Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. What we all are looking for is a balancing act here between protecting species and allowing the public to enjoy the species that have been protected. Just to reemphasize that point, I would ask the chairman this question: Does the elevation of compatible wildlife dependent recreation to a purpose mean that hunting and fishing and wildlife observation and other recreational activities must always be permitted in the refuge?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I will accept that. In the spirit of comity, two New Yorkers working something out, that is very positive and very constructive.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the perfecting amendment be modified as proposed by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and that the modification be adopted.

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

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think we have had a good, healthy exchange. Everyone has had the opportunity to listen to our respective points of view.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. If we could follow up with a hypothetical, for example, natural resource damages might be paid to a Federal, State, or Indian tribal trustee for the restoration, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent resources in order to compensate for those resources that are damaged at a specific location or site. Is that correct?

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in strong support of H.R. 1965, the Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of 1996. As we celebrate Earth Day, it is important that we remember the many successes we have had in improving the quality of America's waters since the first Earth Day in 1970. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 has been an important component of our Nation's efforts to improve coastal waters, and today's consideration of legislation to reauthorize this act is in keeping with the spirit and intent of Earth Day. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was signed by President Nixon and was one of his many environmental initiatives, which included the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the enactment of the Clean Air Act, and the establishment of the Endangered Species Act. I am proud that a Republican Congress is forwarding legislation to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act. Before I go further, I would like to thank the leadership of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. This bill is an excellent example of a bipartisan commonsense approach to protecting the Nation's coastal resources. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 responds to this environmental need with a Federal-State partnership intended to encourage wise coastal resource management. The program consists of limited Federal funding, planning requirements, and tools for the States to ensure consistency and coordination in their management efforts. In general, it has worked well and has helped to supplement other important programs, such as the Clean Water Act. Today the needs for a strong partnership for coastal perfection are greater than ever. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has documented that 97 percent of the Great Lakes shoreline miles surveyed have water quality that is impaired. In addition, many estuaries are not meeting their designated uses due to excessive loadings of pollutants. This can be devastating to not only our environment but our economy as well. For example, most of our Nation's fish and shellfish industry relies on bays and estuaries and their adjacent wetlands as a breeding ground for the species they harvest. The future of America's multibillion dollar recreational fishing industry also depends on clean, healthy coastal waters. Because of this connection to water quality, the Clean Water Act, and coastal protection, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a significant interest in the Coastal Zone Management Act and H.R. 1965. This is particularly true for the Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources in the Committee on Resources. At the outset of the 104th Congress, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure acquired jurisdiction over marine affairs, including coastal zone management, as they relate to oil and other pollution of the navigable waters. This is in addition to our existing jurisdiction over pollution in coastal waters. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also has jurisdiction over natural resources damages programs under the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, and Superfund. Section 6 of H.R. 1965 has provisions relating to natural resource damages. It is our understanding, however, that nothing in the bill expands or affects authorities under those acts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey, as he knows, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the Oil Pollution Act authorize natural resource damages to be used only to restore, replace or acquire the equivalent of such damaged natural resources. Is that correct?

