Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, an aide to General Washington remarked that the different tribes of Indians ``say there never was such a man and never will be another.'' They were talking about Sir William Johnson (1715-1774), a man of two worlds, who served as the King of England's agent among the Six Nations and a celebrated Mohawk Iroquois chief. He was a central character in the struggle for survival among pioneers and Indians in the northern frontier of colonial America. He as born in Ireland and came with few resources to America where he managed his uncle's estates on the New York frontier. Due to his toil, vision, and leadership, the region developed by attracting more immigrants and exploiting its rich soil and strategic location, despite arduous winters, exotic plagues, trading disputes, and the guerrilla warfare that threatened every living being on that frontier. A prominent military achievement in his career was his building of an alliance among poor farmers and Iroquois that, against all odds, defeated the professional French armies at the Battle of Lake George and helped the English win control of North America in the French and Indian War (1754-1763). Author Robert Moss is also a man of two worlds. He is a writer with a talent for bringing an important--and almost forgotten--part of our history back to life. He completed an historical novel entitled, ``The Firekeeper,'' which will be published by Tom Doherty for Forge Books on July 5. Through his narratives, which are backed by extensive historical research, the images and emotions of our ancestors are requickened in a high-intensity drama. He ``makes the bones live'' by remaining faithful to documented academic sources yet granting himself ``license to drive a horse and carriage through the gaps.'' In cooperation with British Ambassador Sir Robin Renwick, Maurice Sonnenberg, and United South and Eastern Tribes President Keller George Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alfonse D'Amato, Representative Michael McNulty, and me, Forge publisher Tom Doherty will host a reception on July 11, the anniversary of Sir William's death, in the Capitol honoring Robert Moss and his upcoming publication that ought to be destined for the best seller list. There is a vignette from Robert Moss's book that helps us understand Johnson and his special role among the pioneers and the Indians. Johnson is fighting to win the favor of the Mohawk leaders, particularly the ruling clanmothers. But the Mohawks are suffering from an outbreak of smallpox that has been introduced to them through infected blankets given to them by unscrupulous land speculators, and the women are understandably increasingly wary of white influence on their lands and way of life. Johnson is trying to inoculate the diverse ethnic peoples of the valley against the disease, and he offers to ``take the seed of the white death'' into his own body and show the Indians that it will help them live. After Johnson rose in influence in the Iroquois Confederacy, earning the title ``The Firekeeper,'' he also gained recognition as the sole superintendent of Indian Affairs in North America for the British crown, and was awarded a patent of baronetcy. Truly a man of two worlds, by the conclusion of the French and Indian wars, Johnson secured on his own terms, a moment of peace in the valley. ``I will be Sir William * * * but I will bear my own arms, and my supporters will bear my own crest, not a hand-me-down from the users of Ireland.'' The need to weave a fabric from the world of our past into present is imperative. As this book goes to press, many of the historic resources, including battlefields, forts, homes, and buildings that are mentioned in this drama, are threatened by local, State, and Federal budgetary stringency. It is necessary to inspire citizens to action and form partnerships to help protect valuable sites that serve to instruct our citizens about the Nation's past. In our own Mohawk Valley, a nonprofit organization is being developed, the Northern Frontier Project, by visionaries who have found in the sacrifices of our ancestral past a pathway for a better future. This project will educate others about our history and promote economic development and tourism opportunities that will help us retain and enhance our many sites and resources. I consider myself one of the luckiest Members of Congress, to have a Robert Moss, a man of two worlds, who's able to travel among the spirit world and the real world, the past and the present, to tell the stories of our heroes and villains, of virtue and vice. He's not just chronicling history, he's bringing it to life through remarkable stories about an underreported part of America, and helping people to understand events, victories, and tragedies that are essential to understanding who we are and what cooperation among cultures it took to get us here. Lastly, with cooperation again in the valley, we can dream about all the possibilities that we can achieve. Thank you Robert Moss. The people of the valleys salute you and your work and wish you that greatest success. I am including for the Record ``The World of the Firekeeper,'' which was prepared by Robert Moss for this event. The World of the Firekeeper The North-East frontier was the decisive frontier in American history. In the 1600s and 1700s, New York, New England, and Pennsylvania were the scene of three gigantic and often tragic struggles: between the newcomers and the native inhabitants, between the British and French empires, and between Loyalists and Patriots. The battles that were fought here--especially at Saratoga and Oriskany, in upstate New York, in 1777--decided the fate of the American Revolution and opened the way to the West. In many ways, it was on this first frontier, already 150 years old by the end of the French and Indian Wars, that a distinctively American identity was born--diverse, self- reliant, impatient with the Old World conceptions of inherited rank and station. The