Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We need to reject this amendment and strike the rider. The language needs to be stricken because its effect, to put it very bluntly, would be perverse. This language would put land in newly created national monuments in a state of limbo. The lands would remain national monuments; but the design, the planning and management necessary to fully protect the lands and to make them accessible could not be accomplished. Who could possibly gain from keeping lands in this sort of halfway- house condition? Nobody. Not those who want to preserve the environmental value of the lands. The prohibition in this rider would block the planning and management needed to protect the environmental and cultural values that prompted the monumental designation. Not those who want recreational access to the lands. The prohibition in this rider would prevent the development of programs or centers to enable the public to take greater advantage of the lands. Not even those who have mineral or other economic interests in these lands. The prohibition in this rider would prevent the development of rules and policies that would determine how to handle their claims. So why would anyone propose a rider that cannot help anyone concerned about national monuments and a rider that would cause this entire bill to be vetoed to boot? The reason is that the proponents of this rider want to signal their opposition to the 1906 Antiquities Act itself and with the particular monument designations that have been made this year. But they have plenty of other ways to do that directly. The Congress could amend the Antiquities Act. The Congress could override any particular monument designation. The Congress could reject any particular management plan for a monument. Congress has all the direct authority it needs to have a full debate about lands policy. But they do not want to do that because Congress has repeatedly shown its unwillingness to significantly alter with monument authority or designation. So, instead, we have a rider to try to do it in an indirect and inartful way through the appropriations process which could not be done through direct congressional action; namely, derail efforts to protect Federal lands through the use of the Antiquities Act. That is a misuse of the appropriations process, and it is especially misguided in this case because the direct impact of the language is so counterproductive. So I urge my colleagues not to turn the discussions on this rider into a debate over the legitimacy of the Antiquities Act or the wisdom of any particular monument designation. If Congress wants to weigh in on these matters, it can and should do so directly. In any event, the rider leaves the act and all recent proclamations entirely intact. This debate should be about the specific language in the rider which will leave the status of the land in an uncertain State which would hobble efforts to protect Federal lands and which would improperly take advantage of the appropriations process. It is a bad rider, and it should be stricken. I urge a no vote on the Hansen amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) wants to aid some valuable programs, programs I hope will indeed gain additional funding as the appropriations process moves forward, but he wants to fund them by totally eliminating another valuable program, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, and therefore I must oppose the amendment. Opponents of the partnership attack the program as corporate welfare, but that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Federal Research Enterprise and its history. The Federal Government funds a wide variety of research at universities, at Federal labs, and sometimes even in corporate labs, that will help American industry over the long term but that market forces would prevent the private sector from investing adequately in the short term. To take one prominent example, the Federal Government spends billions of dollars on research through the National Institutes of Health, research that helps hugely wealthy, multinational pharmaceutical companies develop new methods and products, but few attack this as corporate welfare. Indeed during yesterday's appropriation debate, Members were tripping over each other trying to claim to be the most ardent supporter of NIH funding and with good reason. Well, the research being funded through PNGV on cleaner more efficient yet affordable transportation will also have a major impact on our Nation's health, and on our national security and is even less likely to be fully funded by the private sector than drug research is, and yet this program is under attack. Maybe that is because this is technology and engineering research rather than something that seems more like pure science, but funding such research is nothing new. Back in the 19th century, the Federal Government offered money to promote the development of the railroads and at the beginning of the 20th century the Federal Government set up programs to help develop civilian aviation. The government continues to pump money into aviation research and into space technology, which can be used by the private sector. In short, the kind of government involvement in technology represented by the PNGV is nothing new and it has always been a good idea. Given the impact of the transportation sector on our economy, on our energy use and on our environment, PNGV is a particularly wise investment. I hope my colleagues will look past the simplistic slogan of corporate welfare and will instead consider the government's historic and necessary role in filling the gaps in R&D left by market failure. PNGV is a well-run program that deserves continued support. I urge opposition to the Sununu amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3605. Mr. Chairman, I have negotiated with the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) to prepare some amendments that will further clarify and improve the bill. But even in its current form, I support the general thrust of the bill, as does the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, with whom we have been in contact this morning. H.R. 3605 is the product of lengthy negotiations between local officials in Utah and officials of the Department of the Interior, including, as I mentioned, Secretary