Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This will be very quick. The en bloc amendment deals with noncontroversial bipartisan amendments, technical and clarifying. They have been worked out by the ranking minority member. I would like to give special credit to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who helped with the agriculture community to get us to this point. I urge their adoption. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me close by once again thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), all those who worked so hard to make this day a reality. Let me compliment the House of Representatives on this Earth Day 1999. On a bipartisan basis, we have Democrats and Republicans working constructively to develop responsible public policy that will protect the families health and well-being. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) for a closing word.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall).

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill just passed, H.R. 999.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of this body and to the American people one of the greatest examples of responsible corporate citizenship that I have ever come across in my 17 years serving in this great body. Champion Enterprises, a builder of manufactured homes with production operations in my district in Sangerfield, New York, lost its factory last month after a devastating fire destroyed the entire facility. Nothing but ruin and ashes. Two hundred plus workers and their families were left wondering about their future, agonizing over what tomorrow would bring. But in the ultimate act of loyalty to its employees, Champion Enterprises decided not only to rebuild the factory, something that was going to take four or five months, but to continue to pay its employees their full pay plus their benefits until that new facility is built. That means over 200 families do not have to worry about not having enough money to pay their mortgage or make their car payments or feed their children as a result of that devastating fire. This responsible corporate decision is good for the workers, it is good for their families, it is good for the local economy, and it is good for the company as well. It is an act of compassion and, frankly, it represents good business. When I called the chief executive officer, Mr. Walter Young, Jr., to tell him how proud all of us were of that responsible action, he said to me something that was very revealing. He said, ``Disasters test the character of individuals and organizations.'' He told me that he was pleased with the character of his organization and he thanked me for noticing, and I told him all of us are pleased and proud of the character of that organization. The Governor, George Pataki, the Governor of the Empire State, wrote to Jack Ireton-Hewitt, who is the general manager of the Titan Homes Division of Champion, whose plant was destroyed. He said, Like so many New Yorkers, I have followed the news accounts detailing the situation of the employees of your Sangerfield plant which was recently destroyed by a devastating fire. Your admirable actions of the past few weeks not only define the true meanings of corporate citizenship; it refines it, deepens it and amplifies it. Titan Homes' loyalty to its employees in the face of the total destruction of this plant has transformed a tragedy into a reason for celebration. We realize that your parent company, Champion Enterprises-- the Governor went on to say, could have moved this manufacturing operation to any number of its 66 North American plants. But it did not. And let me add parenthetically here, so often we hear tales about corporate citizenship that does not pass the responsible test. When something like this happens, on occasion corporations have been known to try to bid one community against another, threatening to move out unless they are given more, threatening to take the jobs elsewhere to the highest bidder, but not this company. This company said we have dedicated, committed employees, they have an outstanding work ethic, they produce a fine product, and we are going to be loyal to them. It is refreshing to see that loyalty is a two-way street. Let me return to the Governor's letter: Titan Homes' swift action to rebuild and modernize an expanded Sangerfield facility is an encouraging vote of confidence in the Mohawk Valley economy, and will no doubt have positive ramifications on the Waterville-area economy in the coming months and years. Titan Homes' actions reflect more than loyalty to its employees--it's a sound investment in the future and has already been returned in the enduring gratitude of the residents of the Mohawk Valley and the utmost respect from the national business community. We are proud that Titan Homes has been a member of New York's corporate family for more than 25 years. Signed by Governor George Pataki. Let me say once again to one and all, Champion Enterprises has set an example for others to follow. It is a corporation that is concerned with profits, as it should be. That is why people go into business, to make money. But it is also a corporation that demonstrates, day in and day out, that the most important ingredient in any business enterprise is the dedicated men and women who, day in and day out, work to make a success of that business. Congratulations to Champion Enterprise. We salute you. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from Governor George Pataki to Mr. Ireton-Hewitt. State of New York, February 11, 1999. Mr. Jack Ireton-Hewitt, General Manager, Titan Homes Division, Sangerfield, NY. Dear Mr. Ireton-Hewitt: Like so many New Yorkers, I have followed the news accounts detailing the situation of the employees of your Sangerfield plant which was recently destroyed by a devastating fire. Your admirable actions of the past few weeks not only define the true meaning of corporate citizenship; it refines it, deepens it and amplifies it. Titan Homes' loyalty to its employees in the face of the total destruction of this plant has transformed a tragedy into a reason for celebration. We realize that your parent company, Champion Enterprises, could have moved this manufacturing operation to any number of its 66 North American plants. Titan Homes' swift action to rebuild and modernize an expanded Sangerfield facility is an encouraging vote of confidence in the Mohawk Valley economy, and will no doubt have positive ramifications on the Waterville-area economy in the coming months and years. Titan Homes' actions reflect more than loyalty to its employees--it's a sound investment in the future and has already been returned in the enduring gratitude of the residents of the Mohawk Valley and the utmost respect from the national business community. We are proud that Titan Homes has been a member of New York's corporate family for more than 25 years. I thank you for your outstanding commitment to your workforce and wish you every success in your future in the Empire State. Sincerely, George E. Pataki, Governor.