to happen to this area. These people are too important. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is seeking to exempt only 1 percent of the territory. And do not believe these representations that this is to get at Mr. Hurwitz for all those supposedly terrible things he has done. We are seeking to protect private property rights, the six ranches which are important. They want to talk about Mr. Hurwitz and get the focus off the six ranches, the people who do not have the attorneys or the money for the attorneys and the accountants and so forth to do these habitat conservation plans. These are the people we seek to protect. And, yes, we seek to protect the employees in Mr. Hurwitz' company. Mr. Hurwitz is wealthy. He will continue to be wealthy whatever happens on the floor today, but these people, when they are out of a job, will be on welfare and we do not want that. I strongly urge Members to defeat the Dicks amendment. announcement by the chairman

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Medicare Board of Trustees, made up entirely of Clinton administration appointees, reported that Medicare is going bankrupt sooner than expected, now projected to be by early in the year 2001. Last year the Republicans led the fight to save this system with a Medicare Preservation Act. This act increased benefits, attacked waste and preserved Medicare for future generations, and it put the program in sound financial condition. In that plan we proposed increasing per-person spending by over $2,000 per year over the course of the next 7 years. But the President vetoed the plan. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the trustees showed yet again it is time for action to save Medicare. Let us hope that the Congress and the President will act cooperatively to save Medicare while there is still time. As the trustees write in their own report, ``prompt, effective and decisive action is necessary.''

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to much of the debate. I am amazed. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is only seeking to freeze the aid we give India at this year's level. All he is saying is what we are giving them now is what we will give them next year, which means they are going to get $48 million in this particular category. It is good that India has had a change of government. That is very recent. We ought to take at least a wait-and-see attitude, and give them a year to perform before we increase the aid, borrowing money which we do not have to give away to foreign countries which, like this one, have not been very loyal supporters of the United States. In fact, they have been charged with and have been found to have committed serious human rights abuses, including the extensive taking of innocent human life.

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the primary intent of H.R. 1743 is to extend the authorization for the State Water Resources Research Institutes. There are 54 of these institutes located at the land grant university in each of the 50 States and several of the territories. These institutes are a primary link between the academic community, the water-related personnel, and the Federal and State governments and the private sector. H.R. 1743 would expand the act's findings and focus on the need for long-term planning and policy development and maintaining productivity of national resources and agricultural systems. In the fiscal year 1996 interior appropriations conference, there was a request to introduce an additional element of competition into this program. Subsequent discussions resulted in the USGS crafting a competitive element of the program, which takes funding out of the grants to the States and creates a competitive regional program. Unfortunatly, it did not leave adequate base funding for the State program. While the House-passed version of H.R. 1743 authorizing the program does not require a competitive element, the senate amended this bill to specifically reauthorize the separate competitive regional program which had historically been a part of this program, thereby leaving the State-based program authorized by the House intact. We concur with this approach, and in adopting the Senate-passed language, endorse that approach, providing a competitive element to this program. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minority for the extensive cooperation we have had from their side on this very broadly based, bipartisan-supported bill. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1743) to amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1984 to extend the authorizations of appropriations through fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

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. 1743.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I will only use a minute or two, because I know the gentleman from California, [Mr. Radanovich] would like to comment on this. I would just commend the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] for their leadership efforts in doing something to restore some reason, I think, to the laws of our country pertaining to this area. The ESA is something that has a legitimate purpose. We need to have a law, however, that is balanced and reasonable and effective. I would submit that we have a number of stories heard in testimony around the country and I have heard many of these myself as I have sat on the task force, on the committee, and we have held hearings, we have had a number of instances where this has proven not to be the case. It is one thing to talk about it in theory. It is another to be the private property owner and to have the big hand of Government holding a gun pointed at your head. That is what we heard time and time again from these private property owners who all of a sudden are forced with mandates from the EPA or the Corps of Engineers, or any other number of State and Federal agencies. It is just nearly overwhelming. Let me just express strong support for the efforts of the chairman of the committee, and indicate to the American people that there is a real need to make sure that we are reasonable and responsible in dealing with our species, but there is also an obligation to protect our private property rights, and there is an obligation to make sure we have a balanced, reasonable, and effective approach on this. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more with my respected colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. I joined with my colleague in cosponsoring his bill, but we badly need the Pombo amendment. I will tell the Members why. We will never have an effective program to contain illegal immigration without having an effective, reasonable, and legitimate program for temporary guest workers in this country. I quote from statistics prepared for none other than Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1980, a report at his request when he chaired the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. This report reads the following: ``Illegal immigration was brought to a halt in the mid-1950's by a greatly increased law enforcement effort on the part of the U.S. Government, combined with a subsequent expansion of the bracero program as a substitute legal means of entry.'' Without question the Bracero program was also instrumental in ending the illegal alien problem of the mid 1940's and 1950's. It should be noted that throughout its duration, and particularly during the 1950s, one of the major arguments used in support of the Bracero program was that it offered an alternative and therefore at least a partial solution to the illegal alien problem. The other part of the solution was effective law enforcement, which this Smith bill does do. Here is the graph. Here it shows what happened. We went from over 1 million apprehensions of illegals in 1954 to where it was brought down in 1959 to just over 45,000. Mr. Chairman, history shows this program works. We need to incorporate this into the Smith bill to give us the maximum protection against illegal immigration. Today the Labor Department's own statistics say that 25 percent of the seasonal agricultural workers self-identify as illegals. The INS will tell you that indeed it is much higher. Support the Pombo amendment. Oppose the Goodlatte amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham]. I offered a similar amendment last week in the House to the effective death penalty bill, and it was adopted. Mr. Chairman, if our State is illustrative of anything, it is that illegal immigration is seriously out of control. Consider these statistics that the California Department of Justice has provided. Ninety-eight percent of all illegal immigrants who are deported for committing felonies in California will eventually return to the State. Of that number, 40 percent will commit crimes again. I pointed out last week and I just observe again, we are seeing this in rural America as well. Indeed, the first drive-by shooting in a rural town in my district was committed by an illegal alien. He was convicted and served his sentence, and within one week after he was deported, he was back in the country. Now, it turned out that he committed another crime. Interestingly enough, the local law enforcement officer had apprehended this individual before the second crime was committed, but he could not hang onto him because, and I find this amazing, I do not think most people really realize this, even if you are a criminal alien not entitled to be in the United States, if a local law enforcement officer discovers that, the Federal law does not allow this individual to be held. All the local law enforcement can do is call up the INS and notify them that they have observed this individual in the area and say where they saw him, and that is it. Well, the INS is overwhelmed right now, Mr. Chairman, with problems related to illegal immigrants. It seems absurd to me that the Federal law precludes law enforcement from dealing with this situation when they discover it. The amendment of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], which I am proud to be a cosponsor of, will give them the tools that they need to deal with this. It does not require anything. Only if the local law enforcement wishes to assume this responsibility may they under the provisions of this bill. But the fact of the matter is in the illustration that I gave, had local law enforcement had this power thanks to the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], then this individual could have been detained right then when they found him, instead of being released, where he then went and committed a new crime. We all know that this country is awash in crime as it is, and maybe this points to one of the reasons, because our laws in certain respects are not as strong as they ought to be. So I think this is an amendment whose time has really arrived, and I would strongly urge support for the Latham-Doolittle amendment.