first wave of mass immigration from Europe came from Europe to New York in 1710, with the arrival of 3,000 Palatine Germans. Colonial New York and Pennsylvania became the first ``melting pots,'' with the rising tide of immigrants from many nations. On the Northern Frontier, the pioneer settlers encountered two families of Indian nations: the Iroquoians and the Algonkians. Before first contact with Europeans, five Iroquois nations, guided by a prophet called the Peacemaker, had come together to form a great Confederacy whose constitution impressed Ben Franklin so powerfully that he recommended it as a model to the divided colonists. Renowned for their oratory and statecraft, feared by their enemies as ruthless and courageous fighters, the Iroquois commanded two vital river-roads through the forests that were all-important in early trade and warfare: the Hudson-Champlain route between New York and Canada, and the Mohawk River-Oswego route that led from the English colonies towards the Great Lakes and the North American heartland. The warrior Iroquois were also a matriarchal society. A Mohawk myth recalls how a woman led the people's long migration across the north of the continent to an area near modern Quebec City and finally down into the Mohawk Valley. The clanmothers picked the chiefs, and the women occasionally ``de-horned'' a chief who failed in his duties. The women insisted on the ancient teaching that a chief must consider the consequences of his actions down to the seventh generation after himself. But the arrival of the Europeans threw traditional Iroquois society into turmoil. The newcomers brought firearms and metal tools; it became vital to have these. The newcomers created a new appetite for alcohol, which was previously unknown to the Woodland Indians, and which they had little ability to metabolize. The traders wanted furs--and increasingly, land--in return for guns and goods and liquor. The Iroquois were soon caught up in savage warfare with neighboring tribes over the control of the fast-diminishing supplies of beaver and other furs. Their losses in battle were less devastating than the terrible inroads of alien diseases--smallpox, influenza, and measles--to which the Indians had never been exposed and for which traditional healers had no remedies. By the early 1700s, caught up in a struggle for survival, the Iroquois were deeply divided. Should they side with the British or the French, or stand neutral, in the conflict between world empires that was now being played out on American soil? Should they reject their ancient spiritual traditions--which taught the necessary balance between humans, the earth and the spirit worlds and the supreme importance of dreaming--or follow the God of the foreigners who came with cannons and horses? Into this scene walked William Johnson (1715-1774), one of the most extraordinary men in American history. His Irish roots and his rise to power and fortune on the first frontier are described in vivid detail in ``The Firekeeper.'' Johnson came to the New World, like so many other immigrants, in hopes of getting ahead. Starting out as a trader and farm manager in the Mohawk Valley, he eventually succeeded in making himself one of the richest men in the colonies. Through fair dealings and by immersing himself in their lives and customs, Johnson developed a personal influence among the Iroquois that enabled him to persuade them to fight on the British side in the French and Indian wars. This was a decisive contribution to the eventual British victory, since the British never won a significant battle in the American woodlands without the help of Iroquois scouts and auxiliaries. As an amateur general, Johnson led a restive force of New England militiamen and Iroquois rangers to victory over a professional French commander at the Battle of Lake George. But the significance of Johnson's achievement, in the history of the American frontier, goes much deeper. Though he became the King's Superintendent of Indians, he was as much the Iroquois agent to the colonists as the King's agent among the Indians. Indeed, he became an adopted Mohawk warchief before he held a commission from the Crown. He championed the Iroquois against land-robbers and racist officials, like the British general who advocated killing off the Indians en masse during Pontiac's revolt by spreading smallpox among them with the aid of infected hospital blankets. Johnson promoted Indian school and inoculation against the smallpox virus, once the method (first observed in Africa) became known in the colonies. He encouraged Iroquois women to go into business as traders. He introduced new crops and methods of agriculture. In his later life, with a Mohawk consort-- known to history as Molly Brant--at his side, Johnson presided over a remarkably successful experiement in interracial cooperation. Johnson's homes in the Mohawk Valley--Fort Johnson and Johnson Hall, both memorably described in ``The Firekeeper'' and ``Fire Along the Sky''--are well-preserved and open to visitors, as are many of the other sites of frontier New York, such as Fort William Henry (scene of the Battle of Lake George), Fort Ticonderoga, the Saratoga battlefield, the Old Stone Fort at Schoharie, Fort Plain, Fort Stanwix, and Old Fort Niagara. Sadly, funding problems have led to the-- hopefully only temporary--closing of the Oriskany battlefield site, scene of the first American civil war as well as a critical turning point in the American Revolution. Budget constraints threaten other sites. As Robert Moss comments, ``I hope my historical novels will help revive public interest in the places where--in so many ways--America was born. The Iroquois say that a tree without roots cannot stand. I believe they are right.'' Asked to explain how The Firekeeper differs from previous accounts of the North-East Frontier, Moss explains: ``First, I tried to give the women their revenge. Amongst white Europeans, the 18th century was pretty much a man's century. But the dominant