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as a result of the action on the last amendment, which passed by the narrowest of margins, we are now confronted with a bill that will indeed create new points of order. I do not think it is a very good idea. But I strongly believe that if we are going to create new points of order, they should be balanced. It is that fundamental sense of fairness that lies behind the Waxman amendment. H.R. 350 would make it more difficult to pass laws that protect health and safety and the environment. If we are going to do that, we ought to create an additional point of order that will make it harder to pass bills that would weaken health and safety and environmental protections. The Waxman amendment would accomplish precisely that. For that reason, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. To be frank, I preferred my approach to remedying this bill. Ideally, the House should not use points of order as a substitute for substantive debate. But my amendment was defeated. And so now we are confronted with a bill that will indeed create new points of order. And the Waxman amendment would have an additional benefit. The amendment would put an end to the use of riders to weaken environmental protections. Under the Waxman amendment, legislative provisions that weaken existing law would be subject to a vote--even if they were stuck in an appropriations bill or conference report. No longer would anti- environmental riders be used to slip through legislation that could not possibly pass if it were considered as a free-standing bill. Now, the House in recent years has kept its riders to a minimum, and I know that that restraint will continue under the Speaker Hastert. But the other body has not always felt so reluctant, and riders have continued to appear in conference reports. I think the new point of order provided by the Waxman amendment will help leadership achieve its goals of keeping riders off spending bills. I urge my colleagues to support this ``Defense of the Environment'' amendment. It will correct the imbalance in H.R. 350. It will end the use of riders to weaken environmental protections. It will ensure that the House has open and thorough debate on measures that would weaken laws and rules that protect the public.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is exactly the purpose of my amendment. The base bill would limit debate; my amendment would expand debate. The base bill would terminate discussion; my amendment would continue discussion. Of course we have to factor in the cost to industry, but we also have to factor in the benefits to public health, to the environment, to all these very important things. That is why organizations like the American Lung Association are so much in support of my amendment, because they want this open discussion on what the implications are of our actions on the public's health. Every family wants to know how it is going to affect that family. Of course we have to consider the cost to industry, but we also have to consider the benefit to public health for the American families.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules just said from the well that this bill will enhance the awareness of the cost of the bill without in any way compromising or adversely affecting environmental, public health or safety considerations. Let me suggest that I share his goal in enhancing awareness of the cost of the bill, but the bill is sadly deficient in terms of the potential benefits, and that is why every environmental public health and safety organization is strongly endorsing my amendment. They want more debate, not less. They want to continue discussion, not terminate it. That is what this is all about: full, open, and fair debate. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by explaining what this amendment would actually do because I think there has been a lot of confusion. Under my amendment, Members could still raise a point of order against bills, resolutions, amendments, and conference reports if they would cost the private sector more than $100 million, which is the threshold in current law. Under my amendment, the Chair would rule on the point of order. Just as with most points of order in the House, there would be an objective ruling. The point of order would be sustained if the Congressional Budget Office had scored the measure as costing more than $100 million or if CBO had not scored the measure. That eliminates one flaw in the bill, which allows someone to claim that a measure would cost more than $100 million even if CBO has scored it otherwise, because the bill requires no evidence at all to raise the point of order. Under my amendment, if the point of order is sustained, 20 additional minutes to debate on the bill or amendment themselves is added to whatever debate would have occurred under the rule. This is the crux of the matter. Under my amendment the point of order is used to provide for additional debate, while under the bill the purpose of the point of order is to cut off debate. I fail to see how having less debate will lead to better-informed decisions. So again, here is what my amendment would do. First, it would accomplish every stated goal of the bill. Section 3 of the bill says its purposes are to provide Congress with more complete information on mandates, ensure more focused deliberation on mandates, and to help distinguish between helpful and harmful mandates. All are most worthy objectives. By allowing a point of order that focuses debate on private-sector cost and adds debate time to discuss those costs, my amendment does exactly what the bill and its supporters have been calling for. But unlike the bill, my amendment does not allow debate to be short- circuited. Unlike the bill, my amendment will not mean the end of truly open rules. Unlike the bill, my amendment does not give industry a procedural trump denied to its consumers, its communities, and its employees. And unlike the bill, my amendment does not change the rules of the House to unfairly favor one side of an argument. Openness and fairness, that is what my amendment is all about. Now, I already know all too well what kind of arguments we are going to hear in response to this amendment, so let me deal with them one by one. First, we are going to hear that this amendment would gut the bill. That is an old saw trotted out every time. Again, the bill still has a point of order against private mandates on all types of measures and it provides for more focused, better- informed debate. Every stated goal of the bill has been addressed. What those who charge us with gutting the bill really mean is that the bill will no longer bias the rules of the House, a goal they have not exactly been trumpeting. Second, we are going to hear that our amendment somehow does not require the House to be accountable for its actions. This is an odd one. Under my amendment, we still will vote on each and every bill and amendment that comes before the House, and will do so after having had fuller debate than provided for in H.R. 350. Look at the bills that are at stake in this debate: Minimum wage. Health protections. Environmental protections. Does any Member feel they have not been accountable for their vote on these issues? When they make this accountability argument, the proponents are claiming, in effect, that somehow the House has escaped accountability for the past 210 years because we have lacked this new point of order. Does anyone really accept that? What proponents really mean when they say we have not been accountable is that they do not always like the way the votes have turned out. If Members oppose measures that impose costs on industry, they ought to vote against them. If Members oppose individual provisions in bills, they ought to offer amendments and force votes on those provisions. That is how the Constitution makes us accountable. What we ought not do is change the rules of the House to favor one side of a debate that has not been able to prevail every time they wanted to under normal procedures. This is also what proponents mean when they say that our amendment does not have any teeth. I always say, when someone tells us their bill has teeth, who are they trying to bite? The teeth in H.R. 350 are a vote that is designed to do one thing and only one thing, shut down debate on any measure that someone claims will cost industry money.