Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the principal opponent of this amendment has just made a compelling argument to support the amendment. He said his argument is not about the merits of the program. He said it is a good program, but he is concerned about priorities. So are we. So are the American people. The election of November 8, 1994, sent a clear, unequivocal message to the Congress of the United States. The American people want smaller, less costly, less intrusive, yet more efficient government. They want us to get our priorities in order. And guess what, they did not send us here to dismantle a quarter of a century of progress in important, sensitive, environmental legislation. Who are the principal stewards of our land? Our farmers, agriculture. This is our greatest opportunity to do something meaningful to protect our environment. When we want to talk about water quality, are Members not all concerned, as we all should be, when in one of the premier cities of America, Milwaukee, in December 1993, 104 people died because they drank the water from a public water system? That is a cause for concern. If we can do something in just a small way here in this House to prevent that from happening in the future, that is a job well done. The sportsmen of America, the environmentalists of America, the farmers of America support this amendment because it makes sense for America. I urge my colleagues to join with us in a bipartisan manner and win one for the American people.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was orderd.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, there is nothing in there to require a whole farm plan.

Mr. BOEHLERT. No intention.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I will be glad to direct that response to the chairman of the full committee. We have had extensive conversations on that.

Mr. BOEHLERT. No, there is not.

Mr. BOEHLERT. We were anticipating more people would participate in the program.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning on behalf of America's farmers, on behalf of America's hunters and fishermen, and on behalf of the environment. What do the National Wildlife Federation, the American Farm Bureau, and the National Rifle Association all have in common? They are all strong supporters of the Boehlert conservation amendment. Why have major agriculture and environmental organizations in the United States endorsed my conservation amendment? Because the conservation amendment before us is truly profarmer and proenvironment. Chairman Roberts, Chairman Barrett, and Congressman Peterson have all worked with me to craft a conservation title that provides American farmers with the resources they need to protect the environment that we all need. Every urban American and every rural American will benefit from this amendment. Today, 51 percent of all privately owned lands in the United States are held by farmers and ranchers. If we are serious about improving the quality of America's rivers and lakes, and we darn well better be, if we are serious about preserving essential wildlife habitat, and we darn well better be, if we are serious about protecting our Nation's drinking water supplies, and, there is nothing more important than that, we have got to work with the American farmer. Agricultural programs represent the single best opportunity for this Congress to make significant improvements in the quality of our environment. Best of all, we will be achieving these dramatic environmental improvements with voluntary incentive-based programs, programs strongly supported by the agriculture community. The Boehlert-Roberts-Barrett-Peterson amendment builds on the proven success of the existing conservation reserve program and wetland reserve program. This conservation title also provides new resources and technical assistance for the management of nutrients and manure on America's farms. While providing significant conservation resources to America's farmers, this amendment achieves these conservation goals in a fiscally responsible manner. This conservation title costs less than half of the $4.5 billion in the one passed by the Senate on February 7. The numbers tell the story. My conservation amendment costs $2.1 billion, while the Senate conservation title has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office at $4.5 billion. The Boehlert amendment makes agricultural, environmental, and fiscal sense. The Senate and the administration have made it clear they will not support a farm bill absent a comprehensive conservation title. If this body can produce a comprehensive conservation title that has the support of farmers and sportsmen and environmentalists, we should do it. In closing, I would like to read to you what the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and Trout Unlimited are saying about my amendment, and I quote: ``We are pleased to support the amendment and urge all Members of the House to join in support.'' The American Farm Bureau, the National Grange, the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Corn Growers, the National Wheat Growers and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture are all strongly supporting the Boehlert conservation amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this pro- farmer, pro-environment amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon-Dooley amendment. It is a win-win situation. It is good for farmers. It eliminates the assessment they pay into the price support program. That is a well-deserved break. It is good for farmers because it maintains the milk marketing orders, incidentally, milk marketing orders they pay for, not the taxpayers. It is good for farmers because it will keep them competitive. It is good for farmers because it fully funds the dairy export incentive program, which is extremely important for trade in our dairy farmers' future expansion. That is good for our balance of payments. This proposal is good for the taxpayers because it gets the Government out of the price support business, and it is good for consumers because it accomplishes all of this without raising consumer costs or increasing Government regulations.