Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I just cannot get over the shocking news about the IRS. It turns out that the IRS is not as bad as we thought. It is even worse. It turns out that when our friendly IRS agent appears at our door for an audit, he is not thinking about giving us a fair shake. He was not sent off from headquarters with instructions to do justice, no more, no less. No, of the things that is uppermost in his mind, the thing upon which his promotions will depend, is how much money he can extract from the poor taxpayer who is getting audited. God help you if your friendly IRS agent is having a little trouble this month making his quota of fines. If you catch him a little behind in making his revenue quota, if his boss put a little pressure on his agents in the last weekly meeting, you may not want to expect to survive your audit without having to fork over money that you do not even have. Madam Speaker, while the President and his friends at the Treasury Department are defending the evil ways of the IRS, this Congress is going to pass real change and put an end to this absolutely outrageous practice over at the IRS.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. In town hall meetings throughout my northern California congressional district and wherever I go, I hear from taxpayers who are fed up with IRS abuses and who are demanding Congress to take steps to reform this agency. Today we move forward with strong bipartisan legislation that will not only reform the way the IRS does business, but will also restructure the agency to help assure that taxpayers are better protected from IRS abuses in the future. This legislation makes a number of important changes. First, it shifts the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS in disputed tax cases that reach U.S. Tax Court. No longer will taxpayers be considered guilty until they are able to prove themselves innocent. Second, this bill expands taxpayer rights by providing citizens 28 new legal protections against the IRS. When taken together, these 28 new taxpayer rights will shift the IRS's primary focus from heavy enforcement to customer service. Finally, this bill will establish a more accountable IRS oversight structure. This new board, which will bring to the IRS outside expertise, will assist in fundamentally changing the culture and management of the IRS. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] are to be commended for their efforts on IRS reform. I would urge my colleagues to support this common-sense yet long overdue legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 364, final passage of H.R. 2159, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal 1998, I am recorded as having voted ``aye.'' It was my intention to vote ``no.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this very modest amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. The Nation of India votes against the United States in the United Nations more than any other nation except for Cuba in the United Nations. More than 90 percent of the time they are on opposite sides than we are in our vote in the United Nations. Not only that and probably much more importantly is the horrendous human rights problems that are continuing to occur within the Nation of India. I have a very large community of Sikhs formerly from the Punjab within India that live in my district in northern California. They continue to relate the atrocities that take place within their province of their friends and relatives who continue to live there. Again, I think a minor 25 percent cut on the aid that we are giving to India is a very minor message and at the very least a token of the fact that we expect India to live by the same rules of other countries, to respect human rights within their country, and also that we begin sending a message that we are not going to continue, the taxpayers of this country are not going to continue rewarding countries who are on the opposite side philosophically than we are on major issues.

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

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this tax bill is why I came to Congress. I have been in the House of Representatives since 1987, and ever since I have been fighting to help the American people keep more of their own hard-earned money. This country has not had large-scale tax relief like the kind we are voting on today since 1981, 16 long years. Of course, under a different Congress, they have been dealt their share of tax increases, including the largest tax hike in American history just 4 short years ago. What a difference 4 years can make, and what a difference a Republican Congress can make. Today, instead of voting to push Uncle Sam's hands deeper into the American people's wallets, we will be voting to tighten Uncle Sam's belt. Today we will be providing a $500- per-child tax credit to America's families. We will be providing significant tax incentives for education. We will be expanding IRAs to help Americans save for their own retirements. We will be making major cuts in capital gains taxes to help keep our economy growing, and we will be providing a major relief from the death tax, so our Nation's family farms and small businesses can be passed on from generation to generation. Mr. Speaker, today finally we are giving the American people the tax relief they deserve. Sixteen years is long enough. I salute the chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bill Archer] on this historic achievement, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this historic conference report.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It would be foolish and negligent of us to cut one of our most successful programs that provides Americans with needed jobs, increases American earnings and significantly stimulates our national and local economies. For every dollar spent on value-added products under the market access program, our Nation receives a return of $7.61. This means we are receiving a 761 percent return on our MAP investment. This program is a major success. Remember, the purpose of the market access program is not to subsidize but to open markets for American small businesses. Mr. Chairman, this program works, and it works well. I urge my colleagues to support the market access program and vote ``no'' on the Chabot-Schumer amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, 2 million low- and middle-income Americans are waiting to see if this Congress will eliminate their tax burden. That is right, Mr. Speaker. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, 2 million Americans will no longer pay income taxes at all if the Republican House-passed tax cut proposal becomes law; not 2 million rich Americans, as my Democrat friends from the other side of the aisle would have us believe, but 2 million struggling low- and middle-income Americans who barely make enough to support their families but still are forced to pay income taxes. Our tax cuts help 2 million Americans that most need it by taking them off the income tax rolls completely. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the Republican House tax cut proposal that will truly benefit all Americans.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] to promote tax fairness and relieve our Nation's small businesses from unfair competition by Indian tribes. Let me make it very clear what this amendment does. It simply says that no new Federal lands can be transferred into tribal trust until Indian tribes reach a binding agreement regarding State and local sales tax on sales to non-Indians. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that only sales to members of the Indian tribes holding the land in trust are properly exempted from State and local taxes. But what is actually happening? Many Indian tribes are using property in tribal trust to operate truck stops, gas stations, convenience stores and other retail outlets without charging any State or local fuel sales or excise taxes. This in turn means that they are selling goods to non-Indians at prices far below what any other small business can charge; in the case of gasoline, some 20 to 30 cents less per gallon. Mr. Chairman, this is patently unfair. It is unfair to our Nation's small business owners. It is unfair to our State governments which are losing millions of dollars annually in tax revenue. Mr. Chairman, I am all for lower taxes on consumers, but I am also for tax fairness. This is a serious loophole that Congress must close. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Istook-Visclosky amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, this week marks a monumental breakthrough for resolving conflict over forest management in our national forests. By passing the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997, we sent a message to America that local compromise and community consensus is the new way of doing business on environmental issues. For more than 15 years environmentalists and members of the forest products industry have waged war over managing western forests. In 1993, Bill Coates, Plumas County supervisor from Quincy, CA, took up the challenge of breaking the gridlock over forest management. He did so by arranging a meeting with environmental attorney Michael Jackson and Sierra Pacific Industries forester Tom Nelson. They met in the library because they knew they wouldn't yell at each other. QLG is now a coalition of 41 local environmentalists, forest products industry representatives, public officials, and concerned citizens who meet each month at the Quincy Library to discuss ways to improve local forest health. This program has been endorsed by local environmental organizations including the Plumas Audubon Society, the Friends of the Plumas Wilderness, the Sierra Nevada Alliance, and the Shasta-Tehama Bioregional Council. At the heart of their discussions is the overriding threat that fire will destroy the forests before any action can be taken. Nationwide, last year more than 5.8 million acres burned with total fire suppression costs close to $1 billion. The group turned to the best science available, including the recently released Sierra Nevada ecosystem project [SNEP] report which defines, among other things, the elements of a healthy forest. H.R. 858 takes the first vital step toward conflict resolution of environmental issues across the Nation by implementing the QLG proposal as a 5-year pilot project on three of northern California's national forests. This legislation passed with a recorded vote of 429 to 1. It is fitting that a plan born from consensus would, in the end, pass the House of Representatives with a strong consensus vote. The QLG plan represents an entirely new approach to managing our Federal forests. We now have a local group bringing local solutions to Washington instead of Washington forcing solutions on local communities. I want to thank everyone who played a part in making this happen. This could never have happened without all 41 members of the Quincy Library Group; especially Bill Coates, Tom Nelson, Michael B. Jackson, and Linda Blum. This is truly their legislation. I want to salute them and their efforts. This is the way government should function. I also want to thank Don Young, Helen Chenoweth, David Dreier, Bob Smith, Speaker Gingrich, Tom DeLay and the entire leadership, Jim Saxton, Wayne Gilchrest, Tom Campbell, Sherry Boehlert, Vic Fazio, Peter DeFazio, George Miller, and every one of the 429 Members of Congress who supported this legislation. I would also like to thank the committee staff whose understanding and dedication brought this legislation to fruition. Particularly I would like to thank Duane Gibson, Bill Simmons, Anne Heissenbuttle, Lloyd Jones, Liz Megginson, Dave Tenny and from my own staff John Magill, Fran Peace, Rich Nolan, Steve Thompson, Dallas Scholes, Dave Meurer, Dave Oleander, Mike Digiordano, Patsy Atkins, Kathy Summers, Donna Burton, Lemoine Sharpe, Ron Shinn, Katy-Duke Chamberlin, Annette Gatten, Lisa Strohman, and George Morris. This is a great victory. We have finally shown that compromise and bipartisan effort does pay off. Again, thank you for your support and for helping us save the environment in northern California. I hope this bill will move expeditiously through the Senate and eventually be signed into law. I would also encourage that we take the momentum from this bill and use our new-found ability to compromise in a way that makes this Congress a success for America.