Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill's clarifications and revisions were developed in close coordination with the Senate and the administration. Mr. Speaker, Senator Chafee worked very closely with the House conferees on the Water Resources Development Act. If I am not mistaken, it was the last major legislative achievement before his untimely death. He also worked very closely with us to fine-tune this legislation and then expedite its passage. It is a tribute to him that we were able to enact the Water Resources Development Act and then expeditiously move this bill. H.R. 2724 perfects the legislation and addresses new, time-sensitive issues. It deserves the support of all of our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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. 2724) to make technical corrections to the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.

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 include extraneous material on H.R. 2724.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kind words. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2389 as amended by the Goodlatte substitute. The Goodlatte substitute reflects many, many hours of tough negotiations, 7 hours on last Friday alone. I want to thank all of the staff who worked on getting the details of this draft right. I especially wish to thank Greg Kostka of the Legislative Counsel's Office for his responsiveness and dedication. So often we fail to appreciate the talent and the professionalism of the Legislative Counsel's Office. I want to make certain that is acknowledged here and now. I need to begin with two caveats about this agreement just so there is no risk of misunderstanding as we go through the remainder of the legislative process. This substitute is a reasonable agreement. But it represents just about as far as we can possibly compromise on this issue. If the other body changes anything at all in this bill, we are under no obligation whatsoever to accept those changes, nor are we under any obligation to support a bill that supports those changes. We should be willing, as we always must be, to look at changes. But keep in mind that any changes would unnecessarily threaten the House coalition that is supporting the Goodlatte amendment. That needs to be clear. There is, however, one change that all House supporters agree that the other body has to make. The Goodlatte substitute uses appropriations to fund county payments. The final bill will have to use mandatory funds for that purpose. I would point out that previously in the well the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, addressed this subject very eloquently and articulately. Let me repeat, the final bill will have to use mandatory funds for that purpose. I know that that is the intention of all the supporters of this bill. Unless this becomes a mandatory spending bill, this legislation would threaten both the guaranteed payment to the counties, and we do not want to do that, and other Forest Service appropriations, which might be cannibalized to provide the guaranteed payment, something that I would oppose vehemently. So, too, I point out, do my friends associated with the League of Conservation Voters who, in a mailing to all Members, addressed that point. They happen to be right on that point. We are working together with them. With those caveats, I do urge my colleagues to support this substitute and to oppose all amendments. The substitute ensures that schools and areas with National Forests will have a generous stream of Federal funding. Like all other versions of this bill, the substitute provides counties with full payment equal to 100 percent of the average payment received during the top 3 years between 1984 and 1999. Again, this is quite generous. But I do not mind being generous with education. That is a wise investment in our future. The substitute protects the counties while also protecting our National Forests, which were needlessly put at risk in some other versions, early incantations of this bill. The substitute accomplishes that by adding environmental safeguards to title II of this bill, something that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) pointed out, which requires counties to spend money on projects in National Forests instead of just applying the money to the traditional purposes of roads and schools. The substitute makes clear that the Federal Government decides whether proposed projects can go forward, and that that decision is made only after completing the usual environmental analyses. The projects must comply with all Federal laws. The Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior alone have the power to reject a proposed project, but approved projects are subject to all the standard appeals and reviews. That is very important to emphasize. In short, the bill now clearly lays out the role of the counties, the advisory board, and the Secretaries, and makes clear that these projects are to be treated just as if they had originated with the Secretaries. The substitute also eliminates the incentives to use project funds to harvest trees. Under earlier versions of this bill, the counties and the Forest Service each would have received 50 percent of the timber receipts, thereby recoupling the counties' treasuries to forestry payments, that is something we do not want to do, as well as creating an enormous incentive to choose timber harvesting over other such sorts of projects, such as ecosystem restoration. That was totally unacceptable. Under the substitute, all the receipts from the program will go into special funds in each region to which counties may apply to projects, and those funds will return to the general fund of the Treasury at the end of fiscal 2007. Madam Chairman, we believe this substitute has eliminated the provisions of the bill that would have been of greatest detriment to the environment. Again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, for his willingness to negotiate. I urge that the House pass this substitute and oppose all amendments thereto.