Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 992. While this bill appears to be an innocuous bill dealing with court jurisdiction, its actual effect would be to unsettle many areas of environmental law, and that concerns me. Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) will offer an amendment that will take care of one of the threats this bill poses to environmental law. His amendment will ensure that this bill does not override existing statutes. I appreciate his willingness to do that and I will support his amendment. But his amendment still leaves another problem with the bill, the enormous expansion of the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Now, that sounds like an arcane issue. Why should we care? The reason is that the Court of Federal Claims has no experience in handling these issues. It operates under different procedures than other courts that hear environmental cases and is not bound by all the precedents that bind those other courts. In other words, we will be sending environmental cases into a new, inexperienced, very different venue than we have dealt with for the last several decades. That creates unnecessary uncertainty not just for environmental advocates but for the regulated landowners and companies. I should point out that the League of Conservation Voters strongly opposes the bill because environmental law cases simply do not belong in the Court of Claims. Moreover, the expansion may well prove to be unconstitutional. The judicial conference of the United States, chaired by Chief Justice Rehnquist opposes the provisions of this bill because the bill, and I quote, ``represents a major expansion of the jurisdiction and remedial powers of the Court of Claims.'' Continuing the quote, ``These provisions may raise constitutional issues about the appropriate jurisdiction of an Article I court.'' That is, as my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), has indicated previously, it may have the unintended consequence, if the bill should pass, of actually delaying action rather than expediting action. Why would we risk venturing into this uncertain territory? Frankly, the committee gives us no real reason at all. There is no evidence whatsoever that the so-called Tucker Shuffle is a real-world problem affecting real people. We are threatening environmental law for the sake of a theory. I am, frankly, mystified as to why there is a determined effort to open the doors of the Federal Court of Claims. I do not hear any clamor for that. But I do hear genuine opposition to opening up the court for specific real-world reasons. Let us not unsettle environmental law for the sake of a symbolic bill that will help no one and is most certain to be vetoed. Let us defeat H.R. 992 and get back to the legislation that helps real people without threatening the legal safeguards that protect our air, our land, and our water. H.R. 992 does not spell relief. It spells trouble.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my congratulations to my great friend, Michael K. Simpson, who will be retiring as the president of Utica College of Syracuse University this January to become the president of the American University in Paris. Dr. Simpson has had a most distinguished career as both an academic and community leader. His contributions to Utica College and the surrounding community are countless. Throughout his very rich and rewarding life, President Simpson has never hesitated to share his time and abilities with the people of the Mohawk Valley. His contributions to the United Way of Greater Utica, the Oneida County School-Business Alliance, the Health and Hospital Council of the Mohawk Valley, and the Boy Scouts of America, among many others, exemplify a commitment to our community second to none. But it is Utica College, my alma mater, that has benefited most notably from Mike's creativity, leadership and intellectual firepower. Mike's academic credentials are of the highest order. He holds degrees in international relations, business, law and diplomacy and has his doctorate in international politics from the Fletcher School at Tufts University. He has imparted his knowledge and love of international politics, diplomacy and economics for the past 21 years at Utica College and through the many study abroad programs that he has directed. He has been an inspiration to several generations of students. As president, Mike has been able to expand programs and increase the college's presence in our community while returning the institution to a sound financial footing. Under Mike's tutelage, the physical therapy program received accreditation and a pathbreaking graduate program in economic crime investigation is being developed. The Young Scholars Program, which teams Utica College students with inner city youth, has received national acclaim. And the campus's capital campaign is not only meeting its ambitious targets, but is moving forward ahead of schedule. All this makes it clear why I am so proud to call Mike Simpson my friend. It also shows why I was upset, but not surprised to learn that Mike has been offered his new prestigious post in Paris. Mike indeed has all the requisite traits to be a leader of international standing. Our community was blessed to have him among us for so long. As Mike departs this January, his contributions will be missed, but never forgotten. I wish Mike the best in his new adventures and endeavors. His travels may take him to the far corners of the Earth, but Utica, the Mohawk Valley and I will always hold Mike Simpson in our minds--and hearts--as a great educator, a valued citizen, and a true friend.