John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the strong bipartisan majority which has brought, finally, some reform to this area of clean water and tried to rein in the gross abuses of bureaucratic agencies like the EPA. This amendment is a direct assault on that effort to bring reform. Many of the people who are supporting this amendment opposed us tooth and nail when we tried and successfully did pass the Clean Water Act off the floor of the House. We have been attacked as being special interests. I chaired a task force, the wetlands task force of the Committee on Resources. I invite the Members to get its report. This is full of the so-called special interests, and who are they? They are the property owners, the farmers, the ranchers, the business people, the church people, all of whom have been negatively and unfairly impacted by agencies such as the EPA. Let me just cite one example of the so-called special interests that we heard from. Nancy Klein, mother of five. She and her husband bought a farm in Sonoma County, 350 acres. For the crime of farming, they came under criminal scrutiny of the EPA. Let me just quote from her so Members can get the flavor of this: The FBI and the EPA interrogated our neighbors, acquaintances, strangers. They asked if we were intelligent. They asked about our religion. They asked if we had tempers. They asked how we treated our children. For 11 months, the squeeze continued. Our property was flown over by military helicopters, Federal cars monitored our home, and our children's schools. The EPA is abusing its authority. Oppose the amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. I think it is outrageous to do this to our counties in view of all that is happening throughout the States. We have got whole communities that have been devastated by the various restrictions on the spotted owl and other so-called surrogate species. About the only major activity that can go on is related to public lands. These communities have substantial expenses in building roads, in providing schools, in providing the services the gentleman from Utah mentioned. Then to put forth an amendment like this that basically will cut off this money that these communities are entitled to receive because of the services they are providing to the Government. We do not cut off anybody else's money for any reason because they are pursuing a legitimate claim against some branch of the Federal Government. Only here are we seeking to do that. I think that is wrong. I think it comes at a horrible time when our counties are under so much pressure economically right now. I strongly urge Members to defeat this amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the gentleman's amendment. Regardless of what one thinks about the record of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the controversial programs, the fact of the matter is, with a $4.7 trillion national debt, we cannot afford as a country to be borrowing money for the purpose of entertainment. It is totally inappropriate. It is time to balance the budget. Let the cutting start here. Vote for the Chabot amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson]. I think it is long overdue. I think why should we be paying taxpayer funds to support lawsuits being filed against the Federal Government, or any government, for that matter. It just does not make sense. This Trust is a successful organization, obviously, by the size of its budget, by the fact that 80 percent of its funds come from non- Federal sources. We are in an era where we are trying to bring down our deficit. This is a small but symbolic cut, but I think it is important to send this kind of a message. This organization can stand on its own. I do not know why we would want to support or subsidize, if you will, an organization adding to the congestion of the courts, adding to the costs imposed upon individuals and businesses and families by bringing lawsuits against them. I do not know why we would want to support an organization that has an extensive lobbying component. Obviously, if they are capable of funding that kind of a thing with 80 percent of non-Federal funds, they ought to just get off the Federal dole, get out of the trough. That time has ended. We have got some serious priorities to fund, and this ought to be one of the things that we certainly could cut. By the way, I would just observe that when the president of this organization makes more than the President of the United States that would suggest to me that this organization can stand on its own. