Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is very simple. I want to preserve the ability of the House to have open debate. H.R. 3534 is advertised as an effort to ensure that the House has adequate debate on important issues. But its actual effect in some cases would be just the opposite. This bill would ensure that no amendment that any segment of industry opposed could ever be debated for more than 20 minutes. That is right. No amendment that any segment of industry opposed could ever be debated for more than 20 minutes. There would never be such a thing as an open rule again. Why do I say that? It is not just hyperbole. Under this bill, any Member could raise a point of order against any amendment because he or she believed that it would cost industry more than $100 million. No proof is necessary. It could just be a gut reaction. Simply raising the point of order would stop all debate and put the question before the House. A point of order could also be raised if the Congressional Budget Office had not completed a mandate analysis of the amendment. Even though CBO virtually never does such an analysis, there simply is no time for this to happen. But the sponsors of the bill will say that their free-ranging industry-based point of order creates no problem because the House can overrule it. But let us take a very real and typical example. Three years ago during the Clean Water Act debate in 1995, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and I offered a substitute. That substitute engendered a lengthy debate, it went over to the second day, that changed some views about the bill and aired many concerns, even though the substitute eventually lost. I might point out that when we went into this, the initial check said we did not have 100 votes. We ended up with 185 votes. If the debate went longer, we might have prevailed. Guess what would have happened under H.R. 3534? We would have had exactly 10 minutes to put forth our views on such a complicated, far ranging, important issue. What is the excuse that is given for limiting debate so sharply? Why do we want to stifle discussion in a society that prides itself on a marketplace of ideas and in a body that the Constitution designed for maximum airing of issues? The reason is that some segments of industry do not win every single legislative battle. Guess what? No one does. The sponsors say their concern is that industry's viewpoint is not heard. But does anyone actually believe that industry lacks political clout on Capitol Hill? Just take a look at H.R. 3534. We were interested in finding a compromise on this bill, and we worked very hard to effect a compromise. But some industry groups objected to compromise so the negotiations ended. So industry was able to block a compromise on a bill that is premised on the idea that industry has no clout on Capitol Hill. That is a rather telling irony. With my amendment, the bill will still give industry additional tools to fight private mandates, tools that other interest groups lack. They will still have new points of order available against bills, conference reports, motions and resolutions. All my amendment does is remove the provision of the bill that creates a brand new point of order against amendments. As I have said, that provision of the bill will effectively shut down all debate. I am not arguing that Congress never imposes mandates that are a bad idea. We do it on occasion and we should not do it. I am not arguing that industry is always wrong and that their adversaries are always right. Industry is oftentimes right and their adversaries are oftentimes wrong. Indeed, I am a sponsor of a Superfund reform bill that business groups large and small have embraced and the environmental groups have questioned. But I do not believe that we should restructure the rules of the House so that one side has the upper hand in every single debate.

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

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, as I have said, we have agreed, we have agreed based upon the colloquy I had with the gentleman from Ohio, to include the manager's amendment in the exemption.

Mr. BOEHLERT. If my colleague will continue to yield, I would like to point out this is not, as it has been characterized, a gutting amendment. What we are trying to do is ensure that an amendment proposed on the floor has a full and open airing so that our colleagues will have the benefit of the thinking of the proponent and the opponents of the amendment. The bill's resolutions, as provided for in the base bill, would still be subject to a point of order. The fact of the matter is, characterizing something as a gutting amendment does not, in fact, mean it is a gutting amendment. That is not my intent, to gut the bill. My intent is to improve the bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, two things. One, I have served in local government as a former county executive, so I know whereof he speaks. Secondly, I am not suggesting that proposed mandates are good or bad. Some are good. Some are bad. The only thing I am trying to protect is the opportunity for full and open debate on the floor of the people's House. What could be wrong with that?

