Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, yes, it is correct.

Mr. POMBO. Under this circumstance, that would be the case, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I am familiar with the San Bernadino forest and I know it would be an excellent place for a recovery area, because it does need some help. But in trying to recover that particular forest, they would be limited by this amendment on being able to construct access points into that particular forest.

Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is trying to have us believe that this amendment he has is somehow a limited amendment, in some way it is limited to one specific problem that he perceives there to be. The fact of the matter is, read his amendment. It says, any public policy that is in effect or has been proposed in the Federal Register. So there is no one on this floor today who can tell us how many public policies are in effect today, and how many have been proposed. So if the gentleman's forest is a recovery area, we are talking about any public policy that is in effect, or anything that has been proposed is going to be covered.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is important to understand exactly what the Smith amendment attempted to do. The language of the Smith amendment states that no funds shall be used either directly through direct allocations from the fund or indirectly from allocations to recovery projects from other Forest Service accounts for the construction of roads in those areas within the recovery project where the construction of roads would be prohibited by any Federal environmental law or applicable land management plan. Now the Boehlert amendment, and I doubt very strongly if there is a Member of the House, if they actually read the Boehlert amendment, would vote for it. And please, before my colleagues cast their vote, actually read the Boehlert amendment because it goes on to change that and say, ``. . . policy that is in effect or has been proposed in the Federal Register by the day of the enactment of this law.'' So any policy, any policy. We are not just talking about roadless areas. We are talking about any policy that is in effect or has been proposed in the Federal Register now becomes law. The gentleman is completely and thoroughly abdicating any responsibility that the legislative branch has. Any authority that the legislative branch has. He is saying any policy that this administration has in effect today or that they have even proposed, that they have even put in the Federal Register, we are giving up on that. That is the effect of putting the Boehlert amendment in. We can have a grand debate about roads. We have heard a lot of pretty funny stuff that has come out here today. I have heard people say that our forests are not in bad condition and that they do not need to be taken care of and that the only way that we can manage them is just to leave them alone and keep people out of it. I think that just shows a complete lack of knowledge as to what is going on in our forests, in our national forests in America today. The truth of what we are saying is we do not care if the Committee on Agriculture has held any hearings on this or not. We do not care if the Committee on Resources has held any hearings on this or not. We do not care whether or not Congress agrees with these policies or not. We do not care about any of that. What we are saying is any policy that is in effect or has been proposed in the Federal Register all of a sudden becomes law. I would guarantee that if we knew all of the policies that are in effect, all of the policies that have been proposed, there is no way we would support that. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) would have us believe that all that this affects is a little roadless area, and that is all we are doing. That is not all we are doing. By the very language that he uses in his amendment, this is as extreme and radical as we can possibly get. We just give up on everything and say whatever the administration has proposed, any policy they have in effect, anything that they want, we are going to put that on this bill. We are just going to go that way. That is the exactly wrong way to go. I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and I have had a lot of discussions over the years about our forests, the health of our forests, and had some great debates on the floor of this House about what to do on environmental policy and on forest policy. But I am sure that he and his colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree that it is bad policy for this House to, all of a sudden, say any policy that the administration has in effect, and I know he disagrees with the policies that the administration has in effect, I know many of my colleagues disagree with the policies that this administration has in effect, but any policy that they have in effect today becomes law. It is not just the ones that they are already using, that they are already implementing out in the field; it is anything that they have proposed in the Federal Register all of a sudden goes into effect with the enactment of this law. I do not think any of my colleagues, if they read this amendment and truly understand what the impact of this amendment is, could possibly, possibly support this, because this is about as extreme an abdication of our responsibilities and our authority as the legislative branch as we could possibly get.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, as chairwoman of the committee of jurisdiction over this issue, and probably the person with the greatest knowledge of our national forests, would the gentlewoman have any clue how many policies and proposals this could possibly impact?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, does the gentlewoman know of any time in the history of Congress where we just willy-nilly adopted all policies and proposals from the administration?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, in the hearings of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health that the gentlewoman held here in Washington, and I understand the gentlewoman has held field hearings on these issues as well, has this policy that has been proposed, not even enacted, but a proposed policy by the administration, is there any consensus out in the gentlewoman's area or anywhere throughout the West?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, is it the gentlewoman's understanding that the normal course of action around here is that before a normal law is enacted, Congress hold hearings and hold votes and have the great debate on that particular law before it becomes the law; and yet if this policy were adopted, we would have numerous policies and proposals from the administration which would all of a sudden become law. Is that the normal course?