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address provisions in H.R. 2036, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act. First, I want to commend the leadership of the Commerce Committee for moving forward with legislation that attempts to solve problems involving the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Clean Water Act and groundwater protection. The bill should help to streamline and coordinate an environmentally responsible approach to management of certain wastes in surface impoundments and to provide responsible exemptions for solid waste landfills in remote or arid areas and in situations lacking any evidence of groundwater pollution. Second, I want to thank the Commerce Committee for addressing and responding to some of the concerns of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, which I chair, has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act and over the pollution of navigable waters. Clearly, we have an interest in this bill; we did not pursue a formal referral of H.R. 2036, however, in part because of the urgency of the issue and the willingness of the Commerce Committee to work with us. Like drinking water, this is an area where the two committees can and will work together. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to address particular provisions involving the interplay between the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Clean Water Act. A primary purpose of this bill is to overturn a D.C. Circuit Court opinion that would require EPA to regulate wastes under the Solid Waste Disposal Act that are already being treated to meet standards under the Clean Water Act. This bill will reinstate EPA's earlier approach to the management of these wastes: avoid duplicative regulation by regulating these wastes under the Clean Water Act alone. Mr. Speaker, this is a good, streamlined, coordinated approach, and once again I want to restate what the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Oxley] stated so well: The administration has lauded the Committee on Commerce, and the letter says, ``for its willingness to work with the administration and the minority in a bipartisan spirit.'' Mr. Speaker, that is all we can ask for. I urge support of H.R. 2036.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I want to thank Chairman Bliley for the outstanding work that he has overseen as we have come to develop a bill that has earned strong bipartisan support. This bill is very important to me for a whole lot of reasons, but basic among those is that it will save taxpayers in my district an untold amount of money. Without this measure, three solid waste authorities in my district would be unable to pay off the bonds that they have issued without unsustainable tax increases. The people and their representatives from Oneida, Herkimer, Otsego, Montgomery, Schoharie and Madison Counties acted in good faith when they sold bonds in that manner. Now they will be able to have the waste stream they need to guarantee the operation of their facilities and to be able to pay off those bonds. I want to thank the solid waste authorities in my district for doing such a good job of educating me and my colleagues so that we would know how important it is to pass this very important flow control legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I was on the elevator over there and a whole group of us that were in the elevator were not able to vote because the vote was closed out. Had I been here and allowed to vote, I would have voted ``aye'' on the conference report on S. 1124.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for the openness that has been evident all through the consideration of this bill. It is noncontroversial now. As a matter of fact, the provisions of this bill were included in the committee bill, H.R. 961, and the substitute that my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and I offered to that. Frankly, I wish the bill was not necessary, but the truth is there are times when the Clean Water Act is interpreted and applied too narrowly and the views of State and local water officials are not adequately taken into account. This bill improves the Clean Water Act and the flexibility and responsiveness to site-specific circumstances, while keeping in place all the successes and important goals of the Act. Because certain so-called constructed water conveyances are interpreted to be navigable waters under the Clean Water Act, States are required to set water quality standards for the conveyances. The problem is that in some situations the standards are set with the automatic assumption that the ditches or drains or canals will be used for swimming or fishing or drinking. This can lead to, as we understand it, very costly and unnecessary requirements. In response, the bill makes clear that States do not automatically have to establish standards based on recreational, aquatic, or fish consumption uses for these constructed water conveyances. Nothing in the bill, however, prevents a State from doing so if it wants. So we would say to the States, ``If you want to do it, you can do it. We're not going to prevent you from doing it.'' Also, nothing in the bill exempts constructed water conveyances from regulation under the act. The committee added additional safeguards and clarifications to the introduced bill and worked with all interests to reach a reasonable compromise. I want to emphasize that: worked with all interests to reach a reasonable compromise. No one can say this bill weakens the Clean Water Act. Boy, I would not be identified with anything that would weaken the Clean Water Act. It simply gives State officials more flexibility to take into account specific situations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I want to thank the chairman for the leadership that he has provided and for the opportunity he has afforded me to work with him. Mr. Speaker, I would invite those Members who have not done so, to visit the committee room and witness the new portrait of our chairman. It is a magnificent work of art.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this effort to override the President's veto. In doing so, I must acknowledge that I agree with the President on one thing: This bill is not perfect. But guess what? The legislative process is not about producing legislation that one side or another views as perfect. The legislative process is about getting the most reasonable compromise possible among competing viewpoints. We need to remember the old adage, ``The perfect is the enemy of the good.'' This bill represents a reasonable compromise. Take the issue of the Tongass National Forest on which I worked. This bill would allow the planning process to continue unimpeded. This bill would allow science to determine the acreage and the allowable sale quantity that will eventually be permitted in the forest. This bill allows for the set-aside of additional environmentally sensitive habitat conservation areas. And this bill would allow lawsuits to challenge the controversial alternative P forest management plan. Did we make some compromises to achieve these goals? Of course we did. We made reasonable compromises with legislators with opposing views to protect the long-run health of the forests and the integrity of the planning process. Let me repeat that. We made reasonable compromises with legislators with opposing views to protect the long-range health of the forests and the integrity of the planning process. I urge an override.