John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate one would draw the conclusion not only by inference but by express statement by the opposition that this really is a battle about those who care about clean water versus those who do not. I am here to reject that characterization, Mr. Chairman. In fact, wetlands and the environment are very important to me, and I know of no Member in this House to whom they are not important. So let us all stipulate that we are for the environment, as well as for the American flag, motherhood, and apple pie. Those are all good things; we are all for them. What this battle is really about, and I cannot think of a better crystallization of the difference between the old Congress, the belief in bigger, more powerful Federal agencies and, in essence, a bigger, better, more powerful Federal Government, versus a smaller, more accountable Federal Government. That is what the debate is really about with this Clean Water Act, Mr. Chairman. You know, we ought to stop and ask ourselves: Where does the U.S. Congress derive the authority to regulate wetlands, for example? It comes from the U.S. Constitution, from the so-called commerce clause, which happily is finally starting to be properly interpreted after 60 years of abuse by the Congress and the Supreme Court, and in the Perez decision decided recently we finally got a reasonable definition of the limits of the power of Congress under the commerce clause. Those things which Congress seeks to regulate under the commerce clause have to bear some reasonable relation to the clause. Mr. Chairman, this is a battle between those who support a bigger Federal Government versus those who support a smaller and more accountable Federal Government. It is really a battle between those who want to empower bureaucrats with vast discretionary authority versus those who believe elected officials ought to be making our policy in the U.S. Congress. It is really a battle between arbitrary administrative rulings versus good science. Ironically enough, I say to the gentleman from New York, we believe in good science. That is why H.R. 961, as reported by the committee to the floor, is here. It embodies good science, and we believe very deeply in good science. Let me just mention why the Boehlert amendment is flawed, in my opinion. No. 1, it strikes all the property rights provisions out of the bill, including the right to compensation for property owners whose land is devalued by more than 20 percent due to the Federal wetlands regulations. No. 2, it eliminates the three-tier classification system created by the bill which is designed to give greatest priority to those wetlands that are in most need of protection. No. 3, it retains the current expansive definition of wetlands. Indeed, under the Boehlert amendment, and this is true under present law, this is deemed to be a water of the United States. Is that not ludicrous? This picture is north of Stockton, CA; yes, this is a wetland according to existing law and according to what it will be if the gentleman's amendment should be enacted. H.R. 961 was produced with an aim to ending this kind of administrative abuse. Also, this Boehlert amendment removes the provisions that streamline the current highly bureaucratic system for wetlands permitting, giving four agencies the power to veto wetlands permit applications. The committee bill makes the Corps of Engineers the sole agency with the power to grant or to refuse a permit. So, those are the reasons why I think this is an undesirable amendment. If you believe in Big Government, if you believe in bureaucrats, if you believe in arbitrariness, keep the status quo, because it works great. The only ones who are disadvantaged by it are those [[Page H4952]] who happen to own property by the sweat of their brow and cannot get through the permit process. And we heard from the gentleman from Minnesota, I think who said this, maybe the gentleman from New York: 90 percent of all of these Corps of Engineers permits are granted. What that figure fails to mention is the number of people that dropped out.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me make my statement.

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

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, we are going to do that. We have got A, B, and C. We, the elected officials, set that up. Then we are going to use the science that is in that report because the Secretary is the one that makes those determinations, and he is going to specify in the regulations what are the criteria for A, B, and C.