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Ralph Regula, for the outstanding work he has done on this major piece of legislation and involvement in working with all of us. We commend him for that. Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases payments in lieu of taxes funding for counties and schools by $19 million, to $132 million for fiscal year 1998, while at the same time reducing the Federal deficit by $29 million. More than 20 years ago this Congress recognized a serious inequity existed in areas containing a high percentage of Federal property. Since the Federal Government does not pay taxes on its own property, these areas were left without any source of funding to provide for local schools and county services. In 1976, we attempted to correct this inequity and provided funding in the form of payments in lieu of taxes, or PILT payments. However, since providing these payments, this Congress has failed to fully fund the PILT Program. Each year 1,789 communities in each of the 50 States lose needed Federal payments due to the failure of the Federal Government to appropriately compensate these communities for lost property tax revenue on federally owned lands. The Sanders-Bass amendment corrects this shortcoming, and provides an increase of $1.86 million of necessary funding for the communities in my own State of California. To put this amount into perspective, many of the areas that will receive this funding were recently under water when the midwinter storms caused severe flooding. In January, the State of California suffered approximately $1.8 billion in damage. Each of the 10 counties in my district were declared a natural disaster area. The $1.86 million in PILT payments is sorely needed to rebuild after this serious disaster. There are other reasons, however, to support this amendment. This money goes directly to local schools and rural counties who can least afford a loss of funding. In one California county, recent funding losses have forced the school district to completely cut out extracurricular activities, including sports and field trips, food service for one of its elementary schools, library services, two-thirds of its transportation services, all fine art programs, teacher training courses, a school nurse program, and all capital expenditures. If these same cuts had been made in urban and inner city areas, lawsuits would have been filed and service levels would undoubtedly have been necessarily restored. Mr. Chairman, today we heard a lot of discussion over the need for Medicare and the need to provide medical services for our elderly residents. Before any of our citizens can receive Medicare or Medicaid assistance they first must be able to have roads to travel on to get to the hospitals, ambulances to carry them in when needed, and hospitals to go to. By underfunding our rural counties, we have forced these counties to cut back on county services. These county services include road maintenance, ambulance service, search and rescue, law enforcement, snowplowing, bridge maintenance, hospitals, and all local ground support for maintenance of Federal lands. If the county services were to go away, the Federal Government would not have an infrastructure in place to service its public lands. When visitors get lost on public lands, it is the county search and rescue that comes to their aid. When visitors to public lands need police protection, that need is filled by county services. Mr. Chairman, I support the Sanders-Bass amendment because it gives necessary assistance to counties otherwise left without a source of funding. I urge my colleagues to vote for public schools and county services by supporting this amendment.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I am appalled by the incredible misinformation that we are hearing this evening. I represent a district in northern California that is probably one of the most productive tree-growing areas in the world, and we have eight national forests in our district. I would like to state a few facts and compare it with policy, if I could. As the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] pointed out earlier, this is a 2-by-4. This very 2-by-4 we could buy for 22 cents in 1989. Now this builds homes in each of our districts, those of my colleagues who have homes in the big cities that are out trying to support the Kennedy amendment now. In 1997 this same 2-by-4 sells for 44 cents, double the price. Double the price it was. Now let us go through some facts. We have heard a number of points that were mentioned tonight. One was that only 5 percent of the timber comes off Federal land. Well, guess what? Here is a fact: 50 percent of all soft wood grown in the United States today is grown on Federal land, but because of present policy we have the doubling of wood price. Oppose the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman. Then just to conclude, to see it come together is encouraging, is something that I feel can be a beginning, hopefully, of a number of other very controversial issues that we have, that we have shown, are showing, are in the process of showing here this afternoon that both sides can come together, Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, and make the system work. Again, I want to thank everyone involved. I certainly want to thank all those from our communities in northern California who never gave up, who hung in there. I want to again say that I am very supportive of this amendment, our legislation, and I want to emphasize this for those people who are watching, that this legislation remains basically, the intent is basically exactly the same as it was before. We think that this helps improve the bill and it helps for, I believe, the support