Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to identify with the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), because this is a very modest amount to invest in some hope and some opportunity in an area of the country where people are really hurting, rural America. Family farms are struggling to make ends meet; and constantly, we in Washington say, do not come to Washington and expect us to write a blank check for all sorts of subsidies and everything, we are reducing those. We want you to diversify and come up with new opportunities so you can stay on the farm and yet make a decent, livable income. So a lot of farms are just trying to do something like this, and I think it makes so much sense. It is an innovative program, and I want to compliment the committee for addressing this program in such a prudent, responsible manner.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would remove an unnecessary and counter-productive spending limitation from the bill. The spending limitation is an attempt to cripple the American Heritage Rivers program. Yet the benefits of this program are visible and real, the alleged problems are unproven and imaginary. The American Heritage Rivers program is voluntary, communities apply to win the designation. And the competition for the program is intense. Communities of all sizes from all regions of the country have been applying to the program. So unless all these communities are delusional, there must be a real benefit to the program. And there is. The program helps communities to focus on economic development programs along the rivers and gives them greater access to a wider and better coordinate assortment of federal agencies for help. Sounds like a good idea to me. What this program does not do is impose any additional regulatory burdens or coerce anyone into participating. So why would we shut down a program that localities want, that improves the targeting and coordination of federal programs, and that comes with no federal mandates? I can't think of any reason. And indeed there is no reason unless one believes that paranoia should prevail over common sense and that imaginary fears should triumph over proven, practical benefits. Let's show that common sense can prevail. Vote for the Kelly amendment and help communities around the country redevelop their riverfronts.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and I would like to ask him a question, and then I would like to have him expound a little bit more on that. I ask the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), is there an environmental impact statement on this project, because that is something that should concern us all. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for a response to that question.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague for that explanation. As usual, he has done his homework, and he presents compelling evidence to support his position.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilchrest amendment. I hate to see time limited on a discussion of this very important amendment. I am supporting the amendment because I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has made a compelling case in support of his amendment. This is his congressional district. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber that knows more about this project than the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear more from him about the amendment, so I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) at this time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward and noncontroversial. I believe it not only has the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and other members of the Committee on Appropriations, but also the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and other members, on a bipartisan basis, of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It also accomplishes something that is relatively rare in this day and age. We have support for the amendment from those within both the environmental community and the regulated community. I have details on the amendment. Both the chairman and the ranking member have the details, and I would have them inserted into the Record at the end of this statement. What does this noncontroversial, but important amendment do? It updates and revises the authorizing language included by Chairman Packard in his Subcommittee relating to the Corps wetlands permitting program--specifically nationwide permits and administrative appeals. The general intent of my amendment is two-fold: (1) to increase the public's and the regulated community's right to know about the Corps wetlands permitting program; and (2) to remove provisions that might cause unnecessary controversy or debate. While I'm including a detailed summary of the amendment in my written statement, let me highlight its major features. First, it removes the reference to the number of pending individual permits at the end of FY 99 as the performance measure of the proposed Permit Processing Management Plan (PPMP). It shouldn't be necessary to legislatively require that the Plan revolve around a chosen prior fiscal year. I would note, however, that there is legitimate concern that the new nationwide permit restrictions and conditions will create an unmanageable workload for processing individual permits. To be effective, the Plan must address this concern head-on; in the context of its Plan, the Corps may certainly want to look at the number of pending individual permit applications in FY 99. The other major highlight of the amendment is to modify provisions on recording the filing of permits so as to require the Corps to track both the date of permit application is received and the date the application is considered complete, as well as the reason the application is not considered complete upon first submission. This should go a long way in providing useful information to help resolve the never-ending debate over the length of time it takes a review and approve or deny wetlands permit applications. Chairman Packard is to be commended for his overall efforts in developing and advancing this year's bill. He has done a good job balancing the need for increased knowledge about wetlands permit processing times, workload impacts, and administrative appeals. My modest, yet important amendment will improve the language in the bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to accept it. Deletes the reference to the number of pending individual permits at the end of FY 99 as the performance measure of the Permit Processing Management Plan (PPMP) for future years, It shouldn't be necessary to legislatively require that the Plan revolve around a chosen prior fiscal year. Modifies the performance measures report to Congress (and publication in the Federal Register) from being quarterly to bi-annual (i.e. twice a year). This should help address concerns about ``excessive'' reporting and paperwork burdens. Expands the one-year pilot program for the South Pacific Division to include the North Atlantic Division. Increased geographic diversity should increase the value of the pilot program. Modifies provisions on recording the filing of permits to require the Corps to track both the date a permit application is received and the date the application is considered complete, as well as the reason the application is not considered complete upon first submission. Sunsets after 3 fiscal years the proviso allowing appellants to keep verbatim records of appeals conference proceedings. This should provide ample time to determine if such verbatim records help or hinder equitable and just resolutions. Makes technical and clarifying amendments.