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in both a fiscal and political environment in which we simply cannot fund every system and program we would like. This applies whether intelligence or not intelligence. However, it is important for the American people to understand just how critical intelligence is to the very survival of our Nation and our way of life. On the way over to the Capitol this morning, I heard a radio announcer refer to this bill as ``the bill to authorize America's cloak-and-dagger operation.'' That sort of a label is correct in a way, but unfortuantely, I believe it unintentionally misrepresents what this bill is all about. What this bill is about is the wise and prudent funding and oversight of those intelligence collection analysis and dissemination function necessary to provide for the security of our Nation, its interests, and its citizens around the world. We are talking about what I refer to as ``counterprograms.'' We are not engaged in a world war, but we have some very important counterprograms, counterterrorism, counternarcotics, counterproliferation. These are all very important activities, and this bill funds them. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out a couple of funcational intelligence areas of particular interest in this bill. The first is the emphasis this bill places on rebuilding leading-edge technology, research and development. It is the basic research and development of new technologies that are the easiest to cut in lean fiscal times. But it is precisely these efforts that our future depends on and that we must pay particular attention to and fund properly. This bill puts great emphasis on future capabilities, albeit sometimes imprudently at the expense of older so-called legacy systems. Also, this bill emphasizes the need for a strong, well-trained and funded reserve intelligence component. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things I could say about this bill, and I do not have the time to say them. Just let me say that as someone who tried to be very attentive to my important responsibilities on this committee, I admire the way the chairman and ranking member have worked cooperatively. I admire the seriousness of purpose of all of the members. I admire the product that we are producing, and I commend it to the attention of all my colleagues and the American people. We are doing the people's business in a wise and prudent manner.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding to me. The examples he cited are perfect and the illustration he presented is right on target. Courts cannot impose taxes. But courts are charged with the responsibility of dealing with the laws we, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, and the Congress of the United States, pass. And when we are dealing with sensitive issues like clean water, which we all depend on, and which the American people want us to protect, we have to make certain that the laws we pass are dealt with in a responsible manner by the courts. The courts are not going to impose a tax, but the courts are going to say to a given community, for example, you have to stop polluting. And the community is going to decide how it has to stop polluting. I thank the gentleman for the example. The gutting would occur, the gutting would occur, I would suggest, if we failed to amend section 5.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Delahunt-Boehlert amendment. What is at stake here is nothing less than whether we are going to exempt State and local governments from complying with a wide range of environmental and other laws. I do not think that Congress ought to be providing that sort of blanket exemption. I want to emphasize again that the issue here is whether we believe that States and localities ought to comply with the laws we pass. This is not about judicial activism or tax rates. Our amendment blocks judicial activism by keeping intact all of the provisions of section 5 that prevent judges from imposing or raising taxes. Let me repeat that. Our amendment blocks judicial activism by keeping intact all of the provisions of section 5 that prevent judges from imposing or raising taxes. Courts ought not to be levying taxes and our amendment keeps them from doing so. But the language we are removing from the bill would do far more than prevent judges from overreaching. It would prevent judges from doing their jobs. It would prevent judges from taking actions that are required by law. For example, let us say a municipal waste treatment plant upstream from our town is discharging pollutants into a river, closing beaches in our town. We sue to get the sewage treatment plant to comply with the standards in the Clean Water Act. Under H.R. 1252, a judge could be unable to issue an order requiring compliance with the Clean Water Act, because doing so might lead the town to raise taxes. Even worse, if we and the town agreed to settle the case by the town agreeing voluntarily to fix the sewage treatment plant, H.R. 1252 could forbid the judge from approving the voluntary settlement. Yet, if an industry were discharging the same pollutants into the same river, a judge would be able to force the industry to comply. That is bad law. That is bad policy. And, quite simply, it is unfair. Virtually every environmental group, as well as the Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by Chief Justice Rehnquist, oppose section 5 because of its perverse consequences such as the ones I have just outlined. And environmental laws are not the only ones that could become dead letters under this bill. The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, other civil rights statutes and worker protection statutes would also be affected. Indeed, one judge has noted that even the Brown v. Board of Education decision would have been difficult to enforce if H.R. 1252 had been in effect. Section 5 as written would simply undermine the enforcement of our laws. If Congress does not like the laws, like the Clean Water Act, then we ought to rewrite them. But we will not do that because the laws have proven so successful and so immensely popular. If we think localities ought to get more Federal aid to comply with these laws, let us provide the money. I am fighting with the administration right now to increase the funding available for municipal sewage treatment plants. Those are all reasonable remedies. Preventing enforcement of statutes that are on the books is not a reasonable way to change the law. In fact, the approach in this bill is to offset, offer massive congressional overreaching to counteract an occasional and rare judicial overreaching. It is like hearing that one of our kids has misbehaved at school and responding by never sending any of our kids to school again. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Delahunt-Boehlert amendment. It will prevent judges from raising taxes while allowing the proper enforcement of legitimate laws to continue.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of BESTEA, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. I would like to point out to all of my colleagues and to the American people that BESTEA is green tea. The reason I have attached the label of ``green tea'' to the bill before us this afternoon is because the legislation provides more funding to improve the quality of America's environment than any approved by this body in the last decade. This is an environmentally sensitive and an environmentally friendly bill. And that is good for the American people, because they expect us to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we eat. Nothing is more important than that in terms of our assignment. Green tea contains over $40 billion for the transit program, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program, commonly known as CMAQ; the Transportation Enhancement Program; the Recreational Trails Program; and the National Scenic Byways Program. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the Chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, are to be applauded for their obvious concerns about America's transportation policy and how they have incorporated a sensitivity to the environment in this measure. In fact, the environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA. Let me repeat this point. The environmental community strongly endorses BESTEA because they, too, know it is green tea. The Environmental Defense Fund, the League of American Bicyclists, the National Trust of Historic Preservation, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Rails to Trails Program, Scenic America and the Sierra Club all strongly support BESTEA because they, too, know it is green tea. Green tea provides nearly $4 billion for the transportation enhancement program. This program provides needed funding to communities to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities and renovate historic transportation facilities. Green tea provides nearly $10 billion for the Congestion and Mitigation Air Quality Program over a 6- year period. This is a good bill. It deserves support. It has earned the support of the environmental community.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would say for my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, for whom I have the greatest respect, that this bill was not about roads primarily, initially, but this amendment suddenly makes it about roads. My amendment simply says for the programs in this bill, and only the programs in this bill, you cannot build roads in roadless areas. It is that basic.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I demand we have a vote on the Smith amendment, as amended.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the example cited by the gentleman, and I am very sensitive to that, would be taken care of under existing Forest Service programs. This is a very narrow, targeted area.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, this is limited only to places where timbering already occurs or is likely to occur. So that is the original bill. What I am saying, what my perfecting amendment says, it wants to get more in line with the original language of the gentleman from Oregon (Chairman Smith), but the gentleman from Oregon (Chairman Smith) has been besieged by a few members of the conference to make an adjustment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is correct. The gentleman is correct.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would point out, we did not raise this issue. We were offering no amendments until we needed to respond to the base amendment that was offered here. My amendment was not the extreme amendment. It is an effort to get back to the language in the original bill of the gentleman from Oregon, Chairman Smith. This amendment, my amendment, the perfecting amendment, applies only to programs in this bill, not to other Forest Service programs. I want to make certain everyone understands that clearly.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Two points I wish to make: In response to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) I wish to point out this is hardly an extreme measure. No roads are needed to accomplish forest health purposes. My amendment is narrower than the original bill language agreed to by the chairman, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith). So I want to point that out to one and all. Secondly, in response to my colleague from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), her interpretation is wrong. My amendment does not eliminate anything or limit anything being done to deal with existing roads. They can be repaired, they can be maintained. Her interpretation is clearly wrong.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment says that no roads could be built if doing so would violate any law or policy in effect or proposed on the date of enactment. This complex language boils down to one thing. The amendment's language will prevent this bill from being used to build roads in roadless areas. It is that basic. Let me repeat. This amendment will prevent this bill from being used to build roads in roadless areas. As I already said and many others have repeated, no roads are needed for forest health. Let us not be misled. This amendment applies only to road construction under this bill, not to other Forest Service programs.