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the Nation has suffered a great loss with the death of Senator John Chafee. I do not say that lightly, for John Chafee was the conscience of the Senate. He was an inspiration for literally hundreds of people who have chosen the path of public service. George Bernard Shaw once said, ``Some men see things, as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not.'' That exemplified the manner in which this great American conducted himself every single day that he was privileged to serve in public office. He saw the environment being ravaged, pollution rampant, and said we must do something about it. He led the way. He saw poverty and squalor and said someone has to do something about it. He led the way. He championed for improving health care delivery in America. He did so many things so well. He was not one to seek glory but one who constantly worked tirelessly to obtain results. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was privileged to be at a banquet where this very distinguished United States Senator and great American was honored by the League of Conservation Voters. Ted Roosevelt, IV, was presiding. A number of us, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and others, were there that evening. I think all of us stood a little bit taller when John Chafee was honored. The applause seemed never to end because we did not want it to end. We wanted that recognition that was being accorded this fine human being to go on and on. The Nation has, indeed, suffered a great loss. So have many of us in this great institution. He was an inspiration for me personally. He was a mentor, someone I could constantly call to seek advice, to seek guidance. He never steered me wrong. He always wanted to do what was best for the people in a whole wide range of areas, the environment, health care, housing, assisting the disadvantaged. Few men of his stature pass our way. We all have been privileged to work with a giant in his time, one whose work will last for generations to come, one who has done so much for so many. I will miss John Chafee. The Nation will miss him.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the reinstatement of the Superfund excise taxes and corporate environmental income tax in H.R. 3085. The express purpose of this reinstatement of the Superfund taxes is to raise almost $13 billion of new revenues to offset billions of dollars in increases in other Federal spending. The President's proposal has nothing to do with raising revenue to run the Superfund Program. He is proposing a 10-year authorization of the taxes, with no adjustment to reflect the fact that the Superfund Program is winding down, and has reduced funding needs. This is exactly opposite to the position taken by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in H.R. 1300, the Recycle America's Land Act. In H.R. 1300, our committee stated that the Superfund taxes should be commensurate with the revenue needs for the program, may be reauthorized at a lower rate, and may decline over time. At this time, we estimate that tax revenue needs to fund H.R. 1300 are about $6 billion over 8 years, once you take into account other revenues into the Superfund Trust Fund. The President wants to use Superfund as an excuse to raise over twice that amount. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has gone on record in opposition to building up huge surpluses in the Superfund Trust Fund to be used to offset other Federal spending. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has gone on record in opposition to what the President is trying to accomplish by proposing a 10-year extension of the Superfund taxes that fails to take into account the declining needs of the Superfund Program. In addition, by proposing to use the Superfund taxes as a revenue offset, the President is ensuring that Congress cannot use part of those taxes directly to support Superfund liability relief. H.R. 1300 provides Superfund liability relief for small businesses, recyclers, and people who sent ordinary garbage to a site. But the bill does so in a responsible fashion. It pays for the liability relief through direct spending offset by Superfund taxes. By completely divorcing the Superfund taxes from the Superfund Program, the President's proposal kills any chance to provide relief to the small businesses, recyclers, and municipalities that have been caught up in the Superfund liability nightmare. For all of these reasons, I strongly urge you to oppose any reinstatement of the Superfund taxes outside of the context of Superfund legislation. I urge you to oppose H.R. 3085. harbor services user fee (part v of subtitle e) The administration's proposal to replace part of the existing harbor maintenance fee with a new ``harbor services fee'' has been universally rejected as unfair and unsound by maritime interests. These concerns have merit. The proposal simply replaces one questionable