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am just reading the handout that our colleagues will be getting as this vote is taken, and I want to call everyone's attention to a particular paragraph. It reads: ``When prices are high in the northeast, which uses a lot of home heating oil, the Secretary of Energy may,'' not must, but may, ``disburse home heating oil from a reserve.'' This reserve, as we all know all too well, does not exist today, although current law allows it. This amendment would authorize the creation of a Northeast reserve of up to 2 million barrels and allow it to be tapped during a regional emergency. And I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. That is a very important observation.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sherwood- Markey-Barton Energy and Water amendment. It just makes so much sense. I would say in a Nation like ours where we had a condition like we did this past winter, shame on us for not having something available that could meet the urgent and pressing needs of American families. In the Northeast, it was devastating. We had families that could not afford to pay the heating bill. We had families that were suffering because of the failure on the part of so many who they have every right to expect to be responsive to their needs; and quite frankly, we just were not. This is an amendment that will address that need in a very responsible way. And as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my friend who preceded me, said, this is a delicate compromise that has been worked out on a bipartisan basis. It is something that, for all the right reasons, deserves our very strong support. I ask my colleagues to do just that, give it strong support.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong opposition to this amendment. Let me begin by explaining what the debate over this amendment is not about. This is not a referendum on the underlying ozone standards. The Supreme Court will review those standards later this year. This amendment takes no stand on whether those standards should move forward or not. Second, and even more importantly, this amendment has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with whether the Environmental Protection Agency can impose sanctions on communities under the 8-hour ozone standard. The D.C. Circuit Court decision already prohibits EPA from imposing any sanctions before the Supreme Court hands down its decision. Let me emphasize this again. With or without this amendment, no community will lose its highway funding, no community will face new restrictions on plant expansions, no community will face any new penalty or regulation under the new ozone rules before the Supreme Court decision. The sponsors of this amendment know that. When I suggested to them that statutory language to make it even clearer that the 8-hour standard could not be enforced before the Supreme Court rule, the sponsors dismissed it, telling me that EPA was already prevented from enforcing the new standard. So, again, no one should vote for this amendment thinking that it will somehow protect their communities from enforcement of the new ozone rules before the Supreme Court rules. The lower court has already accomplished that. So, then, what will this amendment do? This amendment would unnecessarily delay implementation of the new ozone standard if, and only if, it is upheld by the Supreme Court. This amendment would deny the public complete information about air quality by enabling communities to pretend that they do not have an air quality problem when the data indicate that they do. This amendment would slow the cleaning of our Nation's air by short- circuiting a designation process that has been approved by the D.C. Circuit Court. In short, this amendment would undermine and delay efforts to clean our Nation's air. And why would we undermine clean air efforts? The answers the sponsors provide are far from compelling. First, they say that continuing with the designation process would cost States and localities additional money. That is not the case. Governors will submit their designation proposals at the end of this month, long before this amendment takes effect. Moreover, the data for these proposals comes from existing monitors that are already collecting data under the current ozone standard. The only remaining costs are marginal. Existing staff at the EPA and the State environmental agencies will spend some of their time reviewing the proposals and reacting to EPA's decisions. There is no cost issue here. Voting for the amendment will not save much, if any, money. Cost savings are illusory. But approving the amendment would have very real human cost. The amendment will delay clean air efforts, resulting in more hospital admissions, more lost days of work, more misery, more suffering for American families. Those are real costs. The sponsors of this amendment also suggest that this measure is needed because otherwise communities would get a damaging black mark. The idea here, I guess, is that dirty air does not exist if it is not officially recognized. But, unfortunately, our lungs do not react to political designations; they react to the chemicals actually present in the air. All the official designation does is to enable the new rules to move forward if, and only if, they are upheld by the Supreme Court. Also, this black mark argument is a bit of a joke. It is not exactly a secret which counties may be out of attainment. EPA released a list of those more than 3 years ago, and the sponsors themselves have been circulating lists of out-of-attainment counties for weeks. In other words, the black marks have already been given. The only question is what we are going to do about those black marks. The amendment would remove the black mark temporarily by pretending they were never given. Without this amendment, communities can begin to figure out how to remove the black marks by actually cleaning up their air. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is not necessary and it is contrary to the best interests of American families.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership, and it is pleasure to work in partnership with him.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, there is so much misinformation in this debate it is mind boggling. Let me read from the D.C. Circuit Court decision. ``The factors EPA uses in determining the degree of public health concern associated with different levels of ozone and particulate matters are reasonable.'' That is a direct quote. Secondly, not one penny is going to be spent in the designation process. The only money that will be spent is if the Supreme Court upholds these rulings. The fact of the matter is not one penny will be spent by any community. No community loses highway funds. No community loses any support from the Federal Government for economic development activities. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) was absolutely correct. It all boils down to this: The American people have a right to know. The American people have a right to know.