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. I am sure my colleagues have all heard that information technology is vital to our future both for economic competitiveness and for national security. Information warfare, information operations, information dominance, information assurance and dominant battlefield awareness, they are all familiar phrases often invoked when defense budget priorities are discussed. Upon closer examination, however, we sometimes find that this is more rhetoric than reality. Since Rome Laboratory is in my congressional district, it is the Air Force center of excellence for information technology development, I have had the occasion to examine the rhetoric and the reality. In a broader sense, the entire intelligence budget is geared to provide a U.S. worldwide information advantage upon which policymakers and military forces will rely heavily, yet partly because of the rise in military operations costs and the dearth of military procurement money, in recent years the intelligence budget has received only modest congressional plus-ups provided to the defense budget. This year, for instance, money appropriated for intelligence will be under, under the administration request. Further, I understand that in the developing budget for fiscal year 1999, the Air Force initially recommended large cuts to science and technology in the magnitude of $250 million, which could fall heavily on information technology. Quite frankly, that is totally unacceptable. I have made known my strong rejection of that approach to the appropriate people, and fortunately I am finding a receptive audience in both DOD, the Department of Defense, and the White House. One of the reasons I sought this much coveted position on this committee is to be able to deal directly with its very important subject, and I am pleased to report that our committee this year took steps to upgrade the information infrastructure budget of several agencies to improve their processing, storage and exploitation of intelligence data. For the future we are also requiring a more coherent interagency strategy and budget for information assurance, or information protection. In this regard the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure recently publicized its conclusions that not only the defense infrastructure, but also key parts of the civilian economy are highly vulnerable to computer attack. The Commission called for greater focus and progressively increased spending to improve our protection. Thus far, Mr. Speaker, I do not yet see the level of commitment to information technology that will maintain the country's technological advantage into the future. In fact, although the rhetoric is there, the reality seems to be somewhat questionable. I urge my colleagues to follow the lead of this committee and the chairman and the ranking member and support this conference report and deal with this very important subject in a responsible manner.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill with the manager's amendment. I want to start by thanking the gentleman from Oregon, Chairman Smith, for his openness and willingness to stand up to people who should be his allies to get a workable bill. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the chairman, has always been responsible and candid and open minded. Whenever I or my staff had a discussion with the gentleman from Oregon, Chairman Smith, negotiations were friendly and productive. I appreciate that, because I know that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has taken grief he does not deserve for trying to do the right thing: Searching for the sensible middle ground. As for me, my position has not wavered since negotiations began in June. We made clear from the beginning what our concerns were with this bill, and once those concerns were addressed, we supported it. Our position has not changed. We have never linked grazing issues to those in other bills, and we have never paid any attention to anyone else who tried to assert such linkage. Let us turn to this bill. We have come up with a fair agreement, an agreement that helps ranchers while ensuring that the bill does no damage to the environment. Our goal in negotiations has been to ensure that public land is never treated as if it is owned by private parties. Our goal has been to ensure that Federal officials have the ability to protect the integrity of public lands. Those goals have been met. The manager's amendment makes changes in every section of this bill. It alters or drops problematic definitions which implied there was a private property right in Federal land. It drops the section on access. It drops the section on resource advisory councils, which are working so well. It clarifies the agency's role in monitoring and subleasing. The manager's amendment does all that while still providing ranchers with stability, a new fee formula, and the privilege of conveying their grazing permit when they sublease their base property, as long as the Secretary approves. This is a good deal that should enable us to pass grazing legislation for the first time in many years. But I hope it is just the first step. We have succeeded in ensuring that this legislation allows no damage to be done to the environment. I hope some day we can pass legislation that will be fair to ranchers, while being environmentally positive. Ranching groups and environmental groups have been working for several years behind the scenes to develop such a grazing regime. That is as surprising as it sounds. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and its passage. I urge support of the base bill of the gentleman from Oregon, Chairman Smith.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I object, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask a question of the Chair. I have no objection to the Traficant amendment, but I just want to make certain it is clarified when that will occur. Will that amendment come after the Boehlert substitute? If it does, I have no objection. If it does come before the Boehlert substitute, then we have a problem.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, maintaining my reservation of objection, as I have made clear, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, I am in support of that amendment. I do have some serious reservations about when it would appear.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my substitute. Here is what the substitute would do. It would allow those who sue the Federal Government over property rights to get to Federal court more rapidly. It does that in language that is virtually identical to sections 3 and 4 of the manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, here is what the substitute would not do. It would not interfere in any way with local government. It does that by eliminating section 2 of the manager's amendment. That is the section that allows Federal judges to intrude on local decision-making. As Federal officials, we ought to limit ourselves to effecting Federal decisions. That is what my substitute does. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Boehlert amendment. It is the moderate approach to property rights. It grants relief without trampling on Federalism. It helps property owners without preventing local communities from deciding their own future. I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, it has been alleged that the manager's amendment accommodates all of our objections to the bill. This simply is not so. The fundamental flaw in this bill is not addressed in the manager's amendment. It does now say that if a zoning board offers alternatives, a developer must appeal one more time. That is good. But the bill still removes all incentives to negotiate because a developer can go to Federal court rather than follow the zoning board's instructions. Moreover, the bill still explicitly takes State courts out of the process. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] that his State attorney general, Attorney General Lungren, a good Republican, is opposed to this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

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

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, for those who say that my substitute guts the bill, I would point out that my substitute retains section 3 and 4 of the manager's amendment. Are the sponsors saying that those sections of the bill are meaningless? I do not think so. To the previous speaker who says there is a choice, do we have power to the Government or power to the people? I say the choice is, do we have all power vested in Washington, DC, in the Federal Government, or do we leave to State and local governments power that they so jealously guard that they want to preserve, the power to make the decisions at the local level about local zoning issues? Should the Federal Government determine whether or not we will have a pornographic parlor on some corner in some small hamlet in some State in America? I do not think so. I think the local communities can deal very effectively with that issue. I would point out that the National Governors Association has spoken eloquently to this bill. Let me read an excerpt from their letter which has been addressed to all of our colleagues here: We are writing to express our strong opposition, strong opposition, to H.R. 1534, the so-called Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997. Continuing, the Governors letter says, the result will be substantially more Federal involvement in decisionmaking on purely local issues. This represents a significant infringement on State and local sovereignty and interferes with our ability to balance the rights of certain property owners against the greater community good or against the rights of other property owners in the same community. Now, that is an excerpt of a letter from the National Governors' Association signed by Gov. George Voinovich, chairman of the National Governors' Association, Mark Schwartz, councilmember, Oklahoma City, president, National League of Cities, and Mayor Paul Helmke, city of Fort Wayne, president, U.S. Conference of Mayors. As a matter of fact, my bill is the sensible approach to this issue because the basic bill, H.R. 1534, is not just opposed by me, not just opposed by a couple of Representatives of this great institution, it is opposed by the National Governors' Association, most State attorneys general, 40 at last count, including Dan Lungren, the attorney general of the State of California, including the attorney general of the State of New York, including the attorney general of the State of Texas, including the attorney general of the State of Connecticut, of Delaware, of Florida, of Georgia, of Hawaii, of Idaho, of Indiana, of Iowa, of Louisiana, of Maine, of Maryland, of Massachusetts, of Michigan, of Minnesota, of Mississippi, of Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, the attorney general of the Virgin Islands, the attorney general of Guam, the attorney general of the State of Washington, the attorney general of the State of Wisconsin. The list goes on and on. Not only the attorneys general but the Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, a very conservative Republican, Chief Justice Rehnquist. It is opposed by the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and every single environmental group in America. Why do they oppose it? Because it simply does not make sense. The Republicans, my colleagues, my friends, are saying they favor devolution. They want to send more authority back to State and local governments, and I think that makes a lot of sense. This bill does just the opposite.