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute drafted, but I do not intend to offer it. The substitute would enable the bill's proponents to do what they claim they want to do: get a bill signed into law. This substitute makes some simple changes to the bill, which would not impair the program, but that would allow the bill to be signable. The substitute will protect forests and people. The bill, I am afraid, will end up helping no one. Only ideology stands between the House and a signable bill that will improve the health of our Nation's forests. My substitute makes three changes in the original bill. The first would prevent the construction of new roads under this bill. This is the change I had planned to offer in my original amendment that was printed in the Record. Let me be clear. My roads provision deals only with road construction under the program created by this bill. It would have no impact on road construction under any other Forest Service program, so I hope we can have a debate on this that focuses solely on the issue at hand; that is, should road building be a part of the forest health program in this bill? I think the answer is clearly no. Forest health problems occur primarily in areas where logging has occurred. Those areas already are accessible by roads. Therefore, if this bill is designed to remedy forest health problems, there is no reason to build any roads. The only reason to build roads would be to facilitate more logging, including in roadless areas, and the bill's sponsors claim that that is not the purpose of the bill. I am sure the chairman will point out that this bill already bans the construction of permanent roads. That is true. The inclusion of that language was a significant concession on his part. But temporary roads are almost as damaging as permanent ones. They can cause erosion and other problems while they are in use, and for years thereafter. As erosion increases, streams are damaged. As one environmentalist said to me, the fish do not know whether the road is permanent or temporary. The bill as it stands allows environmental degradation to occur without any balancing benefit. The temporary roads will cause ecological damage, but they are not needed to fulfill the purposes of this bill. Everyone around here who sings the praises of cost-benefit analysis ought to be appalled by a cost-benefit ratio where the benefit is zero. My substitute will ensure that we do not build roads under a program that does not require them. My second change would be a boon to the American taxpayer. Under the bill, any revenues generated by timber sales under the health program go to the States. This is bad in two ways. First, it deprives the Federal taxpayer of revenues gained from national, that is Federal, forests. No existing Forest Service programs return all revenues to the States. Second, the bill's scheme creates an incentive to log in a program that is not designed to promote logging. Under the bill, State and local officials will pressure the Forest Service to log to give more revenue. We want decisions on logging to be based on forest sites, not local economics. Third, my substitute makes a number of technical changes, many of which had already been welcomed by the staff of the Committee on Agriculture. Some of these changes are of greater advantage to the bill's sponsors than they are to the opponents, but their primary impact is to guarantee all existing environmental reviews are carried out under this new program. That is the sponsors' stated intent, and these changes would ensure that their intent is realized. This substitute presents Congress with a simple choice: we can function as an ideological debating society, spending time on bills that cannot possibly become law, like the bill before us today, or we can make some changes that ensure that this forest health program actually functions as described, and that the program actually becomes law. To me, that seems like an easy choice. I am not going to offer this substitute because it has been developed at the last minute, out of necessity, because of the dynamics of this process, with changes being made from hour to hour. But it demonstrates how easy it would have been to craft a signable bill. I urge defeat of this bill so we can start again and end up with a law that will make a difference.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I want to begin, though, by commending the chairman, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith). As always, he has proven to be open to negotiation and has indeed made changes that do improve the bill. But I have come to the reluctant conclusion that this bill is simply too flawed to move forward. The bill just reaches more broadly than is necessary to address the forest health problems it is ostensibly designed to address. Mr. Chairman, if the goal is to solve fire and infestation problems, we ought just to give the Forest Service additional funding and require them to begin planning projects swiftly under current rules and regulations. That is the approach we took with the Quincy Library bill which I helped negotiate, a bill which passed the House with only one dissenting vote. Instead, this bill creates an elaborate new program that could turn out to be just another logging and road building program in disguise. Why are we so concerned about potential abuse of this program? Are we just suffering some sort of paranoia? The answer is clearly no. The salvage rider proved that programs that are supposedly designed to deal with forest health can turn out to be uncontrolled large-scale timbering programs that have nothing to do with forest health. I am also concerned about moving ahead with bills that purport to help people but that have no chance of becoming law. I thought it was an axiom of legislating that a bill cannot help anyone if it does not become law. The administration has said in no uncertain terms that this bill would be vetoed. Every single environmental group, without exception, vehemently opposes this bill. If we are serious about solving problems on the ground, we ought to go back to the drawing board and come up with a signable bill. I have at the ready an amendment to ensure that this program created by the bill cannot be used as an excuse to build new forest roads, and I will strongly oppose any efforts to weaken the roads language that is already in the bill. I may also offer a substitute that would turn this into a signable bill with just a few changes. I think it is unfortunate that we are spending time voting on a bill that will be vetoed instead of passing a bill that will actually address forest health.