Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. As my colleagues know, I have only been here 14 years, so I am still learning, but I am talking now to the master because, as I look here at the River Rouge project over the past few years, I notice there are $320 million that has been earmarked at the direction of the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. I say that in a spirit, the good spirit of the day. I just want to point out as we are talking about something, just because he says it is so does not mean it is so. Let me stress this bill does not have any earmarks; earmarks, that is, directing the expenditure of a certain amount of money for any particular project. That is very important for all my colleagues to understand. Second, the preceding speaker, the gentleman from Michigan, for whom I have the greatest respect, could teach us all a lesson on how to get pork because, as I look at the appropriations from 1992 through 1997, I notice $320 million specifically earmarked for the Rouge River National Wet Weather project. Now, in 1992 it was $46 million; he was modest that year. In 1993 he got a little more energized, was up to $82 million, and keep going up. In 1994, $85 million. In 1995, in the spirit of the day, modestly went back to $75 million. In 1996, well, there have been some changes around here, was only $11\5/8\ million, but in 1997 the committee report already includes $20 million. The point is, and I have no quarrel; I used to live in Michigan. I can understand the importance of cleaning up the Rouge River, and I want to work with the gentleman to do just that.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I know time is precious, just let me say that we are about today something that I think is going to make the American people very happy. They watch what goes on down here and they wonder why we cannot come together, Republicans and Democrats, on something so important as safe drinking water. We can look the American people in the eye and say, we have come up with a good program that is going to protect the water supply for America. I think that is a day's deed well done. I think the gentleman for his help and for his guidance. He was here before I. He has been my inspiration on some occasions. We have been partners dealing with some legislation like acid rain. We are partners here again today. I hope we march forward together and pass this very important legislation.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which, incidentally, is the largest committee of this Congress or, for that matter, any Congress in the history of the Republic, it passed by unanimous vote, Republicans and Democrats alike. And we did have some very thorough consultation. I can only speak for my committee. We did have some consultation about our section of the bill, and I see some of my colleagues from the committee who were very much a part of that consultation on the other side of the aisle. The point is we have striven mightily to make this not a partisan thing, although we proudly claim an initiative here, but to work in concert with our good friends who are Democrats who share the same vision for America that we all have; that is, we want cleaner water. I would further point out that I am very mindful of the fact that the gentleman has some special needs in Santa Monica, and we have talked about this and we have exchanged correspondence. This is the ideal vehicle to go forward with the improvements that my colleague needs for the water system in Santa Monica.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment. This reminds me of the last time I went to donate blood, and they were really short. I donated a pint, they wanted a pint, and then they wanted another pint, but I just could not give anymore. It would do great damage to my health. I think if we did this, it would do great damage to this bill. We have cut $1.5 billion since 1995. We are moving in the right direction. But look at what we are providing funding for. Is there anything more precious to our heritage than the national parks? I think not. Some great environmental initiatives in here we are treating in a very responsible way: the Everglades, dealing with the clean streams program, dealing with habitat and conservation areas. I think everyone in America who hunts, who bikes, who fishes, who loves this great land of ours, should be very supportive of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I think the committee, under very difficult circumstances, has come up with a good package. We have made some adjustments on the floor, as I think we should, because the people's House is working its will. This is good legislation. We have cut. To cut further is counterproductive.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would prohibit the expenditure of funds to implement the so-called salvage rider. I use the term ``so-called'' advisedly because the salvage rider has turned out to have very little to do with salvage logging--that is, with taking dead trees out of forests. In fact, true salvage logging was already permitted before passage of the rider, which was sold to this body under what can most generously be considered false pretenses. We were told the salvage rider would apply only to dead trees. In reality, healthy, green trees, account for up to 50 percent of some salvage sales. We were told the salvage rider would increase Federal revenues. In reality, the rider has cost taxpayers millions of dollars by mandating subsidized timber sales. We were told the salvage rider would have a minimal impact on the environment. In reality, the rider has damaged our Nation's forests while preventing any citizen suits to redress the situation. In passing this rider, the House was sold a bill of goods. The public interest demands that the salvage rider be reversed so that we stop damaging our forests, sapping our treasury, and silencing public input.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on what my colleague from Massachusetts said. He is right on track and because he is right on track there are a number of organizations that have followed this very closely. These are fiscal watchdog groups, and they support this amendment. I might point out it is Taxpayers for Common Sense, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayer Assets Program. They are all in favor of this amendment, as too are all of the significant environmental groups like the Wilderness Society and the Natural Resources Defense Council. For good reason, they are all concerned with the responsible management of public lands. As we work to cut unnecessary spending and balance the budget, it makes good sense to cut those programs that target assistance to large corporations and harm the environment. That's the opportunity that we have before us today through support of this amendment. Road building is one of the most fiscally and environmentally irresponsible components of the Forest Service's timber