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would just like to point out here: What in the world are we afraid of? We are not talking about plowing over all the Nation's wetlands by this bill. We are saying the Federal Government has gone too far in trying to assert its jurisdiction. We are going to, as the new Congress, make a correction in the course. The State of Maryland or any other State, if they feel that the policy should be different, is free to take that policy. But under the U.S. Constitution, in our view, our jurisdiction needs to be cut back. This bill provides a policy that assures protection to wetlands that uses a classification system, A, B, or C. It assures reason, balance, and flexibility, which we have none of under the present system, where all we have is the naked hand of Government, $25,000-a-day civil fines, being threatened by Federal agencies, and if they fail at that, they will threaten to indict you, as they did Mrs. Cline.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just do not understand. Why do we think we have to have more bureaucracy to stop pollution? That is the old approach. The new approach is an approach of flexibility, consolidation, elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy. All this bill does is streamline, then consolidate. Basically the amendment that is being offered is essentially the same provision that was in the substitute that was rejected decisively by the Members of this House. This bill eliminates a duplicative program of regulation and it consolidates it into one program. Now the question is why should we do this now, because the answer is no State has this coastal management program up and running. That is why we should do it now. It makes perfect sense to do it now. Because if we wait, then we will have these programs up and running. We still allow the States all of the flexibility they want to target these resources, to identify the programs that they consider to be a problem and to focus resources into that. And when we hear the argument that the States want to be told by the EPA what to do with their land use, et cetera, I just do not buy that, Mr. Chairman. What we need to do is to reject this amendment just as we rejected the substitute and move ahead, streamline and consolidate and make this a workable program. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, many of us are looking forward with greater anticipation tomorrow to passing what is a most significant provision of the Contract With America. That is the tax bill with all of the attendant benefits for families throughout the United States. We have heard much talk from the other side about benefiting the rich, gross distortions of what this bill actually does, and a constant reference to the rich or to really utilizing a technique, if you will, of class warfare. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to point out the Constitution of the United States and the writings of the Founders of this great country make no mention of class or income level. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence proclaims that all men are created equal, which means that all men and women stand equal before God in their entitlement to exercise their inalienable or God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We all know that the American family is overtaxed today. In fact, Americans are overtaxed, paying a higher percentage today in taxes than at any time since World War II, and we are not in a war right now, Mr. Speaker. We are fighting for survival against the Government which seeks to regulate and tax out of existence the very Americans who provide for its support. Now, we hear from many critics on the other side the idea that we ought to sacrifice in essence for Government so that Government can tax the people's money, bring it back here to Washington, run it through the bureaucracy and trickle it back down again out to the end recipient. Study after study shows that we lose between half and two-thirds of every tax dollar that is taken in that fashion. That is a gross waste of resources and a burden on Americans that we can no longer afford. We are making a start to turn that around with this very important piece of tax legislation tomorrow which cuts taxes for everyone. I would just like to reference a chart that shows the effect, for example, of the capital gains tax cut where we are constantly criticized for benefiting the rich, and I would just like to reference this chart prepared by the Bureau of National Affairs which indicates that the distribution of tax returns reporting a capital gain with income measured as the adjusted gross income minus the capital gains, and you can clearly see that 70 percent of the returns filed claiming capital gains are for people whose incomes, adjusted gross incomes, are under $50,000, 70 percent. For those with adjusted gross incomes of over $200,000, only 2 percent filed such returns. So do we all benefit from these capital gains provisions? Yes, we do. And by the way, the distribution of the benefits for the $500-a-child tax credit is roughly in similar proportion to what we see here with the capital gains. Again, the vast bulk of the benefits go to people of middle incomes. But again we are changing the tax provisions to say children have value and whether you are rich or poor, we as a government are going to recognize that with a $500 per child tax credit. It is right in the philosophy of a man who as a good Democrat, President John F. Kennedy, who proclaimed ``A rising tide lifts all boats.'' That is the philosophy of the Contract With America. We believe in restoring competitiveness to our economy. We believe in increasing the rate of economic growth. We believe in increasing the savings rate of individuals, and we do that in this tax individual retirement accounts, so that all people have an incentive to put some money away for a rainy day and when they do that, after 5 years, they can take it out tax-free. That will create the incentive that Americans need to begin saving once again. The whole basis of this country, the free enterprise system, is based on incentive. In the Contract With America we restore that incentive. I look forward to that very important bill tomorrow.