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. We did not get it right the first two times. We have made some significant improvements this time. Once again I want to extend my appreciation to Chairman Regula, who did truly Herculean work in brokering this compromise. For weeks he engaged in a sort of shuttle diplomacy that would put Henry Kissinger to shame. He has my deepest appreciation. We have heard a lot about the moratorium on the mining. That is a plus, because that moratorium is in this legislation. And I believe the language on the Tongass National Forest in this bill is a reasonable compromise. Certainly I would prefer that the bill have no Tongass provision at all, but I believe we needed to reach an agreement to move this appropriation forward, and it is a fair compromise. The compromise removes the sufficiency language that would have insulated alternative P from legal challenges. That is an important victory for the environment. The compromise removes the prohibition against setting up habitat conservation areas. That is an important victory for the environment. The compromise removes the constraints on future planting in the Tongass, allowing science to determine the content of future forest management plans. That, too, is an important victory for the environment. These are all important advances that will protect the forest from excessive logging and permit science to be the basis for future planning. I want to emphasize that nothing in this bill in any way limits the ability of the Forest Service to make decisions about the future of the Tongass, including reducing the timber acreage or timber sale quantity. Science, that means peer review science conducted in line with standard scientific procedures. Science will determine those figures. The managers' language makes clear that the Forest Service is empowered to continue with its planning, including filing a final environmental impact statement and record of decision. The only limitation is that no revisions can be implemented before September 30, 1997. So this is a reasonable compromise. And my good colleague and friend from Illinois with whom I worked closely on this issue has asked, where have the moderates gone? The moderates have gone into the conference room to sit down with all the players to work out something that makes sense, that protects the environment and gets us the progress we want. Those who oppose this conference report should consider the alternative, and that alternative is not very friendly to anyone, most likely a continuing resolution with lower funding and more restrictions. We do not want that. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman, He deserves our praise.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to once again support the gentleman's amendment. It is a good amendment to a very good bill. We are moving in the right direction with respect to Amtrak. I hope all of our colleagues are paying attention, because if they have not had personal experience with Amtrak, I encourage them to do so. It is more efficient, it is cleaner, it is doing a magnificent job, it saves energy, and it is energy efficient, and, boy, is that not refreshing these days, and it is environmentally clean. We should support Amtrak for all the right reasons. So I am glad to have a good amendment to a good bill for a worthy cause. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good bill and will help Amtrak to become more business-like, cut costs, and become less dependent on Federal subsidies. In preparing for the reauthorization of Amtrak we listened to numerous expert public witnesses, Amtrak, and others associated with transportation. From these discussions it became clear that without significant cost-cutting reforms, Amtrak would not survive as a national system. This bill does bring about real reform for Amtrak in a number of key areas. More important, however, it gives Amtrak the tools it needs to become less dependent on direct Federal subsidies. There are many of us on the committee who have Amtrak in their districts and know how vital that service is to the communities. When Amtrak came before the Railroad Subcommittee in February to testify, the corporation was faced with a huge deficit. Over the past 12 months, Amtrak has cut routes, has reduced frequencies on other routes, and has cut back its staff. Amtrak's efforts have led to significant cost savings and closed a significant shortfall in the past fiscal year. As of the end of the fiscal year, passenger revenues are up, the work force has been pared down, and on-time and safety performance continues to improve. In the business plan put forth by Amtrak at the beginning of the fiscal year, the corporation projected a bottom-line improvement of $174 million. But the improvement exceeded expectations--Amtrak improved the bottom line by $193 million. The internal reforms being implemented and the aggressive business strategy being pursued at Amtrak are showing success. Today we will take legislative actions to allow Amtrak to manage their system free from inefficient structures and legislatively imposed impediments. These next few years will be pivotal in determining Amtrak's future, and it is my desire to help Amtrak adhere to, and succeed at, the plan for self-sufficiency. Enactment of this bill is a significant step down that path, and I hope you will support it.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for his response.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I appreciate the work the chairman has done to ensure that the bill and the managers' language reflect the House concerns about environmental riders. As the chairman knows, I am still a bit uncomfortable with the managers' language. I just want to ask the gentleman to make clear that report language does not have the force of law. So am I correct in saying that the managers' language is not binding and should not be interpreted by the courts as having the force of law?

