Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the record an op-ed piece that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post--an op-ed that I am also distributing as a Dear Colleague letter. The column is by Dr. Harold Varmus, a distinguished Nobel Laureate and former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who is now president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Dr. Varmus' point is that Congress needs to be investing adequately in science spending across the board, not just at NIH. Improvements in medicine rest on advancements in a wide variety of fields; we can't improve health in this country by focusing exclusively on NIH. This is advice we would be wise to heed. The federal research portfolio has become too skewed toward medical research. We need to address that imbalance not by reducing funding for NIH but by increasing funding for the other federal research agencies. That would be a wise investment in this time of surplus. I'm pleased to say that Congress is beginning to take steps in that direction. I know, for example, that the appropriations bill my good friend and neighbor Congressman Jim Walsh has put together includes a substantial increase for the National Science Foundation (NSF). But we need to make a comprehensive, consistent commitment to funding the entire federal science portfolio more generously. I look forward to working with my colleagues to accomplish just that. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2000] Squeeze on Science (By Harold Varmus) In recent weeks both presidential campaigns have voiced their support of efforts to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health. This is an encouraging sign that the current bipartisan enthusiasm for medical research will continue in the next administration. But it also offers an opportunity to make an important point about the kinds of science required to achieve breakthroughs against disease. The NIH does a magnificent job, but it does not hold all the keys to success. The work of several science agencies is required for advances in medical sciences, and the health of some of those agencies is suffering. For the coming fiscal year, Congress has again-- magnanimously and appropriately--slated the NIH for a major increase, its third consecutive 15 percent increase. By these actions, Congress has shown that it is determined to combat the scourges of our time, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, AIDS and Alzheimer's disease. But Congress is not addressing with sufficient vigor the compelling needs of the other science agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy. This disparity in treatment undermines the balance of the sciences that is essential to progress in all spheres, including medicine. I first observed the interdependence of the sciences as a boy when my father--a general practitioner with an office connected to our house--showed me an X-ray. I marveled at a technology that could reveal the bones of his patients or the guts of our pets. And I learned that it was something that doctors, no matter how expert with a stethoscope or suture, wouldn't have been likely to develop on their own. Of course, the X-ray is routine now. Medical science can visualize the inner workings of the body at far higher resolution with techniques that sound dazzlingly sophisticated: ultrasound, positron-emission tomography and computer-assisted tomography. These techniques are the workhorses of medical diagnostics. And not a single one of them could have been developed without the contributions of scientists, such as mathematicians, physicists and chemists supported by the agencies currently at risk. Effective medicines are among the most prominent products of medical research, and drug development also relies heavily on contributions from a variety of sciences. The traditional method of random prospecting for a few promising chemicals has been supplemented and even superseded by more rational methods based on molecular structures, computer-based images and chemical theory. Synthesis of promising compounds is guided by new chemical methods that can generate either pure preparations of a single molecule or collections of literally millions of subtle variants. To exploit these new possibilities fully, we need strength in many disciplines, not just pharmacology. Medical advances may seem like wizardry. But pull back the curtain, and sitting at the lever is a high-energy physicist, a combinational chemist or an engineer. Magnetic resonance imaging is an excellent example. Perhaps the last century's greatest advance in diagnosis. MRI is the product of atomic, nuclear and high-energy physics, quantum chemistry, computer science, cryogenics, solid state physics and applied medicine. In other words, the various sciences together constitute the vanguard of medical research. And it's time for Congress to treat them that way. Sens. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) have just proposed to double the budget of the National Science Foundation over five years. This admirable effort should be vigorously supported and extended to include the Department of Energy's Office of Science, which fund half of all research in the physical sciences and maintains the national laboratories that are central to biomedicine. Scientists can wage an effective war on disease only if we--as a nation and as a scientific community--harness the energies of many disciplines, not just biology and medicine. The allies must include mathematicians, physicists, engineers and computer and behavioral scientists. I made this case repeatedly during my tenure as director of NIH, and the NIH has made significant efforts to boost its support of these areas. But in the long run, it is essential to provide adequate budgets for the agencies that traditionally fund such work and train its practitioners. Moreover, this will encourage the interagency collaboration that fuels interdisciplinary science. Only in this way will medical research be optimally poised to continue its dazzling progress.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, transportation is vital to the social and economic health of our nation. During the past twenty years, however, transportation systems have struggled to keep pace with America's growing and changing needs. For example, between 1970 and 1990, the U.S. automobile population grew almost three times faster than the human population. In fact, in 1995 Americans averaged about 4.3 one-way trips per day and about 14,000 miles per year--up from 2.9 trips and 9,500 miles in 1977. Other forms of transportation have seen dramatic growth as well. Since 1980, freight railroad traffic has increased 47 percent and the number of airports has increased 20 percent. Explosive transportation growth has led to inefficient movement of people and goods, reduced productivity, wasted energy, and increased congestion and emissions. A recent study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute found that in 1982, ten of the 70 urban areas studied had unacceptable levels of congestion, but by 1996, that number had almost quadrupled, to 39 areas. As the number of cars, trucks, freight trains and planes grows and America's transportation network expands, the need for fuel increases. In 1997, the volume of imported oil exceeded domestic production for the first time in U.S. history. Our thirst for oil is fueled by the transportation sector, which uses over 65 percent of the