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMBO. People who are legally coming to this country.

Mr. POMBO. I think it was an important point that the gentleman from Texas brought out. We are talking about legal immigration.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, just to explain this amendment, what it does is it takes the refusal rate from 2 percent to 3 percent. Under that change, there are 2 countries that would currently qualify to be included in the Visa Waiver Program, those two countries being Portugal and Greece. The refusal rate, just to explain to my colleagues exactly what that is, is that if they go in and apply for a visa, if they are refused, that goes into the category in the refusal rate. To explain that further, I recently had a friend of mine whose parents wanted to come over to this country in order to attend their granddaughter's graduation from high school, and they were refused a visa from Portugal to come into this country. Even though they own a home over there, even though they own a business over there, even though they have been to this country in the past and returned, they were refused. And because those two people were refused, we now need over a hundred other people who need to apply and get approved in order to keep the rate under. So that is what the refusal rate is. What we are talking about is taking it from 2 people in 100 to 3 people in 100 that are refused under this arbitrary rate. Furthermore, under the current rules, there are only 2 countries within the European Union that are exempted from the program, those being Greece and Portugal, because of the way that the numbers are currently done. I would argue that it is arbitrary in the manner that, sure, we are giving the people general guidelines of what they have to go by, but they make an arbitrary decision as to whether or not to refuse that at that time. The chairman, in previous arguments, brought up that this may in some way increase crime and terrorism and illegal immigration by allowing Portuguese citizens to visit this country and by allowing Greek citizens to visit this country. Unfortunately, by some of the Dear Colleagues that have been sent out, we would read those and believe that somehow Portugal is an exporter of terrorism around the world, which I find personally very offensive and my family members find personally very offensive; it is not true. Nor is it true that Portugal is known as a country that exports babies around the world in some kind of child smuggling ring, for God's sake. But according to some of the Dear Colleagues that have been passed around here, unfortunately, we would believe that that is the case, and it is absolutely untrue and unfounded. I think it is very unfortunate that anybody would have sent that out. But even if it was the case, even if it was the case, according to the law, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may for any reason, including national security, refrain from waiving the visa requirement in respect to nationals of any country who may otherwise qualify for the designation at that time. So if the Attorney General determines that, for some reason, Portugal or Greece should not qualify, that they increase terrorism and child smuggling around the world, they can withdraw the ability of Portugal to be in the program. Furthermore, I do not understand, quite, the logic. There was debate previously about illegal immigration and how somehow Portugal, that if they are included in this, that that will increase illegal immigration. Well, I hate to surprise my colleagues, but we are talking about a legal program for people to legally come to the United States for tourism or business, to legally come in. We are not talking about illegal immigration, see, because people that are going to break the law are going to break the law and come in illegally. That is what happens. That is how we end up with illegal immigrants to this country. What we are talking about here is allowing people to follow the rules and legally come into this country and visit their relatives or come here on legitimate business purposes. And just by a minor change in the current law, we would allow, at this point, people from Portugal and Greece to come in. But it is not just an amendment for them; it is an amendment for anyone who would qualify under that new standard. Today it means Portugal and Greece. But if anybody else brings their arbitrary refusal numbers down to below 3 percent, they would then qualify to come in. We also had data that has come out that says that Portugal has 26,000 people that have overstayed their visa, that Greece has 5,000 people that have overstayed their visa, that are illegally in this country. By the quoting from the chairman, the data that we have is 5 years old. How can he bring this out and say that this has any bearing on the current status of the people that are coming over here from Greece or Portugal into this country today on legitimate legal tourism or legitimate legal business activities into this country? By the gentleman's own quote, the data is 5 years old and it is inaccurate. It is not good data. It really bears no argument in this. We can prove anything we want with facts. I can bring out my facts that show how many people have come in and how many people have gone back and whether or not this program, in the facts, can bring Portugal and Greece under this program. But I think that the real point is the fairness of whether or not somebody from Portugal ought to be able to come into this country just like every other European country can, under a tourist visa or a legitimate business activity.