Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this substitute, which in effect would kill CARA. We are getting to the end of this marathon debate now, and thanks to the hard work of the sponsors and the chairman and the ranking member, CARA has emerged relatively unscathed. We cannot lose strength now that we are nearing the finish line. Here is some information that should make it easy to reject this substitute. Over the past day and a half, the House has already decisively defeated every significant change to CARA that is included in the Thornberry substitute. All the Thornberry amendment does is package all the proposals that the House has already discarded. The substitute amendment would put off CARA spending for 5 years, make it difficult to undertake any Federal land purchases, and hamstring government efforts to protect existing parks and forests. We do not want to do any of the above. Again, the House has already wisely rejected all of these ideas. I do not know why pulling all of these defeated proposals into one substitute would make them more appealing. They certainly do not do those of us who are following the details of this very important legislation. This is legacy legislation. This is legislation for future generations. This is legislation that deals responsibly with our stewardship. This is legislation that has brought together in this Chamber, the people's House, diverse elements of this body geographically, New York, Alaska, California. Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, moderate, we are all together on this for all the right reasons. What we are doing today is investing in the future and leaving a legacy to generations that will make us all proud.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, there is no Member of this body that I respect and admire more than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), but on this issue we simply disagree. This amendment would not only kill CARA, it would be a step in the wrong direction at any time on any bill. This amendment is designed to weaken support for the moratorium on offshore oil drilling. This amendment in effect would punish States that do not allow drilling off their shores. The drilling moratorium has been a good and sensible policy and should not be interfered with, least of all in this bill. Some others also offer the argument that it is only fair to give title I money to States that are willing to accept the costs of oil drilling, but that is based on a misunderstanding of title I. Title I is not exclusively, or even primarily, an oil impact mitigation program. It is a program to help coastal States with a full range of problems they face, problems all coastal States face regardless of whether oil is drilled off their shores. I must urge everyone who supports CARA and everyone who supports the moratorium on offshore oil drilling and everyone who supports addressing the full range of coastal issues to oppose this amendment. Let us keep CARA moving forward. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There is no member of this body that I respect and admire more than I do Chairman Regula. But on this issue, we simply disagree. This amendment would not only kill CARA; it would be a step in the wrong direction at any time on any bill. This amendment is designed to weaken support for the moratorium on off-shore oil drilling. The amendment, in effect, would punish states that do not allow drilling off their shores. That's particularly ironic to do as part of CARA. CARA gives more money to oil producing states precisely because it recognizes the environmental and other costs that such drilling imposes. And now we're going to try to use federal funds to force other states to suffer these problems as well? The drilling moratorium has been a good and sensible policy and should not be interfered with--least of all this bill. Now, some also offer the argument that it's only fair to just give Title I money to states that are willing to accept the cost of oil drilling. But that is based on a misunderstanding of Title I. Title I is not exclusively, or even primarily, an oil impact mitigation program. It is a program to help coastal states with the full range of problems they face--problems all coastal states face regardless of whether oil is drilled off their shores. So I must urge everyone who supports CARA and everyone who supports the moratorium on off-shore drilling and everyone who supports addressing the full range of coastal issues to oppose this amendment. Let's keep CARA moving forward.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, CARA is landmark legislation, moderate legislation, sensible legislation that responds to a clear and growing public demand; namely, that we do more to conserve open space and protect our ecological resources. That public demand is evidenced by the hundreds of successful State and local referenda that have set aside funds for these purposes. And that public demand is evidenced in every poll, and the demand shows up in every region, every age group, every flavor of partisanship and ideology. The Federal Government has an essential role to play in this area, because it can set national priorities and distribute funds that are beyond the States' capacity to raise. And this bill takes on that legitimate Federal role in the right way by plowing back some, not all, but some of those revenues that the Federal Government gains from exploiting our national resources into preserving our national resources. That is not a new idea. It has been part of the idea behind the Land and Water Conservation Fund for decades, but CARA expands on that idea at this critical time when social and economic changes have caused more of our land to be under threat than ever before. CARA is the right bill at the right time. Now many people today will complain that the bill is not perfect; that it needs further changes. I happen to be one of those people, and I will elaborate on my concerns in a moment. But the main point to keep in mind today is that now, right now, today is the time to move this bill forward. This bill is ready for passage by the House; further changes must occur later in the