Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, despite a few mistakes, the National Endowment for the Arts has worked and continues to work remarkably well. It provides funds on the basis of excellence, not merely population. That is not an elitism, that is the time-honored conservative principle of giving money where it will be used most effectively. Under the Ehlers plan, the distribution of funds on population, every single State except one, every single State except one loses money. The discretionary grants are gone and the 37 percent distribution formula means every State loses money. The only place that came out on the plus side of the ledger is when you distribute money for students and then you give them 90 cents apiece to buy crayons and construction paper. Support the NEA.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Porter- Kennedy amendment to promote fiscal responsibility and protect our natural resources. I think it is clear that the American people want us to get our fiscal house in order. And it is equally clear that they want us to protect the environment. The Porter-Kennedy amendment accomplishes both of these goals by eliminating an unwise Federal subsidy which benefits large corporations and harms our national forests. I do not oppose timbering on public lands. I understand the importance of accessibility to timber sales. But we already have 380,000 miles of roads in our national forests. That is eight times the size of our interstate highway system. And most of those roads can be used only by timber companies and are not suited for recreational use. It is time that American citizens stopped subsidizing the construction of more logging roads. It is important to note that this amendment does not affect, let me stress, this amendment does not affect the funding of the Forest Service for the maintenance of existing roads, nor does it hamper the construction of recreational or general purpose roads. It simply says that if a timber company needs to build another road to reach another timber sale, the company, not the American taxpayer, should pay for it. I think that makes perfect sense. So, too, do the Citizens Against Government Waste. So, too, do the Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Wilderness Society and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The list goes on and on. Support U.S. taxpayers and the environment. Support the Kennedy- Porter amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those assurances. I think that my colleagues can now see how this bill provides adequate environmental protection. This valuable locally developed experiment will be able to go forward to the extent that it passes muster under existing environmental law. We have provided no special dispensations but we have ensured that the initial stages of environmental review cannot be dragged on indefinitely. I think this Congress needs to do everything possible to advance locally developed solutions to environmental issues, but those solutions must be in compliance with environmental, Federal environmental law. This bill satisfies both of those goals. This bill would advance a locally negotiated, created, worthy 5-year experiment while ensuring that the experiment moves forward only to the extent that it complies with Federal environmental law. It is exactly the right approach to the stewardship of Federal lands that belong to us all. Creative management, full-fledged protection. In forest management in particular, this strategy has been lacking. On one side we have those who want to ban all logging in Federal forests; on the other, those who want to limit the role of environmental concerns in managing those forests. But those extremes must be rejected. This bill rejects them. I am pleased this bill has been revised to represent a true middle ground. I want to thank all of those on both sides of the aisle who have worked so cooperatively with the Quincy Library Group. This is how the system should work. I want to commend both the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] in particular with whom I have had the privilege of working closely. I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working cooperatively with us. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT. One final question, Mr. Chairman. Is there anything in this bill that would prevent the Forest Service from undertaking site- specific analysis as part of an environmental impact statement?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished minority member for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the committee. I want to thank Chairman Young for working with me and others who had concerns about this bill. I think we now have a bill which allows an important experiment to move forward, while ensuring that it proceeds within the framework of existing environmental law. That is very important to me and many of my colleagues in this House. I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy to clarify a few points. First, under the Young substitute, I would ask the gentleman from Alaska, would an environmental impact statement have to be completed before the pilot project got underway?

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. In the event that an environmental review found that the project was in some way at odds with environmental law or the spotted owl guidelines, then the project would have to be altered accordingly?