fee structure with another. Its potential impacts on existing and future port development are unknown and potentially disastrous to America's trade deficit. Furthermore, the administration proposes to expand coverage of the existing fee to cover the Federal cost of construction of port improvements, in addition to their maintenance as with the current fee. This proposal is shortsighted and fails to recognize our ports as a comprehensive, national system on which the U.S. national security and economic interests depend. We recognize that we must address the serious problem of having the ``export'' component of the existing fee structure struck down as being unconstitutional. However, the President's proposal simply substitutes one set of problems for another. The transportation and Infrastructure Committee intends to address this matter as expeditiously as possible; meanwhile, we should not embrace this ill-advised, potentially dangerous proposal. The maritime transportation industry already pays over 100 different fees and assessments. If there is to be a replacement for the harbor maintenance fee, it must be thoroughly reviewed for its potential impacts, not simply thrown together as some convenient revenue-raiser. federal aviation administration cost-based user fees (sec. 811) The President's budget proposed to increase aviation user fees by $7.1 billion from FY 2000-2004. In FY 2000 alone, this would equate to a $1.5 billion tax increase on aviation system users. This tax increase would be on top of the significant aviation tax increase enacted just 2 years ago in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Under the 1997 tax act, aviation users will already pay about $9.2 billion in aviation excise taxes in FY 2000 through a wide variety of taxes, including: A 7.5-percent tax on airline tickets; a $2.25 flight segment fee; a $12 international arrival and departure fee; a 6.25- percent cargo waybill tax; a noncommercial fuel tax of 19.3-21.8 cents per gallon; and a commercial fuel tax of 4.3 cents per gallon. In addition to these taxes paid into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the aviation industry and its users also pay corporate and individual taxes into the general fund, which traditionally has financed the general government services that FAA provides related to aviation safety and security. The President's proposal to increase aviation fees by $7.1 billion was made without regard to the fact that there is already a $12 billion balance of funds paid by aviation users sitting in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Under the President's proposal, the trust fund balance would grow to $21 billion by the end of 2004, an increase of 75 percent in just 5 years. The increased aviation fees proposed by the President were obviously not intended to fund increased aviation spending. They were proposed instead to offset other discretionary spending on nonaviation programs. Not only does the President's proposal charge aviation system users more and use the increased aviation fees to offset nonaviation spending, it also makes aviation users cover the entire cost of the system--even the costs that are actually imposed by military and other government aircraft that use the system but do not pay taxes. By zeroing out the general fund share of the Federal Aviation Administration's budget, the President's proposal makes aviation travelers foot the bill for aviation activities that benefit society as a whole. The President's aviation user fee proposal is highly unfair to aviation users, and it should be rejected. coast guard vessel navigational assistance fee (sec. 821) The President's proposal to charge ``user fees'' to vessel operators for navigational assistance is simply another ``revenue raiser'', or tax, and not a true user fee. Furthermore, section 207 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, signed into law by the President last November, prohibits any new maritime user fee through September 30, 2001. Despite the statutory prohibition against his proposal, the President assumed collection of $41 million in fiscal year 2000 from maritime user fees. rail safety inspection user fees (sec. 861) Administration proposal for full offset of Federal Railroad Administration costs ($87 million in FY 2000) is a rewarmed version of a law Congress specifically refused to extend in 1995 because of its unfairness and serious economic damage to smaller railroads. Extensive hearing record before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee showed that some small railroads were paying up to 17 percent of net income in user fees to support the Federal Railroad Administration; the administration's proposal to reinstate and expand these fees in very unfriendly to small business. Other forms of transport do not pay the full cost of safety enforcement activities through user fees; these fees would not cover just enforcement, but even activities such as R&D. surface transportation board user fees (sec. 851) This proposal would require full offset of STB's $17 million budget through ``user fees.'' But who are the ``users''? The administration proposal does not even attempt to identify who would pay the fees: the railroads, the truckers, any shipper who does file a complaint, any shipper who might file a complaint? there is also no standard for setting the fees, other than being ``fair and equitable.'' In all probability, this proposal would be found unconstitutional for excessive delegation and/or vagueness. STB already offsets several million dollars of its costs through existing title 31 fees, such as for filing proceedings at the Agency. These have been increased substantially in recent years, resulting in numerous complaints from shippers about the excessive costs and deterrent effect on utilizing remedies at the STB. The administration proposal would necessarily increase the overall fee burden to over 5 times its present level.