process, and we all know there is plenty of process left. The comforting fact about CARA is that it has continually improved as it has moved through the process. This is a bill that is getting better all the time. With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment the gentleman from Alaska will offer, which incorporates changes we have worked out that will help ensure that the bill does true environmental good and no environmental harm. I urge passage of the Young amendment and opposition to all other amendments today because all the others will prevent the bill from moving forward. I do hope this bill will continue to be improved as it moves forward. Significant issues remain to be addressed, issues that were addressed in an amendment I crafted along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). We will not be offering this amendment, but I will be submitting it for the Record at this point, along with the letters of support it garnered, because I think the amendment indicates where this bill has to end up in the not so distant future in order to be signed into law. But my remaining concerns are for tomorrow, not for today. Today we should rally behind this bill which reflects so many months of thoughtful work and compromise by such a broad group of people inside and outside the Congress. Let us answer the public demand for effective legislating, for protecting open space, for improving quality of life by passing CARA by an overwhelming vote this week.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, at this point I submit the extraneous materials to which I referred in my previous remarks. Amendments to H.R. 701, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Boehlert of New York (Page and line nos. refer to H.R. 4377) Page 9, line 20, strike ``$1,000,000,000'' and insert ``$900,000,000''. Page 11, after line 2, add the following new paragraph: ``(9) $100,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out title VIII of this Act.''. Page 11, line 6, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''. Page 20, line 15, strike ``50 percent'' and insert ``41 percent''. Page 20, line 18, strike ``25 percent'' and insert ``28 percent''. Page 20, line 22, strike ``25 percent'' and insert ``31 percent''. Page 21, strike line 1 and all that follows down through line 5 on page 22, insert the following: ``(2) Offshore outer continental shelf share.--(A) If any portion of a producing State lies within a distance of 200 miles from the geographic center of any leased tract, the Secretary of the Interior shall determine such State's allocable share under paragraph (1)(A) based on the formula set forth in this paragraph. ``(B) Each such State's allocable share of the revenues disbursed under paragraph (1)(A) shall be inversely proportional to the distance between the nearest point on the coastline of such State and the geographic center of each leased tract or portion of the leased tract (to the nearest whole mile) that is within 200 miles of that coastline. ``(C) If a State's allocable share under paragraph (1)(A) exceeds 35 percent of the revenues to be disbursed under paragraph (1)(A), the amount from such State which exceeds this limit shall be reallocated among the other States eligible under this paragraph in proportion to the amounts they received under the initial allocation under this paragraph. ``(D) Each State's allocable share under paragraph (1)(A) shall be calculated as of the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply for each fiscal year in which States receive funds under this title. ``(E) In applying this paragraph, a leased tract or portion of a leased tract shall be excluded if the tract or portion is located in a geographic area subject to a leasing moratorium on January 1, 1999, unless the lease was issued prior to the establishment of the moratorium and was in production on January 1, 1999. ``(3) Maximum State share.-- ``(A) In general.--The allocable share of revenues determined by the Secretary under this subsection for each coastal State with a total population less than 6,000,000 shall not be more in any fiscal year than 12 \2/9\ percent of the total amount of the revenues transferred by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Interior for the purposes of this title for that fiscal year under subsection (a). ``(B) Recomputation.--Where one or more coastal States' allocable shares, as computed under paragraphs (1) and (2), are decreased by any amount under this paragraph, the allocable share for all other coastal States shall be recomputed and increased by such amounts so that not more than 100 percent of the amount transferred by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Interior for purposes of this title for that fiscal year under section 5(b)(1) is allocated to all coastal States. The increase shall be divided equally among such other coastal States. Page 22 line 6, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''. Page 22, line 7, strike ``The'' and insert ``After applying the maximum share provisions of paragraph (3) to all coastal States, the''. Page 22, line 14, strike ``0.50'' and insert ``5/9''. Page 22, line 20, strike ``0.25'' and insert ``5/18''. Page 23, line 1, after ``States''' insert ``(except for those that have had their allocable share reduced under paragraph (3)(B))'' Page 23, strike line 10 and all that follows down through line 3 on page 24 and redesignate subsection (d) on line 4 of page 24 as subsection (c). Page 24, line 5, strike ``and coastal political subdivisions''. Page 24, beginning in line 15, strike ``In the case of'' and all that follows down through the period on line 18 and insert ``The Governor shall work with coastal political subdivisions in developing the plan and may disburse funds to those subdivisions as part of the plan.''. Page 25, strike line 11 and all that follows down through line 15 and insert: ``(B) A program for the implementation of the plan, which shall include a description of how the plan will improve the environment and a program for determining whether the plan is having its intended effects.''. Page 26, strike line 15 and all that follows down through line 9 on page 28 and insert: (c) Authorized Uses of State Grant Funding.