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the teeth in H.R. 350 are a vote that is designed to do one thing and only one thing, and that is to shut down debate on any measure that someone claims will cost industry money, regardless of the evidence on cost, regardless of the benefits, regardless of the public purpose to be served, regardless of whether some companies support the measure. Our amendment has teeth in the sense that it will accomplish its intended goal: creating more debate, creating more debate on alleged private-sector mandates. But our amendment will not try to injure those who support protections for the environment, for public health and public safety. Again, I urge Members to read the bill. The vote in the bill is needed because there are no objective criteria for determining the validity of their point of order and because, without the vote, one side will not be able to intimidate the other. Mr. Chairman, the details of this debate are complex but the basic questions it raises are simple. First, does the House want to have more debate and better-informed debate and better-focused debate on private mandates? If the answer to that is yes, and I think it is, then Members should support the Boehlert amendment because that is exactly what we provide. Second, does the House want to change the fundamental rules of the House so that in every case there is a presumption that laws to protect the environment, and health, and public safety are a bad idea? I think the answer to that is no, and that is why my amendment is needed. H.R. 350, Mr. Chairman, would quite simply change the rules of the House so that any law that might cost any industry more than $100 million would face extra hurdles to passage and would get less debate regardless of any other consideration. Finally, H.R. 350 is a bill that biases House procedures to an extent that would even have made gilded age legislators blush. I think the House ought to have free, fair and open debate, and that is what the Boehlert amendment would ensure, and I urge its passage.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 350. Let me start by affirming that I support the goals of this bill. Those purposes are laid out in section 3 of the bill. They are, and this is from the actual text of the bill, providing more complete information about the effects of private mandates, ensuring focused deliberation on those effects, and distinguishing between mandates that harm consumers, workers and small businesses and mandates that help those groups. How could one not support those goals? I am being specific about the stated purposes of the bill because I will offer an amendment next week, and that is when we are going to continue deliberations, designed specifically to accomplish those goals. But what I want to focus on today is why H.R. 350 in its current form in many ways is at odds with those goals, and indeed at odds with fundamental notions of fairness that should govern this House. H.R. 350 would undermine the fairness of House procedures and fail to achieve its goals because it is based on numerous faulty assumptions. Let me enumerate some of them. The bill assumes that radically reducing the time to debate a bill or amendment will somehow provide Congress with more information. After all, the bill creates a point of order designed to cut off debate before it would end under normal House procedures. I fail to see how short debate will yield more information. The bill assumes that baseless assertions, gut feelings, hunches, can provide useful information for congressional decision-making. After all, H.R. 350 requires no evidence at all to raise the point of order. A Member could claim that a bill was going to cost industry a lot of money, even if the Congressional Budget Office had determined otherwise. So we are not going to be dealing with the facts as presented by the Congressional Budget Office if they do not coincide with the opinion of the person raising the point of order, we are going to be dealing with his gut feeling, his hunch; not a very good idea. I fail to see how assertions that are not grounded in evidence will improve debate. The bill assumes that more informed debate means that Congress should be more concerned with costs than benefits. After all, the only place the bill mentions benefits is in one finding that suggests that Congress has paid too much attention to benefits. I fail to see how favoring one side of the cost-benefit ratio will improve our decisions. The bill assumes that up to this point, Congress has never fully considered or debated the potential cost of its actions on industry. After all, that is why proponents of H.R. 350 say it is needed. Yet, look at the examples they give, such as minimum wage. Has Congress debated the minimum wage without discussing its potential cost? Of course not. I fail to see why we need to solve a problem that simply does not exist. The bill assumes that up to this point industry has not been able to get its views heard on Capitol Hill. After all, why else would H.R. 350 provide industry with a legislative tool that would be denied to its consumers, communities, and employees? I fail to see any evidence that industry has not had the commitment and personnel and financial resources to get its point of view heard. That is as it should be. We should consider industry's point of view, but how about everybody else? What about all those consumers that are impacted by decisions that industry makes? The bill assumes that it is fair to skew House rules so those on one side of an issue can stifle the voices on the other side. After all, that is the effect of the point of order. Those supporting measures designed to protect the environment, to protect health, to protect safety, could have debate on their proposals short-circuited by this new point of order. I fail to see why that is either fair or necessary. No bill based on such faulty assumptions should be passed by this House. If we want to provide fuller and more accurate information for congressional debate and ensure that Congress has more focused debate on costs, we can do so without stifling debate, as my amendment will demonstrate. H.R. 350 in its current form will not lead to more or better informed debate in this House. Rather, it will cripple our ability to fair, full, open, and democratic debate. That is something that should trouble every Member of this body. Remember, the issue here is not whether to support a particular private mandate, but whether we will have open debate on private mandates. I look forward to presenting my amendment next week, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill in its current form.