Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will be engaging shortly in a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry. But I rise in opposition to the amendment. While I strongly believe that we should be providing more funding for the Forest Service's restoration program, I am reluctant to support further cuts in the timber program at this time. The program is funded in the bill at slightly below last year's level, an appropriate figure as we work on a long-range forest policy for this country, a policy that should give greater emphasis to multiple use. I do expect that, even without cutting the timber program, we will have an opportunity later this year to increase spending for the Forest Service's restoration programs. That is an opportunity we should accept. Ideally, these programs should be funded at the requested level.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a logical fulfillment of the agreement reached among Republicans last year to end the purchaser road credit. This amendment simply reiterates that no Federal funds have been appropriated to improve or construct timber access roads. Language with the identical substantive effect is already in the report accompanying the bill. Just to clarify, this amendment applies only to the use of appropriated funds for actual construction of roads. Funds may still be used for the engineering design associated with road construction and reconstruction projects as well as for environmental reviews and public involvement. And private funds may still be used for road construction and reconstruction in any area where roads may be built, just as the report states. This amendment is narrow, but it is a great step forward, concluding the work begun last year. Road costs must be borne by the companies that will benefit from their use. That is a win for the taxpayers and a win for the environment. I am pleased this amendment has drawn broad bipartisan support.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a very simple purpose, to revive the State portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Under State law, law that has been in effect for 35 years, States are supposed to get a portion of revenues from offshore oil drilling to use for recreation and conservation projects. This amendment is a first step toward fulfilling that commitment which has been ignored over the past several years. But this is not just a matter of fulfilling a commitment made to the States and the public when we allowed offshore oil drilling. This amendment would revive a program that had a proven track record of providing recreational facilities for millions of American families. This is a program that truly improved the quality of life. There is no shortage of appropriate opportunities for using this money. Every State has a backlog of projects that has been piling up in anticipation of this money being restored. These projects will provide parks and playgrounds and preserve sensitive lands that otherwise would be subject to development. The momentum for reviving the State portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been growing this year as more Members have learned about the good that has come from this program. My own Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Bernadette Castro, of New York, has been a real leader in the effort. The various bills to take the program off-budget and guarantee it a stream of funding are evidence of that newfound support. But those bills will not come up for some time and will probably not provide any money next year. We need to act now. I do not envy the plight of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) who is dealing with a difficult hand because there are so many restrictions on what he can do. I would like to, if I could wave a magic wand, give him and the subcommittee more money to deal with, because I think they deal with it in a very responsible way. But this is a long-standing commitment. This is just an entry to restore a program that has served a very useful purpose. We talk a lot about family values. What is more important to the family than having these magnificent parks and recreational areas so that they together can enjoy a good life. I urge support of the amendment. I want to thank the chairman and the subcommittee for being very thoughtful and deliberative in the process. I would point out to the distinguished gentleman that there are some who want to do away entirely with the clean coal technology program under the theory that if we do away with it, that is environmentally responsible because we are dealing with fossil fuels and we all know that they pollute a lot. I am not one who subscribes to that. I have worked with the gentleman as he well knows to protect the clean coal technology program and constantly improve it under the theory that if we have cleaner burning coal in the future, we are going to have a cleaner, healthier, safer environment for all of us.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. I only can say, reclaiming my time, what the Governor of the great State of New York, George Pataki, has done. He went to the people of the State of New York and asked them, he put his name and credibility on the line and he got passed, the voters passed, a $1.75 billion environmental bond issue. That bond issue is used for a whole host of very worthy projects within the State of New York that helps improve the quality of life. I just want to have this money which is earmarked for a specific purpose, a portion of it used for that specific purpose, because I think the families of America deserve improved parks, I know that is one of the gentleman's primary objectives, and recreational areas. I think we can make a dent in it by what we do here by voting for this very important amendment. Once again, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. This