--Except as provided in subsection (d), the funds provided under this title are authorized to be used only to improve the coastal and ocean environment by preserving, protecting, managing, and, where possible, restoring and enhancing coastal, marine, estuarine, and Great Lakes resources, including habitats, living marine resources, shorelines, and water quality through the following activities: (1) Preparation, coordination, or implementation of federally or State-approved coastal, estuarine, or marine comprehensive conservation, or resource management plans or programs. (2) The conservation, restoration, enhancement, or creation of marine, coastal, or estuarine habitats. (3) The protection, conservation, or enhancement of coastal or estuarine shorelines, including natural protective features such as beaches, dunes, coral reefs, wetlands, or barrier islands. (4) Preparation, coordination, or implementation of comprehensive fishery, marine mammal, avian, or other living marine resource management plans, including ratified interstate or international agreements and fishery observer programs. (5) Identification, prevention, management, and control of invasive exotic and nonindigenous species. (6) Data collection, research, monitoring, or other assessments, including population surveys, relating to fisheries, avian species, marine mammals, or other living marine resources, or to coastal, estuarine, marine, and Great Lakes resources or habitats. (7) Observations necessary to develop and implement real time tide and current measurement systems. (8) Projects that promote research, education, training, and advisory services in fields related to activities authorized by this subsection. (9) Enforcement of Federal, State, or local marine, coastal, and estuarine resource management statutes. (d) Authorized Use of State Grant Funding in Producing States.--In addition to the uses authorized in subsection (c), a producing State may use up to 10 percent of the funds provided under this title each year to mitigate the impacts of Outer Continental Shelf activities, including impacts on onshore infrastructure. Page 28, line 10, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''. Page 31, line 10, strike ``The'' and insert ``(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the''. Page 31, after line 17, insert the following new subparagraph: ``(B) Remaining funds.--If, for any fiscal year, the Acts making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture for that fiscal year have not approved in accordance with subparagraph (A), by the date 90 days after the commencement of such fiscal year, the full amount of the Federal portion, the President may obligate and expend the remaining funds for projects on the list submitted under subsection (e). No later than 180 days after the commencement of the fiscal year, the President shall submit to the Congress a list of the specific projects he intends to fund, and no funds shall be expended until 120 days after that list has been submitted.''. Page 31, line 24, strike the period and insert ``or is undertaken pursuant to paragraph (1)(B).''. Page 53, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and after line 19, insert the following new subsection: ``(e) Wildlife Conservation Strategy.--Any State that receives an apportionment pursuant to section 4(c) shall within 5 years of the date of the initial apportionment develop and begin implementation of a wildlife conservation strategy based upon the best available and appropriate scientific information and data that-- ``(1) uses such information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low population and declining species as the State fish and wildlife department deems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of wildlife of the State; ``(2) identifies the extent and condition of wildlife habitats and community types essential to the conservation of species identified under paragraph (1); ``(3) identifies the problems which may adversely affect the species identified under paragraph (1) or their habitats, and provides for priority research and surveys to identify factors which may assist in restoration and more effective conservation of such species and their habitats; ``(4) determines those actions which should be taken to conserve the species identified under paragraph (1) and their habitats, and establishes priorities for implementing such conservation actions; ``(5) provides for periodic monitoring of species identified under paragraph (1) and their habitats and the effectiveness of the conservation actions determined under paragraph (4), and for adapting conservation actions as appropriate to respond to new information or changing conditions; ``(6) provides for the review of the State wildlife conservation strategy and, if appropriate, revision at intervals of not more than 10 years; and ``(7) provides for coordination to the extent feasible by the State fish and wildlife department, during the development, implementation, review, and revision of the wildlife conservation strategy, with Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage significant areas of land or water within the State, or administer programs that significantly affect the conservation of species identified under paragraph (1) or their habitats. Page 77, after line 22, add the following new title and make the necessary conforming changes in the table of contents:

