Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have been on the floor quite a bit today, so I do not need to repeat all of what I have said, but I am a concerned legislator; I am a concerned family man; I am a concerned citizen; and I am proud to be a Republican. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of people who share those same characteristics on our side of the aisle, deeply committed to doing what is right by the American family with respect to environmental legislation. There are a number of my colleagues on the Democratic side who are equally concerned about the American family and sensitive environmental issues. Do I want my constituents, the people I care for, do I want my family, the people I love, too, exposed to lead and arsenic and dioxin and benzene and known carcinogens? The answer is clearly ``no.'' I think this is a sensible amendment. I think it has earned our support. we have had a spirited debate today on a high level, a high plane. I want to commend all of my colleagues for their participation. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] for allowing me the opportunity to participate with him, my colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], my colleague, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] in supporting this amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], a leader in the environmental movement in the Congress and in the Nation. (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pick up on a point my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], made. For 40 years, for two generations, the Republicans were in the minority. All during that time we chastised the then majority for legislating on appropriations bills. We complained about the process. Now we are in charge, and we are doing the very same thing. It was wrong when we were in the minority, it was wrong when the Democrats were in the majority, it is wrong now that we are in the majority. It is simply wrong to deny the people for full and open hearings.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, to respond to my colleague and friend and neighbor from New York, he is absolutely right with respect to the Delaney clause. That is why through the orderly, open process of the authorizing committee we are going to make the changes he calls for and which I want and are in the best interest of American agriculture.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds because I would like to respond to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], whose remarks were amusing, but hardly enlightening, because he pointed out what he termed hypocrisy. Let me point out that neither the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] nor I object to the provisions in the bill to which he referred, the exact provision of the bill of last year on page 63 of this bill. It says, quote, that appropriations made available under this heading to carry out the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, shall be available only upon enactment of legislation which reauthorizes said act. We know that. We have no problem with it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, in response to my distinguished colleague from Dodge City, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], I would point out this is not a repeal of the Clean Water Act, which went through the authorization process. This is a back-door attempt to undermine legislation. Make no mistake about it. If these riders are approved, regulations dealing with arsenic in our drinking water will be prohibited. Remember that. We are talking about the clean water supply for the American people. Every single Member of this body that travels anyplace in America is not reluctant to drink water out of the tap, nor to go to a drinking fountain. Why? Because we have an agency and dedicated Federal employees operating under Federal law with Federal regulations protecting our water supply. Mr. Chairman, we have to protect our water supply. The American people demand it.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] who is a leader in the fight for environmental quality and sensitivity in America. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the issue we are debating right now comes down to this: Should we be undermining the Nation's most fundamental environmental statutes as part of an appropriation process that robs the public of a chance to weigh in on vital issues affecting their health and safety? Should we be weakening environmental safeguards as part of an appropriations process that prevents Members from having the time to adequately understand and review the implications of their actions? Should we be subjecting the public to environmental dangers as part of an appropriations process that limits the ability of Members to fully debate these issues and to vote their conscience? The answer is clearly ``no.'' The House rules discourage legislating on an appropriations bill, and for good reason. Appropriation bills are a back-door tactic that is chosen when the direct, healthy, open approach is likely to fail. That is why for 40 years, two generations, the Republican Party has complained bitterly about the use of appropriations bills in this manner. So what do we do now that we are in power? We place more riders on an appropriation than anyone remembers seeing in recent history. Why do we not just append volumes of the United States Code to future appropriations? I am incensed about this violation of the process, and the process is the issue. Do not misunderstand that. If is the process here that is the issue. I would vote for a number of these riders if they came up through the correct process. But I cannot sanction handling environmental issues in such a cavalier manner. A Member of Congress who is a very diligent, hardworking, responsible colleague came up to me and had just learned that one of these riders could have a disastrous consequence on his congressional district. He just learned about it. Had no idea. That is a prime example of why we should not be operating in this manner. These riders block regulations, effectively repeal basic statutes, and create all manner of mischief. It would be hard to think of legislation that is more deserving of full and open debate and investigation. Presumably that is precisely why some people are trying to circumvent the process. I urge my colleagues in the interest of their constituents and their families and their kids and future generations to support Stokes- Boehlert.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly], a tireless champion of the environment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Economic Development Administration and against the Hefley amendment. Why is it that we are against the Federal Government lending a helping hand to economically distressed communities? Were we sent to Washington to abandon areas of our Nation that require Federal assistance to provide jobs for their citizens? I don't think so. Now I am not claiming that every EDA loan or grant can be defended. But this amendment throws out the baby with the bathwater. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is in the process of reauthorizing EDA, and I am confident that bill can clean up any problems with the agency. You don't improve a program by eliminating it. Killing EDA is particularly offensive right now because many communities being aided buy the EDA are the victims of Federal policies. Almost $100 million in this bill would go to assist communities that have been hard-hit by base closures and realignments. Don't we have an obligation to assist communities that have been harmed by sudden reversals of Federal policy? I think we do, and so do those on the Appropriations Committee. I could provide a list of EDA success stories, but my time is limited, and I'm sure many of you have your own lists from your own districts. The EDA is a successful means to fulfill Federal obligations. The Appropriations Committee--hardly a bunch of big spenders--have recognized this. This bill cuts funding by 21 percent, but it allows a reformed EDA to continue working to endure that American in all regions of this country can share in our prosperity. That's a worthy and necessary mission. I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this commonsense legislation. I would point out that it has been considered at some length in the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, over which I have the pleasure of chairing. It has been considered by the full committee, and as a matter of fact, everyone in this House has essentially approved the language of this legislation, because it was included in H.R. 961. I did not support that bill; however, we did have an alternative, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and myself, and that same language was in the alternative. Mr. Speaker, this just makes a whole lot of sense. Scientists agree that the city's current level of treatment is not harming the ocean environment. Complying with the secondary treatment mandate will cost the city over $2 billion, and possibly as much as $4.9 billion, if the city is enforced to install all the treatment facilities that EPA has sought to require the return for settlement of its litigation against the city. We are moving in the right direction. Frankly, this debate over this bill is not over environmental protection. I take a back seat to no one on being a strong environmentalist. It is about process. I urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support this legislation.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I proudly identify with this amendment. I think it makes an awful lot of sense. The Federal Government has lost $5.6 billion on its timber program, due to timber sales that bring in less than the Forest Service's initial investment and because of subsidies issued for the construction of logging roads. In fact, timber subsidies are currently several times the Forest Service's annual timber returns. We are always told that we should operate Government more like a business, and let me tell you, in the private sector this would spell disaster. It would be bankruptcy. They would not do it. And the problem gets worse when the Government offers subsidies for timber road construction in roadless areas. These areas are usually remote and wild. They are made up of rocky, unmanageable terrain, and the difficulty and cost of building roads in these unmanageable roads and lands is great and nearly impossible for the Forest Service to recoup expenses. I wish I had a lot of time, but our time is severely limited. I am cooperating as fully as I can, trying to move this along. I proudly identify with this amendment. Let us pass it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, volunteers all across America, in so many aspects of our daily life, do wonderful service for the American people. We here in the people's House should be encouraging them.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gilchrest amendment. I am a little bit baffled by the language this bill is amending. Why is the Committee on Appropriations so fearful of volunteers? I always thought the Republican Party was the champion of volunteerism. That is what Ronald Reagan said, volunteers were to take over what had been government responsibilities. That is what George Bush said, volunteers were 1,000 points of light. But here we have a program that uses thousands of volunteers to help carry out what would otherwise be a very expensive government function, and we want to turn them away unceremoniously.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, for such a reversal of our party's course, quite frankly, one must assume that these volunteers were some sort of dangerous cabal or cadre. But who are most of these volunteers? Bird watchers? Not a bunch who are thought to be a very dangerous group. Well, I for one am willing to take the risk and let the bird watchers and the fish counters and other volunteers go about their business. I am willing to trust that they will be well-trained and well-supervised, as they have been, and as the Gilchrest amendment requires, and they will provide information to help policy makers make informed decisions. I have said it many times on this floor and I will repeat it: The American people want us to do more with less, not to do more knowing less. I urge my colleagues to support this well-reasoned, very carefully crafted amendment, and to endorse our traditional source and encouragement for volunteers.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very sensible amendment. It is sensible because it does not assume that we will be forever able to draw on our current sources of energy. It is sensible because it would ensure that the Department of Energy has a balanced research portfolio that does not short-change important potential sources of energy. It is sensible because it backs programs in which business and government work together to achieve national goals that would be ignored without these programs. It is sensible because it funds programs that have had bipartisan support. It is sensible because it recognizes that every DOE program must share in budget cuts. And it is sensible because it accomplishes all this without increasing the bottom line of this bill. Our Nation should not be ignoring renewable energy in the vain hope that fossil fuels will solve our problems forever. This amendment restores needed [[Page H 6845]] funding for renewable energy research--funding for well managed programs that would still be cut by almost one-third if this amendment is passed. Vote for this amendment and vote for a sensible approach to ensure that this Nation can meet its future energy needs.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman, because I think the authorization reported out by the Committee on Science last week gives a clear green light to negotiations with the Europeans on this project. I hope negotiations can move forward swiftly and that we can inaugurate a new, truly international era in research, an era that will also ensure that American physics continues to strive.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to engage the chairman in a colloquy. As you well know, one of the problems that led to the demise of the superconducting super collider was that it never received international support. I said throughout that debate over the SSC that the infrastructure of physics must become as international as the science. High energy physicists here and abroad have taken the message to heart and are ready to move ahead with a large hadron collider. It is my understanding that this bill provides funding to enable preparatory work to proceed on the LHC; is that correct?