amendment has a very simple purpose--to revive the state portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Under federal law--law that has been in effect for 35 years--states are supposed to get a portion of revenues from off-shore oil drilling to use for recreation and conservation projects. This amendment is a first step toward fulfilling that commitment, which has been ignored over the past several years. But this is not just a matter of fulfilling a commitment made to the states and the public when we allowed off-shore oil drilling. This amendment would revive a program that had a proven track record of providing recreational facilities for millions of American families. This is a program that truly improved the quality of life. And there is no shortage of appropriate opportunities for using this money. Every state has a backlog of projects that has been piling up in anticipation of this money being restored. These projects will provide parks and playgrounds and preserve sensitive lands that otherwise would be subject to development. The momentum for reviving the state portion of LWCF has been growing this year as more Members have learned about the good that has come from this program. The various bills to take the program off-budget and guarantee it a stream of funding are evidence of that new-found support. But those bills will not come up for some time and will probably not provide money next year. We need to act now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the FAA estimates that passenger use of aviation infrastructure will increase by 43 percent over the next 10 years. Let me submit to my colleagues this is a public safety issue. We cannot safely increase passenger enplanements by 43 percent without making significant new investments in aviation infrastructure. It is that simple. This bill begins to make the appropriate level of investment in our aviation infrastructure to make it safe. Let me point out that the adoption of the Kasich amendment would place a critical environmental provision in jeopardy. We cannot afford to shortchange our investment in improving air quality, and this legislation includes provisions that will for the first time provide resources specifically to deal with the purchase of low emission vehicles at airports and air quality nonattainment areas. Think how important that is. The 10-airport, $20 million program will promote the expanded use of natural gas and electric vehicles at our Nation's airports, and I submit that is good public policy. I applaud the author, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for clarifying this point, the supplemental which deals mainly with legitimate emergencies and gives an appropriate response. But I think that is going to be in jeopardy if it is used as a way to pass major policy decisions which normally would be subjected to greater scrutiny and fuller debate here this the people's House. I know that our leadership is well aware of that and has been working hard to keep the supplemental clean. They must succeed. I urge the support of the motion.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for offering this motion which would strengthen the House position in conference. The House leadership and the House Committee on Appropriations I think have done an excellent job on holding the line on extraneous matters, and this motion should help. So the gentleman's motion will be helpful. I note, however, that, for drafting reasons, the gentleman's motion deals only with one set of problems we are facing in conference; namely, the addition of items that were never passed by either body. But we also face another set of problems in conference because the Senate-passed version of the supplemental also contains numerous extraneous detrimental riders, many of them dealing with sensitive environmental matters. I ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) what does he believe our posture should be toward those items? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for a response.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1555, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Mr. Chairman, the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), are to be commended for the outstanding work that they have done to lead our committee to make the appropriate investments in the intelligence community in these difficult and demanding times. I am now serving in the second term of my service on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Let me clear up a mystery that many might point to as we deliberate. I have never seen a committee act in a more responsible manner without regard to partisanship, and I am proud to serve under the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon). They have the best interest of our Nation at heart. We work in a truly bipartisan fashion. That does us all proud. Let me focus in particular on one portion of our bill which will fund a substantial increase in the language training that our intelligence community will need as it rebuilds its presence around the world and rebuilds the analytic capability to cover more than just the hot spots of the day. The need for more language skill within the intelligence community, as my colleagues on the committee are aware, is a subject of special concern to me. It is critically important that we have our people, our best talent, our most dedicated officers scattered around the world working on our behalf. It is also important that they be fluent in the language in the country in which they find themselves. I think that there is room for improvement in that area. But we have made a step this year. I intend to help ensure that it is one of a number of steps along the path to the fluency our intelligence assets need to operate as we approach the next century and as we find ourselves with a