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Young amendment. This amendment is being offered by Mr. Young on behalf of Congressmen Miller, Tauzin, Dingell, John, Markey, Pallone, and me. It reflects an agreement worked out in painstaking negotiations among the staffs on the amendment sponsors. I greatly appreciate the time and effort the sponsors of the bill were willing to put into this compromise, which I think is to everyone's advantage, and, more importantly, to the public's advantage. The amendment makes three sets of reasonable improvements in the bill, which are in keeping with statements the bill's sponsors have been saying about the bill all along. First, the sponsors have said again and again that this bill is designed to be neutral on the issue of off-shore oil drilling, creating neither incentives nor disincentives. This amendment will ensure that that is the case. By freezing the formula in Title I as of the date of enactment, we remove any chance that states or counties will push for more drilling in order to increase their share of Title I monies. Second, the sponsors have said again and again that the expenditure of Title I money should help, not harm the environment. This amendment will help ensure that states explicitly address environmental concerns in their plans and that those plans comply with state and federal law. Moreover, we ask states to think about how they will evaluate the success of their plans--something that should appeal to all of us who believe in promoting a ``second generation'' of environmental protection that will look at actual environmental impacts not just inputs like spending. Third, the bill's sponsors have said again and again that they want to help states provide recreational opportunities for their citizens. This amendment will help states do that, as well as protect open space and natural resources by setting up a competitive grant program for those purposes. We still need to find funding for this important program, but we have at least made clear that this program should be part of any final CARA bill. Again, this is a good amendment on which all of us have worked hard. It is supported by all the sponsors of CARA as well as by all the elements of the environmental community. I urge its overwhelming purpose.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3313, the Long Island Sound Restoration Act. First let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their leadership and cooperation in moving this important legislation forward. I made clear right from the outset that this was a legislative priority of mine, not only in my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, but as a New Yorker and one who knows firsthand the value and beauty of the Long Island Sound. So for me, today's action is particularly gratifying. I am sure no one is more gratified than the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the bill's primary sponsors. On a bipartisan basis, with 30 of our colleagues, they have worked tirelessly to advance this legislation and the cause of restoring and protecting Long Island Sound. I would also like to recognize the invaluable efforts of Governor George Pataki of New York and Governor John Rowland of Connecticut and the many governmental and nongovernmental organizations that have championed this critically-needed legislation. Let me say, Governor Pataki and Governor Rowland came to Washington to testify before our very committee. I know from firsthand experiences, my fellow New Yorkers on both sides of the aisle will tell us Governor Pataki has given this a very high priority. He is proving by performance that he is a leader on environmental issues, not only for the State of New York, but nationally. As a matter of fact, in New York State, through his leadership, we passed a $1.7 billion environmental bond act. We did it on a bipartisan basis. Now we are demonstrating that we are willing to put our money where our mouths are. We are willing to back up our words with deeds under the leadership of Governor Pataki, and he deserves special commendation today. Long Island Sound is approximately 110 miles long and 21 miles across at its widest point. More than 8 million people live within Long Island Sound Watershed, which borders both States, New York and Connecticut. The Long Island Sound, like many estuaries across the U.S., supports multiple uses and demands. It generates more than $5 billion a year for the regional economy from boating, swimming, and commercial and sport fishing, among other activities. It also is home to a multitude of fish and wildlife species. However, the Sound can no longer support these multiple economic and environmental uses and demands. Increasing population growth and development have led to water quality problems arising from increased nonpoint source pollution from storm water and agricultural runoff, wastewater discharges with high nitrogen levels, industrial pollution, and commercial and recreational waste. In fact, an estimated $1 billion would be needed over the next 20 years to address the environmental and public health problems in the Sound. This is an important start. This is a demonstration of the Green Team in action again, and we see it on the floor here. Very dedicated Members of Congress support it by very able and very professional staff people who all have the privilege of working for the most productive committee in the House of Representatives in the people's House. This is legislation I proudly identify with. Once again, I say to all of my colleagues, this is something that has earned our support for all the right reasons.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1237, introduced by Representative Jim Saxton, would reauthorize and improve the National Estuary Program, a broadly supported, comprehensive approach to estuary conservation and management. I want to thank the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster, Ranking Democratic Members Representative Jim Oberstar, and Bob Borski, the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Ranking Democratic Member, for their leadership and assistance. Under the current National Estuary Program, EPA provides assistance to State, local governments, and other interested parties to form a management conference for an estuary of national significance, and develop a comprehensive conservation and management plan for that estuary. Of the 28 estuaries currently in the National Estuary Program, 21 have finished this planning process and are now trying to implement their management plans. Unfortunately, section 320 only allows Federal assistance for development of these plans, and not for implementation. Passage of H.R. 1237 would authorize EPA to provide assistance for management plan implementation, as well as development. This bill will help protect and restore our Nation's estuaries--those natural resource