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] has a great amendment, and I strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 523) to amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act to authorize additional measures to carry out the control of salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective manner, and for other purposes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, the Colorado River Compact negotiated in 1992 by all seven Basin States, divided the river into two basins, the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, with each basin receiving the right to develop and use in perpetuity 7.5 million acre-feet annually from the Colorado River system, although not all States are currently using their full apportionment. In addition, the 1994 Mexican Water Treaty committed 1.5 million acre-feet of water annually to users in Mexico. The quality of that water is also prescribed by the treaty. The quantity and quality of water to be delivered to Mexico are our obligation, and the cost is not to be borne by the seven Basin States. In addition to United States-Mexican Treaty obligations, water users in the Lower Basin are concerned about the higher salinity of the Colorado River water they receive, because it reduces their ability to reclaim the water for reuse. The more saline the water is originally, the more it costs to treat it for reuse. To address the salinity problem, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was enacted in 1974. Title 1 of the bill addressed the Mexican Treaty obligations by authorizing the Yuma Desalting Plant and certain other actions to be taken in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Title 2 of the act, which this bill, S. 532, seeks to amend, authorized the investigation and construction of salinity control projects in the Upper Basin in order to protect the quality of water delivered to the Lower Basin. S. 523 would amend section 202(a) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act to authorize a program of salinity control in addition to the specific projects in the existing statute. The new program would enable Reclamation to accept proposals from non-Federal entities for salinity control measures, and then provide funding to the most cost-effective proposals. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today, we are fulfilling another important part of our Contract With America; to bring Government to the people, to respond to their concerns on a bi-partisan basis, to make Government more efficient. I have been contacted by members of the public from all sides of the political spectrum to address the issues of CVPIA implementation. There is general agreement that we must break new ground to improve our water management in California. Members on both sides of the aisle are here today to support new ways to approach these problems. In 1992, Congress passed the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which substantially altered the way water is managed in California. Among its major provisions, the CVPIA provided for 800,000 acre-feet of water from the CVP to be primarily dedicated to fish and wildlife. It also established the CVP restoration fund and assessed charges against both water and power interests into the fund. We have spoken with a number of our constituents in California, including irrigation districts, municipalities, environmental organizations and power customers who have expressed concerns about the way certain provisions of the VCPIA are being implemented or interpreted. They would like to see these issues addressed. It has become increasingly apparent that there are some provisions of the CVPIA that need modification. At the same time, there is recognition by all the parties that now is not the time for radical changes in the act, but rather, for well thought out improvements which ensure that the basic principles of the act are achieved in a manner which meets the real needs of the parties concerned. This bill provides reasonable and badly needed reforms. It also clarifies and builds on the Bay-Delta accord. It will ensure that there is no double-counting of the 800,000 acre-feet of water devoted to environmental programs under the original CVPIA. Finally, we are returning common sense to the CVPIA in the area of water pricing. It was the stated intent of the CVPIA to create greater incentives for the conservation of water. Implementation of the act discouraged some good water practices. For instance, there are areas served by the Central Valley Project where there is significant overdraft of the aquifers. We need to provide opportunities for the recharge of underground acquifers. Tiered pricing was designed to charge higher prices as more water is used. In a year such as this, when we have significant amounts of water in California, it is foolish to have a policy that discourages a water district from recharing its aquifer. The reforms we propose today are balanced. They address common sense issues which must be changed. It is a bipartisan bill which will improve California's ability to manage its water.