petroleum consumed in the United States. Our transportation system is over 90 percent dependent on oil--and that's too much when over 50 percent our nation's oil comes from overseas and the price has almost quadrupled in 18 months. Powering our cars and buses with alternative fuel is an environmentally sound way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil--and it's good for the economy, too, because alternative fuels can be produced here at home. Alternative fuels, such as electricity, natural gas, methanol, hydrogen and propane, provide a plentiful, domestically produced and environmentally friendly source of energy. And, when integrated into America's transportation network--in meaningful quantities-- alternatively fueled vehicles (AFVs) contribute to mitigating the energy and environmental problems caused by the transportation sector. In addition, to alternative fuels, the implementation of intermodal transportation networks is another component to alleviating America's transportation problems. Intermodalism refers to interconnections among various modes of transportation, or the use of multiple modes of transportation during a single trip. Employing the concept of intermodalism offers the promise of lowering transportation costs, increasing economic productivity and efficiency, reducing the burden on existing infrastructure, while at the same time reducing energy consumption and improving air quality and the environment. In an attempt to address the energy and environmental concerns that an ``over-stressed'' transportation network has created, Congress passed several pieces of legislation. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, established programs and regulations directed at the mobile sector to decrease major automotive pollutants that are the key contributors to urban smog, or ozone. Today, however, nearly 100 cities throughout the United States continue to fail to meet federal air quality guidelines. In 1991, Congress also recognized the impact and sought to mitigate some of the problems associated with the growing number of cars, trucks, freight trains and planes in the United Finally, in 1992, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) which recognized that alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) can provide substantial environmental benefits and at the same time can decrease our dependence on foreign oil. EPAct included a modest set of tax incentives intended to support the development and introduction of AFVs to the market. Today I am introducing legislation that builds on the very important work that has been done as a result of these landmark bills that have focused our efforts on dealing with transportation, congestion, air quality and energy security issues holistically, rather than as separate non-connected issues. I believe, firmly, that we must look to address many of the problems created by a growing transportation system and the need to ensure and indeed enhance mobility as a single issue, a single goal. The ``Alternative Fuel Vehicles Intermodal Transportation Act'' provides funding for a $200 million federal pilot program to demonstrate the use of alternative fuel vehicles in intermodal applications. Importantly, the goals of the program will be accomplished through partnerships between Federal, State and local governments, metropolitan transportation authorities, industry and business. This legislation would help urban centers develop and demonstrate effective, alternative fuel transportation networks to move people. By combining intermodal transportation systems with alternative fuels, the United States can build transportation networks that efficiently and cleanly transport passengers and goods. In the long run, alternative fuel vehicles will obviously have to succeed in the marketplace entirely on their own. But the federal government should be doing more to encourage the development and deployment of alternative vehicles because there are clear public benefits and the technology will develop too slowly without incentives. In addition, public entities are the main purchasers of buses so the government is the market in that area. What will this legislation achieve? The proposed pilot program would assist up to 15 locations throughout the United States to put in place clean, innovative, linked transportation systems that reduce dependence on foreign oil, increase reliance on alternative fuels, enhance the usefulness of public transportation systems, protect the environment, and speed the deployment of alternative fuel technologies. Participants in the program would be required to match federal dollars with an equal contribution from State and local governments and the private sector. Projects would be awarded to applicants that meet criteria including: the number of riders served or goods transported; the ability to achieve national, state or local air quality goals; and the deployment of innovative transportation technologies or new intermodal systems that increase the use of alternative fuels. How could this legislation impact your community? Imagine a linked transportation system where commuters use electric station cars or ``neighborhood electric vehicles'' to reach an Another travel scenario that releases near zero-emissions while improving the quality of a trip might involve the business traveler who arrives in a city by plane, transfers to a light rail system that deposits her in the urban center where she checks-out an electric ``station car'' to travel to meetings in three different locations. Upon concluding business, she returns to the light-rail station, plugs in the rented station car for the next driver, hops on the light rail and returns to the airport. This business traveler has left no environmental footprint during her visit to your community. Enhance the environment--relieve traffic congestion--increase alternative fuel use--effectively demonstrate viable and sustainable alternative fuel vehicles and their interconnected use in transportation networks--bring together all levels of government and industry as partners in this effort--and educate the public that alternative fuel technologies work . . . these are the goals of the Alternative Fuel Vehicles Intermodal Transportation Act. The price tag for reaching these goals is relatively modest; the price for not supporting this type of paradigm shift in the way we move people and goods is incalculable. And it is a price that will be paid not just with dollars, but with our natural resources, our air, and the quality of life for generations to come. I hope many of my colleagues will recognize the value and importance of this innovative program and will support this important legislation.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 999.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000, which was introduced and championed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). He has been a tireless advocate for monitoring the quality of our Nation's coastal recreation waters. This issue has been languishing in Congress for years. But thanks to the tenacity of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), all the interested parties have come together, come to the table, and we have reached an agreement on a bipartisan basis. That is a tribute, a singular tribute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). It is a privilege to work with him on this very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 999) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve the quality of coastal recreation waters, and for other purposes.