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I point out what the Judicial Conference of the United States says, and keep in mind we are talking about a basic issue decided by the Supreme Court that this bill proposes to overturn. That issue was decided 7 to 1 by the Supreme Court, with all the conservative justices voting in favor of Williamson County versus The Bank of Hamilton. Williamson County in Tennessee. The Judicial Conference of the United States says the judicial conference expresses concern with the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997. The bill would alter deeply ingrained Federalism principles by prematurely involving the Federal courts in property regulatory matters that have historically been processed at the State and local level. Finally, let me point out to my colleagues that it has been said repeatedly that my concerns have been mainly accommodated, some directly, some in spirit. Well, in spirit, that leaves a lot for interpretation. The basic fact of the matter is, there is a fatal flaw in this bill. It does now say that if a zoning board offers an alternative, a developer must appeal one more time. But the bill removes all incentives for negotiations. I urge support of the Boehlert substitute and opposition to the basic bill unless it is properly amended.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my distinguished colleague from Ohio that this simply says that Federal courts deal with Federal issues. Local courts, State courts deal with local and State issues. Washington is not the source of all wisdom. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], former Governor.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the spirit is one thing, but reality is something altogether different. There still is a fundamental flaw, as the gentleman from North Carolina would acknowledge.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule that was just considered. I want to thank the Committee on Rules, particularly the gentleman from New York, Chairman Solomon, for the very fair approach that has been taken on this bill. The rule will allow full and open debate on a policy dispute of great significance. Again, I offer my appreciation and my support. What is the policy dispute that is at the center of H.R. 1534? It comes down to this: Do Members of this body want to interfere for the first time with the most basic sorts of local zoning decisions? I say we should not do that, that any problems that exist with local zoning procedures ought to be remedied by State law, not by the intrusion of Federal judges. I am more than a little bit surprised to see some of my more conservative colleagues throwing overboard their professed belief in Federalism to allow Federal judges to intrude early on in these extremely local matters. This is not just my view. I do not stand alone in the well of this House. The bill is opposed by the National Governors' Association, by 40 States Attorneys General, including Attorney General Lundgren of California, Attorney General Vacco of New York. The list goes on and on. It is opposed by the Judicial Conference of America, chaired by Chief Justice Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States; it is opposed by the National League of Cities; by the U.S. Conference of Mayors; by all the environmental groups who, incidentally, are going to double score this bill, because of the significance of what is being proposed. The list of opponents of H.R. 1534 goes on and on. I think it is very important for all of my colleagues to really give full focus to what is being proposed. I am not sure how anyone could claim with a straight face that this bill is ``noncontroversial''; anything but. The manager's amendment represents a decided improvement in the bill, but it does not remedy the fatal flaw. The bill still would let Federal judges interfere with far more local zoning decisions. Think about that. Do we want everything kicked upstairs to the Federal Government, where all decision-making is made here? I think the answer to that is clearly no.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, my substitute, the Boehlert substitute, is the only way to correct that flaw, because it would eliminate the portion of the bill dealing with local zoning laws. Let me reemphasize what we are talking about. We are talking about local decisions made in local communities on whether or not, for example, to deny a permit for building in an area, if when that permit were granted it would bring in unnecessary intrusion in terms of heavy traffic, where adequate infrastructure does not exist. It happens in our home towns every single day. Do we want decisions made for us in our home towns by Washington, DC in every single zoning issue? I think the answer is clearly no, so we have to deal with it in a different way. We would expedite Federal court access for property owners with a claim against a Federal agency. I think that is very appropriate. I urge support of the rule and support for the Boehlert substitute. I thank the Chair for being so indulgent.