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, but in strong opposition to the underlying bill. I support the rule wholeheartedly because it is an open rule, a rule that will allow full, free and democratic debate; a rule that will allow issues to be aired and all points of view to be heard. That is a way of doing business that all Members can support and that the American people can be proud of. My complaint about H.R. 350 is that it would end precisely the kind of open process that is governing its own consideration. With H.R. 350, there would never truly be an open rule again on a bill that affects industry. I am not exaggerating. An open rule means unlimited debate on every amendment. Yet, under H.R. 350, if any private interest opposed a bill, a Member could raise a point of order that could limit debate to a mere 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side. Raising the point of order requires not a shred of evidence, no evidence at all, just a mere assertion. You can say, ``I have got a gut feeling,'' or ``I have got a hunch,'' and that would trigger a point of order that would severely restrict debate and terminate it after only 10 minutes of argument on each side of the equation, 600 seconds. That is not a very good idea. The point of order is targeted at shutting down debate on measures that industry opposes, overriding whatever time has been allocated by the Committee on Rules. I think the Committee on Rules does an outstanding job, and I want to compliment my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, and the distinguished new chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). These gentlemen do us proud in that Committee on Rules, and it is a pleasure to come up and testify before you and have the thoughtful deliberative process that goes on up there. I want that same thoughtful deliberative process here on the floor, not terminating debate after only 10 minutes, 600 seconds, on a wide ranging, sweeping measure that is going to impact a lot of people for a long time. I will remind my colleagues again of an example that I have used many times of how this could work. In 1995 a substitute was offered to the proposed Clean Water Act, a very important bill for America. The substitute was defeated, but the House had more than a day-and-a-half of spirited debate, debate that helped frame environmental issues for the rest of the year, debate that fully discussed the cost and benefits of clean water legislation, debate that aired every possible point of view. And that is what we should do in the people's House, air every possible point of view. We should encourage additional information, not restrict the input of information. Under H.R. 350, a Member opposed to the substitute could have raised a point of order that would have carried the day and shut down debate after only 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side, 600 seconds. Not a very good idea. Would the American people have been better served by a truncated debate? Would more information have been presented? Would any interested party have had more time to get their point of view across? Of course not. The stated goal of this bill is to provide Congress with more information on the cost of private mandates, and that is a goal I support. But you cannot provide the House with more information by having less debate. It just does not make sense. Now, I know the sponsors of the bill will argue that we cannot know for sure that events back in 1995 would have unfolded in just the way I outlined. But I ask them, if the point of order would have not been raised against a substitute in a very visible debate in which industry is investing time and money and has the votes to shut down debate, then when would it be used? Mr. Speaker, I will save the rest of my comments for general debate. I just want to make one final point: The debate over H.R. 350 is not about whether Congress should pass this or that private mandate. I do not like mandates, and I find particularly distasteful unfunded mandates. But this debate is about whether we will have fair procedures during debates over those mandates. I think debate on private mandates should be just as free, just as fair, just as full, just as open and just as democratic as the debate we will have on H.R. 350 itself. I urge support for this well-crafted open rule, and support for the amendment that I will offer to repair H.R. 350.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) in introducing the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1999. This widely-supported bipartisan legislation passed the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure last year, after months of hearings and review by the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, which I am privileged to chair. Similar legislation moved through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The 106th Congress should give priority consideration to the Disaster Mitigation Act. The introduced bill, essentially unchanged from the bill the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported last year, H.R. 3869, amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize a program for predisaster mitigation, to streamline the administration of disaster relief, and to control the Federal cost of disaster assistance. The two themes of the bill, greater emphasis on mitigation and greater program efficiency, will reduce the cost and suffering natural disasters place on communities and the Nation overall. Improving our Nation's outdated flood plain maps is a prime example of an area where new technologies can save us millions of dollars. Computerized mapping makes eminent fiscal sense, and may ultimately save thousands of lives. Boy, that is a double-header worthy of strong, strong support. I look forward to working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and State and local governments and other public and private sector entities and citizens to continue the effort to make disaster mitigation a national priority. It makes far more sense to take action prior to a disaster to minimize the negative impact of that disaster. That makes so much more sense than to do what we have been doing year after year after year: A disaster comes, there is so much suffering, our hearts are pulled at, and we obviously respond. That is what government needs to do, but far better to minimize the impact before the disaster than to react to the disaster after it has occurred. I am particularly pleased about the prospects of working with the chairwoman, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Tillie Fowler) and the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jim Traficant) on the new Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Emergency Management, which has jurisdiction over the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Jurisdiction has been transferred from my subcommittee to the subcommittee of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). I have already had extensive conversations with her. She is very much in support of this effort. I look forward to working with her. I think it is going to be a productive partnership, and it is going to be bipartisan, Mr. Speaker. My hope is that the legislation reported by the committee last year and reintroduced today by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) and me will help the subcommittee as it reviews FEMA programs and considers legislation to improve the Nation's approach to disasters.