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I thank Hank for making today necessary. He is one of America's truly great heroes. It is my privilege to represent baseball's mecca, Cooperstown, New York. So in a way, I am a surrogate congressman for Mr. Aaron. Let me read to my colleagues from the plaque from the baseball shrine, the Hall of Fame, when Mr. Aaron was inducted in 1982. It reads, ``Henry `Hank' L. Aaron, Milwaukee National League, Atlanta National League, Milwaukee American League, 1954-1976. ``Hit 755 home runs in 25-year career to become majors' all-time homer king. Had 20 or more for 20 consecutive years, at least 30 in 15 seasons and 40 or better eight times. Also set records for games played (3,298), at-bats (12,364), long hits (1,477), total bases (6,856), runs batted in (2,297). Paced National League in batting twice and homers, runs batted in and slugging percentage four times each. Won most valuable player award in National League in 1957.'' Those of us who are baseball fans are statistics freaks. We go for RBIs and batting averages. That is how we judge the man. This man excelled. But he has excelled off the field as well. Let me read to my colleagues from Hank Aaron's own words: ``I know that most people, when they think of me, think of home runs; or if they really know about the game, think of 755. But what I would like them to remember about me is not the home runs or the hits or the runs batted in, but that I was concerned about the well-being of other people. You have to reach out, and you have to speak out.'' Mr. Aaron goes on to say, ``I have tried to be a home run hitter off the field, too. I may not have hit the huge home runs that Jackie Robinson hit or that Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson hit. But at least I am hitting line drives. And maybe some of them will clear the fences.'' Mr. Aaron, you have hit grand slam after grand slam. You are a hero on the field. You are an inspiration off the field. It is my honor to stand in this well of the people's House and pay tribute to you.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have been here 17 years. If I am here 1700 years, I will not be able to explain the complexities of dairy pricing. But I can tell my colleagues this, the supporters of 1402 are not willing to stand idly by while others would relegate the family farm to the status of forgotten Americans. Let me tell my colleagues about the consumers, because we are all vitally interested in the consumers. If we do nothing, if we allow this present trend to continue, pretty soon we will have the production of milk concentrated in the hands of just a very few. And when that happens, just watch what happens to the price. We have an obligation in this House, in this Congress, to provide some assistance to the family dairy farms, and Option 1-B would rob them of $200 million of income. That is totally unacceptable. Let me give my colleagues another twist on this. Why is the environmental community so sensitive to the plight of the family dairy farms? It is not just because they are an endangered species, which they are, but it is because if we witness the demise of the family dairy farms, we will have more of that scourge of America urban sprawl, and that is not healthy for anybody. This bill is about protecting our struggling family farmers and ensuring that they get a fair price for the milk they produce for the benefit of us all. USDA's modified Option 1-B would reduce what return dairy farmers see for their investment at a time when many dairy farmers are already struggling. The dairy farmers' share of consumer dollars spent for milk has been decreasing since 1980. In fact, the percent of the consumer milk dollar going to farmers dropped approximately 20% from 1980 to 1997. Dairy farmers nationwide stand to lose $200 million a year if the Agriculture Department's Modified Option 1-B pricing plan is for fluid milk is adopted. While farmers would see a reduction in income under the modified Option 1-B plan, this change would have little effect on the price consumers pay for milk because processors and grocery stores are unlikely to reduce prices. The number of dairy farms and farmers has been declining over the last several years. New York has lost approximately 6,000 dairy farms in the last ten years. Any reduction in farmers' incomes will mean that more producers leave the farm. Farmers are vulnerable to volatile market conditions because milk is perishable; farmers can't just tell the cows to stop producing milk in order to wait out low prices. Option 1-A gives dairy producers more stability and helps to ensure that they receive a fair price for milk. Milk prices under the modified Option 1-B will be insufficient to cover the cost of producing milk on many family-sized farms, forcing many of these farmers out of business and leaving few producers with control of the dairy market. This will result in greater concentration of the dairy industry in the hands of a few and higher prices for the consumer. I urge my colleagues to vote for Option 1-A and H.R. 1402.