Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I am glad to yield to the distinguished gentleman from California.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to perfect the text that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) hopes to strike. The amendment I am offering comes after extensive dialogues with my friends and associates and partners, both in the environmental community with whom I am closely associated, and development communities, as well as with the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard). Let me tell my colleagues, this has involved extensive negotiations. Because I will say this, essentially, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and my friends in the environmental community are right in expressing their concern that a report on the costs associated with the implementation of a new nationwide 26 permitting program should not be a vehicle to delay the implementation of this program. Let me emphasize and repeat that, should not be a vehicle to delay the implementation of this program. That is why I am offering an amendment that would make it absolutely clear that a report on costs of implementation would not impede the wetlands nationwide permitting program. My amendment makes it absolutely clear that the report be required, must be submitted to Congress no later than December 30, 1999. Let me read to my colleagues where we are coming from in the actual language of the bill. It will read, if I am successful with this amendment, ``That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used by the Secretary of the Army to promulgate or implement such replacement permits unless and until 30 days prior to the final publication of the proposed replacement permits for the nationwide permit 26 under section 404 of the Clean Water Act the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, has submitted the aforementioned studies and analyses not later than December 30, 1999.'' That is very specific. There is no wiggle room. In the July 21 Federal Register, the Corps stated for the record that they had ``extended the expiration date for nationwide permit 26 to December 30, 1999.'' My amendment assures that the report being legitimately requested by Congress on the costs of a new permitting scheme will not stop the Corps, will not stop the Corps from going final on their nationwide permit 26 changes on the date that they have projected to go final. I believe this amendment addresses the real environmental concerns that have been expressed. I have also included language requesting the Corps to submit their report to Congress at least 30 days before implementing a new nationwide permit scheme. I think that is a legitimate request. Because I have the pleasure and privilege of serving as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, the committee of jurisdiction, I would like to know what the costs in both dollars and manpower, what the costs will be for these new regulations that we are going to impose on the Corps. Again, let me make it clear, this amendment coming from me is a pro- environment amendment, an amendment that makes sense, an amendment that has been worked out. They did not just snap and accept it and say that I am right, and they agree. We had to really work on this thing. But it has been accepted by the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard), and I urge all my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential perfecting amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I appreciate coming into the discussions and rather tough negotiations in the spirit the gentleman from California did. He was willing to listen, and he was willing to consider another point of view. Because, initially, as the gentleman well knows, we did not see eye to eye. He did not think this thing needed to be changed. I did. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) feels that, too. Let me read from the Federal Register back on July 21 when they are talking about the proposal to issue and modify nationwide permits. They point out this, ``the Corps will spend more time on projects with the potential for more environmental damage and less time on projects with minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment.'' I support that and obviously urge support for my amendment.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the standard of review for a court determination that the Corps has made an improper determination of what is a wetland is the arbitrary and capricious standard. I am sorry, if the Corps has made a wetland determination that is arbitrary and capricious, and I am not suggesting it does it left and right, then it should be examined in the courts.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I exactly agree with the text as perfected, and the perfecting is very important in my heart. Let me tell my colleagues the perfecting is very important because I could sense, as my colleagues know, sort of a little potential problem here. That is why I had the perfecting amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana with whom I work closely and for whom I have great respect.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues we had enough issues that we had to address in the water bill. We are still working. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) over there, my colleague, is smiling because we are getting very close to resolving that issue in a bipartisan manner, and that is what we should do on this floor. Look. Let us not look at issues as if we are Republicans or Democrats. Let us look at the issues as if we are Americans concerned about a future legacy for our children and grandchildren.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Reclaiming my time, let me point out that we educated the governor of the State of Pennsylvania in this body, and then we sent him back to Harrisburg to do that.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 507) to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insist on the House amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 507) to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, due to the wedding of my daughter Leslie, I was not here on Friday, June 25 and subsequently missed rollcall vote No. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On Monday, July 12, a delayed flight from Syracuse to Washington forced me to miss rollcall vote 277, 278 and 279. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' to each of those votes.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, governments in many countries that have experienced rapid growth for nearly two generations are now bursting at the seams and are unable to meet the challenge of providing even the most basic services for their citizens. This is the arena in which the UNFPA works, an arena in which every action has a reaction. In the most extreme cases, population growth along with poverty, ethnic tensions, and the misgovernance has resulted in vile conflict. The UNFPA is one of the most effective means available to address the problems caused by rapid population growth around the world. Its 900 staffers work in more than 150 countries to provide voluntary family planning and reproductive health services. By doing so, it allows women and men to freely choose to limit the size of their families, and it helps to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions. I would like to ask my colleagues to ask themselves a few questions when voting on this, questions like: Who would do this work if the UNFPA did not? Where would some countries be without UNFPA? I know the answers I think of are unsettling, and I am sure many here, when they stop and think about the bigger picture, will come up with their own stark conclusions. I urge my colleagues to support the Campbell amendment and support funding for UNFPA. And finally let me say in response to my partner in this effort, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) I am disappointed. I would like to point out that both Democrats and Republicans are supportive of family planning; just as, sadly, some Democrats and some Republicans oppose it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Ohio, chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his assurances.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Nevada.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank both chairmen. With the understanding that there is broad agreement that restoration programs could and should receive additional funds later this year, I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. It is important that the House take a stand on this mining issue in this bill because the Interior bill in the other body already contains a rider on this matter. Let me start with an assertion that probably would receive broad agreement across the ideological spectrum: the current state of American mining law is a travesty. Mining is governed by an outmoded law passed over a century ago, and Congress has not significantly modified it since 1960. One result is that taxpayers have been denied billions of dollars as mining rights are given away at rates that were probably even a cause for celebration back in 1872, when the law was originally written. So we have an outmoded law that cheats taxpayers, and what do some want to do? They want to override the one provision of the 1872 law that actually provides the taxpayers some protection. That is the effect of the language that was in the supplemental appropriation and the language that has been proposed in the other body. That language would, in effect, repeal the clear language of the 1872 act that prevents mining companies from despoiling unlimited amounts of Federal land, land they get at a bargain rate, destroying that land with hazardous waste. This amendment would put the House on record against efforts to give away more Federal land so that mining companies can use it as a waste site. It would block those efforts, not by doing anything radical, but simply by reaffirming long-standing Federal law. That is environmentally responsible and fiscally responsible. If we are going to revisit the 1872 mining law, we need to do it comprehensively. What we should not do is attack the 1872 act piecemeal as part of the appropriations process in ways that remove the few provisions that protect taxpayers and the environment. I urge support of this amendment which reaffirms current law and protects taxpayers.