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), the author of this bill and the driving force behind it all. (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5175 will end Superfund litigation for the overwhelming number of small businesses across America. That is what we are here about. As most of my colleagues know, I am a very strong proponent of Superfund reform. Superfund remains a program with flaws, flaws that need to be corrected. This is not to say that changes have not been made, adjustments have not been made, that some progress has not been made; but we need to correct the flaws, and exempting small business is one of the most glaring flaws in the whole bill. My Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment have held 13 hearings on the Superfund program. I have heard from dozens of witnesses from small businesses one horror story after another. Let me give you an example. Mr. Lefelar testified before us. He owns Clifton Adhesive. He was brought into litigation in the GEMS Superfund case in New Jersey because his company's name was written on a ticket for a toll bridge that a waste hauler had in his records. That was it, one toll bridge ticket from 1974. He had no records from 1974 to prove that he did not send waste to the GEMS site, so he was stuck in litigation for 8 years and spent $450,000 in legal fees. Here is what he told the committee: ``The pressure was unbelievable for me. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were being mentioned, possible litigation personally, lifetime personal assets were at risk, loss of home. I was really becoming desperate at this time. About 3 years into this suit, I had to take a look at how much more money we could expend, and we were teetering, actually, it drove us to teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and here is a company that had been operating since 1945.'' Do you know why it was brought into the scheme? Because of one toll ticket. I have heard from the environmental community. Let me tell you what the NRDC said: ``We suggest an exemption for parties who only contributed household-type waste to sites, liability waivers for those who only sent tiny amounts of hazardous materials to a site, that is, de micromis contributors, and aggressive settlements with parties who sent small amounts of hazardous substances to a site, but still have some ability to pay toward cleanup, that is de minimis contributors.'' That is what the environmental community said. I agreed with them then; I agree with them now. Administrator Browner, here is what she said last year: ``If you are a small business, if you sent garbage, like the stuff you and I put out every Monday evening,'' it is Wednesday with me, ``for the garbage company to pick up, you should never hear the word Superfund. I think there is not a person up here who does not agree with that.'' So said Administrator Browner. I agreed with her then; I agree with her now. Let me tell you, I feel particularly close to the environmental community. I am proud of that affiliation. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, sent a letter on the 21st of September outlining some concerns. I would like to be responsive to their concerns, because I think that they are responsible organizations for the most part. First the LCV letter sent on the 21st of September claims that H.R. 5175, as introduced, could relieve liability for more than small businesses because it did not specify that the employees and revenues of the parent corporations or subsidiaries or affiliates are considered when determining whether a business is small. That is a legitimate concern. The authors of H.R. 5175 never intended to include parents or the big guys. In short, the problem is fixed by this bill. Second, the LCV letter addresses other concerns that LCV has in the letter. Let me report that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and I with our Democrat colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, addressed those concerns and remediated them. It is time to get the small businesses all across America out of this litigation quagmire. It just is not fair to them, and it is not fair to us to argue on this floor about policy supposedly, when it is really politics below the surface that is driving the opposition.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, it has been said several times on the floor that we have had no hearings. That is absolutely ludicrous. Year after year in the Committee on Commerce and in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we have had hearings. Extensive hearings. Hours and hours and hours and hours of hearings. Dozens of witnesses, one after another. And all from the small business community have said the same thing repeatedly: Get us out of this litigation quagmire. It just is not fair. We are talking about somebody from Pennsylvania being in the litigation scheme because she sent mashed potatoes to a landfill. We are talking about someone in New York, a small business, being in this litigation quagmire because the small business sent an empty pizza box to the landfill. That is absolutely scandalous. What this is all about, when all is said and done, it is about pure politics trying to trump responsible public policy. There are those fortunately in the minority in numbers who do not want this Congress to do anything constructive this close to legislation. There are those of us from both parties who fortunately will make the majority, when the vote is taken, who are concentrating on shaping responsible public policy, because we are convinced in the final analysis that Republicans and Democrats alike will gain from shaping public policy in a responsible way. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that exempting small businesses under very strict conditions is responsible public policy. Guess what? That is what the administration says it wants to do; that is what the administrator of EPA says what it wants to do; that is what environmental groups want to do; that is what we want to do; and that is what my colleagues should want to do. This is responsible action to deal with a very legitimate problem in a very responsible way.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have a very important announcement. There has been a Federal court decision today in one of the most highly visible and significant Indian land claims in the country. Senior Judge Neal McCurn of the Federal Court of the Northern District of New York has denied request by the Oneida Indian Nation and the U.S. Department of Justice to amend a lawsuit in a claim to include 20,000 innocent landowners as defendants. Let me repeat that. Judge McCurn has ruled he has denied a request to amend a lawsuit in the claim to include 20,000 innocent landowners as defendants. That falls under the heading of very good news. I am delighted with Judge McCurn's decision, which once and for all removes the threat of eviction and monetary damages from the innocent landowners in Madison and Oneida Counties, New York. With this ruling, the innocent landowners are quite simply excluded as parties to this longstanding dispute. Their homes are not threatened in any way. That should be an enormous relief to all concerned. This is precisely the result I have been working for ever since the Oneidas and the Justice Department filed their misguided motions back in