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I just feel like I have heard Jay Leno's monolog for about the fifth time. It was amusing the first time, but the fact of the matter is what we are doing here today is going to have a profound impact on dairy farming in America. Talk about turning a deaf ear to the will of the very people we are trying to help, Mr. Chairman. In August, we just had a referendum. Ninety-six percent of the farmers said they want to continue milk marketing orders. Now I know we sometimes cannot resist the temptation to create chaos out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I would suggest that if we eliminate the milk marketing orders, that is exactly what we would be doing. I do not want to identify with that effort. I want to identify with looking realistically at the plight of dairy farmers in America, and I must admit it, being a little bit selfish, I am particularly concerned with the plight of dairy farmers in beautiful upstate New York. They are in crisis. They need some help, and I want to help. This amendment would not help, Mr. Chairman; 1402 would.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment with my colleague, and I would point out that this amendment is very simple. We want to put the House on record clearly stating that solar and renewable energy programs and energy efficient and conservation programs are a priority. That is really one of the major reasons we take up authorization bills, to state as a matter of policy what kinds of programs and funding levels we should be striving to provide to meet national needs. So the question then is why, as a matter of policy, are these programs a priority? Two reasons: national security, as my colleague has mentioned, and environmental protection, as we both strongly identify with. And, oh, a third: they have been proven to work. I am proud to say that the chairman and the ranking member have worked constructively with us on this, and it is my understanding that the chairman and the ranking member are going to accept this amendment. I applaud them on their good judgment and their reasoning abilities. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment I have introduced with Mr. Udall. The point of this amendment is simple: We want to put the House on record clearly stating that solar and renewable energy programs, and energy efficiency and conservation programs, are a priority. That's really one of the major reasons we take up authorization bills--to state, as a matter of policy, what kinds of programs and funding levels we should be striving to provide to meet national needs. We must not be careless or unrealistic in setting authorization levels, but nor are we bound by the same strictures as we are in taking up spending bills or the budget. This bill is a policy assessment primarily, not a fiscal assessment. So the question, then, is: Why, as a matter of policy, are these programs a priority? Two reasons: national security and environmental protection. Oh, and a third--they've been proven to work. Let me talk about security first. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am acutely aware of the potential threats faced by our country. And one threat about which we have become far too complacent is the susceptibility of our energy supplies to foreign manipulation. Our nation is far more dependent on foreign oil than it was at the time of the oil shocks of the 1970s. We need to find more ways to wean ourselves from this supply. Our long-term security will also be bolstered by making our economy more energy efficient, both by improving our overall competitiveness and by making us less vulnerable to changes in energy supply. Yet we waste far more energy than do many of our economic competitors. The second reason to support these programs is environmental. Despite the progress that we have made over the past 30 years in cleaning our air and water, we still have a lot of work to do, and indeed we are in danger of backsliding. Electric generation is still a major source of pollutants--particularly of pollutants that poison lakes in regions like the Adirondacks in my area. Our long-term hope is to move to more environmentally friendly forms of generation. In addition, if we take the threat of global climate change seriously--and I think we should--we need to redouble our efforts to find economical alternatives to fossil fuels. Now let me emphasize that these programs have nothing to do with the Kyoto Protocol and indeed they predate any concern with climate change. They are a good idea in and of themselves that also just happen to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as well. And these programs do work. Technologies that have been supported by the Department of Energy have saved consumers billions of dollars through advances in building design, solar and renewable energy, lighting design and other areas. But some will ask, ``If this research is such a good idea, how come the private sector isn't doing more of it?'' The answer is pretty obvious. At a time of low energy prices, there is little incentive for the private sector to plow money into advances whose initial benefits will be more societal than private. This is the classic, textbook case economists make for public research funding. And yet the sad history of federal energy program funding is that the federal government--which is supposed to have the public interest at heart--is just as short-sighted as the private sector. Federal energy funding has tended to go up in times of energy crisis and down once