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of that enduring document, the Constitution that has stood the test of time. When this debate is concluded, I will reluctantly vote for at least one article to impeach President Clinton. I make this announcement with profound sorrow, and with deep concern about the consequences for our country, but, in the final analysis, with firm conviction that this is the only fitting and proper course for me to take. This has been by far the most difficult, even tormenting, decision I have had to make in my 16 years in Congress. I have spent a great deal of time assuring myself that in this case we are using the Constitution as a shield, not a sword. The purpose of impeachment is to protect the institutions of our Government--and through them, the people--not to attack or punish a particular political figure. I am convinced that in this case we do indeed need impeachment as a shield to protect the integrity of our institutions. I simply have not found the means to rationalize away the fact that our President lied under oath; that he has tried repeatedly to game the judicial system. Whatever the origins of this case, whatever the motives of his questioners, the President had an obligation--a legal and Constitutional obligation--to tell the truth under oath. No voter ever elected to exempt the President from the demands of our system or to weaken the Judiciary established in Article III of the Constitution. I regularly visit high schools in my district, and I keep asking myself, ``How am I to answer the high school student who asks me why he was expelled for cheating, or what do I say to the average citizen who is punished for lying in a court proceeding or the West Point cadet who must live under the honor code?'' The answers I come up with all seem like thin and transparent excuses that would appease no one, least of all me. And let me say that this is not about determining whether the President has been sufficiently contrite, although contrition is certainly in order. Congress was not established as a body of clerics or therapists. This is about how to keep a system intact that is based on law and trust, a system that cannot countenance attacks on those foundations regardless of how sorry one is after having been found out. Much time has been spent during this prolonged ordeal comparing the situation to Watergate, only for most to conclude correctly that the two scandals have little in common. But they do have one aspect in common that I think has been overlooked. In a rare moment of personal insight, Richard Nixon concluded that he had destroyed himself by hating his enemies back. I am afraid that President Clinton fell into the same, all too human, trap. Blinded by his contempt for people who he thought were out to get him, the President forgot his larger obligations to his Office, to the Constitution and to the American people. He let his personal feelings interfere with fulfilling his Constitutional obligations. In making my decision, I have tried hard to put personal feelings and political concerns aside and to focus solely on my Constitutional obligation. And I have come to the difficult, heart wrenching, almost unbearably sad conclusion that I am obligated to vote to impeach the President.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in expressing my unqualified support for our troops as they undertake this important mission. I cannot overstate my admiration for our troops as they put their lives on the line to make the world safer for all. Saddam Hussein is a threat to many nations, as the President made clear last night, and we must make sure that his ambitions are contained and his capabilities limited. This is a time when Americans must come together. This mission is a logical and justified step in an American policy that began during the Bush Administration. Having been briefed on the incidents that led up to this mission, I have faith that our military and political leaders-- those with the best information--have made an appropriate and entirely defensible decision. And I applaud the willingness of the British to join us, which underscores the military and political credibility of the mission. We must put aside partisan and other divisions now. I agree wholeheartedly with Speaker-Elect Livingston's decision to postpone the impeachment debate. We need to pause, take in the magnitude of what has been happening, and support our troops. I believe that is what the House is now doing and I hope all Americans will follow suit.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 13, 1998 it was my privilege to share in a special retirement ceremony for one of the finest, most decent, most caring, sharing individuals I have ever known. On that day, in Philadelphia, local, state, and national leaders joined in honoring Jack Corrigan upon the occasion of his retirement after Nearly 30 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration. There is so much to be said about Mr. Corrigan's superb public service. It can best be summed up by noting that in 1995 he received the Lifetime Achievement Award for excellence in the field of economic development from the National Council on Urban Economic Development for his innovative economic development, thought, and leadership. One of the old pros in the economic development field is a long-time good friend, Dave Rally, currently Legislative Advisor to the Public Works and Economic Development Association. When I mentioned to Mr. Rally that I would be participating in the salute to Jack Corrigan, he immediately recalled what he termed ``one of the best speeches ever'' on the subject of economic development. Guess who gave it? Jack Corrigan. Mr. Rally was so impressed by the speech that he kept it at the ready and quickly retrieved it more than three years after it was given. I, too, was greatly impressed, so much so that I append it here to my remarks with the thought that a reading of this ``insider's look'' at the role of the Federal Government--an historical perspective--will be enlightening, instructive and inspiring for all. Jack Corrigan brings credit to the title public servant. His dedication and good work enriched the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of Americans and helped transform areas of distress into zones of opportunity. What a magnificent legacy! EDA and the Federal Role in Economic Development--An Historical Perspective (Address by John E. Corrigan, Director, Philadelphia Regional Office, Economic Development Administration, EDA Regional Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, February, 1995) This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (PWEDA). Yet what should be a year to celebrate the effectiveness and contribution of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) may become a year when EDA faces the most serious threat to its very existence. In the weeks and months ahead there will be a national debate that will challenge the validity of concepts that are the reasons why EDA was created and sustained for the past 30 years. We, the true believers, must not simply dismiss those who see no reason for our existence as simply mean spirited heretics but rather in the coming months we must engage them in a discussion of ideas. As Peter Drucker observed: ``Every person and institution operates on the basis of a theory whether they realize it or not.'' EDA is a response to a specific theory about development. Those who seek our elimination have a very different theory of development. There is little disagreement in the United States that