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Taylor emergency timber salvage sale amendment. This legislation responds to the 33 lives lost fighting forest fires last year; it responds to the $1 billion spent by the taxpayer fighting high- intensity out-of-control forest fires; it responds to millions of dollars in revenues forgone by Federal and State governments; and it responds to the environmental disaster facing our Nation's forests by prescribing clearly what must be done to begin to alleviate our national forest health problem. Mr. Speaker, this amendment mandates the removal of disease- or insect-invested trees, dead, damaged, or down trees, or trees affected by fire or insect attack. This legislation includes trees imminently susceptible to fire or insect attack that refers to any area in which 10 percent or more of the conifer basal area has been lost to drought, insect, or disease related mortality in the last 10 years. This amendment also mandates removal, without regard to size limitations or retention standards where removal is necessary for the health, protection or restoration of the forest. Because the amendment addresses an emergency situation, it necessarily encompasses forests, such as those impacted by the California spotted owl report or the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report. In spite of these requirements, environmental concerns will be met. U.S. Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas and his staff reviewed the amendment, suggested modifications, and evaluated the Forest Service's technical and operational capability to meet its requirements. The amendment neither authorizes salvage timber sales on lands specifically protected by Congress, nor does it forgo environmental requirements. An environmental assessment must be prepared which will satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Speaker, the people of my district and my State need our national forests to be managed properly. This legislation will begin to alleviate this urgent problem. I urge my colleagues to support the Taylor emergency timber salvage sale amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Taylor amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, if we go right to the wording of the U.S. Constitution and the fifth amendment, it says, ``Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' That amendment was put in there in order to protect people from having the government steal their property for the general benefit of all. Sad to say, up until today, from the time the Constitution was drafted, this has been a right without an effective remedy, because in order to get the remedy, you had to be wealthy enough to go through years and years of litigation, 5 to 10 years on the average, and be able to expend $50,000 to $500,000 or more in attorney's fees. We all know that problems, with attorneys and their fees that we have in this society today, and I know sometimes we need to get attorneys. Like to pursue a takings claim. You need darned good attorneys. You need lots of money to pay them. When I hear Members act like this is some great remedy that we have right now, I am here to say, it is not. That is why we need this piece of legislation. This effect of this amendment is to allow the government to take 19.9 percent of the entire value of your property without any compensation. I know they are going to say in response, ``Oh, yes. But we still allow you your fifth amendment right.'' Some right. This bill is designed to give efficacy to that right, to make it applicable to the average American. It is so important that we understand that. We are not talking about standing up for big corporations, for large landowners. They have the resources to hire the attorneys to fight this. We are talking about the little guy, everyone in this country who owns a piece of property, has worked hard to get that, and would like not to see it wiped out. Why are Members so worried about protecting the Federal Government, Mr. Chairman? I am just amazed when I hear these expressions of concern. You would think the Federal Government was the weakest thing around. It has got enormous resources. These agencies behave with impunity in many cases and there are dozens, indeed hundreds of abusive examples of Federal agencies. That is why we have gotten to this point where there is now a ground swell of support to rise up and make a change. Mr. Chairman, I would just observe in closing, George Washington, understood what government was and he knew it was not our friend. He said, ``Government is not reasoned, it is not eloquence, it is force, and like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.'' This bill represents an attempt to give meaning to the fifth amendment and protect our citizens.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this Reagan executive order which has been referred to, and which has not been very faithfully implemented, I might add, since it was promulgated, and this bill that we are considering are perfectly harmonious, and I believe will work very, very well together. In fact, the Reagan executive order without this bill will not work nearly so well, and that is because if one is so unfortunate as to have the massive power of the Federal Government directed against himself, the average length of time to pursue a takings case is between 5 and 10 years, ranging in cost from $50,000 to $\1/2\ million or more. I have heard a lot of rhetoric about how this is a big bonus for big corporations and wealthy landowners. I would say, Mr. Chairman, the only ones that do not have a remedy in this country are the average people. Sure, we have had the fifth amendment for 200 years, and there has been no effective remedy, really, to implement it for 200 years. We have had some very vague Supreme Court cases, and unless a person was big and wealthy and had a staff of attorneys, they could never afford to pursue their right for relief under the fifth amendment. Finally, we are to the point today, thankfully, with the Contract With America and the changes that have occurred, where we can respond to the voice of the average citizen, and we can provide a remedy in order to make real the protections afforded by the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We have heard today, I just cannot believe it, I hear the words ``unwieldy, unworkable, radical,'' used about this piece of legislation, and these words spoken from the very mouths of those who have supported the Endangered Species Act and its bizarre conclusions, such as whereby the farmer who was unintentionally plowing his field and kills a rat, he stands now criminaly indicated because he has committed a taking of an endangered species. That sounds like it is pretty radical to me, pretty unwieldy, pretty unworkable. Then we have this little critter, the fairy shrimp. This costs each new homeowner, and continues to cost today in the city of Roseville, in my district, $6,000 extra per house because of this creature which we are protecting. Radical? Yes. Unwieldy? Yes. Unworkable? Yes. That is what we seek of change by this very wise and judicious piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, we need this bill. I just want to point out, it has been implied that somehow we are going to impair defense readiness because the Army will have to respond to all these claims. I just want to point out that there are two funds. The defense readiness and all of that, the military stuff comes out of one fund, the defense appropriation, and the energy and water appropriation, a separate subcommittee, deals with the civil aspect of the Army, so there is no way this bill is going to impair defense readiness. Mr. Chairman, I would urge this amendment to be defeated and the bill to be adopted.