desperate need for a presence all over the globe. As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have closely followed the issues that have made unusual demands upon the intelligence community and the problems that have produced headlines that we sometimes would rather not see. Much has been said about these problems. That is to be expected, and I think it certainly is in order. But let me add a thought. Central to every intelligence operation is a balance between risk and benefit. Within the committee, we are aware of the often unbelievable benefit our government derives from the operations of our clandestine service. We are aware as well of risk and, on occasion, the damage that comes from some of our operations. Given the full picture of the benefits and of the risks, we come to understand that we will inevitably hear a news report and see in the headlines the acronym CIA and sort of wince at what we read or the report on the radio. We will also appreciate as we hear this news sometimes on occasion, not news we want to hear, that intelligence officers are overseas scattered around the world putting oftentimes their very lives at risk to get the President and our policymakers the intelligence they must have to make responsible public policy. I encourage Members to put the unfortunate headline about the bombing--and, boy, it was unfortunate--of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in that context. I know as well as my colleagues that a mistake was made that was avoidable. I also know and encourage my colleagues to consider that hundreds of intelligence officers are overseas hard at work as we discuss that. We will never read about them, we will never know much about them, but they are doing something critically important for all of us each and every day. We should recognize that. This bill is an attempt to give them the resources they need as this dedicated talent is scattered around the world working around the clock often under very adverse conditions to assure a safe and secure America.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, in 1999 over 179,000 men in the United States will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. Everyone has a story. One of the most heartwarming stories is that of New York Yankee skipper Joe Torre. While the latest news reports that Joe Torre's surgery has successfully removed the cancer from his body and he will be back on the job soon, news of his condition should serve as a wake-up call for all middle aged men. In 1999, Mr. Speaker, an estimated 37,000 men will die from prostate cancer. The good news is that this type of cancer is easily treatable if it is found in the early stages, as it was with Torre. A routine physical examination provided to all the Yankees led to the diagnosis. The Yankees are not only champions on the field where America's pastime is played, the organization is also a champion off the field, whereas in the case of appropriate preventive care timely action saves lives. Another well-deserved salute to George Steinbrenner and the Yankees management. In Congress, Mr. Speaker, we must continue to support funding for ongoing research into the cause and cures of prostate cancer. I join all Yankee fans everywhere, and there is no bigger fan than me, in wishing Joe Torre a speedy recovery. He is a glowing example of how we can beat cancer.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, just when we were starting to see evidence of the positive change in the old international mind-set of having the rest of the world identify a problem at some distant point on the globe and collectively point to the U.S. and say they solve the problem with their troops and their treasury, it appears we are in danger of reverting to the old way. Several weeks ago we gave conditional approval to the U.S. being part of a NATO international peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Four thousand troops out of the 28,000, 15 percent of the total. Now that we have undertaken the air campaign, instead of a 15 percent contribution, it appears we are shouldering from 60 to 80 percent of that contribution. The President should seek financial reimbursement from our allies as this bill requires. Moreover, the military campaign will not be the end of the story in Kosovo. Refugee assistance and resettlement will be expensive undertakings. So, too, will rebuilding. There must be equitable burdensharing. Our Nation has not, cannot and will not walk away from our responsibilities. But the burden is not ours exclusively, and our allies must recognize this.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the rule. The chairman and the committee and the Committee on Rules have crafted a rule that provides for the fair consideration of the Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 and a rule that resolves the primary fiscal and environmental concerns that were raised about this legislation. Specifically, the rule includes an amendment that I offered at the Committee on Rules yesterday that strips all water supply language that was opposed by the environmental community and the fiscal watchdog organizations like Taxpayers for Common Sense. In fact, the leading environmental and taxpayer groups have endorsed my amendment. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I am proud to report that we have labored long and hard in a bipartisan manner to craft this bill. Essentially, we are going forward with unfinished business. We should have concluded it at the end of the last Congress, but we were not able to do so because of a serious controversy about one region of the country. That controversy has now been resolved. I think that WRDA 1999 specifically deals with the California water supply and Sacramento flood protection provisions in a very responsible way. Once again, let me report the environmental community is endorsing what we are about and so, too, are the fiscal watchdogs. What I did was I listened, I learned, I heard and I heeded. So the bill we are bringing forward today has earned the support of a broad coalition of Republicans and Democrats alike. We are about the Nation's business. We are committed to dealing with infrastructure, and in this bill we are dealing with infrastructure in a very responsible way in the best interests of the entire Nation.