Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This important, noncontroversial legislation establishes a 16-member commission to report to Congress and the President on the development of an integrated and coordinated approach to drought. H.R. 3035 is broadly supported by, among others, the National Governors' Association, the Western Governors' Association, and the National Emergency Management Association. For too long, the Nation has lacked a proactive, coordinated approach to drought, instead relying on crisis management. The result has been enormous damage and suffering equal to or greater than other forms of natural disasters. For example, the total economic losses to agriculture, energy, transportation and recreation tourism associated with the 1988 drought have been estimated at $40 billion. In response, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Joseph Skeen) introduced H.R. 3035, which is companion legislation to S. 222, introduced by Senator Pete Domenici. The bill before us will help foster an integrated approach emphasizing prevention and mitigation. Let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bud Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Jim Oberstar), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bob Borski) for their efforts in moving H.R. 3035 through the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment. I also appreciate the cooperation of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, particularly their respective chairmen, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don Young) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bob Smith). Thanks to their efforts, and the assistance of their staffs, we are able to bring this important legislation to the floor today. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Joseph Skeen) and Senator Pete Domenici for championing H.R. 3035 and S. 222 through the Congress. After our hearing, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, made very few changes to H.R. 3035. These revisions, now incorporated into the bill, respond to suggestions by the administration, FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, and various Members. Areas of primary emphasis are disaster mitigation, environmental values and national or regional representation. A more detailed discussion of the bill is contained in the committee's report, House Report 105-554. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3035. This legislation can and should be enacted into law in the coming weeks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, we are taking an extraordinary and an unprecedented step even though we are not actually confronted with any problem. Every study demonstrates that Americans are by far the most religious people in the industrial world. Students can voluntarily pray and study scripture in school and other public facilities. Religious education at church and parochial schools and home is thriving. The United States remains a beacon and a sanctuary for those seeking religious freedom. It simply is untrue to say that students are prohibited from praying in school. Indeed, Time Magazine just recently devoted an article to the explosive spread of voluntary student prayer clubs. Now I understand the sentiments that motivate people in support of this amendment. Many of us have the feeling that families have weakened, that morality is not what it once was, that society has become more violent. But these problems cannot be addressed by eliminating basic constitutional protections. Let us not allow legitimate concerns about morality to curdle into an effort to restrain religious freedom. Americans are already God-fearing people. There is no reason to make them fear their Constitution. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Tea-21-- a legislative package I refer to as ``Green Tea.'' This is the most significant piece of environmental legislation passed in the 105th Congress. ``Green Tea'' provides billions of dollars to improve the quality of our nation's air through the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program. As we work to improve air quality CMAQ will prove to be one of our most valuable tools. ``Green Tea'' dramatically increases our commitment to transit programs which are critical to improving our environment and relieving the commuter congestion that chokes our urban centers. This legislation secures $41 billion for transit over the next six years. ``Green Tea'' continues the enormously successful Transportation Enhancement program. This program has built bike paths and preserved historic transportation structures across the country. ``Green Tea'' promotes the use of electric and natural gas vehicles-- an important step toward reducing green house gases. In crafting ``Green Tea'' Chairman Shuster worked closely with the environmental community to produce a bill that will improve America's infrastructure and our environment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hall/ Boehlert amendment which is included in the en bloc amendment, our amendment expresses the Sense of Congress that adequate resources-- funding and personnel--be applied to the science and technology activities of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The amendment will require the Secretary of Defense to initiate a study and recommend minimum requirements to maintain a defense technology base that is sufficient to project superiority in air and space weapons systems, and information technology. A robust science and technology investment is critical if our Armed Forces are to move into the 21st Century and operate at the cutting edge of technology. The future of American defense rests on our ability to improve our technology and maintain our military superiority. We must ensure that our Armed Forces continue to apply the necessary attention and resources to science and technology development if we are to safeguard our future national security. The investments we make today will make the difference tomorrow. I thank my colleague and co- sponsor, Mr. Hall of Ohio, for his work on this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if he wants to work that language out right now, I would be glad to accept that.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is referring to other than the manager's amendment?

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to accept a perfecting amendment dealing with a manager's amendment so that the gentleman's concern would be addressed.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, to respond to the gentleman from Ohio, the manager's amendment would be okay, because that comes from outside the committee. But I am talking about in the Committee of the Whole, when we offer amendments, I think we should have the opportunity when amendments are offered to have a full and open airing, pros and cons. That helps me in making up my mind as we are dealing with some of these very important topics. But I think the gentleman will concede that one Member, based upon a gut reaction or an instinct, and often gut reactions and instincts are correct but often they are not, could raise a point of order against the amendment, and then the Chair would automatically have to limit debate to 10 minutes and there would be a vote. And I would be called upon, as would the gentleman would be called upon and our colleagues would be called upon to make a decision on a very important amendment with very limited input, and I do not want that. I want to expand the knowledge that we have as a base to make decisions.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. One of the things I have done, in terms of talking about tractor trailers, I have offered an amendment to another bill that would limit the size of tractor-trailers on our Nation's highways for safety.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Indeed, I have. I have spent a lot of time anticipating that.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for his comments and appreciate them.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, I think we should have more balance in this whole approach to things. I think if we have mandates on the one side, we should have mandates on the other, if we run that risk.

Mr. BOEHLERT. But it is a different set of issues.

Mr. BOEHLERT. We would not have scoring of amendments. That is the problem. We would not have the time to do that. When we have extended debate on a very controversial item, sometimes during the debate, in the course of that debate proponents or opponents bring out something that prompts an individual to draft an amendment that might be an amendment to improve a bill. But the fact of the matter is, if someone has the gut feeling, as I pointed out, and not facts but just a gut feeling that it might, might, have the imposition of a new mandate on business, they could just raise a point of order. We would debate it for 10 minutes and 10 minutes only and that would be the end of it, and then the House would vote up and down based on very limited debate.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is not a gutting amendment. I would classify it as a perfecting amendment because I really think that we should have full and open debate on some sensitive issues here on the floor of the House. We should not limit debate to 10 minutes simply because one Member might have a gut feeling. Sometimes gut feelings are correct. I agree with that.

Mr. BOEHLERT. It would not. It would improve the bill, but it would not make it acceptable in its present form.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, no, as a matter of fact, I have some complaints with the bill.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me make two final points. First, private sector mandates are different from intergovernmental mandates in many ways but in one in particular. States and localities do not have the clout on Capitol Hill that industry does. States and localities needed new tools to get their views across. That is hardly the case with industry. Finally, this is not just an environmental matter. Yes, the new rules set up under H.R. 3534 would have made it tougher to pass a Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and other landmark bills, but as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) pointed out last week during debate on H.R. 3534, we will also make it hard to pass a bill to help HMO patients and to control big tobacco. Remember, the points of order in this bill are available if even just a single industry has a complaint with a bill or amendment. I urge support for my amendment. It is reasonable. It is the middle ground. It will give industry additional clout on Capitol Hill without shutting down the amendment process. If you believe in open debate, vote for my amendment.