sale program. The Forest Service is supposed to serve the interests of the entire general public that appreciates and values our National Forests, yet 95 percent of the roads constructed under the Forest Service program are used for logging, not recreational or other general purposes. Taxpayers must therefore pay twice--once for road subsidies and again for the environmental damage that results. Taxpayers have already subsidized a network of forest roads eight times the size of the interstate highway system. This amendment simply prevents the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to build new forest service roads. Funding for maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing 1,850 miles of logging road for use in the fiscal year 1997 timber harvest program will not be affected by this amendment. Nor will the ability of private companies to build new roads with their own money. An amendment as sensible as this has garnered the support of both fiscal watchdog groups, such as Taxpayers for Common Sense, Taxpayer Assets Program, and Citizens Against Government Waste, and of environmental groups, such as the Wilderness Society and the Natural Resources Defense Council, for good reason. They are all concerned with the responsible management of public lands. Support U.S. taxpayers and the environment. Support the Kennedy- Porter-Miller-Minge-Royce-Klug-Hostettler amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I realize it is late and I am not going to take all of my time, and I am concerned about the recommendation to cut $411.8 million from the weatherization program for next year. Keep in mind, we have cut this program, the weatherization program, almost in half right now and we are asked to strike yet another blow to, I think, a program that is very, very important. We have just had a very harsh winter. This is a program that is used essentially by the elderly and the disadvantaged, and I think we should try to continue at level funding, which is reasonable considering that we have drastically cut the funding in this year's program. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I am deeply concerned about the Appropriation Committee's recommendation to cut $11.8 million in weatherization funds for next year. This year, the weatherization program was cut almost in half and now, we are asked to strike another blow to this important program. I would like to remind my colleagues of the particularly harsh winter we just suffered. Furthermore, let's not forget last year's summer which saw hundreds of our frail citizens die in their apartments while trying to escape the heat. The weatherization program is essential for preventing these tragedies by helping to keep our poor and elderly in a safe environment in the extreme heat of the summer and the bitter cold of the winter. I understand the need to cut spending and balance the budget. And we all know that balancing the budget isn't easy as almost every program is going to take some cuts. However, I believe that the weatherization program has already taken more than its share of cuts, and further cuts will only serve to threaten the safety and welfare of our poor and elderly neighbors. I urge passage of this amendment to fund the weatherization program at last year's level.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the individuals in my district who have been honored to carry the torch in the Olympic Torch Relay. These individuals have distinguished themselves in the community by helping others who have been less fortunate. This group combines people of all ages, men and women for one purpose, to help bring the Olympic flame to Atlanta. The Olympics are held only rarely in the United States. We should take advantage of this great opportunity to showcase true patriots of this country. Once again I congratulate these individuals on their achievement. The individuals from my district are: James Barefoot, Sauquoit; Darrell Bruder, Rome; John Cribbs, Sidney; Judith Greiner, Clinton; Leo Hofmeister, Utica; Carlton Jarvis, III, Barker; Jeffrey Jost, Wampsville; Derek Macero, Utica; Dick Mattia, Utica; Robert Merritt, Utica; Allen Pylman, New Hartford; Kristina Rico, Rome; Sandy Shivas, Ilion; James Suriano, Sidney; Russell Brooks, II, Utica; Tim Catella, Oneonta; Eugene A. DiFondi, Jr., Utica; Dustin Hite, Camden; Scott Huges, Herkimer; David Jones, Utica; Joe Kelly, Whitesboro; Ward Mack, Sidney; Steven Mac, Utica; Thomas Mirabito, Jr., Sidney; David Rich, Utica; Williams Rys, New Hartford; James Simpson, New Hartford; and Bob Wood, Sauquoit.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 181, which calls on Agriculture Secretary Glickman to authorize the release of 200 million dollars' worth of grain reserves. This should bring some much-needed relief to farmers from across the country whose livelihoods are threatened by the worst drought in more than 100 years, coupled with the lowest livestock prices in 20 years. One generally thinks only of the Midwest and South, when there is a severe drought and low cattle prices, but in my neck of the woods--the Northeast--we are among the first to feel the effects of these disasters. It is my dairy farmers who must import most of their feed grain from the Midwest and South. When supplies are tight, as they are now, my farmers must pay incredibly high prices, if they can purchase feed at all. Also, most people don't realize that a majority of hamburg comes from dairy cows, not beef cattle--and this process represents more than 20 percent of the dairy farmer's income. So when the livestock prices are so low, and feed prices are so high--dairy farmers face a double hit. As chairman of the Northeast Agriculture Caucus, and a Member who proudly represents more than 2,700 dairy farmers, I would like to thank Mr. Barrett and the Agriculture Committee for introducing this bill, and I urge its adoption for the good of our Nation's farmers.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I want to commend Chairman Walker and the subcommittee chairs for reporting out a balanced bill that is supportive of science. In this time of budget cutting, the Science Committee has worked has to protect scientific research from undue hardship and to set priorities. I particularly want to thank Mr. Schiff for his amendment which will increase funding for the National Science Foundation by an additional $41 million. I should add that I hope some of that money would be put to use ensuring that the Nation is served by an adequate number of supercomputer centers. I am also pleased to see that the bill funds environmental research at healthy levels. Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with every policy decision that is embodied in this bill. But overall, the bill has accomplished exactly what the Science Committee has committed itself to do: it protects basic research, the foundation of our Nation's future success.