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I attended the annual memorial service held at the Iwo Jima Memorial in Arlington, VA sponsored by the Correctional Peace Officers Foundation, Inc., as part of National Correctional Peace Officers Memorial Week. This service was held to commemorate the sacrifice of those correctional peace officers who died in the line of duty and to honor their families. I should like to submit for the Record the names of those individuals honored, together with the circumstances surrounding the individuals' deaths. Inspector Stephen Stewart, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Huntsville, Texas. Killed on January 7, 1994. Surviving: Wife, Debbie Stewart and three children, Clayton-- age 22, Casey--age 21, and David--age 11\1/2\. Mr. Stewart was a Correctional Officer prior to promoting to Inspector. While transporting an inmate work crew, his vehicle spun out in gravel overturning the vehicle. Inspector Steward was killed at the site. Group Supervisor Arnold Garcia, Los Angeles County Probation Department, Dorothy Cirby Center Residential Facility, Downey, California. Killed on April 4, 1994. Surviving: Wife, Alma Garcia and four children, Christian-- age 15, Fatima--age 11, Joseph--age 8, and Anthony--age 2. Supervisor Garcia was struck in the head with a desk leg and beaten to death by two wards who attacked him during the graveyard shift in the dormitory housing unit. The two wards were apprehended in a railroad yard trying to leave the area. Correctional Officer Dennis Stemen, Allen Correctional Institution, Ohio Department of Corrections, Lima, Ohio. Killed on July 5, 1994. Surviving: Wife, Patty Stemen and four children, Elizabeth--age 9\1/2\, Johah--age 7\1/2\, Jordan--age 5, and Bethany--age 3. Officer Stemen was killed following a transportation detail of an inmate to a hospital for treatment. After dropping off the inmate at the hospital some hours from his institution, he and another correctional officer were asked to stay and work due to a shortage of correctional officers at the hospital. Later, they started the long drive back to their facility when the vehicle they were driving left the road causing Officer Stemen's death. He was killed when he was ejected from the State van. Correctional Sergeant Marc Perse, Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility, Colorado Department of Correction, Canon City, Colorado. Killed on August 15, 1994. Surviving: Wife, Pam Perse. While a member of the S.O.R.T. TEAM, Sgt. Perse was killed during a rappelling training exercise which required him to rappel down a 90 foot tower. Sergeant Perse was killed when his equipment failed. Warden Charles Farquhar and wife Doris Farquhar, State Cattle Ranch, Alabama Department of Corrections, Greensboro, Alabama. Killed on October 23, 1994. Surviving: Son Robbie and his wife Nita, and two grandchildren, Drew--age 11, and Charlie--age 5. Warden Farquhar and his wife Doris were assaulted by trustee inmates at the State Cattle Ranch, beaten to death and then burned in their house. Several inmates were also killed trying to come to the Farquhar's aid. Correctional Officer Louis Perrine, Powder River Correctional Facility, Oregon Department of Corrections. Killed on November 17, 1994. Surviving: Wife, Marilyn and three children, Steven--age 29, Anthony--age 27, and Audra--age 25. Officer Perrine was killed during the supervision of an inmate work crew. During heavy winter storms, he was trying to clear an area with a tractor/grader when it flipped, rolling over on Officer Perrine and killing him instantly. Senior Correctional Officer D'Atonion ``Tony'' Washington, Georgia State Penitentiary, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Atlanta, Georgia. Killed December 12, 1994. Surviving: Mother--Delphine and Father Frederick. Officer Washington was alone in a housing unit when he instructed an inmate to move to another area and the inmate assaulted him and beat him to death. Lieutenant Robert Boud, Essex County Jail Annex, Department of Public Safety, Caldwell, New Jersey. Killed on January 8, 1995. Surviving: Wife, Kathy and four children, Katie--age 17, William--age 15, Matthew--age 10, and Kimberly--age 22. Lieutenant Boud died of a heart attack immediately following an inmate altercation/struggle. Correctional Officer Leonard Trudeau, Metro/Dade County Department of Corrections, Florida. Killed on January 16, 1995. Surviving: Ex-Wife, Brenda and one child, Christina-- age 12. Officer Trudeau was enroute home following his shift when he came upon a vehicle accident. While assisting the involved motorists as a good samaritan, another vehicle happened upon the accident at too high a rate of speed and while trying to avoid hitting the already involved vehicle, the second vehicle hit the guard rail and hit Officer Trudeau. Mr. Speaker, we owe these people who have made the ultimate sacrifice and their families who must live with the consequences of that sacrifice an unparalleled debt of gratitude. Our hearts go out to the families--the spouses, children, siblings, and parents--and our prayers go up to God in their behalf. May we honor the deceaseds' sacrifice by so living our lives that we each may do our part to make this country a better place in which to live.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 1070) to designate the reservoir created by Trinity Dam in the Central Valley project, California, as ``Trinity Lake.''