the existence within our country of hundreds of areas of very low income and of persistently high unemployment is a national concern. The question which is in dispute is whether the Federal government ought to make efforts to alter the productive structure of such areas so that they may maintain their level of population, balance their trade with competing regions, and achieve a rate of growth in their per capita incomes which approximates the national rate by making those areas more competitive. There are two quite distinct theories on this. Proponents of the National Demand approach, also known as the Market approach, assert that over the long term the competitive forces of the market do create an optimal spatial distribution of economic activity. The private sector will locate where costs are least and profits greatest. Therefore if any area does show persistent symptoms of severe distress this should be interpreted as a clear warning that the nation has a declining need for this particular part of national space. We can let it deteriorate. The alternative thesis, which can be called the theory of Planned Adjustment, assumes that local economic problems persist precisely because competitive forces do not create an optimal spatial distribution of economic activity. Thus the lagging regions suffer not only because of the internal misuse of their resources but also because external investors, who are unaware of the favorable opportunities for investments in such areas, continue to pour funds into the overexpanded metropolitan areas within growing regions. These areas are lagging, in part, because they are not able to invest in infrastructure, both human and physical, which would make the area economically profitable to the private sector. Such deficiencies in the market system, it is argued, can be overcome by planning for the adaption of the supply characteristics of the lagging regions (investing in infrastructure, including capacity as well as bricks and mortar) so that they become self-sustaining, retain their population, and attract investment from the oversized metropolitan areas. Because he believed in the first theory of development, the National Demand model, the Market model, President Nixon in 1972 called for the termination of EDA and stated boldly: ``There is no need for a national development policy''. And in 1980, President Jimmy Carter's White House Conference on Balanced National Growth and Economic Development, much to our surprise, recommended that the solution to the problem of distressed areas was for the federal government to provide assistance so that citizens could move to more prosperous areas reflecting clearly a belief in this first theory of development--vote with your feet. And President Reagan after recommending the elimination of EDA in this State of the Union message in January 1981, explained his position further by stating: ``The administration intends to deal with economic development at the subnational level by improving the national economy.'' In response we need to loudly proclaim that this theory of economic development espoused by President Nixon, by President Carter's Balanced National Growth Conference and by President Reagan is wrong, that it has no historic basis in fact and that it has not been our national economic policy for the past 150 years. In a Senate Speech in 1981, defending EDA, Senator George Mitchell outlined that history. In 1850, when it became apparent that the success of the Eastern States in building their rail networks promised an increase in wealth for the entire eastern seaboard, Congress enacted the Railroad Land Grant Act--truly landmark legislation--to encourage, by Federal subsidy, the expansion of the rail network in the South and West. And for 21 years thereafter, Congress continued to grant rail land rights. One Hundred Thirty One million acres to land were granted for that purpose--a Federal subsidy for Western and Southern economic development whose worth cannot be calculated at today's prices. Beginning in the 1880's, hydroelectric power was aggressively developed with federal aid. By 1902, 30 years of homesteading acts had not been enough to encourage the settlement of the arid parts of the West, so Congress enacted the Reclamation Lands Act of 1902, a regional economic program which has changed the face of the country. Under the Reclamation Act water projects were built in 17 Western States to irrigate arid land. Some of our great cities--Phoenix, Denver, Los Angeles--could not exist without that water. The Imperial Valley in California, the most productive farmland in the Nation could not produce without it. And, as one result, Western lands with less than 9 inches of rainfall each year now produce and agricultural product worth $4.4 billion. All based on the theory of the importance of the Federal role in economic development. In the 1930's, when the great depression was at its worst, Federal funds were poured into regional efforts to help provide employment and economic growth in the West and South. The massive Bonneville hydro project on the Columbia River was built to provide employment in the Pacific Northwest. Today, a potato processing plant in Washington State pays one-fifth the rate of electricity that a similar plant pays in the East because of Bonneville power and the other Federal hydro projects in Washington. The greatest of the regional development programs, the Tennessee Valley Authority, is still benefiting its seven- State area. Its series of dams, reforestation projects, power plants and fertilizer plants have lifted a region which was in the depths of poverty in 1933--its people then earned 45 percent of the national average income--to a thriving and economically productive region today. This massive Federal assistance to the South and the West over the past century has given those areas a basis from which today's rapid rate of economic development flows. It was grounded in the recognition that not all regions of the country have identical needs, that they do not move forward in lockstep, and that help is needed at different times by different parts of the country. Then in 1956, at the urging of the Eisenhower Administration, Congress passed The Federal Aid Highway Act which began the largest Economic Development project in human history. The project resulted from extensive national and regional planning and the total cost of the system is estimated at $129 billion. Its effect was to open the way for development in our suburbs, exurbs, and outlying rural areas. No need for a national development policy--no need for federal intervention? The history of our country belies those statements. Thus EDA owes its existence to the second theory--That of Planned Adjustment--which has been a national policy since 1850. However, politically, EDA exists as a result of a National debate that took place after the Second World War concerning the need for a targeted development program. Some of you may remember as I do that the way that debate was framed in the 1950's was in the form of a question: ``If we can assist all of those countries in Europe with a Marshall Plan, shouldn't there be a Marshall Plan for our distressed areas?'' In Congress, Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois was the champion of such an approach and legislation was drafted and passed and twice vetoed by President Eisenhower. But support for such a program was building and legislation creating