Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to my colleagues that this is not a new issue. In 1995 the Republican-controlled Congress spoke loud and clear on the need for bycatch devices. By a vote of 294 to 129 during reauthorization of the Magnuson Act, the House voted to allow the bycatch devices regulations to move forward. I suggest that Members go back and check their vote in the 104th Congress and be consistent, because absolutely nothing has changed since that time. The red snapper and other fish are just as vulnerable to poor shrimping practices, the bycatch devices are just as effective in reducing the problem. I urge my colleagues not to be fooled. This is not an amendment to protect States' rights. This is an amendment to undermine environmental protection. This is not an amendment that will correct language in the bill. This is an attempt to block efforts to strike the very damaging language in the bill. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Gulf charter boat fishermen and red snapper fishermen, as well as environmental groups and the governor of Louisiana, are all adamantly opposed.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. I also thank him for his leadership in advancing this important legislation. I am privileged to serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and in that capacity I have come to appreciate even more than before the invaluable contributions of President Bush, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Bush, for all that he did so well for so long, but particularly in his capacity as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He took over that agency at a time when it was somewhat troubled. Morale was low. He elevated it to a new high. For that, everyone in the intelligence community will be internally grateful. But when I think of President Bush, I just think about him in today's terms. Every day when I get up and read the day's newspaper, we read yet another story about how good the economy is and how the Nation is moving forward, and I am reminded and all of us should be reminded that this longest period of sustained growth in our economy started under the leadership of President Bush, during his administration, and it has sustained itself. I think that is something that he can be proud of. It is one of the enduring legacies he has left to this Nation. I also think of George Bush the human being, one of the finest, most decent, most caring, sharing individuals it has ever been my privilege to know. He is a wonderful inspiration for generations to come. He still is at it, providing leadership. He is still at it, providing valued friendship. He is very deserving of this honor for a whole bunch of the right reasons. And for that, I am proud to identify as one of the 16 members on a bipartisan basis of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who have cosponsored this legislation. Let me again thank my colleague for the leadership he has demonstrated.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, but the real purpose is to focus my remarks on the need for the Shays- Meehan substitute rather than the specifics of this particular amendment, which are not the real issue. The reason we need Shays-Meehan is quite simple and quite stark. The legitimacy of the American political process is being undermined. I do not use these words lightly or as a mere rhetorical flourish. We can try to convince ourselves that all is well, salving ourselves with polls showing the approval for Congress is relatively high. Ironically, some argue that all is well because money is flowing into our campaign covers. This is like saying that a cancer patient is in better shape than someone without cancer, because that person might have more cells. But in any event, a closer look tells a less rosy story. Polls show that many Americans do not know the first thing about Congress, the names of their representatives, which party is in control, and so forth. Discussions with average Americans uncover a deep cynicism about the political process; and looking at what in other circumstances we call the only poll that truly counts, Americans are simply abandoning the election booth. Turnout is at an alltime low. Alienation from the political system is at an historical high. There could be no greater danger in a democracy. We are in the midst of a silent crisis. Campaign finance reform does not rank high as a concern in polls simply because no one believes we can truly do it. They believe we are hapless and that the situation is hopeless, so they just continue to turn away. This is as corrosive a disease for the body politic as can be imagined. It is no less serious because the symptoms do not appear fully until it is too late to fashion a cure. So I congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for designing a cure while there is still time. Some people have said that the side effects of this cure are so severe that we should just let the disease take its course, but that is simply wrong. The cure is as mild as sunshine, ensuring that everyone can see who is spending money to influence the political system. Shays- Meehan is, quite literally, the very least we can do. Let us look at some of the concerns opponents of this bill raise. They say that, like previous efforts at reform, it has many loopholes and unintended consequences. Yet, their solution is to have no system at all; in short, to get rid of individual loopholes by having a regime that is one giant void. That hardly seems like a positive alternative. Opponents also raise the specter of a system overrun by Federal bureaucrats, their favored bugaboo, but this is really another way of saying that they do not want any limits on the flow of money into the political system. Mr. Chairman, George Bernard Shaw once said, ``A society's morals are like its teeth; the more decayed they are, the more it hurts to touch them.'' It is no accident that it hurts so much to discuss our political morality. It is time to correct it at its roots. I urge my colleagues to vote down this amendment and to support the Shays-Meehan substitute.