we are going to need in the Senate and I believe the support that we will have from the President. Again I want to thank everyone. I support this, I urge Members' support on this amendment, and I urge their overwhelming support on the bill itself. Modification to Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very appropriate that this bill just moments before it comes before a vote here on the House floor in the U.S. House of Representatives ends, or concludes the way that it started. The way that it started was some 4 years ago in a small community of a couple of hundred citizens in Quincy, CA, within the Plumas National Forest in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, a community which for 15 years had been racked with wars of the environmental community, warring with those that were trying to support the wood products industry. The fact that their economy had come to a standstill, the environmental health of the community and of these forests had come not just to a standstill but was actually to a state that we were seeing these forests burning up through fires. Just last year alone some 870,000 acres of forest burned in the State of California alone. Other environmental issues were not being addressed. And so at that time we saw the environmental community, the wood products community, the schools, the locally elected officials come together at a place that they felt they would not yell at each other, and that was the library. They started a long process of meeting together night after night, more than some 46 representatives, leaders in all the different areas of the community, working together to finally come up with a plan that was using the most recent environmental science, science that had been developed in this very area itself of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, to come up with a plan which was a win-win for everyone: A win for the environment, a win for the California spotted owl, a win for riparian problems that we have there, a win also for the economy of this community as well, a community which throughout that area some 32 mills had closed in just the last couple of years. And to see at this time all the working together there, working with the administration, working with our two U.S. Senators, literally thousands of meetings, and then to see it culminate here before our very eyes in which we see very much the same type of scenario taking place, I really did not think, I have been here six terms, I was not sure if I would see the time when my very good friend and distinguished leader, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and myself and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and others, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and others could come together in agreement. I think it is certainly, I feel is either the highlight, or certainly one of the highlights of my political career.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, for more than 15 years, environmentalists and members of the forest products industry have waged war over managing western forests, and like all wars this conflict has had its share of victims. The victims of the forest management debate include schools left with dramatically reduced funding. Twenty-five percent of all timber sales receipts are promised by mandate to fund local education and country road programs. When sales decline, so does education. Other victims are communities faced with extreme unemployment rates and an environment clogged with unhealthy forests. In 1993 Bill Coats, Plumas County supervisor from Quincy, CA, took up the challenge of breaking the gridlock over forest management. He did so by arranging a meeting with environmental attorney Michael Jackson and Sierra Pacific Industries forester Tom Nelson. They met in the library because they knew that there they would not be yelling at each other. The Quincy Library Group is now a coalition of 41 local environmentalists, forest product industry representatives, public officials, and concerned citizens who met each month at the Quincy Library to discuss ways to improve local forest health. This program has been endorsed by local environmental organizations including the Plumas Audubon Society, the Friends of the Plumas Wilderness, the Sierra Nevada Alliance, and the Shasta-Tehama Bi- regional Council. At the heart of their discussions is the overriding threat that fire will destroy the forest before any action can be taken. Nationwide last year more than 5.8 million acres burned with total fire suppression costs of close to $1 billion of taxpayer dollars. The group turned to the best science available, including the recently released Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project [SNEP] report which defines, among other things, the elements of a healthy forest. H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Forest Group and Economic Stability Act of 1997, takes the first vital step toward conflict resolution of environmental issues across the United States. This legislation is all about compromise and consensus building on the local level. H.R. 858 is not about local control of national forests but about local input on forest management through implementation of a 5-year pilot project on portions of the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in northern California. In short, this is all about local wisdom gaining a voice in our forests. The Federal Government still retains complete control over implementation. The Quincy Library Group implements most of these elements through the following goals: First, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire; second, protect environmentally sensitive areas; third, implement critical watershed stream and water quality restoration; and fourth, provide economic stability for communities dependent on the wood products industry. These goals are accomplished through implementation of a 5-year pilot project on three of California's threatened forests. My legislation implements a strategic system of defensible fuel profile zones including shaded fuelbreaks that contain fires in the more manageable forest understory. Again, the Quincy Library Group bill is clearly science based. It improves forest health by implementing the SNEP fuelbreak program to reduce fire risk. Its riparian protection guidelines were written by scientists led by Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, former chief of the Forest Service under the Clinton administration and architect of the science work underlying the northern spotted owl debate. Through these elements of the program, fire suppression personnel will have the ability to contain fires before they get out of hand. The proposal also implements uneven-aged forest management prescriptions utilizing individual tree selection, and thinnings and group selection to achieve optimal forest health by creating an all-age multistory, fire-resilient forest.