The Area Redevelopment Administration (ARA) was the first bill that passed the Senate and was signed by the newly elected President John F. Kennedy in May 1961. President Kennedy was enthusiastic about the program having experienced the depths of rural poverty when campaigning in West Virginia and other parts of Appalachia in the Primary race against Hubert Humphrey. During its four year history ARA obligated $350 million for projects authorized by its enabling legislation and another $851 million for public works projects under the Public Works Acceleration Act of 1962. During 1965 a consensus was reached in Congress that the ARA approach was valid but that it needed to be refocused. Thus on August 26, 1965, President Johnson signed the Public Works and Economic Development Act. The new legislation reaffirmed the ARA mission of permanently alleviating conditions of substantial and persistent unemployment and underemployment in distressed areas and emphasized the related goal of stemming outmigration from such places. PWEDA also stressed the need to encourage expanded development in the natural growth centers of depressed areas and the importance of long-range economic planning. In sending the EDA legislation to Congress for enactment on March 25, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson said: ``The conditions of our distressed areas today are among our most important economic problems. They hold back the progress of the Nation, and breed a despair and poverty which is inexcusable in the richest land on earth. We will not permit any part of this country to be a prison where hopes are crushed, human beings chained to misery, and the promise of America denied.'' Those words ring true today as they did 30 years ago. EDA's advance over ARA and its originality is that it seeks to generate a process of economic development in specific areas of the country. The focus from projects to process was a key change from ARA to EDA. The Overall Economic Development Program, although not always properly implemented remains today a major contribution to economic development practice. Another unique characteristic of EDA is the role of the Economic Development Representatives (EDRs). There is no other position like it in the Federal Government. The EDR heads a one person office in charge of one or more states. Because the EDRs are close to the economic problems of their areas and close to the people involved in them is a reason why they are so effective and important to EDA. Also the EDR reports to the Regional Director who reports to the Assistant Secretary. That flat organizational structure has resulted in many instances where an EDR talks to the Regional Director who talks to Headquarters and in a matter of hours an application is invited or a problem is solved. No other Federal program operates that way. Now what shall we say about our collective experience in EDA--almost 30 years and $16 billion later. Let us review some of the highlights of our proud heritage. We know that jobs spring from ideas and EDA showed the way and responded to need in dozens of initiatives. Who could count the jobs that have resulted. Is three million jobs an inflated number? Probably not. EDA showed the way in 1967 with the designation of the first Economic Development District and today 315 Districts testify to the wisdom of a regional strategic planning approach. EDA showed the way in 1969 in responding to the closing of the Brooklyn Navy Yard and made substantial investments in its rehabilitation for industrial and commercial use. That defense adjustment initiative continued through the 70's and 80's and 90's and continues today with $120 million of our FY 1995 budget dedicated to Defense Conversion. EDA showed the way in 1969 in its prompt response to the ravages of Hurricane Camille in Mississippi and set in motion a role that continues in this fiscal year in our efforts in Georgia, Alabama and Florida in response to Tropical Storm Alberto, and in many major natural disasters in recent years, in Florida after Hurricane Andrew, the 1993 midwest flood, in California after the January 17 Northridge earthquake and in New England coping with the depletion of the fish stock. EDA showed the way in long term disaster recovery because we could deliver in ways that no other agency could. EDA responded in 1974 by promptly administering a $500 million Title X program. EDA was also a leader in 1974 with amended legislation creating the state and urban planning program and promoting the idea of linking the planning with the budget cycle and both to the executive decision making process. EDA led again in 1975 with the introduction of the Title IX program. Twenty years later the RLF program alone has approved $400 million and leveraged $2.4 billion in private lending. And who could count the jobs? And EDA did the job in 1976-77 with the Local Public Works Program (LPW). Over a thousand projects were approved and $6 billion obligated in twelve months. All 10,000 projects were processed in 60 days or less. We will never forget the 12 hour days and the countless Saturdays, but EDA did it. Although physically and emotionally exhausted, EDA employees again responded in 1977 when a drought devastated parts of the country, especially in the Southwest and EDA processed an additional $175 million in water projects. In that program projects were processed and approved on average within seven working days after receipt of the application. Many projects arrived on a Monday and were approved that Friday. EDA responded in 1978-79 when it administered $100 million dedicated to the XIII International Winter Olympic Games in Lake Placid, New York. EDA was the principal federal agency associated with the games and projects under EDA's supervision were built on time and within budget. EDA also responded in 1983 and administered $140 million for the Emergency Jobs Act. In 1993 in response to the declining timber harvests in the Northwest, EDA was the lead federal agency in providing resources to hire local staff in Districts and counties so that all communities in the region had the capacity to respond to the crisis and develop a strategy for investing in the locally established priorities. During the 30 years of our history EDA was recommended for zero funding in the President's budget for 16 of those years and yet during all of those 30 years EDA has been a leader. EDA provided the investment for the first publicly funded incubator building in this country. EDA provided Competitive Communities type funding for one the first federally assisted Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) in the country, South Bend Lathe in Indiana. EDA popularized RLF's when many questioned the concept. What is the proudest achievement of all? It is that EDA created the Economic Development Profession. Thirty years ago there was no such thing. But EDA has created the profession through its funding of District staff and the early days of the 302(a) program when we funded an economic development staff in virtually every state and every major city in the country. Because of that, most of them, for the first time, had an economic development capacity. Thirty years ago there were virtually no graduate courses in economic development in this country and hardly any articles in professional journals. Through EDA's Research and Technical Assistance programs, we have funded the thinkers and theorists who are developing the idea that