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the poet Alexander Pope remarked centuries ago that a little learning is a dangerous thing. This amendment is a good example of that principle. First of all, the Dear Colleague letters about this amendment have cited several NSF project titles that have been grossly misinterpreted. For example, grants researching asynchronous transfer mode, which is a computer technology known as ATM, were misconstrued as research on automated teller machines. Grants concerning billiards were thought to be about the game of pool when actually they concern abstruse matters in high-energy physics. The only trouble we have right here in River City is with this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a product of faulty research. Now I would never claim that the National Science Foundation has never given out a misguided grant or that their grants should not be opened to congressional scrutiny, but as the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Science I am quite familiar with NSF operations, and I have helped oversee them for 15 years. And I can attest that the National Science Foundation is a model agency that provides grants through a peer review process that is the envy of other institutions and other nations. As a result, the research it funds is of high quality and has provided enormous insights that have improved our understanding and our lives. A little learning is a dangerous thing for a Nation as well as an individual, and NSF's work ensures that our Nation is never hobbled by inadequate learning. Mr. Chairman, let us not make the mistake of judging a grant by its title. We should resoundingly vote down this amendment and demonstrate our continued support for the outstanding work performed by the National Science Foundation.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I played a little word association game and when I said ``gentleman,'' the first person who came to mind in this Chamber was Lou Stokes. When I thought about ``class,'' and how I would define class, I thought about Lou Stokes. When I considered the concern that has been expressed in this Chamber by all of us about civility and the need we had to go to a special retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, I thought to myself, we did not need to go to Hershey, Pennsylvania, to learn about civility. All we had to do is watch Lou Stokes in action. Then when I think about the humdrum life we all have. Washington, district, back and forth on the plane, traveling so much. So little time to really get involved in getting to know better some of our colleagues, which is a real shortcoming of this institution because it is made up of some of the finest people we will find any place in the world, Republicans, Democrats, liberals or conservatives. But we are all just scrambling to run back home and make that next meeting. I said to myself, we are disadvantaged in many respects, but I have been very fortunate because very early in my career I got to know Lou Stokes and I got to appreciate all that he represents. George Bernard Shaw said, ``Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not.'' That reminds me of Lou Stokes. Because health care, education, the environment, things that really matter for all of us, he has provided leadership in. Then I think about my own family, my personal family. My youngest daughter, Brooke, 4 years ago moved to Cleveland. I said to the distinguished gentleman from Cleveland, ``Sort of help me out, will you?'' And boy, he has been magnificent, always there to help to make her transition from upstate New York to Cleveland, Ohio, something very special. She lived in his district and guess what? She supported Lou Stokes, because she said, ``This guy is a guy who transcends political parties, a guy who is extra special.'' I am just so mindful of the fact that this institution and this Nation are the better for the service of Louis Stokes. And I personally am enriched by the friendship that I have enjoyed with this great and distinguished American. We wish you well, Lou, and we will continue to rely on you for sound counsel.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to identify with the outstanding statement of my colleague from Pennsylvania who has been a leader in this area. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the intent of the Greenwood amendment. While my colleague will not formally offer the amendment, it's important to understand precisely what is at stake in this critical debate. This debate is not about the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol could not--and should not--be ratified in its current form, and no one should behave as if the treaty has been ratified. On that there is total agreement. The problem is this: the fact that Kyoto is not acceptable right now doesn't mean that climate change is not a potential threat. It doesn't mean that we know everything we need to about greenhouse gas emissions. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be encouraging actions that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So how do we strike a balance? How do we ensure that Kyoto is not implemented while still allowing sensible research and planning and thinking about greenhouse gas emissions to go forward? The answer is: we strike a balance by supporting the Greenwood approach. The Knollenberg language is a classic case of overreaching. In their zeal to prevent ``back door implementation'' of Kyoto, the Knollenberg backers have come up with a provision that is so broad that it would, in effect, prevent informed debate and sensible information gathering related to climate change. The report language accompanying the provision makes this intent clear by explicitly directing EPA to stop discussing ``policy underlying'' Kyoto. What kinds of positive activities would the Knollenberg language stop? It would stop efforts to find out more about who is emitting greenhouse gases and about how those might be controlled. It would stop intelligent planning under which EPA would ensure that controlling other pollutants did not make greenhouse gas emissions worse. It would stop efforts to develop some programs to encourage industry to reduce emissions voluntarily. It would stop