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I too rise, and I respect my colleague from Florida [Mr. Goss], but I am very concerned about the effect of this amendment. When you think about it, the fifth amendment obviously is designed to protect the individual from the oppressive acts of government. Think about your own house for a minute. Say it is worth $200,000, to take maybe an average; some will be worth less than that and some will be worth much more than that. But if we take the $200,000 figure, under the provisions of this amendment, we are saying the government can come in and can take away nearly 30 percent of that value, $60,000, and they can do it without your having any remedy except the traditional constitutional remedy, which has basically failed to The remedy of filing an action and working your way through the Federal court system, we know it takes up to 10 years, up to $500,000 in attorneys fees. You know what? If you are a big corporation, it is great; you have a staff of legal counsel who routinely handle matters and it just becomes part of the cost of doing business, which all the rest of us pay for as consumers. But if it is your property, if it is your $200,000 value, we are saying under this amendment, ``Go ahead, government, we know that you are weak, we know that you need the help, we want to help you. So go ahead, take $60,000 of the value, no problem. We know you need it.'' Mr. Chairman, the government is not weak, the government is strong, the government is powerful, the government has an unlimited checkbook because it is our money as taxpayers, an unlimited checkbook to run people through the system, with their staff of attorneys paid at government expense. We need to keep the value at 10 percent. Yes, we acknowledge a line has to be drawn for the purposes of his bill. But we think that line ought to be at 10 percent. 10 percent loss is significant. But, Mr. Chairman, a loss of 30 percent more often than not is not loss of the person's profit, his or her entire profit in the value of the property is out the window if the long arm of the government decides to reach out and regulate you in a fashion that destroys 29.9 percent of the value of your property. So, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge our Members to oppose this amendment and to support the underlying legislation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act. This legislation prohibits Federal agencies from promulgating new rules and regulations until December 31, 1995. In addition, the bill suspends any Federal rules issued since November 20 of last year. Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides a needed time out from the onslaught of Federal regulations. Currently over 110 executive branch agencies issue regulations, including approximately 22 independent regulatory boards and commissions. Thomas Hopkins of the Rochester Institute of Technology places the total cost of complying with Federal regulations at $600 billion in 1994. Other estimates find the annual cost of these regulations to be closer to $1 trillion annually. The worst aspect of excessive Federal regulation is its impact on job creation. According to the Heritage Foundation, regulation destroys jobs in several ways: First, reductions in efficiency, productivity, investment, and economic growth due to regulation translate into fewer jobs. Second, regulations may raise the general costs of a particular business, leaving it unable or unwilling to hire as many workers as before. Third, regulations may raise the cost of employment by imposing specific costs tied to each new employees hired. In order to provide flexibility, the bill includes commonsense exceptions for the enforcement of criminal laws, military and foreign affairs, reduction of preexisting regulatory burdens, continuation of agencies' routine administrative functions, or because of an imminent threat to health or safety. Mr. Chairman, the people from my district and my State want to see their families unburdened from the heavy regulation that destroys real economic opportunity. A year off from costly Federal regulations will help advance this objective. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 450.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization Act. I think this legislation is an important step toward restoring America's reputation as a superpower. In addition, this legislation preserves our ability and reaffirms our intent to defend America's national security interests around the globe. Mr. Chairman, I am especially glad that H.R. 7 includes language restricting the placement of U.S. troops under the control of foreign nationals acting on behalf of the United Nations. The language included in H.R. 7 is almost identical to a bill I introduced last year (H.R. 3334), and reintroduced again this year (H.R. 631). I strongly believe this legislation is necessary in order to counter the Clinton administration's proposed policy directives that would allow U.S. military forces to be placed under foreign command, on a regular basis, for U.N. peacekeeping operations. Mr. Chairman, the people in my district, especially the war veterans, demand that when we send our young men and women overseas to battle that they will do so under the American flag, not the blue helmet of the United Nations. Some argue that this legislation will hamstring the President's ability to act as Commander in Chief. This is simply not true. My proposal, included in H.R. 7, requires the President to certify to Congress that such foreign operational control is necessary to protect vital national security interests of the United States. The President must provide Congress with a report setting forth the following: a description of the interest that requires placing U.S. troops under foreign operational control; the mission and objectives of the U.S. Armed Forces, and an estimate of the duration they will serve under such foreign operational control; the expected size and composition our forces involved; the cost of U.S. participation in the proposed operation; the precise command and control relationship between the U.S. forces and the United Nations; and the extent to which the U.S. forces will rely on non-U.S. military forces for security and self- defense and an assessment of the ability of those forces to provide adequate security to the U.S. forces involved. In addition to being unconstitutional, Mr. Speaker, putting U.S. troops under U.N. control can be very dangerous as the Clinton administration learned in Somalia. Last, I would include a letter I received from the commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Mr. Allen F. ``Gunner'' Kent. His outstanding organization supports inclusion of my proposal in H.R. 7, as do millions of people across the country. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7. Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Washington, DC, February 2, 1995. Hon. John T. Doolittle, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Doolittle: On behalf of the 2.1 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., I want to endorse your proposed legislation, H.R. 631 which would limit the placing of U.S. military forces under command of foreign officers acting for the United Nations. At our 95th National Convention last August, this issue was considered and the delegates overwhelmingly approved VFW Resolution 437 opposing U.S. forces under foreign command. I have enclosed a copy of this resolution for your information and use. Also I would urge you and the Congress to examine Presidential Decision Directive 25 to determine if Constitutional authority has been misused and if so, to find an appropriate remedy. If the VFW can be of any assistance or support in moving H.R. 631 to passage, please feel free to contact our Washington Office Executive Director Bob Currieo at the earliest opportunity. Sincerely, Allen F. ``Gunner'' Kent, Commander in Chief. Enclosure. Resolution No. 437--Oppose U.S. Forces Under Foreign Command Whereas, Presidential Decision Directive 25 states as follows: ``The President retains and will never relinquish command authority over U.S. forces. On a case by case basis, the President will consider placing appropriate U.S. forces under the operational control of a competent U.N. Commander for specific U.N. operations authorized by the Security Council; Whereas, if U.S. military forces were to be placed under foreign command (as they now are in Macedonia) they could be removed from their primary missions of defending the United States, its citizens and its territory; Whereas, by permitting U.S. military forces to operate under the orders of any international organization, these forces could find themselves executing military operations which are not in the national interest of the United States; and Whereas, we believe the American people will not support the deployment of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen in dangerous, life-threatening missions that do affect the security of the United States, its citizens or its territory; Now, therefore, be it: Be it resolved, by the 95th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, that we oppose any play or directive placing U.S. military forces under the command of foreign military officers including those who are operating exclusively under orders from the United Nations; and Be it further resolved, that Congress be urged to examine Presidential Decision Directive 25 to determine if any constitutional authority has been misused, and if so, to find an appropriate remedy.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, in listening to the comments of some Members here as ardent defenders of the Constitution, and we heard the Founders invoked, one would think the exclusionary rule is written into the Constitution. Yet I challenge anyone to show me where in the Constitution that exists, because in point of fact it does not exist. It was a creature of the court beginning in 1914 and applicable to the actions of the Federal Government, and it was not until I believe 1964 in the infamous Miranda case that it was applied to State and local agencies. It was simply an example of judicial legislation, the type that has done such great violence to the Constitution that we should all revere. Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe in the Constitution, and I believe that this creation, the exclusionary rule, has subjected innocent men, women, and children to be the victims of crimes, and the perpetrators of those crimes have gone free in some instances because of the doctrine of the exclusionary rule. When violent crimes and homicides have shot up hundreds of percent since 1960, it is time that we, the people's representatives, set a proper balance, and that balance is the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, all too often politicians make promises, but don't keep them. That is in large part the cause of cynicism among the American people about their government institutions. Last night and early this morning, the American people witnessed monumental change in the House of Representatives as we kept our promises. With votes from both sides of the aisle we began to deliver on the Contract With America. It was a first step to restore the bonds of trust between the American people and all of us, their elected representatives. By changing the very way this institution operates--cutting committees, cutting staff, banning ghost voting, auditing the House books, and using honest budgeting we have set a positive tone for fulfilling the rest of our promises during the next 99 days.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, this comprehensive audit of House financial records and administrative operations will prevent in the future the kinds of problems we have seen with the House restaurant, the House Post Office and the House bank and will identify whether and to what extent other House units have been in compliance with law and House rules and have operated effectively and efficiently. It will provide necessary information to the public to determine the manner in which taxpayer funds have been used and will ensure accountability in the administration of this House. This audit should examine, amongst other things, monies in the contingent fund, monies expended by legislative service organizations, House officers accounts, committee accounts and the Architect of the Capitol. It should also look into allegations concerning ghost employees and official payrolls. This audit will set an important precedent for openness and accountability and is a much desired reform.