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today provides the necessary, and I emphasize necessary, funding for the operations of our Nation's intelligence functions. It also provides continuing support, in keeping with the committee's work over the previous 2 years in building the intelligence community for the 21st century. This bill makes major improvements to the President's budget request by taking some critically needed steps forward, particularly in the areas of building up human intelligence capabilities and analysis and improving technical collection abilities. It puts some needed logic in the area of unmanned aerial vehicle management, and it builds on some existing directions forged last year in such areas as the national reconnaissance program. Mr. Chairman, to do all of this the bill increases the President's budget by only about seven-tenths of a percent, so I want to congratulate the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for the outstanding work and guidance they have provided. The worldwide scene and many of our national interests have changed, Mr. Chairman, since the dissolution of the Soviet empire. However, the world is not necessarily a significantly safer place since the end of the cold war. This bill recognizes the fact that despite the very real lessening of a threat to our national being, several rogue states, radical movements, and transnational threats such as terrorism, organized crime, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continue to clearly present a danger to our Nation and our people. It is important to understand that the focus of our intelligence community in peacetime is to maintain a knowledge level of the world that allows us to maintain that peace we so dearly cherish. Our intelligence services are, for example, fully employed now around the world helping to ensure that we are not caught by some surprise in places such as Bosnia or the Persian Gulf or the Korean Peninsula. This bill focuses on right-sizing and right-equipping our intelligence services, both civilian and military, to perform their critical functions to preserve that peace. Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that during the preparation of this bill each budgetary line item in the President's request was valued on its individual merits in relation to the whole of the U.S. intelligence efforts. The committee did not work to a specific or artificially developed top line number. Instead, the committee added funding as necessary to critical programs and made some cuts to programs that it considered overfunded. The resulting authorization is therefore highly defensible in the aggregate and in a line-by-line analysis. This is a view I am sure is shared by those Members of the House who have examined the classified annex wherein each budgetary line is explained in detail. Mr. Chairman, this is a good product brought forward by a committee that has worked cooperatively, and it is a pleasure for me and a privilege to be a new member of the committee and watch the high degree of professionalism that exists in all its deliberations, not only high degree of professionalism, but a high degree of bipartisanship.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, when all is said and done, I view this as a keep-the-faith with the American people amendment. The authors are asking of us to approve exactly what we said we would do, we would charge taxes and fees and we would use that money to build, repair, and maintain our Nation's infrastructure. Nothing more, nothing less. No one is suggesting a raid on any other funds earmarked for any other purpose. Rather, what the advocates of this amendment are saying is that we should level with the American people. If we ask them for money for a specific purpose, we should use that money for that specific purpose. Let me hasten to add that approving this measure will not, it will not take all the hard work and negotiations that have led us to this historic moment and toss it out the window forcing us to start anew. Does anyone really believe that an approximate one-third of 1 percent adjustment in other spending and tax reduction programs, nothing the first year, one-tenth of 1 percent the second year and one-third overall is going to upset the apple cart? That strains credulity. Let us keep the faith with the American people. Let us support Shuster- Oberstar. When all is said and done, I view this as a ``keep the faith'' with the American people amendment. The authors are asking of us approval to do for the people exactly what we said we would do when the Congress imposed gasoline taxes and other user fees on the traveling public--take the money provided therefrom and use it to build, repair and maintain our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Nothing more, nothing less. No one is suggesting a raid on any other funds earmarked for any other purpose. Rather, what the advocates of this amendment are saying is that we should level with the American public. If we ask them for money for a specific purpose we should use the money for that purpose. And if we don't, we should repeal these taxes and fees. Let me hasten to add that approving this measure will not--let me emphasize--will not take all the hard work and negotiations that have led us to this historic moment and toss it out the window, forcing us to start anew. Does anyone really believe that an approximate one-third of 1 percent adjustment in other spending and tax reduction programs--nothing the first year, one-tenth of 1 percent the second year and one third of a percent overall--will upset the apple cart. That strains credulity. Let's keep this faith with the American people and support Shuster.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my congratulations to my great friend, John K. Meagher, who has recently been named the managing director of the newly established Tax & Trade Group at Cassidy and Associates. John has had a distinguished career which began when he and I served side-by-side on the staff of our own Congressman, former Rep. Alexander Pirnie of New York. We spent 5 years as colleagues and grew to be best friends. We have remained so to this day. John was always interested in the law and has served with distinction as Republican counsel to the Ways and Means Committee, as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Secretaries Baker and Brady as a partner in the law firm of Le Boeuf, Lamb, Greene and Mac Rae. He not only understands the law, he understands the Congress and the executive branch as well. He's been both places as a junior staffer and as a high official. He knows us and how we work. As he and his colleagues in the Tax & Trade Group embark on their new and exciting venture, I wish my friend well.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment provides necessary clarifying language, and I am willing to accept that. I think it is constructive, and I thank the gentleman very much.