December of 1998. I have repeatedly spoken and written to Judge McCurn and the Justice Department urging that the landowners be dropped from the case. The judge acknowledges my efforts on page 46 of his decision, when he notes that, along with Senator Schumer and Governor Pataki, I took up the landowners' cries, condemning the Federal Government for seeking to name the landowners as defendants in this action. Now we finally come to an end of this sad, frightening and utterly unnecessary chapter of our area's history which began in December 1998. But there is still much work to be done in the Indian land claim. The tax and sovereignty issues still need to be resolved, and the State is potentially liable for damages. I hope that this ruling will bring the remaining parties back to the bargaining table to resolve all the issues in a way that safeguards our area's economy and public services just as well as Judge McCurn has safeguarded individual property rights. I will continue to work toward that end. But today's court decision is unalloyed good news for the residents in the land claim who can all breathe a little easier and sleep more soundly. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Colorado for yielding to me for this very important announcement.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to join with my colleagues this morning to honor Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It is a special pleasure for me, because I have a relationship to Pat that none of my colleagues can claim: I am his Congressman, as the Senator reminds me; and I could tell you one could not wish for a better constituent. But it is not only an honor and a pleasure representing and working with the Senator, it is an education. One cannot have a conversation with Pat without benefiting from his years of experience and the depth of his insight. As the recent biography of the Senator shows, one can pretty much trace the history of the second half of the 20th century simply by following his career. His is that rare life that crosses so many supposedly impermeable boundaries. He has made his mark in the academic and in the so-called real world. He has been a critical player in domestic and foreign policy. He has been a key member of Democrat administrations and Republican administrations. He has served ably in the executive branch and in the legislative branch. He has been esteemed as an author of books and an author of laws. His record becomes more inspiring and amazing the more it is examined. Finally, he has brought that breadth and that stature to bear, not only on the great pivotal issues of the day, race and ethnicity, welfare fair and tax policy, the Cold War and terrorism, but also on the more local matters that can make a great difference in people's lives. So, as a New Yorker and as an American, I am sorry to see Pat Moynihan leaving the Senate; but as a Congressman, I know I will still be able to rely on his wise counsel. I expect that I will not only be reading additional books by the sage of Pindar's Corners, but also constituent mail, and those are letters that I will be eager to receive. I salute you, very able and distinguished public servant.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a strong supporter of the House Amendment to S. 835, the Clean Waters and Bays Act of 2000. S. 835 was introduced by the late Senator John Chafee in April 1999 and passed the Senate by unanimous consent on March 30, 2000. Senator Chafee was a champion for the environment and S. 835 reflects his dedication to ensuring that all Americans have safe and clean water. As passed by the Senate, S. 835 is a clean water omnibus bill that encourages estuary restoration through partnerships with the Corps of Engineers, and Reauthorizes the Clean Water Act's Chesapeake Bay Program, Long Island Sound Office, and National Estuary Program. The House Amendment to S. 835 replaces the Senate text with the text from House-passed bills on estuary restoration, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Long Island Sound, and the National Estuary Program. In addition, the House amendment adds House-passed bills to reauthorize the Clean Lakes Program, as well as bills to address other water infrastructure needs at both the national and regional levels. Each bill in this package is non-controversial and has already passed the House with overwhelming support. The purpose of this omnibus package is to have a vehicle that we can work out with the Senate and send to the President's desk. S. 835 will go a long way toward addressing the specific water quality needs that my subcommittee on water resources and environment identified through extensive hearings. The solutions put forth by this bill are solutions that every Member of Congress should be proud to embrace. This legislation does not impose any new mandates. Instead, this legislation encourages cooperative efforts at the local, state and federal levels and fosters public-private partnerships to identify and address water quality problems. I urge all Members to Support S. 835, as amended.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for helping to bring H.R. 3378, the Tijuana River Valley Estuary and Beach Sewage Cleanup Act, to the House floor for action. I also commend Representatives Bilbray and Filner of California, who introduced H.R. 3378, for their dedicated bi-partisan leadership in getting us to where we are today. Their bill would authorize the United States to take actions to comprehensively address the treatment of sewage generated in the area of Tijuana, Mexico that flows untreated or partially treated into the San Diego, California area. Thie pollution, occurring because the region's wastewater treatment capacity can not keep pace with its rapid growth, has created serious sanitation issues for decades in the U.S. In fact, the city of San Diego has declared a continued state of emergency since 1993 due to the threats to public health and the environment resulting from increasing sewage flows into the area. To provide sufficient wastewater treatment capacity in the area, H.R. 3378 encourages the U.S. to negotiate new international agreements with Mexico. It also authorizes the United States to enter into an innovative public-private partnership to construct and operate a new wastewater treatment facility in Mexico. It's time to resolve this serious sanitation issue that has plagued the San Diego border area for decades. I support passage of H.R. 3378, as amended, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1775, the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000. First, Let me thank Chairman Bud Shuster and Representatives Jim Oberstar and Bob Borski of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as thank the chairman and ranking member of the Resources Committee, for their leadership and cooperation in moving this important legislation forward. I also want to recognize the leadership of the bill's sponsor, Representative Wayne Gilchrest. Estuaries are places where fresh water meets the open sea, creating some of the most diverse and productive habitat in the country. For example, 75 percent of the commercial fish and shellfish catch in the United States comes from estuaries. Without clean water, these fisheries can collapse, creating economic havoc and destroying a way of life. The recent crisis for lobstermen in Long Island Sound is vivid reminder of what can happen. More than 70 percent of Americans visit coastal areas