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Before anything else, I just wanted to pay tribute to the outstanding professionalism of the entire staff, the staff of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Development and the full committee staff on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mike Strachn and Jeff More, Ben Grumbles, the whole team on our side and on the other side, a team of very able professionals. Secondly, I want to say this proves that we can work things out the way we should. Our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure I think is the envy of a lot of other committees on Capitol Hill, because while we have differences, we come together in a bipartisan manner and we overcome those differences, and the product we have on the floor today is as a result of that. Before us this morning we have a water resources bill that provides billions of dollars for flood protection, navigation improvements, water infrastructure and the enhancement of critical environmental resources. This legislation is critical to our Nation's ports, our Nation's cities, the millions of Americans who live along our Nation's rivers; and yes, this bill is critical to the environment, which is a very important subject that warms my heart. I would like to share with my colleagues a list of some of the environmental provisions in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. It authorizes a $100 million pilot project for nonstructural flood control and riverine environmental restoration. It enhances environmentally sensitive floodplain management measures. It authorizes an aquatic ecosystem restoration project. It reauthorizes a sediment decontamination program. It encourages beneficial reuse of dredge material. The list goes on and on. Madam Chairman, I include the entire list at this point in the Record. Environmental Highlights of H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 A. Programmatic and Policy Changes Authorizes a $100 million pilot program for nonstructural flood control and riverine environmental restoration Advances environmentally sensitive floodplain management measures (including those involving nonstructural features such as buyouts and relocations) Continues Corps' efforts to coordinate with FEMA's hazard mitigation program Authorizes aquatic ecosystem restoration projects and makes programmatic changes to encourage new local sponsors Reauthorizes sediment decontamination program and authorizes the development and testing of innovative dredging technologies to minimize release of contaminants and improve water quality Encourages beneficial reuse of dredged material Promotes a ``systems approach'' to sand management and beach nourishment Expands Corps' efforts to control non-indigenous invasive aquatic plant species Extends authorization for critical projects under the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration program Authorizes in-kind contributions to projects to enhance fish and wildlife resources thereby promoting additional local sponsorship of such projects Encourages the use of innovative treatment technologies for watershed and environmental restoration and protection projects involving water quality Authorizes development of coastal aquatic habitat management plans to address problems associated with toxic micro-organisms and the resulting degradation of ecosystems in tidal and non-tidal wetlands Provides for restoration of abandoned and inactive coal mines B. Regional Programs Reauthorizes and improves the Upper Mississippi Environmental Management Program Directs a comprehensive study of the Great Lakes environment to promote effective planning and management Increases the acreage cap for the Missouri River mitigation project to increase the program's effectiveness Provides financial and technical assistance for management of non-indigenous species in the Great Lakes Provides for aquatic restoration projects on the Lower Missouri River Provides for aquatic resources restoration in the Pacific Northwest Authorizes assistance for integrated water management planning for the State of Texas C. Miscellaneous Projects and Provisions Adds 3 additional projects to the Corps' Clean Lakes Program to improve water quality by reducing silt and sediment Authorizes 3 projects for improvement of the environment under the authority of section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 Authorizes 16 projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration under the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 Authorizes technical assistance for 8 watersheds for environmental restoration and protection. Madam Chairman, whether it is helping clean up abandoned mines in the West or the development of nonstructural flood control measures in the East, or the establishment of aquatic restoration projects in the South, WRDA 1999 provides critical resources for the enhancement of our environment. In recent years we have seen a gradual greening of the Corps of Engineers, and the legislation before us today continues that trend. Our committee is most responsible for that greening of the Corps. The Corps' traditional functions, flood control and navigation, are also continued in WRDA 1999. Dredging of our great harbors and navigation routes is a central component of this legislation. Moving bulk commodities such as grain and coal by water is essential to our