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close the debate by bringing us home to what the issue is that we are debating. We are debating going from 2 people in 100 being refused a visa to come to the United States as a tourist or on legitimate business purposes, and to go from 2 people out of 100 to 3 people out of 100 being refused and being refused on, I would argue, an arbitrary basis as to whether or not they meet an arbitrary standard that is set up by the person sitting across a desk from them. Now I have not come at this with somewhat of a unique perspective from most of my colleagues, and I will fully admit I am the only Portuguese Member of the House of Representatives, of Portuguese descent. My grandparents immigrated here from Portugal, and I am very proud of that. But I can tell my colleagues that there is a difference between whether or not my relatives can come over on a tourist visa or not, and that does mean something to me and my family, and I think that this is a very important amendment. I think that it is fair. All I am asking my colleagues to do is to allow people to come in for legitimate reasons. We are not talking about illegal immigration. We are not even talking about legal immigration. We are talking about people coming into this country as tourists. We are talking about people coming into this country for legitimate business reasons. That is what we are talking about. How this could possibly explode the illegal immigration into this country? How this could possibly explode terrorism into our country is beyond me, and I fail to follow anyone's logic who tries to make that argument. What I ask my colleagues to do is to support a very simple amendment which would say that we are taking the refusal rate from two people in 100 to three people in 100. That would result in Greece and Portugal being included in the Visa Waiver Program. I ask my colleagues' support.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the Committee for 2 minutes.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1534 and compliment my colleague, Mr. Gallegly, on bringing this long overdue legislation to the floor today. H.R. 1534 will greatly increase the ability of landowners in this country to protect their basic civil and constitutional rights. The fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no private property shall be taken for a public use without the payment of just compensation. We have seen an increasing disregard by various levels of government for this fundamental civil right. As chairman of the ESA Task Force of the Committee on Resources in the 104th Congress, I held hearings around the country on how the Endangered Species Act has impacted private property owners. The task force found that our Government often declares private property to be habitat for various species, with little if any concern about how that impacts the legal right of the landowners. We tried to address this problem by setting up a system of administrative appeals and arbitration to insure that landowners are promptly and fairly compensated when the needs of wildlife are placed above the needs of individual landowners. The response by the Government and environmental groups was that we should simply let the courts resolve these problems. The Environmental Defense Fund, the National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club. These are the groups leading the opposition to H.R. 1534. Have any of these groups ever professed their faith in the abilities of local officials to make land use decisions? No. In fact, they have always taken the exact opposite position, that Federal environmental programs like the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and Superfund have to be run in Washington. In their eyes, local officials are not capable of protecting the health and environment of the areas they represent. Why the sudden change of heart? Why are these environmental groups and their supporters in Congress now posing as champions of States' rights and local decision-making? Because they don't want individual property owners to have fifth amendment rights protected. The existing system of expensive and time-consuming delays serves their purpose--allowing them to control land use without having to consider the right of property owners. The Natural Resources Defense Council opposes H.R. 1534 out of fear that it could lead to more Federal lawsuits, burdening the Federal courts. Since when have they been concerned about flooding the courts, except when it is their own right to flood the courts. Who has abused the Federal court process more than the environmental movement? Why should we listen to their pleas to stop property owners from asserting their constitutional rights in Federal court when they have spent the last 30 years trying to expand their own access to Federal courts? The argument is intended to confuse and distract from the real issue at hand--that the constitutional rights of property owners across America are being eroded by expanding land use regulations imposed by all levels of government. H.R. 1534 doesn't attack local government-- they are already required to follow the Constitution. H.R. 1534 is a procedural bill--it simply helps people with Federal claims that are already in Federal court to get a hearing on the facts of their case without having to wait 10 years for the privilege. Opponents of H.R. 1534 like the obstacles and hurdles that keep people from having access to courts to defend their fifth amendment rights because they know if the delay is long enough, the small property owners cannot afford to fight them anymore. This is wrong. Vote for H.R. 1534 and support the rights of property owners. Everyone should be treated equally under the Constitution, even property owners.