every year-- including estuaries like the Chesapeake Bay that is so dear to Congressman Gilchrest. Fishing, boating, and tourism in these areas all depend on clean water. More than 110 million people currently live in coastal regions. Estuaries provide critical water supply for these people. Even Americans who never travel to coastal areas rely on clean estuary habitat. Migratory birds and anadromous fish spend part of their lives in estuaries and part of their lives inland. So duck hunters and fisherman in upstate New York need clean estuaries as much as duck hunters and fisherman in the Chesapeake Bay. Given their important role, it is essential we increase our efforts to restore and protect our estuaries, which are at risk in many areas. Population growth, increased development, and other pressures have caused significant damage to, and loss of, our estuaries. H.R. 1775 strengthens efforts across the United States, at the Federal, State and local levels, to restore our valuable estuary habitat: H.R. 1775 authorizes $200 million for the Secretary of the Army to carry out estuary habitat restoration projects. The Secretary will select these projects in consultation with a National Estuary Habitat Council that develops a long-term national estuary restoration strategy. The bill also establishes an advisory board of experts to provide scientific and technical expertise to the National Council and the Secretary. Finally, under H.R. 1775, restoration projects will be monitored and evaluated to help ensure their long-term success. I urge all Members to support this bill, which takes an important step forward to comprehensively address restoration of our estuaries.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4104, the Mississippi Sound Restoration Act of 2000, amends the Clean Water Act to require EPA to establish a Mississippi Sound Restoration Program, and to carry out water quality and environmental restoration projects for the Sound. I commend Representative Gene Taylor for introducing H.R. 4104, a bill that will help restore and protect one more of our national treasures. I also thank the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for helping to bring this bill to the House floor for action. I support passage of H.R. 4104, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2327, the Oceans Act of 2000. As chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I can attest to the importance of this legislation and the need to develop a comprehensive approach to our nation's oceans. Our Subcommittee held a hearing on comparable legislation in 1998 and since then has been active in reviewing and passing related bills advancing ocean and coastal protection efforts. Like its predecessors (such as H.R. 3445 and S. 1213 in the 105th Congress), S. 2327 takes an important step towards a coordinated, comprehensive, and long-range national ocean policy. Clearly, there is a need for a renewed, comprehensive effort to develop such a policy. A lot has changed since the Stratton Commission was established in 1966. We have learned more about ocean and coastal problems and solutions and we have seen the enactment of laws such as the Clean Water Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, and the Oil Pollution Act. We also continue to witness the importance of shore protection and hurricane response programs of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mr. Speaker, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was entitled to a referral of this legislation. However, in order to expedite House consideration of this important measure, the Committee agreed not to seek a referral. I appreciate the leadership and cooperation of Chairman Shuster, Chairman Sensenbrenner of the Science Committee, and, of course, Chairman Young of the Resources Committee. I also want to congratulate Rep. Saxton, Rep. Farr, and others for their tireless efforts to move this legislation forward. Many of S. 2327's provisions are the result of negotiations among the House Committees and the Senate in 1998 and beyond. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this bill is a vote for the responsible use and stewardship of ocean and coastal resources. I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 2327.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, today we are saluting a genuine American hero, Don Mitchell. Let me tell you a little bit about the man. Don Mitchell served with great distinction in the United States Navy from 1942 to 1946 as an aviator, then returned home, only to return to the military in the Korean conflict, where he served as a flight instructor. After that service, he returned back home to his beloved Herkimer, New York. His talents were recognized. His talent for leadership, his vision, were recognized by the people of Herkimer. First they elected him a town councilman. Then they elected him mayor. But his talents were such and so obvious that he was obviously destined for higher office, and higher office came. He was elected to the New York State Assembly, where he served with great distinction for 8 years, and, once again, as they say, cream rises to the top, and before long, Don Mitchell was Majority Whip of the New York State Assembly, a leadership position. So here is a distinguished American who had served in World War II, served in Korea, served as a town councilman, then a mayor, then in the State Assembly, and was beginning to think perhaps he had done his share. But the people of Central New York would not have it, because they insisted that his talents go far beyond the community and the State, and he was elected to the United States Congress, where he served with great distinction for 10 years. During those 10 years he served on the House Committee on Armed Services, and defense was very much in his mind and heart. He provided leadership in that area. I recall particularly his call for an adequate civil defense program for America and the necessity of having an emergency preparedness scheme to protect our Nation and her people. But Don Mitchell's finest hour perhaps occurred when the Department of the Air Force floated an ill-conceived idea that perhaps the Rome Air Development Center at the Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, New York, one of the Nation's premier research and development facilities, dealing with command, control, communications and computer technology, and having a very sensitive role to play in intelligence technology, the Air Force thought that maybe Rome Air Development Center should be ``disestablished,'' to use their word, and the assets scattered at other installations around the country. Don Mitchell would not hear of it, and he led the fight, he was the quarterback of the team, and one year after that announcement was made of the Air Force's intention, Don Mitchell single-handedly convinced the officials in the Pentagon and the Department of the Air Force this should not occur, and it did not. And today, in the year 2000, that fine research and development facility still stands, and it is a tribute to Don Mitchell. But in the intervening years, the BRAC commission closed the former Griffiss Air Force Base, but they set off in a controlment area that one magnificent R&D facility, and it is still serving our Nation well and proudly. Don Mitchell has done so much for so many over the years, but let me tell you a little bit about the facility. When the Air Force was going to close the base and the hospital, a