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, raising the minimum wage appeals to people's sense of fairness because it is the right and the equitable and the timely thing to do. Let me share some facts that lead to that conclusion. It is a fact that the last time that this Congress voted to raise the minimum wage was 1989. It is a fact that the last time we had an increase in the minimum wage was 1991. It is a fact that 63 percent of the people earning minimum wage are adults 20 or older. It is a fact that the present $4.25 minimum wage is at an historic 40-year low in terms of purchasing power. What does an increase in the minimum wage do, the previous speaker said. It does not do anything for anyone. Well, an increase in the minimum wage would add $1,800 to a wage earner's income. That is significant. I urge support of the Quinn-Riggs amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Goodling amendments. I wish it were not so, but I think the weight of evidence compels me to do so. I think they are well-intended amendments, but the fact of the matter is the threshold exemption for small businesses of annual sales of $500,000 or less would really exempt 10 million workers from minimum-wage standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act, would exempt them from many provisions for overtime compensation, and I do not think that is right. I think we could end up with some people earning a couple of dollars an hour. Now, my colleagues may say that is farfetched and that would not happen. Let me tell them how it would happen. We are determined in this Congress to end welfare as we know it if we can get the President's cooperation. One of the provisions of the bill that everyone seems to focus on is that we are not going to be on welfare in perpetuity. There will be a time certain when people will have to go off of welfare. Then the question is, where are they going to go to work? Where are the jobs? I would suggest that a lot of businesses could take advantage of that situation by saying to the person who has no choice, ``We will offer you $2 an hour, come work for us, and incidentally, if you are going to work 10 or 12 or 14 hours a day, no overtime.'' I just do not think that is right. Second, I think the 90-day training wage period is wrong. I think in many cases we are going to have dad losing his job and the son taking the job. I think it is going to be taken advantage of. We know throughout history that these things happened. We wished they did not, but they do.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Chairman Young's effort to strike title III of this bill. Title III is a classic case of legislative overkill and an attempt to circumvent standard House procedures at a time when this body is dedicated to avoiding both those legislative sins. Title III was included in this bill without any substantive hearings and over the strong bipartisan objections of the committee of jurisdiction. More importantly, it was pushed forward without any consultation with any Indian tribes, such as the Oneidas in my district, even though the tribes are the entities most directly affected. Contrast that with the numerous hearings and scrupulous research that went into drafting ICWA, and you can see why we try to have standard procedures around here. The proponents of title III complain about ICWA's unintended consequences--which are rare--but they say nothing about the unintended consequences of their own provision--which are systemic. Title III would complicate adoption proceedings, and could return us to the problems that led Congress to pass ICWA in the first place--State courts taking away Indian children. Madam Speaker, no one can gainsay the emotional damage done in the cases cited by title III's proponents. But title III goes far beyond what is necessary to correct those problems. Title III is clearly an instance where a hard case has made bad law. Vote to strike title III.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a woman who has worked tirelessly to make the lives of our disabled veterans a little brighter. Mrs. Mary Lou Platt of Westford, NY, is the New York State president of the American Legion Auxiliary, and a member of the Milford Unit #1566. The American Legion Auxiliary has been helping veterans and their families for more than 75 years and Mrs. Platt has proudly kept up that tradition. President Platt has developed a program called RAVE which stands for recreation, audio and visual entertainment. Many hospitalized veterans spend endless hours in their rooms or on hospital grounds. Some used to enjoy reading, but now find it difficult or impossible due to poor eyesight. Others used to enjoy listening to music on their radios, but can now only hear faint sounds. Even watching television can be difficult for many of these veterans. President Platt has traveled extensively throughout New York's 62 counties helping veterans with her program. RAVE has provided veterans with large print books for easier reading, audio books for those who can no longer read, and VCR's and videos. RAVE even provides some video games and equipment to stimulate veterans both physically and emotionally. This program has benefited veterans in New York State VA medical centers and nursing homes. Our veterans have sacrificed too much for their country to be left as prisoners of unproductive and frustrating lives. President Platt is trying to see that this does not happen. I think we should all RAVE about President Platt and the efforts of the American Legion Auxiliary.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman is performing a very valuable public service by this colloquy, because we are enlightening future generations with this exchange. My clear intent is to deal with new refuges of more than 500 acres, and then if you expand them. But the illustration the gentleman just gave us, 200 acres, which they have the authority to acquire immediately right now, if next year in their wisdom they decide to acquire 20 more acres, no problem, you do not have to come up to the people's House to ask our permission to do so. We do not have to have any hearings. We just proceed.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me stress, the new refuge in excess of 500 acres, that is what I want Congress to have a say on. I want emergency situations taken care of, obviously, with the authority to proceed with 20, 30, 50, 100, 200 acres. Very often they are very time-sensitive. You need to grab the deal when you can get it. We are talking about a sizeable number of acres, 500 or more, where I think the elected body of the people's House should have its say.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is what I asked for. I said I had a substitute amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I will not take up more time, because we have already had the argument for the rationale for the amendment in my exchange with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is essentially the same language, the 500.