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Basically what we have here is the age-old debate, the debate of whether or not we have power to the government or power to the people. We get down to this basic debate many times over different issues, especially over private property issues. Whether the argument is to protect the power that the government controls over its citizens at the Federal level, the State level, or the local level, that is a debate that we continually hear from this particular side on this issue. They want to maintain that power over the citizenry. On the other side of this issue what we have is people who are arguing in favor of the private property owner, of the individual citizen, of the individual that we all represent. I think that that is one of the important distinctions in this debate. The importance of this underlying legislation is an attempt to give private property owners their so-called day in court. That is the effort that is being made. I admit that this bill does not go as far as I would like it to. I admit that the underlying legislation is a moderate attempt to achieve a very worthwhile goal. The Boehlert amendment guts even a moderate attempt to try to achieve that.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, Madam Speaker, we are considering H.R. 1789, the reauthorization of the dairy indemnity program. H.R. 1789 was introduced by the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Charlie Stenholm], and I am glad to be an original cosponsor. In the overall scheme scheme of things, the dairy indemnity program is a modest undertaking which reimburses dairymen when they are directed to remove their products from the market because of harmful residues occurring through no fault of the producer or the processors. Although this may be a small program, it can be vitally important to some of America's dairymen facing possible bankruptcy. Since 1964, the dairy indemnity program was routinely reauthorized without much notice or attention. Unfortunately, it seems that after the smoke cleared from deliberations of the last farm bill, this program had been overlooked, since no action was taken to reauthorize it. The recent rise in aflatoxin contamination in several States, however, has refocused attention on the need for this program. Therefore, H.R. 1789, which itself spends no money, would simply provide the authorization for this important program, which has quietly helped dairymen in trouble for over 20 years. At a time when our dairy industry is facing major challenges and restructuring, I would hope that we could continue to authorize and support this as a fair and equitable program. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1789) to reauthorize the dairy indemnity program.

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

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1789, the bill just passed.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and there are a number of reasons why. I think importantly, if we look at the issue of taxpayer funding and the whole issue of foreign aid, we are in a period of time where we are declining the amount of money that we are going to spend, and I support that. I think that we should spend less money on foreign aid than we currently are. But then we have to look at, if we are going to spend money, what are we going to spend it on? I would argue that we should spend it on programs that have proven to be successful. This program happens to be one of the few that has proven to be extremely successful. Mr. Chairman, I recently had the opportunity to visit Africa and to visit one of these CAMPFIRE sites. I was amazed at how little I actually knew about how this CAMPFIRE Program worked, until I was there on the ground and had the opportunity to see it. We get this romantic vision of what it is like from TV, and we think the big game hunter is going out there and hunting elephants and all this stuff. It is not like that. There are people living in huts who have to erect big fences around their houses to keep the elephants out. They are terrified that these elephants are going to kill them. Some wonder why then we have declining numbers of elephants in Africa. It is because the people did not care about them. They were killing their children, they were destroying their farmland, there was no economic incentive, there was no social incentive for them to maintain a high number of elephants. So then we had to come up with a program that actually would give them that financial incentive and social incentive to protect those elephants, and this program was devised where a limited number of elephants would be hunted and it would bring money into these communities. Then all of a sudden we saw the numbers, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] said earlier, we saw the numbers go from 44,000 to 67,000 in Zimbabwe alone. And why? Because there was an economic incentive. There was a social incentive for them to protect these elephants. Now, all of a sudden, instead of looking the other way when a poacher came in and shot an elephant, they went after