lot of people said that should not happen, because we still have a large veterans population, we still have a lot of military retirees and their dependents who need medical service, and we still had, at the Rome Air Development Center, a research laboratory where there were military families and their dependents. Where were they to be served? I was able to convince the Department of Air Force, working in conjunction with the Veterans' Administration, to transfer that facility that was destined to be closed to the Veterans' Administration, who are operating it today as a full-service Veterans' Administration outpatient clinic, serving an average of 135 patients with quality medical care that they desire, but, more importantly, that they deserve, every single day. That is a little bit about the facility; that is a lot of bit about the man. So I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) for recognizing the importance of honoring a very distinguished American, and I would like to thank all of my colleagues in the House, Republicans and Democrats alike. Every single member of the New York Congressional delegation has cosponsored my bill to honor Mr. Mitchell. So, collectively today, in the people's House, our House, we stand in the well and we salute a distinguished American.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 4922, The TMDL Regulatory Accountability Act of 2000. TMDL stands for ``Total Maximum Daily Loads.'' TMDLs are useful tools provided by the Clean Water Act to bring water bodies into compliance with water quality standards. I support the Clean Water Act's TMDL program. I am pleased that EPA, States, and Congress are finally turning their attention to this program and are providing more resources for States to move ahead and develop and implement TMDLs under existing regulations. However, like many, I have concerns about EPA's proposed changes to the TMDL program. I have expressed my concerns about these proposed changes, and the process used by EPA to make these changes, at hearings, in letters and phone calls to EPA Administrator Browner and the Director of OMB, Jacob Lew, and in public statements. I have not been alone in expressing concerns. Many Members of Congress, the National Governor's Association and individual governors, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators and individual state agencies, EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, the Conservation Law Foundation, California Association of Sewerage Agencies, the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, PACE International Union, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America all have expressed serious concerns about EPA's proposals. I find it significant that the National Governors' Association, the State Water Pollution Control Administrators, EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, and the Conservation Law Foundation all share the view that EPA's new TMDL regulations will actually hinder progress in improving water quality and will slow down implementation of the TMDL program. These State organizations and environmental organizations have different reasons for holding this view. On July 6, 2000, NGA wrote to President Clinton that-- ``The TMDL rules have the potential to cause major financial burdens on our state environmental agencies and severe economic impacts on our states.'' ``The restrictive language of the regulation will virtually eliminate the flexibility of states to offer opportunities to reduce overall pollution between waterbodies.'' ``The `one-size-fits-all' approach proposed by the regulations will inevitably fail, resulting in mountains of paperwork and no appreciable improvement in water quality.'' The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators wrote to Administrator Browner that-- ``It is the view of the majority of the state water quality program managers responsible for the day to day implementation of the clean water programs, that this set of rules is technically, scientifically and fiscally unworkable.'' On May 19, 2000, six environmental organizations wrote to Administrator Browner that-- ``Due to the problems we outline below, we are asking you to withdraw the current version of the proposed rule, which is so fundamentally flawed that it would weaken the existing TMDL program. In addition, we are concerned that if the Administration attempts to finalize this rule, the overwhelming opposition it faces in Congress could result in a weakening of the Clean Water Act itself.'' ``Our organizations have many objections to the August 23 proposal, the most serious of which include the unjustifiably long timeline of up to 15 years to states to prepare TMDLs, the lack of requirements for EPA to step in and do the job if states fail to submit TMDLs or miss other regulatory deadlines, the omission of deadlines for meeting water quality standards, and the overall unenforceability of the new program.'' Of the six groups that signed the May 19 letter, three (Friends of the Earth, EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, and the Conservation Law Foundation) continue to oppose the TMDL rule. The state organizations and environmental organizations I quoted from have very different views on how to improve the TMDL program. However, they all share the goal of improving the TMDL program so that it is a more effective tool for improving water quality. Given this shared goal, I believe that we should be able to develop program improvements that can be embraced by both the National Governors' Association and environmental groups. And, given the difficulties in addressing nonpoint source pollution, it is critical to have the support and cooperation of the nonpoint source community. Rushing a regulation through that threatens lawsuits and withholding funds to achieve compliance will not result in improved water quality. It will only undermine public support for Clean Water Act programs. EPA has failed to demonstrate leadership on this issue. As a result, EPA's new TMDL regulations, signed by Administrator Browner on July 11, do not have public support. In fact, aside from some in the environmental community, EPA can point to only two or three states and one organization representing the regulated community--the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies--that support the final rule. And even with in AMSA there is not agreement. The California Association of Sewerage Agencies, representing 95 California municipal sewerage agencies, shares the view held by most organizations representing point sources--that ``the administration's apparent decision to rush to publication of an important rule will only promote litigation and years of delays in responding to actual threats to our nation's lakes, rivers and coastal waters.'' I am not suggesting that all persons must agree with regulations, but EPA has made no attempt to engage in the public discourse that must take place to unite stakeholders behind the common goal of improving water quality, despite numerous requests from stakeholders asking EPA to allow additional public comment and seeking additional information from EPA on the impacts of the new TMDL regulations. Fortunately, EPA's new TMDL regulations will not become effective until fiscal year 2002 and we have the opportunity for additional comment and analysis that many stakeholders and many members of Congress had asked EPA to undertake before finalizing its new TMDL rule. First, we need to engage the public on this issue. EPA dismissed the criticism of its new TMDL rule as ``misunderstanding'' of EPA's intent. The final rule and EPA's preamble explaining intent were published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2000. H.R. 4922 requires EPA to solicit and respond to public comment on EPA's changes to the TMDL program. Second, we need to understand the scope of the problem. In her July 11, 2000 press release announcing the signing of the new TMDL regulations, Administrator Browner states that ``40 percent of America's waters are still too polluted.'' However, EPA's estimate of the costs of developing and implementing TMDLs is based on 20,000 impaired waterbodies--representing only 10 percent of the Nation's waters. What is the scope of the problem? 