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit. The motion asks nothing more than that the House stick to its original position, keep the mining moratorium, keep current law on the Tongass. The House position has not yet had a chance to prevail because the House majority conferees, with the exception of the esteemed chairman, have not backed it. We must not let a handful of Members turn the rest of the House into a kind of giant Boys' State where we just pretend to legislate. But there are substantive, as well as process, problems with this bill. On mining, Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to trade a solid moratorium for reconciliation language which few Members have seen. It is a ``Let's Make a Deal'' situation. We can take what we have or trade it for whatever is behind door No. 1, and, by the way those who have opened up door No. 1, who have seen the reconciliation language, describe it as sham reform, hardly meaningful reform as the chairman seeks, a continuing giveaway of our resources. How can we look the taxpayers in the face and explain why large, often foreign, companies should continue to reap profits from Federal resources while paying next to nothing? Now I know some Members have been told, ``Don't worry about it, we'll fix it after the vote.'' That is no way to make policy. We were told it would be taken care of in this reconciliation conference, but it was not. The question of the Tongass is simpler. We have not acted on it in this body. The other body added a provision that will allow more logging in ecologically sensitive areas at a hemorrhaging loss to the taxpayer. The Governor of Alaska opposes this language, sportsment's associations oppose this language, environmentalists oppose this language. As a matter of fact, Governor Knowles of Alaska has repeatedly stressed, and this is his language, the need for a balanced process based on good science, the application of sound management principles, and imput from the public. We have such a vehicle; it is called the Tongass land management plan. The Governor goes on to say, and these are his words, the Governor of Alaska, ``Killing the Tongass land management process and leaving Alaskans out of the decision is just plain wrong.'' That is the Governor of Alaska speaking. Mr. Speaker, the only reason this language is in here, and once again let me repeat, the House has not acted on this. It was added in the Senate. The only reason it is in here is that a few Members in the other body are trying to force the issue. There is no reason to give in. This report takes the unprecedented step of imposing a forest management plan over the objections of scientists and insulates that plan from all legal challenges. In other words, it suspends current environmental law just as surely as the EPA riders did. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stick to the House position, as we did when a similar conference report came before us in September. Vote for the environment, vote for the taxpayers, vote to recommit.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the full committee is absolutely right. The gentleman from Ohio is probably as respected as any person in this House. That is why this is a very difficult position for those of us in the new majority. The fact of the matter is, he tried very hard. The fact of the matter is he led this House before in voting to recommit with instructions on the mining section. The fact of the matter is, this House has not spoken previously on Tongass. Mr. Speaker, I think we should maintain the House position. The House has already spoken. Ninety-one Republicans have done so in terms of the mining permitting section. Mr. Speaker, it is this bill that will drive the reconciliation process. We can send a strong signal to those people so that they will get the message, so that they will deal with the mining permitting section in a responsible manner. This issue is not whether or not we will have logging in the Tongass. We have logging now, more than 300 million board-feet per year. The question is whether it should be increased through unprecedented congressional action. In essence, a mandate from Washington, a mandate from Washington that the Governor has told us he does not want. The motion to recommit is pro-taxpayer at a time when we are all talking about balancing the budget. That is the number one objective. If you vote for this motion to recommit, if we succeed in our mission, then we will bring additional revenue into the Treasury, which will help us in that very demanding, challenging task of balancing the budget. It certainly is pro-environment. All America is watching. They want us to be concerned about sensitive environmental issues. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by once again heaping praise on the distinguished gentleman from Ohio. He has done a masterful job, although there are some areas of disagreement. I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the motion to recommit so that we can make a pretty good bill even better.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the continuing resolution and the commitment to a 7-year balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, for years the Supreme Court has wrestled with the definition of the word obscene. They have not succeeded, but we here have. It is obscene to have a national debt approaching $5 trillion, a national debt which requires us to spend nearly $900 million every day just in interest payments--that doesn't feed anybody, or clothe anybody, or educate anybody, or provide jobs or medical care for anybody--it just services the national debt. That is obscene. This is an historic moment. We now have the opportunity to demonstrate, in tangible form by our vote, that we not only heard the American people and their message of November 8, 1994, we are heeding it. The American people said, in unmistakable terms, that they want smaller, less costly, less intrusive and yet more efficient government. That's a tall order, but we can do it. In this 104th Congress, with a new majority determined to respond to the will of the American people, we have demonstrated that we are keeping the faith. In this House we have passed a balanced budget amendment, we have passed a line item veto, we have passed welfare reform and we have been both responsive and responsible in moving to avert a crisis of monumental proportions by passing legislation to save Medicare. I proudly voted for these significant measures, but our job is not done. We must move to fulfill our commitment to the American people and our children and generations to come by approving this resolution which moves us ahead on our journey to a balanced budget, a balanced budget to be achieved on a date certain not decades away, but in seven years. When we have done what we must, we will be able to say a day's work well done.