those crises have passed. It's time to break that absurd pattern and to invest when times are good, when funding is available, when there is still time to plan ahead and perhaps to forestall or even avoid the crises that we know full well lie ahead of us on our current path. Now, the Committee has brought forward a reasonable bill, and I imagine some will say, ``I agree with all your arguments, but the bill already has taken them into account.'' But I think we can do better. First, the funding levels in H.R. 1655 for energy conservation and efficiency are actually below those the House passed last month as part of the Interior appropriations bill. And the figures in H.R. 1655 are below those in the Senate Interior appropriations bill as well. In terms of solar and renewal energy programs, our amendment would indeed authorize more than has been appropriated. But we believe that, again, as a matter of policy, we ought to be making these programs a higher priority. The shape of our energy future will determine our future security, prosperity and environmental health. All those Members concerned with our energy future--in particular, the 150 member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus, should vote for this amendment. All those Members concerned with our environmental future should vote for this amendment, which will be scored by the League of Conservation Voters. All those Members from the Northeast who are concerned with the power plant emissions that foul our air, should vote for this amendment. And indeed every Member should vote for this amendment because it makes clear that this House understands how critical energy policy is to our future and how inadequate that policy is today. Let me close by quoting from a report issued by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology--a report issued by a panel that included significant corporate, as well as academic representation. The report concluded that DOE's program ``are not commensurate in scope and scale with the energy challenges and opportunities the 21st century will present.'' I think we need to respond to those challenges and opportunities now--before there's an energy crisis, now--when times are good. I urge support for the Udall-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Doolittle substitute, which is quite simply an effort to kill the Shays-Meehan bill. The Doolittle substitute not only would block any new efforts to reform campaign finance, it would actually repeal the few successful reforms that we passed in the 1970s. The fundamentals of our democratic system are at risk, and this Congress must not be so complacent as to ignore the evidence that is all around us. Turn-out in elections is at an all time low. Polls show public confidence in government at record lows as well. As the Supreme Court has noted many times, democracy can thrive only if there is a marketplace of ideas, but it is not supposed to be a marketplace that belongs to the highest bidder. By a marketplace of ideas our forefathers meant a place of fair, free, and open exchange. But in our time we have perverted that concept so that the marketplace of ideas has become commercial, a place where ideas triumph when they are backed by large sums of money. The very way we talk about campaigns shows how far we have drifted from our Founding Fathers' ideas. Opponents of Shays-Meehan say that the system is not out of kilter because soft money amounts to only about 50 cents per voter. But that is an advertising concept, not a civic concept. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to beware of sunshine patriots who come to the defense of the first amendment only when the free speech being defended comes with a price tag.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment to section 420 on page 93 regards the usage of federal funds for comprehensive conservation and management plans for our national estuaries. That is a proper role for the Federal Government. All of us recognize that. The Clean Water Act allows EPA national estuary program grants to be used for developing plans, not for implementing them. Section 420 would allow these grants to be used for implementation for FY 2000. Section 420 constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. However, we have talked with the chairman and ranking member and advised them that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is currently considering legislation to reauthorize the national estuary program. We are determined to do so, and we are moving with dispatch. The proposed amendment would allow national estuary grants to be used for implementing plans, subject to passage of national estuary program reauthorization legislation. I would urge its adoption. I would ask my colleagues to keep in mind that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, are both supportive, and I would ask that they affirm that support at this time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the chairman for those good words. I would ask the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) also if that is his understanding.