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, he was a Democrat, and he was considered a water expert in his time, and for that reason this reservoir which the bill seeks to change the name of was named for him. This bill would designate the reservoir created by Trinity Dam in the Central Valley Project in California as Trinity Lake. Under the provisions of current law the reservoir is currently designated as Clair Engle Lake and, therefore, requires legislation in order for the name to be changed. The problem here is that in the local area everybody refers to this as Trinity Lake except the technical name that appears in the maps is Lake Clair Engle. It casts a lot of confusion, and for that reason the Trinity board of supervisors unanimously passed a resolution in support of changing the name. In our report accompanying this bill we have asked the bureau to consider an appropriate visitor center that they could name in honor of Clair Engle, who was once chairman of the House Interior Committee and then subsequently became our U.S. Senator from California; we think that would be appropriate, and I would ask that the bill be supported.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will just be very brief. I say to the outstanding young people who are the pages, we thank you for your service. It seems that the good times always go very, very quickly, but you will be missed and remembered, and do not lose track. Come back, stay in touch, and God bless you. Thank you very much.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, because it has a no value. So at that point they are just doing something to improve the health. I would comment, we have had a highly slanted, unfair, biased report called the Green Scissors Report, which is a coalition of, I believe, Earth First and the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against Government Waste, which is, I think, just shocking in terms of the distortion that is in that report. One of the things they attack is so-called below-cost timber sales. What I find interesting is that many of these self-professed groups that profess to protect the environment drag out the appeals process as long as they can, so they make sure that timber has no commercial value, and then, when money is spent to get rid of that timber to protect the health of the forest, I believe that counts against the overall tree program, and so it is bootstrapping. They make sure that it does not recover the costs, and then they try and show ``Look what pork barrel scandal support of industry we have here, because the taxpayer money is going to support the timber industry,'' when in reality, their own actions have guaranteed that result.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I wish to acknowledge the gentleman's leadership on this salvage issue as a member of the Committee on Appropriations and a member of the conference committee. He is to be commended for the work that he has done. Mr. Speaker, this will definitely result in a vast improvement for the quality of our forest health, which is so desperately needed in many parts of my district. In many parts of California and the Sierras, the percentages range up to one-third of dead and dying trees. A third of the Sierras in parts are dead and dying trees. I believe the gentleman is the only licensed forester in the United States Congress, so the gentleman has an expertise that no one else really does, not to the degree that the gentleman does. He understands what happens when we have a forest fire, and the environmental damage that that does when it burns so hot. He understands that if we do not take this dead and dying timber while it still has commercial value, then the taxpayer is burdened by shelling out money out of, I guess, the general fund to go remove these trees. There is nothing to be regained in terms of repaying the Treasury. Is that your understanding?

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, last evening I spoke about the severe problems with the present policies that we have on wetlands. This bill makes some badly needed reforms, and the Boehlert amendment would take us in the opposite direction. It would not be helpful to the real concerns that we have. I spoke last evening of Nancy Klein. She and her husband bought 350 acres in Sonoma, intended to farm that. It has been farmed continuously every year since 1930. In 1989, the owner of the land raised cattle instead of farming. When the Kleins, with their five children, tried to begin their farming, they were informed by the Corps of Engineers that they could not do that, and they were threatened with $25,000 a day fines and were actually at one point, for most of 1994, criminally investigated. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from the letter that she wrote. It is really prepared testimony that she gave to the task force on wetlands of the Committee on Resources which I chaired, and we had a hearing, and she came and offered this. This volume of testimony will be printed and available for all to see in a couple of weeks, but just quoting from her letter: The FBI and EPA interrogated neighbors, acquaintances and strangers. They asked about our religion, whether we were intelligent, did we have tempers. They asked how we treat our children. Our property was surveyed by military Blackhawk helicopters. Their cars monitored our home and our children's school. They accused Fred of paying neighbors to lie. The FBI actually told one terrified neighbor that this investigation was top secret with national security implications. The community reeled, as did we. Our personal papers were subpoenaed; the grant jury was convened. We spent thousands of additional dollars to hire more attorneys. The Justice Department told our attorneys that, unless we would plead guilty and surrender our land, they would seek a criminal indictment of both Fred and me. According to one government attorney I was to be included because I had written a letter to the editor of a local paper, in their opinion, quote unquote, publicly undermining the authority of the Army Corps. Mr. Chairman, the present law has allowed for this kind of abuse, tremendous abuse by the Federal Government in the area of wetlands regulation. The bill that we are supporting, coming out of the committee, provides for a good definition of wetlands, a classification system that uses good science to determine which wetlands are the most valued, those that get the greatest protection through this classification system, A, B or C. For that reason I urge defeat of the Boehlert amendment and support of the committee bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].