planning the other body has requested to help determine the costs of complying with Kyoto. I could go on and on. Does it make sense to stop such defensible activities? What are the Knollenberg supporters so afraid of? It seems that they believe that any new information about climate change will weaken their case. And remember, it's not as if Congress is powerless to influence policy absent the Knollenberg language. If the Administration did something foolish, such as try to declare carbon dioxide a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act, Congress has ample means to block such action without the Knollenberg rider. So it comes down to this: regardless of how you feel about Kyoto, regardless of whether you can imagine some policy you might want to block, you need to support for Greenwood--that is, unless you disagree with the vast majority of scientists and believe that there is no chance at all that climate change is a threat. Support for Greenwood is not necessarily support for Kyoto. Greenwood does not give the Administration carte blanche. Greenwood wishes to allow open, informed debate on climate change to continue. It represents the sensible middle ground. It has earned my colleagues' support.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, that is a cause for real concern, and as my dear friend and colleague knows, I have been a supporter of the clean coal technology program that some of my friends who probably were labeled green are somewhat offended by that, and I never could quite understand the logic. But let me say in terms of this amendment, this bill here today, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), have done an outstanding job. They deserve our support.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do so to express in the strongest possible terms support for the Fox-Skaggs amendment which will restore needed funds for energy conservation programs, including low-income weatherization. That is very important, if one comes from the northeast part of the United States. Even with these added funds, the programs will still be funded at significantly lower levels than they were 4 years ago. Now, I know it is not easy to be in the position of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), as the chairman, to deal with all of the competing requests. I think he has done a magnificent job overall, but I think the bill needs a little tweaking and I would think that he would not mind a little tweaking. These programs are needed now more than ever before. We are actually more dependent today in 1998 on foreign oil than we were at the time of the Arab oil embargo, and we know even more how burning fossil fuels can harm the environment. That is a serious consideration, and we are in a more competitive economic environment, which makes efficiency of the essence. These conservation programs take a sensible approach to addressing those needs. They do not mandate any actions; they underwrite efforts that create new methods to save energy, help get those methods put into practice, and particularly important, help poor Americans take advantage of these methods. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do what they have done in the past and restore funding for these important programs. Let me commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), particularly. He has been a real leader in this effort since he first came to the Congress, and I think emphasizing programs that try to demonstrate that government is compassionate and can appreciate the problems of those who are in special circumstances is very important, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), has done that. I think it is also very important to encourage the type of research into energy conservation that we are calling for here.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and I want to particularly congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman, for the excellent balancing act he has accomplished, although a few more changes will need to be made and we are going to address the National Endowment for the Arts very shortly. I am especially pleased that the bill eliminates the Purchaser Road Credit program. That is a major environmental victory. We were able to accomplish that with the help of our Western colleagues. We worked together. We reasoned together. This shows that when people sit down and reason together and try to work things out, we can actually make some serious progress. The Purchaser Road Credit is being eliminated as part of an agreement under which Easterners and Westerners agreed to forego other changes to amend the bill. That is a fair deal, and I urge my colleagues to support it. There are some timber amendments that fall outside the agreement, those concerning the Chugach and the K-V Fund, and I urge my colleagues to support those amendments. I also want to clarify language we agreed to have in the bill that enables the Forest Service to use the Roads and Timber Trails Fund for some new purposes. This could be a great plus for the environment if the Forest Service uses this money for true forest health projects as section 334 requires. We will be watching very closely to see that this section is not violated by using the funds for salvage logging or road building. Turning to the National Endowment for the Arts, this is something we go over time and time again. I think it is a sad commentary that we have to engage in this debate yet once again. We have already made NEA selection criteria more stringent. We have already limited grants to individual artists. We have already reduced NEA funding to about half of its peak level, and I think that is cutting too much but the will of the House has to be worked. Yet even though we have addressed every legitimate concern raised by NEA opponents, and some that were not as legitimate, they are still hell bent on destroying an agency whose programs educate and enrich the lives of Americans in all regions and in all walks of life. I simply do not understand it. I look at what NEA has done in my district in upstate New York, a rural area. We have the world class Glimmerglass Opera. It gets support. We have small county