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides tax relief to Americans who pay taxes. Under this plan, 76 percent of the tax relief goes to Americans who make less than $75,000. American families are struggling under the burden of increasing taxes and deserve relief. The average American now pays almost 40 percent of their income to local, State, and Federal taxes, more than they spend on food, clothing, and shelter combined. Our tax plan provides needed relief by allowing families to keep more of their money through a $500 per child tax credit. In my northern California congressional district alone, 89,000 children will benefit from the child tax credit, and more than 41 million children will benefit from it nationwide. A family with one child will get $500 taken off the top of their tax bill. A family with two children will get $1,000 taken off of their tax bill, and so on. Mr. Chairman, voting against this tax plan is to look into the faces of 41 million children and say, sorry, we are not going to help you. Voting against this tax cut is saying no to giving Americans more freedom to spend their own money, and voting against this tax cut is saying no to helping struggling families that are just trying to get by. Mr. Chairman, families have not had significant tax relief since 1981, 16 long years. Is it not about time we give them a break? They deserve it. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. HERGER. I thank the chairman.

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1420, The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and take this opportunity to clarify the scope and application of this important legislation. This Act directly affects 509 wildlife refuges, covering 92 million acres of Federal lands, in all 50 States and territories. These refuges provide enjoyment for millions of Americans each year, while at the same time they protect and preserve vital habitat and species for futures generations. Our Federal Government, however, has managed its refuge system for more than 30 years without any clear mission or direction. H.R. 1420 provides a beacon of light for public lands management on our national wildlife refuges by establishing a mission ``to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, the restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.'' For far too long the Federal agency responsible for maintaining these refuges, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, has proceeded without direction or instructions on how to manage our national refuges. They have been left to their own whims to make arbitrary decisions regarding who may or may not gain access to our refuge system. Now, local administrators will be provided a clear definition of wildlife-dependent recreational activities that are considered ``compatible uses'' within our national refuge system. It is important to note that this legislation applies directly to ``wildlife-dependent recreation,'' and defines this type of recreation as: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. This legislation does not, however, apply to, preclude, or otherwise bar other activities vital to management of our national refuge system. Most particularly, this legislation does not preclude mosquito control activities. Mosquito abatement on our national refuges is integral to providing for the public health and safety of communities in and around the refuge system. Without these important activities our national refuges become breeding grounds for disease carrying mosquitoes that migrate from the refuges, travelling anywhere from 20 to 50 miles, to infect animals and humans who live in neighboring urban and rural communities. Mosquito control activities do not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission or purpose of the refuge system, but they do have a direct positive impact on public health and safety. I support H.R. 1420 and join with my colleagues in providing common sense direction for management of our national refuge system.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, when I am home in my district I am sometimes asked, ``What can you do for the poor?'' I have two responses. First, if the poor look to Washington to solve their problems or to make them rich, they will be as disappointed in the future as they are today, some 32 years after failed welfare state policies were begun. Mr. Speaker, we have 32 years of evidence that increased spending on Government programs does not end poverty, it perpetuates it. On the other hand, my second response offers more hope. Washington can pursue economic policies that will allow the poor to help themselves. Washington can pursue economic policies that will make it easier for people to find jobs, will make it easier for people to find better jobs, will make it easier for people to buy a home, will make it easier for people to receive an education, will make it easier for people to get ahead. Policies that would do that include lower taxes, more commonsense regulation, less Government bureaucracy and, above all, a balanced budget. That is a program that will help the poor, not the failed promises of more Government and social spending.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Yes.