will influence tomorrow's national development process. Now as we look at the present we should be gratified that for the first time in 30 years we have a Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, who has testified on behalf of EDA before our committees and who strongly supports EDA. We have the leadership of Assistant Secretary Ginsberg who is developing a strategic vision for a new EDA--an EDA that will involve change--change which we must be prepared to embrace. He is the only Assistant Secretary EDA has had who is an economic development professional. Under his guidance, new programs are being developed. You will hear later about our Competitive Communities initiatives which will build a new economic base of globally competitive, high growth companies. In addition, how thankful we all are for the actions of Assistant Secretary Ginsberg who announced on June 1, 1994 the delegation of grant making authority from Washington to the regions, eliminating duplicative and redundant procedures. How important that is for all of us. The Assistant Secretary is also committed to making the agency more responsive to our clients though simplifying agency applications and by completing the review of applications in 60 days or less. We did it in LPW--we did it in the Drought program. We have done it in recent months in our Disaster recovery efforts--we will do it. What else must we do? Assistant Secretary Ginsberg has given us a charge to mount an extensive outreach to articulate EDA's new role and its continuing importance to America's local communities. Our grantees are ready for that and they will respond. Last month I asked each of my EDR's to prepare his or her own outreach plan to get the message out. Charlie Hammarlund, our EDR for Connecticut and Rhode Island, who incidentally is celebrating his 45th year of federal service, in this plan stated: ``I did not have to reach out to the economic development community in Connecticut and Rhode Island, they reached out to me. They were aware of our concerns and they told me what they were doing.'' I know all of you are involved in this outreach process and we must not simply depend on the vigorous commitment and work by our leaders in Washington. A few week ago I was discussing this outreach effort with the Public Works Chief in Denver, Charlie Lee, and he said: ``Jack, in our office we have discussed this and we believe that it we do not aggressively get the word out, our lack of action would be the very thing that causes EDA to die.'' There is great wisdom in this thought. Today, more than ever all of us in EDA must be sustained by the spirit of hope. Not a hope that is a distant wish. But a hope that is creative force--that is active--that makes things happen. For example, if people in EDA would say, ``We've survived in the past--but this time the pressure is too great and we're not going to make it''--and I have heard those thoughts expressed by some of you--the very saying of those words repeated by enough people creates a life of its own and increases the change of failure. But if you say: ``Look at what EDA has done--look at all of the people who believe in us and depend on us. I am going to contact everyone of them and make sure that they let all of the EDA family (grantees and businesses, our beneficiaries) know how important EDA is,''--those very words have their own dynamic life and increase in a sure and real way EDA's continuing existence. For it is the creative hope within us that makes a difference--that makes things happen. Finally, I would ask you to reflect on the words of Bobby Kennedy and make them your own. Shortly before he died he spoke to the students at Fordham University: ``Our future may lie beyond our vision but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature, nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands will determined our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance but there is also experience and truth. And it is the only way we can live.'' ``It is the work of our own hands that will determine our destiny.''

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, and I must say I have plenty of company. The bill is opposed by every environmental group and by Taxpayers for Common Sense. The League of Conservation Voters will score it. The administration will veto it. Why all this opposition? Is it just the natural negativity or orneriness of these groups? I am afraid not. They are against the bill because it will set bad public policy. The bill would weaken protection for wilderness areas, and it would remove 74,000 acres from wilderness protection, 74,000 acres that President Bush said merited that protection. The bill would waive normal environmental review for a controversial road in Alaska, a road that is controversial, not just in Congress, but Alaska itself, where Native communities, among others, oppose it. The bill would make it hard to get discovery trails approved by setting new bureaucratic hurdles. The bill would create new incentives to cut trees in national forests and would create new special funds within the Forest Service at a time when we are trying to remove such incentives and clean up Forest Service accounting. The bill would transfer Federal property to the private sector in a way that would weaken environmental protection and deny the Nation's taxpayers the ability to recoup the full value of the Federal investment. Those are just the most significant bad policies that would be established by this bill. It was totally unnecessary to include these provisions in the bill. The bulk of this bill consists of noncontroversial projects throughout the entire country. The committee could have brought these projects to the floor individually or collectively under the Suspension Calendar. It chose not to do so. It chose, instead, to hold perfectly good projects hostage so it could attempt to jam through the Congress bad policies that do not have a prayer of passing independently. In fact, some of those bad policies have not even been approved by the Committee on Resources itself. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, not only to reject the bad policies, policies a wide majority of Members would oppose if they came up individually, but also to reject bad process. We are faced with a bill that was deliberately constructed to win support for policies that Members oppose. That is not a fair process. We are faced with a bill that did not go through normal committee review. That is not a fair process. We are faced with a bill that could not be fairly negotiated because its key provisions were labeled nonnegotiable. That is not a fair process. We are faced with a bill on which negotiations had been repeatedly mischaracterized. That is not a fair process. We are faced with a bill whose primary point is to put one wing of the Republican party at the mercy of another wing of the Republican Party. That is not a fair process. So, again, I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill even if it contains your own project. That is, unfortunately, the only way to stop these bad policies and bad processes. My colleagues will not be giving up much because the bill is not going anywhere anyway. Let us vote down this bill in order to protect the environment and to protect the taxpayer, and let us vote down this bill to prove that we will not stand for being held hostage. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Resources.