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening very attentively to the debate today. I want to congratulate the subcommittee, under the leadership of my good friend and colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for the way that they have been able to balance the priorities within tight budget caps. It is not easy. We all know that. But I will tell my colleagues this, the Walsh product is something that all of us can be proud of. We have just spent a couple of hours discussing veterans assistance. I am a concerned veteran myself so, obviously, I am very interested in this debate. I want to point out that a large portion of the bill's funding, $44.1 billion, supports the Department of Veterans Affairs' efforts to provide funding for important health, housing, education, and compensatory benefits to military veterans and their dependents. This is $1.5 billion more than the current fiscal year and $1.6 billion more than the President's request. I think that is very good, and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be congratulated. I also am particularly pleased that this bill provides almost $106 million more than the President requested for the Environmental Protection Agency. Much of the increase over the request is devoted to the State revolving funds, and we all know how important they are to all of our governors and all of our communities. They are overseen by the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, which I am privileged to chair. The EPA itself has estimated that about $200 billion, that is ``billion'' with a ``b,'' will be needed over the next 20 years to ensure that our local sewage systems are doing an adequate job of keeping sewage and other pollutants out of our Nation's waters. The Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies estimates that need at more than $300 billion. Yet the President's budget actually cut the funding for these programs which States and localities depend upon to protect the environment and public health. Now, I am not suggesting that the President is for pollution and is not sympathetic to veterans. That is nonsense. Of course the President is concerned about veterans, and of course he is concerned about the environment. What I am saying and very emphatically and providing evidence to prove the case is that the Walsh committee examined the President's budget request and in these 2 areas, providing for veterans assistance and providing for the Environmental Protection Agency, did a better job and, therefore, they are to be commended. So I am proud to support this product. I know how tough it is. I know that in many areas we want more money and we wish that we can wave the magic wand and create those extra dollars instantly. We would do more. But I think we are doing a very good job, and I think the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be commended and acknowledged. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that this bill provides almost $106 million more than the President requested for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Much of the increase over the request is devoted to the State Revolving Funds, which are overseen by the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, which I chair. The EPA itself has estimated that about $200 billion will be needed over the next 20 years to ensure that out local sewage systems are doing an adequate job of keeping sewage and other pollutants out of our nation's waters, and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) estimates the need at more than $300 billion. Yet the President's budget actually cut the funding for these programs, which states and localities depend upon to protect the environment and public health. This bill restores funding for the revolving funds and begins to make a downpayment on our future needs. I congratulate the Chairman on putting money where it is most needed. This bill uses its limited allocation wisely. I urge its support.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. The United States needs to pay up. That is very basic. Crippling the U.N. by withholding U.S. economic support will not only hurt the reputation of the United States in the world community, but it will make it even more difficult for the U.N. to push forward with needed reforms. I say needed reforms because, as this debate has brought to the surface, this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has said quite emphatically that certain reforms are very much in order, not just in the interest of the United States but in the interest of the long-term effectiveness of the United Nations. Personally, I do not think we hear enough about the U.N. successes: The feeding of over 50 million people last year, the immunization of hundreds of thousands of needy children, reducing the use of ozone depleting substances, and a whole list of very good deeds. Now, more than any other time in history, countries are connected through problems, since many problems today are global in scope. The U.N. has been the only body to convene all parties to broker agreements on these global issues. Now, the U.N. has not always succeeded, but its successes have been many, and it has always tried. Issues such as armed conflict resolution, nuclear site inspections, cross-border pollution, crime, drugs, armed trafficking, money laundering, and epidemics, all of which are beyond the capability of any one country or group of countries have been addressed. So much better to be debating these issues in an international forum rather than fighting about them on some distant battlefield. Mr. Chairman, a strong majority of Americans favor us paying our U.N. dues. They understand that if we belong to an organization and that organization has dues, the obligation is to pay those dues. That is basic. We should heed their wisdom and pass the Hall amendment. The world counts on the U.N., it is time that the U.N. can count on the U.S.