40 percent impairment or 10 percent? The General Accounting Office pointed out in a recent report that only 6 states have sufficient data to identify the scope of water quality impairments in the State. As a result, neither EPA nor the public knows the actual scope of the water quality problem. H.R. 4922 requires EPA to come up with a plan to fill these data gaps, and create a budget for implementing that plan. Third, we need an understanding of what methods should be used to address these matters. Too often, EPA's new TMDL regulations simply assume away difficult water quality problems. For example, the new regulations consider the sun a source of pollution--heat--but do not explain how to go about regulating the sun, stating that: ``What needs to be done to mitigate heat load from solar input will be addressed by a State, Territory, or authorized Tribe when it establishes the TMDL.'' The final rule similarly has no answers for how to address pollution from atmospheric deposition, or legacy pollution. H.R. 4922 includes a study by the National Academy of Sciences to improve our ability to identify sources of pollution and allocate loadings among them. Fourth, we need an understanding of what kind of sacrifices the public must make to solve our remaining water quality problems, and the benefits that will be achieved if we dedicate resources to this effort. Again, EPA has failed to provide this information. EPA estimates that the total cost of the TMDL rule will be less than $23 million a year. EPA did not provide any estimate of the benefits of the rule. However, as the General Accounting Office pointed out in another recent report, EPA's cost estimate assumes that States already have all the data they need to develop TMDLs, an assumption that has no basis in reality. In addition, EPA fails to inform the public of the costs to the regulated community from implementation of the rule, including costs to small businesses and small farming or forestry operations. Instead, EPA would have the public believe that improving water quality is all gain and no pain. I am very concerned about a backlash against Clean Water Act programs when EPA tries to implement the new regulation and the cost is more than the public is prepared to pay. H.R. 4922 requires EPA to conduct a complete analysis of the costs and benefits of its TMDL rule in a manner that addresses the Comptroller General's criticisms of the EPA's earlier cost estimate. In addition, H.R. 4922 requires EPA to quantify the effects of the rules on small entities, including small businesses small organizations, and small governmental organizations. H.R 4922 does not affect EPA's existing TMDL program. I strongly encourage States to proceed with TMDL development and implementation under existing regulations as expeditiously as possible. Fortunately, the House-passed VAHUD appropriations bill provides significant new resources for States to do so. H.R. 4922 also does not affect EPA's new TMDL regulations. However, after considering the additional public input and additional information developed under this legislation, I hope that EPA will conclude that its new TMDL regulations should be changed before they become effective in fiscal year 2002.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman for yielding me this time, because this is a very important subject; and I want to give a perspective that comes from my district in beautiful upstate New York. Shortly, on August 4, a young man that I am very familiar with, Jake Smith, who just graduated from Syracuse University's School of Architecture, fulfilled his dream and got a degree and will be getting married. He is marrying a young lady, Kristin Elmer, who is a teacher. The two of them have fallen in love, are getting married. One of the things they did not want to factor in was the possibility that their tax obligation would increase simply because they are getting married. This is designed to correct and eliminate that inequity. That story is replicated thousands of times over, not just in my home county of Oneida, but in my 23rd Congressional District of New York where there are 55,000 people who are in similar situations. Then one multiplies that by 435 and go across the country, and one can see this really has a significant impact. We are talking about providing meaningful tax relief to 25 million Americans. More than that, it expands those who are eligible for the lowest rate of taxation, the 15 percent bracket. I think that is very important. So I am, for all the right reasons, very enthusiastic in my support of this bill. It does the right thing for the right reasons. In America we should be encouraging those who decide to take the vows and not providing disincentives for getting married. So as I extend greetings to young Mr. Smith and young Miss Elmer upon their impending wedding, I will be able to do so and to tell them in very meaningful terms that we are cognizant of their needs and we are trying to address them. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank once again the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me this time, and I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), a Boston Red Sox fan, for his indulgence to this New York Yankee fan. This is very special.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 728, the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000. H.R. 728 authorizes the Department of Agriculture, through the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to rehabilitate dams constructed as part of their small watershed program and other conservation programs. This bill also authorizes additional dam safety measures for the Corps of Engineers. H.R. 728 requires the Secretary of the Army to inventory and assess the condition of certain dams and to take interim actions to prevent threats to public safety. This bill invests in our nation's aging dam infrastructure. It will increase public health and safety and environmental protection. It will bring jobs, piece of mind and environmental benefits to communities with deteriorating dams. The final language, essentially what the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reported last November, is the result of extensive input from engineers, construction contractors, environmental advocates, dam safety officials, local government representatives, and Federal agencies. It includes, among other things, important flexibility in defining ``rehabilitation'' so that environmentally sound and locally supported options, such as ``decommissioning,'' may be considered. I congratulate Representative Frank Lucas and his colleagues for pursuing this legislation and I thank the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Agriculture Committee for their cooperation and leadership. In particular, I thank the leadership of the Agriculture Committee and Chairman Bud Shuster, Ranking Democrat Jim Oberstar, Ranking Democrat of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, Representative Bob Borski, for their interest and support. From the beginning, our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, which I chair, recognized H.R. 728 could help make communities safer and cleaner. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to pass this important, critically-needed legislation.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which will strike damaging language and replace it with more sensible policy. The language this amendment strikes would have crippled the nation's ability to discuss and advance reasonable measures that would protect the environment in the most economically efficient way. The language would have blocked all government work on carbon emissions trading--all work, including discussion and analysis--even though corporations increasingly are embracing such trading and have entered into voluntary programs to engage in it. Carbon trading is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; if we don't do the work to develop it now, we will be left with no tools other than command and control to limit carbon, if we choose to impose limits in the future. Similarly, the Clean Development Mechanism that the bill language would have blocked is an economically beneficial way to attack greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world. The Mechanism will encourage the sale of American-made clean technologies in the developing world. Why on Earth would we want to discourage something that helps other nations implement their own climate change policies while creating business for our own companies and workers? I am pleased that so many people in industry and the Congress, from all points of the political spectrum, recognized the folly of this language. The language the amendment would substitute is far from ideal, but it is moderate language that has been signed into law in past years. But as someone who encouraged this strike and replace amendment, let me make clear my interpretation of what the amendment language says. The amendment prohibits the proposing or issuance of rules related to Kyoto. It does not prohibit the development of policies; it does not prohibit the discussions of policies in the U.S. or abroad; and it does not prohibit activities designed to carry out the Rio agreement on carbon dioxide, which was signed by President Bush and ratified by the Senate. In other words, the United States, under this language, can send representatives to international conference to discuss carbon trading or the Clean Development Mechanisms, can help other nations develop such policies, can undertake activities to figure out how such a policy would be implemented here. All that is being prohibited is the actual implementation of such policies; anything up to the point of proposal and issuance may continue. This amendment would not have the broad support it is receiving if Members believed in the cramped interpretation put forward by some of its proponents. The amendment means what it says on its face; it should not be interpreted in fanciful ways by those who were unsuccessful in getting more restrictive language approved. I hope future appropriation bills with this language will include the report language from the fiscal 1999 VA-HUD conference report, which provides the clearest, more accurate interpretation--which is that this amendment blocks activities that are solely related to implementing the Kyoto Protocol. And so, with that in mind, I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his remarks. Mr. Chairman, there is an environmental aspect to this because urban sprawl is a concept that concerns us all. One of the reasons we have urban sprawl is that so many family farms are so hard-pressed that they have no choice but to sell their land for development. That is not good for them, that is not good for us. It just adds to urban sprawl. If we have something like this, the microenterprise, small assistance package, we can help them and help increase the family farm income. That is an objective worthy of our best effort. I thank my colleague for yielding.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stupak-Boehlert amendment to increase funding for the USDA's nutrition program for the elderly by $20 million. This vital program helps provide over 3 million senior citizens with nutritionally-sound meals in their homes through the Meals-on-Wheels program, or the senior centers, churches, and fire halls, through the congregate meals program. These programs are facing financial hardships, and a smaller percentage of needy seniors are being fed. Quite frankly, the President's request is not adequate. This program has been flat funded since 1997. With the number of seniors growing, the demand for Meals-on-Wheels funding has continued to increase. The National Association of Nutrition and Aging Service programs recently testified before the subcommittee that 34 percent of their member programs indicate they have a waiting list for home-delivered meals. It is only sensible that if they have more money, they are going to be able to serve more seniors. The increase provided by this amendment is long overdue, and the need for this program is quite real. Participants in this program are disproportionately poor. Thirty-three percent of congregate meal participants and 50 percent of home-delivered meal participants have incomes below the poverty level. A majority of Meals-on-Wheels participants live alone and have twice as many physical impairments as the average elderly person. The nutrition program not only feeds seniors in need, but also allows these seniors to remain connected to their communities. Congregate meal sites give participating seniors the opportunity to socialize with members of the community, and Meals-on-Wheels volunteers deliver meals to frail and sick and home-bound seniors who are in greatest need of assistance. This amendment offsets the urgently needed seniors meal program by reducing funding for a foreign assistance program. I do not doubt the need for these funds by people of other countries, but I want to ensure that our seniors are given the highest priority. The fact of the matter is that the foreign assistance program would still receive $770 million after our amendment passes. But I have a deal. I agree with the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, who was rather eloquent in stating that she likes this program, the congregate meals program, the Meals-on-Wheels program, but she also likes the foreign assistance program. We have great confidence in the good judgment of our distinguished chairman and our ranking minority member. There is flexibility as they go into conference. So I would suggest that we pass this amendment, give them the flexibility, and they know better than we do, so maybe they can find some other offset. The Stupak-Boehlert amendment is endorsed by the National Council of Senior Citizens, the Meals-on-Wheels Association of America, the Senior Citizens League, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs, and the National Association of State Units on Aging. This amendment represents a small investment in a program that helps to fight the malnutrition and isolation far too many of our seniors face.