Mr. HERGER. It is not written into the bill that it expires?

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me ask the gentleman, is their not a 1\1/2\ year time limit on his bill? Does his bill not expire on December 31, 1998? Yes or no?

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Boehlert amendment and in support of H.R. 478. I want to make perfectly clear what is at stake with maintaining and repairing flood control structures across the United States. In 1986, California was hit with what was up to that time the worst flooding in recorded history. This photo shows an example of the devastation. Members can see how the water in Linda in northern California in my district was up to the bottom of the road signs. In that disaster, 13 lives were lost and more than $400 million worth of damage was caused. After this tragic flood, the Army Corps of Engineers spent 4 years to study what levees needed to be repaired. Under the Boehlert substitute, the deadline would have been surpassed because the Boehlert substitute limits the time in which flood control experts can repair the levees to only 1\1/2\ years. Our Nation would in fact be worse off under the Boehlert substitute than under existing law which does not limit the window for making repairs nor does it require after-the-fact mitigation. Even if the repairs could be accomplished within the time limit, the Boehlert amendment would still require local communities to pay for costly environmental mitigation after the levee was repaired. The Boehlert substitute makes national law a policy that requires local officials to play Russian roulette with limited tax dollars by forcing them to choose between making necessary repairs or facing undetermined mitigation costs. It writes a blank check for the Fish and Wildlife Service to charge local communities whatever they want in mitigation costs. This is clearly another major unfunded mandate. But by far the worst part of the Boehlert substitute is that it does nothing to prevent flood disasters from occurring in the first place. The Boehlert substitute would only allow flood control structures to be repaired after a catastrophe occurs, only after lives have been lost, and only after the loss of wildlife that the ESA is supposed to protect. Why should a law prevent the repair of a flood control structure only to have that structure give way and take lives and devastate wildlife? Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert substitute simply defies common sense. Under H.R. 478, flood ravaged areas around the Nation could find comfort in knowing that they will have the regulatory relief necessary to do everything in their power to prevent flooding. When a levee, like this one in this photo, broke in my district on the Feather River on January 2, 1997, three people were drowned. Claire Royal, a 75-year-old retired elementary school teacher, was found drowned near her car in which she had been attempting to flee the flood waters. Marian Anderson, a 55-year-old mother of 10, was found drowned near her car in which she had been attempting to flee the flood waters. Bill Nakagawa, an 81-year-old World War II veteran who served with the famed and distinguished Japanese-American 442d Combat Team, was found drowned in his home a quarter mile away from the broken levee. Ask yourselves this: Would Claire Royal, Marian Anderson, and Bill Nakagawa, been better off under the Boehlert amendment that only allows repairs after the disaster has hit, or would they have been better off under our legislation, H.R. 478, that allows flood control officials like Mrs. Anderson's husband, the manager of the broken levee, to make the repairs while the sun is shining and the high waters are not present? Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert substitute is worse than current law and does nothing to protect communities from future devastation from floods. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boehlert substitute and ``yes'' on final passage of H.R. 478.