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

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland to ask his question.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. This gentleman began the process of building his church. Sixteen years later, $300,000 of his congregation's money down the drain and there is no church, and 25 percent of it has been roped off as a wetland. These people are not in the business of development. They are trying to build a church. The Sares Regis Corp., they are in the business of development, and they are in Mr. Pombo's district, in the northern end of it. They have about a 1,200-acre parcel of land. In 1988 the first application was made for a permit. We are in 1995 today. Seven years later they have still not done anything with it because the different agencies keep upping the ante. First they wanted 15 percent of the land set aside because it contained features like this right here, and then it went up to 25 percent, and they finally agreed to 25 percent. A demand was made for more, and they agreed to 30 percent, and that is not enough. Thirty percent, in fact it was more than 30 percent, it was nearly one-third of their land, 356 acres with a development value of $30 million, and that was not enough to satisfy the Federal bureaucrat. That is an abuse, Mr. Chairman. And that is what this bill is designed to correct amongst other things. I want to tell you about Mrs. Cline. Nancy Cline, Sonoma, CA, bought land, 350 acres of land, been in farming continuously since 1930. One year the owner of the land, in fact the next to the last year the former owners of the land grazed cattle. These folks tried to farm their land and the bureaucrats showed up and they said, ``You can't do that, you need a permit, you are filling a wetland.'' They said, ``What do you mean. It has been farmed since 1930. I am sorry.'' They threatened them with $25,000-a-day civil fines and actually at one point threatened if they did not give in to criminally indict them. They had to hire an attorney to defend themselves. They went around, and I would love to read you this but my time is running out, I will tell you the FBI and EPA went door to door to the neighbors and interviewed the neighbors. What is these people's religion? Do they have a temper? What are they like? George Washington said power is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force, and like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. And I would submit to you that we uncovered many examples of the heavy hand of government, naked force.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an additional minute to reply because this is not the whole story. I need to reply. Let me just say here that in our part of the State there is a lot of land like this and there are a lot of people like this that would like to grow houses, not farms, on it or not grazing, and they owned the property, and under your amendment you are not going to let them do that because this is going to be classified as a wetland for which a permit must be granted, must be required, in order to do anything, and your amendment does not let good science prevail, because you do not see the framework for the classification, A, B, or C. I heard you read from the report. Let me just say we make the policy that the Secretary is to promulgate, a classification system, A, B, or C, according to the most ecologically significant land in that order. That is where the good science is going to come, helping us determine whether it is A, B, or C.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Ninety percent, the figure was 90 percent of the permits are granted by the Corps of Engineers. It ignores the fact that a huge number of people fell out of that statistic, those who tried and just gave up. They did not have the 2 years or 4 years or 5 years or as in the case of Chico, I will tell you about the 16 years to get through the process. They gave up and they were not counted, because it did not count in that statistic. So it is a very misleading statistic. I just throw that out; it is very misleading. I chaired the wetlands task force for the Resources Committee. We went around the country and held various hearings. Let me just tell you briefly what we found out. We heard from Bob Wilson, a man who owns property in Idaho. He went through with his permit, the corps came out, they had extensive negotiations. The corps finally granted his permit to build a house. He built a very expensive, about a half-million- dollar house, and then, incredibly, a corps field official came along and discovered quote unquote that the hydrology had changed on this particular land and what was once an upland when the house was built was now a wetland, and demands were being made for him to do something about it. Well, he went through the process again and that managed to get it straightened out, probably because the corps was too embarrassed to actually be willing to take that case forward and expose it to the harsh light of public review. Pastor Enns, pastor of a church in Chico, CA, known as the Pleasant Valley Assembly of God, this is a 500-member congregation, all of its contributions are received voluntarily.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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