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

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this substitute would accomplish what the sponsors of H.R. 478 only claim to do. That is, it would ensure that the Endangered Species Act never subverts emergency work to prevent or respond to floods, while keeping fundamental species protection intact. Here is precisely what this substitute would do. First, in disaster areas it would allow the repair or replacement of flood control facilities to move forward without prior consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. This would mean, to use my opponents' terminology, that no redtape or faceless bureaucrats could prevent emergency repairs from proceeding immediately. Second, in places that are not disaster areas, let me stress, not disaster areas, my substitute would allow repairs to move forward without prior consultation whenever a flood control project poses an imminent threat to human life or property. Now, the sponsors of H.R. 478 ought to like that language. It is taken from the one targeted section of their bill. Third, the substitute makes clear that we are not limiting in any way the President's authority to issue further exemptions in disaster areas. Fourth, the substitute is an amendment to the Endangered Species Act. I need to emphasize these points because the opposition has repeatedly mischaracterized this amendment. In this substitute, we have responded to virtually every real concern we have heard about the ESA and flooding. We have heard that the ESA has prevented repairs from taking place. This substitute ensures that repairs can take place. We have heard that repairs are needed not only in disaster areas, but throughout the country. This substitute addresses potential disasters as well as actual ones. This substitute clarifies language in the supplemental appropriation that was approved by voice vote, so it can hardly be accused of appealing to a narrow constituency. So what have we done? Again, we have responded to what we have heard is actually or potentially harmful about the ESA and emergency situations. However, here is what we have not done. We have not used these legitimate concerns as an excuse to undermine fundamental species protection. H.R. 478 would emasculate the Endangered Species Act. Our substitute, while creating new exceptions, would keep the law fundamentally intact. Most endangered species live along or in waterways. H.R. 478's blanket exemption for flood control projects, even with the language of the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], threatens any species that depend on waterways to survive. The endangered species actions that have been taken to protect salmon, whooping crane, sea turtles, manatees, and other creatures would not have been possible if H.R. 478 had been in effect. Protecting newly listed species would be virtually impossible under the bill. That is why this bill is opposed by every environmental group, by Republicans for Environmental Protection, by American Rivers, by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, by Trout Unlimited, by the American Canoe Association; by just about any group, large or small, that has any interest in protecting our waterways and their denizens. It is not that these groups do not care about human beings. It is not that these groups are all in agreement on ESA reform. It is that they understand that H.R. 478 is quite literally a case of overkill. My substitute accomplishes H.R. 478's stated objectives without threatening the environment. Let me add, Mr. Chairman, that I do not claim that my substitute takes care of every legitimate concern with the Endangered Species Act. Some Members, for example, have concerns with the cost of mitigation. But our express purpose here today is to take care of narrow problems related to emergency situations. Mitigation is a broad and fundamental issue that must be addressed in the context of comprehensive ESA reform. I daresay that a comprehensive bill would not reform mitigation in the ham-handed way envisioned by H.R. 478. Let us not hold up emergency legislation because additional concerns must be addressed at a later time. My substitute would be signed into law and would provide real relief for real people facing real emergencies. H.R. 478 would not be signed into law and will not help anyone. By voting for it, I would suggest Members would be making the wrong move. I urge my colleagues to support balance, moderation, a real solution for a legitimate problem. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman form California yield?