treasures that are constantly under siege, yet continue to provide invaluable environmental and economic benefits to the entire Nation. I strongly support passage of H.R. 1237 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, traditionally our Clean Water Act programs have appropriately focused on how to keep water from getting polluted, and that makes a lot of sense. That is a matter of the highest priority. It is still a national objective to have all of our Nation's waters fishable and swimmable. However, less attention has been paid to opportunities to reclaim or reuse water. However, to meet critical water supply needs in some parts of the country, existing sources of water will not be sufficient. That is a sad commentary, but it is true. We are going to have to reclaim and reuse water. Water shortages are nothing new in the arid West. The Bureau of Reclamation has a water reclamation and reuse program for the 17 Western States and 4 U.S. territories pursuant to the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, and that is very appropriate. Some areas of the eastern half of the United States are now beginning to have water shortages as well. But due to the limited assistance available to water reclamation or reuse projects in the East, we are failing to preserve existing supplies of fresh water through water conservation and reuse. To address this issue, our distinguished colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), introduced H.R. 1106 to authorize EPA grants for alternative water source projects to meet critical water supply needs. For all of those people who say, they never work together in Congress, they are too partisan, I say baloney. This is a good example of a Democrat and a Republican working together with a very productive committee, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to address a legitimate problem in a responsible way. As amended by the committee, this new program will help all States meet these needs. However, projects that have received funding from the Bureau of Reclamation are not eligible for assistance under the new authorization, and that makes sense. We do not want double-dipping around here. The bill also instructs the EPA administrator to take into account the eligibility of a project for funding under the Bureau of Reclamation program when selecting projects for funding under the EPA program. Given the existence of this other program, we expect the administrator to recognize the importance of selecting and funding projects that are not eligible for the Bureau of Reclamation program. Once again, we do not want to duplicate something. I want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) for their fine work on this legislation. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the committee; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment. I am so pleased to see the chairman give emphasis to that ``environment'' section of the title of our subcommittee. We not only are environmentally responsible on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we also are responsible for the majority of legislation considered in this, the people's House.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the Florida Keys are a unique marine environment and include the only living coral reef barrier system in North America. So this is not something that is just about Florida, it is about America. In 1990, Congress recognized the importance of the Florida Keys and created the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. A Water Quality Steering Committee created under the sanctuary's implementing act has identified inadequate waste water and storm water controls in Monroe County, Florida, as the largest source of man-made pollution into the waters of the Florida Keys. To make the necessary waste water improvements, the estimated cost to improve near shore water quality in the Florida Keys is between $184 million and $418 million. To make the necessary storm water management improvements, the estimated cost is between $370 million and $680 million. We are not going to bear the entire cost, even though this is a national resource. The State of Florida is obligated to come up with 25 percent cost share. H.R. 673 authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to provide grants to public agencies in Florida to replace inadequate waste water and treatment systems and to establish, replace, or improve storm water management systems in Monroe County, Florida. Let me say that I want to thank the stars of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I am talking about our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster); the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and my colleague, the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski). I say they are ``stars'' because this committee, week after week, comes to the floor with meaningful legislation that builds our Nation's infrastructure and that protects our Nation's precious natural resources. We have a track record that is the envy of all other committees of this Congress and that is a tribute to our leadership, that is a tribute to the bipartisanship and the determination of our committee to work constructively and positively for responsible public policy that affects all Americans. I am privileged to be associated with the committee.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me ask my distinguished colleague, well, first of all let me give a preamble. I think the objective of the gentleman's amendment is sound. I think the concept is noble. I am wondering if the gentleman might ask that his amendment might be amended to have a preamble: ``It is the sense of Congress that,'' and continue on. That would make it consistent with previous endeavors advanced by the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if my distinguished colleague would again yield.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, that is perfectly acceptable. Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman continue to yield?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, does that mean that the Traficant- Boehlert amendment has just passed?