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, some have suggested that if EPA's new TMDL rules go into effect, existing regulations will be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations and the language of H.R. 4635 will not reinstate those existing regulations.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the Collins-Linder amendment is nothing less than an effort to unnecessarily undermine clean air efforts by dragging them out forever. All the designation does is give the public information, information that they need to protect their families. Nothing can go forward until the Supreme Court acts. Are the sponsors afraid that a simple listing of a nonattainment area will do damage? Are they worried that communities might start planning to clean up their air? Are they afraid the citizens might start agitating for cleaner air? Do they think that pretending that an area has clean air by delaying its listing will enable its citizens to breathe easier? We want to equip the American public with the information they need to make intelligent decisions. If all we do is continue to study these problems, we will end up with the best documented environmental disaster in history.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, in addition, I would like to seek clarification of the committee's intent if EPA ignores my request and the requests of other Members of Congress, our Nation's mayors, major environmental groups, agricultural groups, forestry groups and industry groups and finalizes this rule within an effective date that occurs prior to the enactment of H.R. 4635.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4635 includes bill language that would prevent EPA from finalizing or implementing changes to the Agency's TMDL program that are based on the August 23, 1999 proposed rule during fiscal year 2001. This limitation is consistent with my own position that, due to the overwhelming opposition from groups as diverse as the United States Conference of Mayors, Friends of the Earth, Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, the Clean Water Industry Coalition, the National Federation of Independent Business, the American Foreign Bureau Federation and the American Forest and Paper Association, EPA should withdraw its August 23, 1999 TMDL proposals and go back to the drawing board. However, I also want to make sure that H.R. 4635 also is consistent with my position that State work on TMDLs continues as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with EPA's existing regulations, while work on a new proposal is underway.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) yield to me for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy on another subject?

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We need to reject this amendment and strike the rider. The language needs to be stricken because its effect, to put it very bluntly, would be perverse. This language would put land in newly created national monuments in a state of limbo. The lands would remain national monuments; but the design, the planning and management necessary to fully protect the lands and to make them accessible could not be accomplished. Who could possibly gain from keeping lands in this sort of halfway- house condition? Nobody. Not those who want to preserve the environmental value of the lands. The prohibition in this rider would block the planning and management needed to protect the environmental and cultural values that prompted the monumental designation. Not those who want recreational access to the lands. The prohibition in this rider would prevent the development of programs or centers to enable the public to take greater advantage of the lands. Not even those who have mineral or other economic interests in these lands. The prohibition in this rider would prevent the development of rules and policies that would determine how to handle their claims. So why would anyone propose a rider that cannot help anyone concerned about national monuments and a rider that would cause this entire bill to be vetoed to boot? The reason is that the proponents of this rider want to signal their opposition to the 1906 Antiquities Act itself and with the particular monument designations that have been made this year. But they have plenty of other ways to do that directly. The Congress could amend the Antiquities Act. The Congress could override any particular monument designation. The Congress could reject any particular management plan for a monument. Congress has all the direct authority it needs to have a full debate about lands policy. But they do not want to do that because Congress has repeatedly shown its unwillingness to significantly alter with monument authority or designation. So, instead, we have a rider to try to do it in an indirect and inartful way through the appropriations process which could not be done through direct congressional action; namely, derail efforts to protect Federal lands through the use of the Antiquities Act. That is a misuse of the appropriations process, and it is especially misguided in this case because the direct impact of the language is so counterproductive. So I urge my colleagues not to turn the discussions on this rider into a debate over the legitimacy of the Antiquities Act or the wisdom of any particular monument designation. If Congress wants to weigh in on these matters, it can and should do so directly. In any event, the rider leaves the act and all recent proclamations entirely intact. This debate should be about the specific language in the rider which will leave the status of the land in an uncertain State which would hobble efforts to protect Federal lands and which would improperly take advantage of the appropriations process. It is a bad rider, and it should be stricken. I urge a no vote on the Hansen amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.