character in ``The Firekeeper,'' in many ways, is Catherine Weissenberg. She is a historical figure--a Palatine refugee who came to the colonies as an indentured servant and became Johnson's life partner (though never his wife) and the mother of his white children. Another poserful character in the book is Island Woman, a member of a lineage of women healers who became Mother of the Wolf Clan of the Mohawk Nation. Through her eyes, we see the women's mysteries and the reverence for women within a native culture whose primary pronoun is she not he. ``Second, in the Firekeeper I have married executive archival research to oral tradition, both from Native Americans and from descendants of Valley settlers. To borrow a phrase from the anthropologists, I have ``upstreamed' what I have learned about native culture and spirituality today to help illuminate how things may have been then. ``Third, I have tried to go inside the mindset--the interior worlds--of different people and peoples. In ``The Firekeeper,'' you can read a blow-by-blow account of a battle, a traders' sharping, or a machiavellian plot laid in a back room. Or you can find yourself deep inside the realms of the shaman, for whom the dream world is the real world and spirits walk and talk at the drop of a feather. I tried to make the book as multi-demensional as its players.''

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to preserve the Office of Technology Assessment [OTA] I fail to see precisely what problem the elimination of OTA is supposed to solve. [[Page H 6195]] Is the problem that we suffer from a surfeit of clear, objective, analysis on the complex technical issues confronting the Nation? Is the problem that we expect that the questions facing the Congress are likely to become simpler and less related to technology? Is the problem that as individual Members we have more time, energy, and staff to delve into perplexing scientific and technical materials? Obviously, the answer to all these questions is a resounding no. And for that reason, the response to the proposal to eliminate OTA should also be a resounding no. OTA is the Agency that gives Congress half a chance at making sense of the growing welter of complex, technical issues we must consider. Without OTA, we will be ever more at the mercy of special interests, who appear at our doors with their particular take on the issues, their own tailored explanations, their specifically crafted data. Now of course I know why some Members want to eliminate OTA--to save a little money. But as I have said before, the public has asked us to do more with less--not to do more knowing less. There are other items we should examine before limiting our access to the most precious commodity in Washington--reliable information. The writer Kurt Vonnegut once defined the ``information revolution'' as the ability of human beings to actually know what they are talking about, if they really want to. OTA has given us the ability to participate in that revolution. It is a revolution we should embrace, not reverse. Support this amendment, and support the ability of Congress to know what it is talking about.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I come to the People's House today to tell my colleagues that I am outraged that some military personnel who commit serious crimes--murder, rape, child molestation--continue to receive active duty pay during their confinement. Last year, just in the month of June alone, more than $700,000 was paid to military convicts. In effect, we're saying that if you serve in the military and you commit a crime, you can still receive a government paycheck while you serve your prison sentence. That's just plain wrong. Not only is it burdensome on American taxpayers, costing millions of their hard-earned dollars annually, it is a slap in the face to the victims and their families. This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ``crime pays,'' and we in Congress have a special obligation to say, ``No, it doesn't.'' To correct this intolerable situation, section 542 of the National Defense Authorization Act requires the forfeiture of pay and allowances during a period of confinement resulting from the sentence of a court- martial, effective immediately. The percentage of pay and allowances forfeited is the maximum percentage that the court-martial could have directed as part of the sentence--that's 100 percent in a general court-martial. I support this section of the National Defense Authorization Act, and strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the missing children of this country, and of their parents and families who hope against hope that their children will be returned safely to them. In 1988, the last year for which statistics are available, between 3,200 and 4,600 children were abducted by strangers. The statistics on missing children are sad, but far sadder are the stories behind the statistics: the families wondering if they will ever see their children again, and the brutality suffered by the children. One of those families, the Woods of Litchfield, NY, lost their daughter, 12-year-old Sara Anne on August 18, 1993. Today, Sara's father, Bob, brother, Dusty, and five others concerned about missing children, today completed a 600-mile ride from Washington Mills, NY, to the Nation's Capital. Hoping to bring some good from their tragedy, they put aside their own grief and have worked to increase awareness of missing children. Bob Wood says that if even one child is saved from kidnapping and abuse as a result of his ride, he will have accomplished his goal. I commend to you today Bob and Dusty Wood, and their cycling companions, Joe Kelly, Earle Reed, Frank Williams, Dick Jordan, and Al Pylman. Their efforts on behalf of missing children are Sara's legacy.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member of the committee. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, as we have come to the close of this debate on wetlands, I just want to be sure that everyone understands exactly what this amendment would do. This amendment adopts the National Governors Association proposal on wetlands reform word for word. And this amendment gives the Secretary of Agriculture sole control over all agricultural wetlands. We have had a spirited debate and sometimes people get carried away a little bit with the spirit and say some things that just are not accurate. So I need to correct some misstatements about this amendment. It has been alleged that this amendment protects the status quo. The fact is this amendment would rewrite the wetlands provisions of the Clean Water Act and dramatically reduce the burden of Federal regulation. It has been alleged that this amendment gives Federal bureaucrats unbridled authority. The fact is this amendment would reduce Federal control over wetlands and give more authority to the States. That is why the National Governors Association promoted this proposal. It has been alleged that this amendment is insensitive to the need of farmers. The fact is this amendment contains each and every agriculture exemption contained in the committee bill, plus an additional exemption for the repair and reconstruction of tiles requested by midwestern farmers. It has been alleged that this amendment creates new bureaucracies. The fact is this amendment would create no additional bureaucracies whatsoever, just a local/State/Federal advisory panel uncompensated. This amendment would reduce the bureaucracy overseeing agriculture wetlands, giving the Department of Agriculture sole jurisdiction. Now let us get down to some specific cases that came up over the past few days in debate. We heard about someone who had to go through a convoluted approval process to use a wetland that was only one-eighth of an acre. What this amendment would actually do would provide fast- track authority that would require a response within 60 days for wetlands permits of 1 acre or less. We heard that grazing land was being classified as wetlands. What this amendment would do is exempt all grazing and ranching lands from this section 404 wetlands permitting process. We heard about wetlands created by a leaky pipe or a feeding trough. What this amendment would actually do is exempt incidentally created wetlands from regulation. We heard that the maintenance of flood control channels would be regulated under this amendment. What this amendment actually would do is exempt the maintenance and reconstruction of flood control channels. So many of the stories we have heard about this amendment are simply fiction. They are in the long American tradition of tall tales, and the regulators and regulations they allege to be part of this amendment are about as real as Paul Bunyan and his blue ox. Let me tell you something about the committee bill. The committee bill would create an expensive new Federal bureaucracy. Thousands of new Federal bureaucrats will have to be employed under H.R. 961 at a cost of over $1 billion. H.R. 961 would avoid the findings of science. The report of the National Academy of Sciences is not even being used as a reference. It is being totally ignored. Why are we afraid of science? Most importantly, H.R. 961 would allow the destruction of more than half the Nation's wetlands. That destruction could cost the Nation billions and billions of dollars in lost tourism, in fishing, and flood control. I will say again, we are offering a moderate sensible bipartisan amendment, language presented to us by the National Governors Association, the same language that was in last week's substitute. This amendment should have the support of everyone who believes that we can reform environmental legislation without eliminating its safeguards, and that we can protect the environment without unduly burdening the citizenry. I operate under the assumption that we did not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We are borrowing it from our children. We owe them an accounting of our stewardship. The American people should have as a birthright clean air, pure water, dedicated public officials. I thank my colleagues for their patience. I thank the chairman of the committee. I thank all who have participated in this very important debate. What we are about is the future of America, the next generation. Let us give them clean water. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers]. I am pleased to have this distinguished scientist supporting the Boehlert amendment. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], a leader in the environmental movement.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to echo what my colleague from New Jersey says. The important thing is this protects the basic integrity of the coastal zone program, critically important to 30 States, the Great Lakes States, and the Gulf of Mexico States. These are tough issues, but we have worked together and we have come out with, I think, a reasonable compromise. Let me add, Mr. Chairman, while we are about this, all of us are up here and we are highly visible, but the professional staff, and they are that, very professional, whether they are proponents or opponents of any one section or the bill in its entirety, have worked very hard for a long period of time. I think we all owe them a debt of gratitude.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I want him to know and my colleagues to know that we are still working at a fever pitch to preserve the basic integrity of the program and yet have some basis for accommodation. So the debate will continue and I am with my colleague 100 percent, but the negotiations are ongoing. I think we are about this close, because I could not agree more with the distinguished chairman, that we have to preserve the basic integrity of the program.

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

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. (Mr. DURBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I just did.

Mr. BOEHLERT. We are up to 40 percent. We are getting closer.