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the close of a spirited and very serious debate, and I want to commend all those who have participated for the seriousness of purpose. My substitute addresses the stated objective of H.R. 478 in a manner that does not violate a very important piece of legislation, the Endangered Species Act, and in a manner that is friendly and sensitive to the environment. We have a choice. Do we want to solve a problem or do we want to beat up on the Endangered Species Act? I do not find the Endangered Species Act, despite the fact that it is so well-intended, to be perfect. It requires some refinement. But that is another debate for another day. This purpose today is to address an emergency situation. We have been faced with an emergency situation and we have come up with an emergency response, a response that allows the repair work to go forward not just after the fact, as some have been concerned with, but prior to the fact if there is a substantial threat. Now, the crafters of H.R. 478 will tell my colleagues that their bill is narrowly crafted. Be wary of that. Do not buy anything from that, because their bill would exempt from the Endangered Species Act maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, or replacement of a Federal or a non-Federal flood control project, facility, structure. The list goes on and on. A blanket exemption. We have heard expressed here in eloquent terms how important the Endangered Species Act is to America. Do we just want to throw it out? The answer is clearly no. But no law is more important than human life, and we want to protect human life, and that is why we have the exemptions we do in this bill. When human life is threatened, when there are substantial property investments threatened, we do not want a lot of bureaucrats and red tape and a lot of paperwork saying, well, we are sorry. We do not want people to be in harm's way so we provide exemptions for that. Now, let me tell my colleagues something. People will say, well, the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Dingell] and some of the others are against flood control projects. They do not want to build any public works projects to protect the American people. How wrong they are. Because I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment that brought to this floor last year a $4 billion, 4-year program for flood control and important activities like that which are so essential to California, not just California but New York, too. So I suggest to my colleagues, if our desire is to beat up on ESA, go ahead. But that is not what we are here to address. We are here to address an emergency. We are here to legislate. I have been told by the administration that H.R. 478, even as amended, will not be signed into law by the President of the United States. So we can have all the grand speeches we want, all the press releases we want, but we will not have legislation to deal with real problems affecting real people in a real emergency. My bill will be signed by the President. The administration has said so. So that is very important. Finally, let me point out that my language, my proposal, was passed unanimously by voice vote in the Committee on Appropriations on a bipartisan basis. But that was not good enough. The committee was upset and they objected to it. That is why we are here. Support an environmentally friendly substitute. Let us do the people's business.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill which would gut the Endangered Species Act. Make no mistake about it. The bill would, and I quote, exempt any maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, or replacement of a Federal or non-Federal flood control project, facility or structure, and it goes on and on. H.R. 478 bears no resemblance to the benign, narrow bill its sponsors describe. H.R. 478 is advertised as a targeted response to an emergency situation. Yet, this bill would exempt from the Endangered Species Act any work at any existing flood control facility, even if there was no conceivable threat to public safety. Is a blanket exemption to the Endangered Species Act necessary to respond to or to prevent emergency? Obviously not. H.R. 478 is advertised as a way to provide relief to communities that have suffered or will suffer from disasters. Yet, this bill is so broad that it would never be signed into law. Can a bill that never becomes law help a single person? Obviously not. H.R. 478 is advertised as being pro-environment. Yet, this bill is vehemently opposed not only by every environmental group, but by such sportsmens' group as Trout, Unlimited, and by conservative wildlife management groups such as the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Associations. Would a pro-environment bill be opposed by the entire environmental community? Obviously not. H.R. 478 is advertised as striking a balance between human needs and the preservation of wildlife, yet this bill would prevent any wildlife consideration from being taken into account in managing such areas as the Everglades or the Columbia River Basin, or the Colorado River. Can a bill simultaneously do away with wildlife considerations and provide any protection for endangered species? Obviously not. The deficiencies in this bill are, indeed, glaringly obvious. We cannot ignore them simply because this bill is being proposed in the wake of tragic floods. This bill has little to do with responding to floods and everything to do with using them as political cover. However, we must not be distracted by shouting ``flood'' in a crowded congressional Chamber. Does this mean that the Endangered Species Act does not need to be reformed? No. But today's debate is about emergency measures, not about comprehensive reform. Does this mean that Congress does not mean to make any changes to the Endangered Species Act in response to floods? No. But we respond with moderate, targeted, sensible solutions to real problems. Mr. Chairman, we have to respond with moderate, targeted, sensible solutions to real problems, solutions that can get signed into law. I will offer a substitute that fits that description, a measure that will work as advertised. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to read H.R. 478 to understand its expansive impact. We must not allow legitimate concerns about flooding to wash away 25 years of effort to preserve endangered species. We have better ways to protect human lives and property, the goal we all share. I ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 478 and to support the Boehlert substitute.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].