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] for participating in this colloquy. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say this: Pollution knows no political affiliation, it knows no artificial geographic boundary. There are those on the right and those on the left who are trying to get this into a heated battle on the floor of the House of Representatives to lead the American people to believe that one party or another has exclusive concern about the environment. Let me tell the Members, Republicans care about the environment just as Democrats care about the environment. We are concerned for our families and we are concerned for future generations. I urge passage of this important bill, and I urge us to go forward in the spirit of bipartisanship to do what is good for America for generations to come.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this debate is a classic congressional debate. I think there is rhetorical overkill on both sides. The future of Western Civilization does not hang in the balance depending on the outcome of this vote. I do not have any great statement to quote, but let me quote one of my favorite entertainers, Woody Allen, who once said in an address to graduates, ``We are at the crossroads. One road leads to hopelessness and despair; the other to total extinction.'' Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose wisely. We are not faced with that predicament. Here is what we are faced with, plain and simple: We impose taxes on the American people, excise taxes, dedicated taxes. We say, for example, to the airline traveler, we are going to tax your airline ticket purchase and we are going to use the funds we raise to improve the airports, to improve aviation safety. I think that is a pretty good contract. I think we ought to use the money for the intended purpose. And if we do not, we ought to cut the tax out. But let us not kid the people. Let us be honest with them. Let us use the money for the intended purpose or cut the tax. As the chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I have witnessed firsthand the growing abuse of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund now has a balance in excess of $650 million and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund has over $300 million sitting dormant. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been collected from shippers to improve the quality of America's ports and we should be using these revenues for their intended purposes. If you care about our Nation's global competitiveness, if you care about improving the environmental quality and safety of America's harbors and rivers you should support the Truth in Budgeting Act. In many of America's leading ports we have an astounding backlog of dredging and environmental projects that are not being done while we sit on over $1 billion in trust fund revenues. A study of the transportation infrastructure needs on our major rivers has identified over $3 billion in needs by the year 2000. If you represent constituents along the Missouri, Mississippi, Hudson, Ohio, or Tennessee Rivers you should support the Truth in Budgeting Act. Freeing these trust funds for their intended uses sends a powerful message to the American people--we are setting aside the ``smoke and mirrors'', and we are serious about using their hard-earned tax dollars to improve the safety of our waterways and the efficiency of our navigation infrastructure. These trust funds are built on taxes intended to improve the economic and environmental quality of our Nation's rivers and harbors and it is time we use these trust funds for these uses. Support the Truth in Budgeting Act--the truth will set you free.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this farm bill--a bill that is good for farmers, good for consumers, good for taxpayers, and good for environmentalists--categories that, I hasten to add, are hardly mutually exclusive. I want to focus on two aspects of the bill, in particular--first, the dairy provisions. This bill eliminates the assessments farmers pay, phases out price supports, funds export promotion, and consolidates milk marketing orders. The bill, in short, saves farmers and taxpayers money without imposing new burdens on consumers or creating chaos for Northeast dairy farmers. I want to thank the farmers in my district and throughout our region for their patience, their time, and most of all their critical guidance during this protracted debate. They worked closely with my colleagues and me in the Northeast ag caucus, which I am privileged to cochair, and together we fashioned responsible legislation. Now, let me turn to the conservation title of this bill, which is another cause for celebration. This week the Washington Post has run a series of spirited editorials critical of Republican environmental initiatives. I hope the Post and others take notice of the revolutionary conservation measures included in the 1996 farm bill. The 1996 farm bill is not only the greenest farm bill in the history of the Republic, it is the most significant environmental legislation passed in this Congress or the previous Congress, which by the way was Democrat controlled. The over $3 billion provided in the farm bill for the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Improvement Program, and the restoration of the Everglades will do more to improve water quality and wildlife habitat in this country than any bill proposed by the Clinton administration in the past 4 years. Millions of acres of environmentally sensitive lands across the nation will be protected. Two weeks ago a conservation amendment to the farm bill, an amendment I authored, was adopted on the House floor by a vote of 372 to 37. A Republican amendment on the environment involving millions of acres of land and billions of dollars was approved with resounding bipartisan support. Republicans have gotten the message on the environment, and unlike many in this town, we are responding with sensible, proenvironment, legislation like the 1996 farm bill. The Republican Party is returning to its roots, as the party of conservation and sensible environmental protection. Teddy Roosevelt would be proud of the conservation initiatives being advanced in the 1996 farm bill. I urge all my colleagues to support this proenvironment, profarmer legislation.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I understand the NRA's position on the second amendment, that individuals have an absolute right to bear arms and any attempt to restrict that right is a direct violation of the Constitution. I understand that argument. I do not buy it. Under the first amendment, a person cannot yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. I do not understand people who think the second amendment should enable someone to fire into a crowded theater. If we can put responsible restrictions on free speech, our most fundamental right, why can we not do the same, put responsible restrictions on the right to bear arms? It is the slippery slope, they will tell us: Once we ban one weapon, the next thing we know, the Government will be knocking on our door to take away all our guns. Keep in mind, the slope goes both ways. As technology continues to advance, weapons are increasingly becoming capable of killing more and more people in one fell swoop. Is there no weapon that supporters of this bill think should be prohibited in the public interest? Should we allow people to drive tanks down the street, or have biological or nuclear weapons in their possession? Of course not. That is unreasonable. And so is this proposal. Why is it that most police organizations support the ban on these weapons? It is because our good neighbors who put their lives on the line to protect the public are increasingly being outgunned, and this is not just a feeling they have, an impression, it is a fact. The rest of the world looks on in wonderment and fear a we go out of our way to facilitate this carnage. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure which does nothing to help law-abiding citizens but a great deal to help gang members and other criminals. I see no reason to bring back weapons no civilian needs but criminals prefer. It seems to me we are catering to the wrong crowd.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Reclaiming my time, my distinguished colleague from Illinois knows full well the budget realities, the dollars and cents of it all. There will not be an increased timber cut in the Tongass. That is something that I strongly believe is the right policy. I do not want that. I think my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], has worked very well and very diligently on this.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise in support of this continuing resolution and to correct some of the implications of comments that have been made about its impact on the environment. First, let us put a lot of politicking aside. This continuing resolution is for 1 week, 7 days. It is not permanent policy, although I think much of it would be reasonable policy for the rest of the year. We need another week's continuing resolution because until recently, and very candidly, the administration has not been willing to bargain, and bargaining, the last time I checked, did not mean simply holding out until the other side capitulates. So now real bargaining seems possible, and we ought not to shut down the Government while that negotiation continues. Again, this is only about 1 week. Not even Congress can cause much damage in that time. Concerning the environment, this resolution is obviously not perfect, but it moves responsibly in the right direction pending further negotiations. It provides more dollars to the Environmental Protection Agency than either the House or the Senate passed, not enough, but a good start until the President comes to the negotiation table. Similarly, with the riders. I prefer no riders. Maybe that is where we will end up. But by and large, these are not the kind of damaging riders that the House debated last year. Take the Tongass, for example. The Tongass rider in this bill is a compromise that I helped negotiate with the Alaskan delegation and other concerned parties that allows the scientific planning process to continue. Let me stress that: That allows the scientific planning process to continue, and it will not increase actual timbering in that important national forest. So let us not waste a lot of time trying to score political points when we are on the verge of serious negotiations. Let us pass this harmless 1-week bill. We can do so in good conscience.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. And I am so glad the gentleman did, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank him publicly for the outstanding work he has done and all the help he has given us to try to fashion a responsible compromise that was environmentally sensitive, and that is very important.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank my colleague for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleagues, as the Congressperson who was privileged to represent Cooperstown, NY, I would like to welcome the gentleman from Kentucky, Jim Bunning, to my constituency. I would like to point out to my colleagues that his election came from his peers, people like Ted Williams and Stan Musial and Yogi Berra and Pee Wee Reese and Bill White. The greats of baseball recognized another great. For those of you who have dreams of coming to Cooperstown, NY, I would like to welcome you all to come up to that magnificent community to see the induction of the gentleman from Kentucky, Jim Bunning, this year.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would point out the letter the gentleman just referred to, signed by all the environmental organizations, is silent to this amendment. They are actually supportive of my amendment, opposed though to the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].