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the primary author of this legislation. But before I do so, let me acknowledge that oftentimes Members come here and it takes quite a while before they make an impact on this institution. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) is an exception to the rule.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that this is the birthday of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the primary author of the bill, and Congress is not just presenting him with a $125 million birthday present, Congress is advancing on a bipartisan basis responsible legislation that represents good public policy. With respect to the comments of my good friend from Ohio, let me point out that this committee has the habit of working constructively in a positive manner with him to fashion his language in a way that we can all embrace, and we eagerly anticipate the arrival of that language so that it can be given the careful scrutiny to which this committee has become accustomed. Mr. Chairman, at this juncture, I have no further requests for time; and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to assist my noble colleague in making the language----

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin is the largest estuary in the Gulf Coast region and one of the largest estuaries in the United States. However, due to urbanization, increased population growth, and intensive land uses, many water bodies in this watershed do not meet their designated uses. The sources of pollution in the Basin include inadequate sewage systems or septic tanks systems, combined sanitary and storm water sewer overflows, as well as urban and agricultural runoff. State and local agencies are working cooperatively with private organizations on restoration efforts. However, they cannot do it alone. H.R. 2957, introduced by our committee colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), supports these State and local efforts. First, the bill identifies the Lake Pontchartrain Basin as an estuary of national significance and adds this estuary to the list of estuaries in section 320 of the Clean Water Act that are to be given priority consideration for the National Estuaries Program. Under the National Estuaries Program, EPA will convene a management conference for the Lake Ponchartrain Basin with representation by appropriate local and State organizations. The purpose of the management conference is to help these local and State organizations come up with a plan for basin restoration that recommends activities and projects. In addition, H.R. 2957 creates a Lake Ponchartrain basin restoration program within EPA modeled after the Long Island Sound program. This program will help coordinate ongoing voluntary efforts to reduce pollution and restore the ecological health of the basin, and will provide financial assistance to help fund the activities and projects recommended by the management conference. Finally, H.R. 2957 authorizes $100 million to provide continued Federal assistance to the project to prevent inflow and infiltration in New Orleans and Jefferson Parish. Completing this project, which is an integral part of basin restoration efforts, will require a total investment of over $300 million, most of which will be provided from State and local sources of funding. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlemen from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and (Mr. Jefferson) for their efforts on this legislation. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of the subcommittee, my colleague and friend, and also the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee, and of course the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the full committee, for their leadership and cooperation in bringing this bill to the floor. I would urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2957. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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, and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2957, the bill just passed.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, this morning a number of my Republican colleagues and I held a national press conference in advance of Earth Day to release a list we call the ``TR 10.'' The TR 10 is a package of moderate Republican initiatives named after our hero, Theodore Roosevelt. The bills included are Republican initiatives that have bipartisan support that ought to be enacted this year, and that could be enacted this year. This is our second annual TR 10 list, the last one was released with the late Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island, another hero of ours. As with last Earth Day, the release of this list is designed to make several points beyond bringing additional attention to good legislation. First, the environment always has been, and remains, a bipartisan issue, a bipartisan quest--an issue on which Republicans are offering creative and essential leadership. Second, there are plenty of good initiatives out there, there is plenty of progress we can make right now, even in a narrowly divided Congress. There's a cliche around this town that nothing gets done during an election year, especially nothing related to the environment. But unlike most cliches, this one has no basis in fact. In 1996, an election year, the 104th Congress--not one known for its green cast-- passed the Food Quality Protection Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and a massive parks bill, to name just a few landmarks. Similarly, this year, we could pass CARA and numerous other significant bills. Elections are more often a spur to action than a barrier to it. So the approach of Earth Day in this election year should fill us with hope and optimism because we are well positioned to make real progress.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for once again providing, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, leadership on the full committee. I want to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Development. Once again, this is time to highlight something that needs to be highlighted. We do not do it often enough. I know we do it in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We do a lot of things exceptionally well. But we have the best professional staff anywhere on the Hill or in any governmental unit and they deserve a lot of praise. I will defer to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), people who live in the zone who are just married to the Chesapeake Bay and who know so well the importance of that great resource and what we need to do to make certain we move forward to restore it. With that, let me thank all who have been partners to this venture. We have come a long way. We have got further to go. We are going to get there together.