organizations like the Chenango County Council for the Arts doing magnificent work to introduce youngsters in their formative years to the arts. It helps schools bring in a wide variety of arts programs. It enables our small cities to support symphonies and museums, all designed to enrich their lives. I do not see anything wrong with that. As a matter of fact, I think that is exactly what we should be supporting. These are institutions that would have a difficult time surviving without the small contributions that they receive from the NEA. I think the Federal Government ought to undertake these sorts of legitimate activities through which the American public working collectively can enrich our culture in a way that is difficult for individuals working alone. So I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment. It is well thought out. It is well reasoned and it is good for this bill and it is good for America. Finally, just let me say that this Member, along with so many of my colleagues, will miss the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) when he is not here in the next Congress. I hope I am. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has been a tower of strength. He has been a person that you can talk to who will listen to you. He has just done so much for so many for so long and he will be sorely missed. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for serving America so well.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment and I ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I do not think I have an objection. The gentleman and I have worked so well over the years, and we are in basic agreement on this. I would like to see it in writing, if the gentleman could just jot it down.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment and I ask unanimous consent that it be adopted. I would point out that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and I have worked out agreement on the language that the gentleman addressed.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, essentially the amendment deletes on page 14 of the bill paragraph 4, subsections (A) and (C), to make it abundantly clear that we are not going to have a raid on the land and water conservation fund to finance the program. The environmental community raised this objection as its principal objection to the bill. I have here a letter signed by a whole host of representatives from key environmental organizations with whom the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and I work very closely and have over the years. They point out that they are strongly supportive of efforts to clean up the Salton Sea, but they are specific in their strong objection to the authorization of funding from the land and water conservation fund. We agree with that, and I am pleased to report that this amendment would eliminate that principal objection. I am not trying to suggest to anyone that this eliminates all of the objections; it does not, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and I both know. But I think this makes a major improvement to the bill, and I am pleased to offer the amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would be so kind as to jot that down.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the amendment for now. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Miller of California

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in support of this Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act. The legislation before us today authorizes significant new resources to improve water quality and habitat for wildlife in and around the largest body of water in America's most populous State. Though concerns have been expressed by some about the way in which this project will be funded, and we are going to address that in a moment, there is no question that this bill will result in substantial improvement to a unique natural resource. This legislation will result in the creation of extensive new wetlands critical to migrating waterfowl in the Pacific flyway. Thousands of ducks and geese and shore birds visit the Salton Sea each year. They do so now at their own peril. This legislation will result in the removal of tons of pollutants daily that are now flowing into the Salton Sea. This legislation will protect and improve habitat for the birds and fish that depend on the Salton Sea for their survival. Indeed, I can make a good case that this legislation is proenvironment. As this legislation was being developed, concerns were raised about its Clean Water Act provisions. As the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I worked with both the majority and minority members of the Committee on Resources to address the concerns presented. The bill before us explicitly limits changes to the Clean Water Act's permitting process to constructed wetland projects, salt removal projects, and wetlands filtration projects on the Alamo and New Rivers, the two primary tributaries into the Salton Sea. The bill also contains measures protecting Good Samaritans who undertake water quality improvement projects on the Alamo and New Rivers from lawsuits. Again, the inclusion of these measures was to expedite the pace of environmental restoration at the Salton Sea. In a few minutes, there will be offered for unanimous consent language deleting the single largest outstanding concern, the use of Land and Water Conservation Funds for this project. I would hope that that would address the principal concern of so many of my colleagues and will enable them to support the bill. I would like to remind my colleagues that the League of Conservation Voters and the Audubon Society have stated repeatedly that the Salton Sea is an environmental disaster. We are here today to take a critical step towards addressing this environmental disaster. Some, instead of action now, will advocate a lengthy study of the problem that the environmental community concluded years ago to be an environmental disaster. This reminds me of the acid rain debate of the 1980s when Governor Tom Kean, Governor of New Jersey, said if all we do is continue to study the problem, we are going to end up with the worst documented environmental disaster in history. We know the problem and we know the solution. I think the time to begin cleaning up the Salton Sea is long overdue. Let us get on with the job, and let us pay tribute in a responsible way to a former colleague who served in many respects as an inspiration to a lot of us in a lot of ways. And let us say to the sitting Member who represents that district who is advocating this legislation, she is doing a good job and we appreciate it and we are with her.