the poacher. They wanted to keep them out because these elephants were important to them. I had the opportunity to visit a school while I was over there. It was a little three-room school, but those people were so proud of that school. How did they pay for it? They do not have any money. The average income is $400 a year. How did they pay for the school? They paid for it with moneys that came from this CAMPFIRE Program. They paid for it with the help that we were able to give them. We saw wells that were put in, and for the first time these people had fresh drinking water out of a well. These things were important to them. They may seem like everyday life to us, but when we are looking at the outback of Africa, these were very important issues to them. I want to talk a few minutes about endangered species and about the program that was created. The program that was created in this circumstance created an economic incentive for these people to promote more African elephants. They were hugely successful at it. If you want to look at our endangered species program, you can see everything that we are doing wrong. We want to look at some of the good ideas that have come out of this program and we look at a way of conserving our wildlife that I think we have something to learn from. It has been hugely successful. I have also heard Members talk about the CAMPFIRE Program somehow promoting the illegal trade and poaching of elephants and ivory. There is nothing that could be further from the truth because what this has done has stopped the illegal poaching of elephants in these areas, areas where we still have illegal trade, and illegal poaching of elephants and ivory are coming from the areas where they do not have this program. So if we want to do what is right for the wildlife, it is to vote against this amendment because this program has been successful. If we want to do what is right for the people of Africa, we have to vote against this amendment. We have heard earlier in the debate Members talk about the idea of getting away from hunting and getting into photographic safaris and ecotourism, and they are doing that. In fact, while I was there, I had the opportunity to visit one of the sites where they were conducting the photographic safaris, and in the safaris they had several camps that were set up and it was like a mini hotel that they had to set up. And they had to bring in fresh water and they had to bring in sewer facilities and they had to somehow develop an electrical system, all of this in the name of conducting a photographic safari. And if you contrast that with the hunters that come in where you pitch a tent out in the middle of nowhere, what is best for the environment? The development of a hotel on the edge of a river somewhere so people can come in and take pictures of the animals, or a small tent that is set up and the people do not do any destruction to the environment at all? But they are getting into the photographic safaris and in the future, maybe some day, that will be a major source of income for them. They would like to see it go into that and have a greater income and diversify. But currently that is not there, and 90 percent of the money that is coming in from this is coming in from the hunts. If we do away with that, we have killed the program. And whether our intention is to kill the program or not, that is exactly what we are doing is killing the program. I think that even though I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] had good intentions going into this, I believe that there were some mistakes made. I believe that this is going in the opposite direction of what we need to do. I think this is the kind of program we need to look at and learn from, of some of the right things to do and the wrong things to do.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] a member of the committee.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, to start off with, I would like to clear up a little bit about what this amendment is all about. First of all, neither I nor the city of Galt is opposed to affordable housing. As a city councilman, I worked hard to establish affordable housing in the city of Tracy, which I had the pleasure of representing. Also, the city of Galt itself has participated directly in financing of low- to very low- income housing within their city limits. The city of Galt, which is located in my district, is in a unique and critical situation. They have developed a financial plan to pay for their infrastructure within their city, to pay for their schools, to pay for their roads, their sewer system, their water system. A lot of that was based upon the housing that was going to be developed within their city. Unfortunately, they have run into a problem. Part of that problem is the fact that they are now making up 70 percent of the rural housing and community development service loans within the Sacramento region. The reason that that has become a problem is that the Sacramento region, Sacramento County is made up of 1.1 million people. The city of Galt is made up of 16,000 people, and yet they are being asked to absorb 70 percent of these low-income developments into their city. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the question has come up about whether or not they are trying to keep affordable housing out of their city. I will just point out to my colleagues that the city of Galt currently is made up of 67 percent affordable housing, according to Sacramento County Assessor's Office.