Babbitt. These two sets of officials, representing local and national interests, agreed to wade into a protracted and politically thorny set of land use issues to put aside years of acrimony, to break a draining, pointless, ideological stalemate by working out practical, helpful compromises. And to just about everyone's amazement, they succeeded. I believe these local and Federal officials of both political parties deserve to be rewarded for their success, not snubbed. The negotiations that produced this bill should be a precedent for resolving land use disputes. That does not mean that every dispute will be resolved or that every resolution will merit congressional support. But thoughtful, carefully worked out resolutions like this one concerning the San Rafael Swell have earned our support. Does this bill successfully dispose of every issue the way I would most prefer? No, of course not. But this is a case where an old congressional saying is quite appropriate: ``Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.'' To those who believe that more land should be protected more fully than this bill allows, I say there is nothing in the bill that would block consideration of further land protection at a later date. But this bill will protect the bulk of the San Rafael Swell right now. To those who want greater restrictions on off-highway vehicles, I say the management plan or later laws can impose even further limitations. But this bill will codify significant restrictions on off-highway vehicle use right now. So we need to act right now to increase the protections for the San Rafael area. That is good for the environment. The amendments I have worked out will make the bill better for the environment by expanding the boundaries of the conservation area, clarifying the restrictions on off-highway vehicles and ensuring that land in the conservation area remains at least as protected as it is right now. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3605 as a bipartisan step forward in protecting our lands in the West for all Americans.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that has been negotiated with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). The amendment would expand the boundaries of the San Rafael Conservation Area to include parts of the Factory Butte and Muddy Creek areas in Wayne County. These are areas that, appropriately, environmental groups have been most interested in protecting and so am I, and thus this amendment. I know that some Members and outside groups would like to include even more terrain in the Conservation Area. But this is the most we can get right now without destroying the fragile coalition that reached the agreement that is embodied in this bill. There is nothing in the bill that prejudices or prevents any decision to add further territory later on. So I urge support for this amendment, which will extend the protection of this bill to two key scenic areas. Let us make the San Rafael Conservation Area as large as we can right now for the protection of the environment and the enjoyment of all Americans. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would ensure that the conservation area results in more, not less, protection for the land within its borders. That is the whole point of this bill, after all. Of particular concern are the so-called 202 lands, lands that are not now wilderness study areas, but are being considered for that designation. My amendment includes two provisions to ensure that such lands and other lands outside the WSAs are strongly protected. First, my amendment makes clear that lands within the conservation area are to be managed in at least as protective a manner as they are right now, pending completion of the management plan. Second, my amendment clearly states Congress's intent that the management plan overall only strengthen existing land protections. We have to allow some latitude for the management plan, or there is no point in developing it. But the burden of proof will be on those who want to weaken protections for any portion of the conservation area, and the overall plan must at least maintain the current level of protection. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), my friend with whom I have so often worked closely in partnership, would like to go a step further and give more land WSA status, and that may indeed be something we should do at a later date, but this bill is designed to move the ball forward without raising new wilderness issues. My amendment should guarantee that land in the conservation area is more protected than ever before. Let me stress that. My amendment should guarantee that land in the conservation area is more protected than ever before. Let us save for another day, without prejudice, the question of how much more of that land should be WSAs or wilderness. Let us provide further protection now, without undermining the progress embodied in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, a key concern that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and I share is continuing the protection of the so-called 202 lands. My amendment says that the 202 areas must continue to be managed at least as strictly as they are now. My concern about going further, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) does, is that it will destroy a very delicate and very carefully crafted agreement, and we will get nothing.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, yes.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it says to the BLM to study it and if there is any indication it is degrading to the environment, they should proceed to close it.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that of the many, many routes included, only four, as the gentleman correctly observed, are covered here. But we specifically and explicitly codify the regulatory authority of the Secretary to block motorized use that would degrade or is degrading environmental resources. Moreover, in the Federal Register, I would point out this phrase: ``These routes will remain open on a conditional basis. Motorized use of these routes will be allowed to continue contingent upon the success of a rehabilitation and monitoring plan designed to restore areas to nonimpairment conditions and prevent further travel off of these predescribed routes.''