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, when my legislative staff talked to me about this amendment, they pointed out that my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was offering the amendment. They also pointed out that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) was opposing the amendment and they said, ``Where do you stand?'' I gave the typical political answer. I said, ``I stand with my friends.'' But you cannot get away with that. You have got to look at this. I have looked at it very carefully. I oppose the amendment. This, as I see it, is a battle of ``might happens.'' As the State Department points out, this amendment is unnecessary, because they are working on renegotiating a more favorable U.S. allocation. It is also counterproductive. Why is that? Because it might jeopardize the U.S. position on other conservation issues. Since the State Department folks are the ones who are actually sitting at the table for these negotiations, I tend to feel, and I agree with the gentleman from Maryland, that we should take these ``might happens'' a little more seriously. According to a lot of folks who participate in these discussions, World Wildlife Fund is a good example, the humane groups and the Earth Island Institute, they do not participate in this process. I look at who is supporting it and who is opposing it. When I look at the opposition to the amendment, I see the administration, the Center for Marine Conservation, the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the U.S. State Department, the U.S. tuna fishing industry. That is an eclectic and diverse group. I actually think this may cause us to violate treaty obligations. That really concerns me. I am mindful of the fact that this amendment was considered in the committee and it was rejected. I am mindful of the fact that what we did in the last Congress, the 105th Congress, and I think this would undermine the tuna-dolphin protection legislation which we passed by an overwhelming majority in the last Congress. For all of those reasons and more that I do not have the time to cover, I stand with my friend against a friend. I oppose the amendment and urge its defeat.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), I raise a point of order against the portion of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program beginning with the last comma on page 7, line 7 through page 9 line 2, on the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House. This program has not been authorized for fiscal year 2000. In fact, it is likely that there has never been an authorization for this program.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. We are switching our attention to a debate on wetlands and the value of wetlands. Let me tell my colleagues I appreciate the value of wetlands. When President Bush said back in the 1980s that we should have no net loss of wetlands, I stood up and cheered, stood up with many of my colleagues on that side of the aisle. He was right then, and he is right now. Wetlands are precious. They are natural spawning grounds, they are natural filter systems, they are wonderful. We ought to protect the Nation's wetlands. What we are trying to do simply is, one, say we are not going to let anybody delay, delay, delay determinations or the implementation of this new plan that the Army Corps of Engineers wants to go forward with, we are not going to say, no, we are going to give some people an excuse to delay it. I think they should go forward with it. So there is no argument there. That is why my amendment passed overwhelmingly; well, it is going to when we have the recorded vote. It makes sense. I am not going to let anybody delay something. And then secondly, I fail to see why we should be offended by the idea, and I have great respect for my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). He serves with me on the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, which I am privileged to chair, and let me tell my colleagues Mr. Blumenauer is one of the most valuable members, one of the hardest-working members, but I do not see what the objection would be to have a modest amount of money for the Corps of Engineers and say, ``Hey, corps, you're overworked and underfunded.'' I will agree, everybody can agree with that. ``Now tell us what more you need to do the job we expect.'' Not everybody here agrees that we should protect these wetlands. I do, and so do a lot of other people on both sides of the aisle. The environment is not a partisan issue. It is not a Republican environment or a Democrat environment. It is a precious, fragile environment, and I want to protect it. But I see nothing wrong with saying to the Corps of Engineers, ``We're going to give you a lot more responsibility. Give us an idea of what more you need to fulfill that responsibility.'' And then I will tell my colleagues my commitment is on the authorizing committee. I am going to do my level best to give them some additional resource to do the job. And finally, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) pointed out a little bit earlier, I see nothing wrong with saying to somebody, ``Let's have sort of an appeal process in place,'' so if the district office says this is something that I do not agree with and I do not like, then one goes to the next level, they have got a process, and if they say something that I do not like, then go to the court, and the court says, well, this is arbitrary and capricious, they cannot get away with it.