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the conservation programs in this bill. But in doing so, I want to express my deep disappointment that their funding has been cut. So I guess this might fall under the heading of a qualified endorsement. Conservation programs were an integral part of the farm bill in 1996, and they are crucial to safeguarding our supply of clean water. Programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Wildlife Incentives Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Consolidated Farm Option help protect our environment by assisting farmers. These programs help farmers protect water quality by installing buffer strips along streams and rivers to prevent soil and pollution run off. They help farmers develop innovative waste treatment projects to control the growing impact on water quality by animal feedlots. And they help farmers restore and protect vital wetlands, continuing the goal of no net loss of wetlands first announced by President George Bush. And what is more, the programs accomplish these goals without the threat of regulation. They are completely voluntary. They are incentives based, and they have the overwhelming support of the Congress, as was demonstrated by the 372-37 vote for the conservation title of the 1996 farm bill, probably our single greatest environmental achievement in the 104th Congress. So, Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, but I want to draw attention to the shortfall in these vital programs. The Senate committee has taken a somewhat different approach, giving a higher priority to these important conservation environment programs. I hope that when all is said and done, these programs will emerge from conference with more funding than is in the House bill, more like those funds provided in the Senate bill. It is important for American agriculture. It is important for the environment. It is important for America.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment and in support of the gentleman's enlightened position. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The amendment would eliminate the extension of the current milk marketing rules and the Northeast Dairy Compact by an additional 6 months, from April 1999 to October 1999. This extension is necessary to ensure that Congress is able to fully understand and properly oversee the Department of Agriculture's efforts to reform the federal milk marketing rules. Why is this necessary? Because when Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced the proposed rule for the reform of the federal milk marketing order system, he outlined a ``preferred'' plan, known as ``Option 1-B'', which would dramatically reduce dairy farm income in almost all regions of the country. Option 1-B will reduce annual dairy farm income by approximately $365 million nation-wide at a time when many dairy farmers are barely able to hold on to their farms and their way of life. I think it is fair to expect that Option 1-B would put many farmers out of business. In response, 238 Members of this body sent Secretary Glickman a letter criticizing the Secretary's ``preferred'' option and voicing strong bipartisan support for the other option outlined in the proposed rule--a fair and equitable option, known as ``Option 1-A.'' Despite the overwhelming support for Option 1-A, USDA appears to be moving forward with efforts to implement its preferred plan, Option 1- B, early next year. This is why the next Congress, the 106th Congress, must have adequate time to review and act on USDA's final rule. The extension provision in the bill does not mandate any specific reform of the federal milk marketing rules. It merely ensures that Congress will have the opportunity to properly oversee USDA's rulemaking on behalf of the American people and dairy farmers, in particular. With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and any other amendment which would delete or weaken the extension provision.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, it is time and long past due to reform the Superfund program. The Superfund program is designed to clean up our Nation's toxic waste sites. The administration is prone to repeating over and over and over again that more than 10 million Americans live within 4 miles of a toxic waste site. That is a serious concern to the administration. It is a serious concern to the Congress of the United States. Yet, what do we get from the administration when we call on them to support much-needed Superfund reform? We get the Vice President of the United States reading a script prepared by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Vice President to quit the partisanship and get on with the serious business of reforming Superfund. We have a bill, H.R. 2727, which is endorsed by the National Governors' Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, the list goes on and on. They support meaningful reform of Superfund because they know how important it is to America. I call upon the administration to join us in this task.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3035) to establish an advisory commission to provide advice and recommendations on the creation of an integrated, coordinated Federal policy designed to prepare for and respond to serious drought emergencies, as amended.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, let the Record note that the author of the bill the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) is chairing a subcommittee meeting with the Committee on Appropriations and is not able to be here with us today.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 provide extraneous material on H.R. 3035.