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have completed my thoughts, but I just want stress to one and all that this is a very fragile, carefully crafted agreement which has been signed onto by the Secretary of the Interior, with whom we have been in touch just this morning. We are not foreclosing any options. Once again, we have worked so well in the past, and I look forward to working continually in the future as well. We are not foreclosing any options. We may revisit this and say we have to do more, but let us not put at risk this carefully crafted compromise. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct, it would include the areas covered in this bill. It is the same as Udall, is my understanding.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, once again, tries to seek the sensible middle ground. It protects the area. It does not foreclose options for the future. It also does not jeopardize a very fragile, carefully crafted agreement, which has been endorsed by the Secretary of the Interior. As we address the subject of off-highway vehicles, the amendment would make clear that the management plan cannot supersede existing prohibitions or Secretarial authority concerning motorized vehicle use. The amendment explicitly codifies the road closures and wilderness study areas that the Bureau of Land Management announced in March. And the amendment explicitly codifies the Secretary's regulatory authority to block motorized use that would degrade or is degrading environmental resources. Let me repeat that because it is worth emphasis. The amendment explicitly codifies the Secretary's regulatory authority to block motorized use that would degrade or is degrading environmental resources. These provisions will strengthen the BLM's ability to block off- highway vehicle use in the conservation area. The amendment does not automatically close all roads to OHV use, as the Holt amendment would. The management plan required by the bill could close all the roads, but doing so today would undermine the agreement that brought forward this bill. That agreement is necessary to ensure that off-highway vehicle restrictions are truly enforced. So I urge support for my amendment that would strengthen OHV limitations but would not put in place restrictions that cannot yet be enforced.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have a high regard for the gentleman, as he well knows. We are not foreclosing any options. We are saying, very simply, we are making it clear that lands within the conservation area are to be managed in at least as protective a manner as they are right now. Secondly, we are stating clearly Congress' intent that the management plan overall only strengthen existing land protections. This can be revisited later. We may well be on the same page when we do so.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, only where the BLM has allowed that.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4392, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001. The intelligence agencies has been struggling to meet the many demands for information arising from chaos that reigns in much of the world, the conflicts that flare up in far flung corners, the unprecedented level of diverse U.S. military deployments, and a foreign policy that is often unclear. For the national agencies, this bill provides only a small amount above the President's request, to help our intelligence agencies meet these challenges. One of the prime beneficiaries in the bill is the CIA. The CIA, contrary to popular belief, claims only a small percentage of the overall intelligence budget. I have become particularly interested in the challenges faced by Human Intelligence, or ``HUMINT,'' as we on the Intelligence Committee call it. Although human beings--spies, if you prefer--are expensive, studies have shown that the money devoted to them is well spent, and that their productivity holds up well against that of the expensive technical systems receiving the lion's share of the intelligence budget. It may be old-fashioned, but it works. We may constantly be pushing for sophisticated and expensive new technology, but there is no substitute for the eyes and ears of human beings on the ground. I have made a point to speak and more importantly to listen, to our operatives abroad. Like others on the committee, I have heard the consistent theme that there are very limited operational funds. If you want to recruit people to your cause, you need to get out there and meet them, earn their trust and then entice them into the fold. Unfortunately, as our committee report states ``contingency operations'' have taken money from CIA espionage ``limiting our efforts to rebuild our eyes and ears around the world.'' Last year, the committee made sizable increases to operational funds, only to find that these were taxed within CIA to support other underfunded but, from our perspective, low priority, activities. When we checked this spring, the committee found a lot more ``tail'' but little more ``tooth.'' We let it be known that we were most displeased. This year, we are trying again. To say the least, we will be watching the ledgers with an eagle eye. And committee members will be double checking out in the field as well. Out there in the trenches, they also need a lot more language training. Indeed, this is a chronic deficiency throughout most of the Intelligence Community. This year, I was most pleased to work with my colleague across the aisle, Representative Roemer, to increase funds for language training. Our people in the field need to be able to communicate and interpret accurately. This also is an area I intend to pursue in the future. The Intelligence Committee provides very vigorous oversight and has a good track record for finding deficiencies, excesses and problems. We will continue to do our job, and we ask your support for our bill.