growing economy. WRDA 1999 provides increased protection for flooding for millions of Americans. Perhaps no place is a better example of that than the city of Sacramento, the capital of California, of why WRDA 1999 is so critically needed. Today the city of Sacramento has only about 77 years of flood protection. The legislation before us today, this day, authorizes over $300 million for projects designed to increase the flood protection for Sacramento to nearly 140 years. As my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of our subcommittee, has stated so eloquently, and we have no disagreement on this, we want to provide the maximum level of protection for Sacramento, and we are determined to do so. Not only are we investing $300 million in this bill. No, we are expediting studies of the possibility of elevating the Folsom Dam. We are expediting studies of the possibility of doing levee work south of the dam. We are looking at this in a very serious, professional way. That is what we should do, because we want our final decisions to be made not based upon emotions, and we all can get very emotional about these subjects, but based upon facts. That is exactly what we are going to do. We have moved responsibly to dramatically increase the flood protection for the capital of California, and I remain committed to the proposition that we can provide additional flood protection for Sacramento in next year's water bill. The chairman of the full committee has indicated that as soon as this bill is behind us, we are going to start on WRDA 2000. There is a fundamental national interest in moving this legislation forward in a bipartisan, expeditious fashion. WRDA 1999 is important to the lives and livelihood of millions of Americans, from Sacramento to Syracuse, from Savannah to Seattle, from Urbana to Utica. WRDA 1999 deserves our support.

Mr. BOEHLERT. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the endless flow of visitors from Sacramento can attest, this Chair of this subcommittee is determined to work cooperatively to provide the maximum level of protection for Sacramento. That is a commitment. Secondly, let me point out, we are nearly doubling the level of protection in this bill, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) himself has indicated, from 77 to 137 years, and we are studying the feasibility and practicability and affordability of additional measures. So we will continue to work together to protect Sacramento.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Chairman, the American Oceans Campaign, in a communication sent to every member of this body, pointed out the following: ``The current approach to beach water testing is a mixture of inconsistent criteria and practices. Passing the BEACH bill will wipe out the inconsistencies and improve public health protections nationwide.'' As one of America's favorite actors, Ted Danson, who is president of the American Oceans Campaign has said, ``A day at the beach should not end with a visit to the doctor's office.'' I have to give great credit where great credit is due, to the gentleman from southern California (Mr. Bilbray). This bill will set minimum standards for beach water quality, and it will require EPA to establish performance criteria, and it will require the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a national beach water pollution database that will let the public know where monitoring programs are in place and where beach waters are impaired. Madam Chairman, the en bloc amendment improves upon the bill, H.R. 999, that we reported out of committee by unanimous voice vote. This package includes noncontroversial technical, and clarifying items and has been worked out with the ranking minority Member. In summary, the en bloc: Clarifies that State criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators for coastal recreation waters must be as protective of human health as EPA's criteria. This does not mean that States must adopt criteria that are identical to those that have been published by EPA. States adopt water quality criteria under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act and continue to have the flexibility, provided under that section to change EPA's criteria based on site-specific conditions, or to adopt different, scientifically-justified criteria. Thus, if a State can demonstrate that the pathogen indicators that it is using are as protective of human health as the criteria for pathogen indicators that EPA has published, a State may continue to use its existing criteria. As a result, if no appropriations are provided to EPA for this purpose, EPA does not need to take funds away from other clean water act Programs to provide grants for monitoring and notification programs. Clarifies that the information provided to the public in the information database authorized under section 406(c) is intended to be information on exceedances of water quality standards in coastal recreation waters only. This database does not address other matters. Clarifies that EPA implementation of a monitoring and notification program will occur only in situations where a state is not implementing a program that protects public health and safety. The bill does not provide for partial EPA implementation and partial state implementation of a monitoring and notification program. In addition, EPA's duty to conduct a monitoring and notification program is subject to the same conditions as a state program implemented under section 406(b)(2). This means that EPA has the same flexibility that states are provided under that section to target available resources to those waters that it determines are the highest priorities. EPA's duty to implement a monitoring and notification program is no more expansive than a State's duty. Clarifies that the term ``coastal recreation waters'' includes only the Great Lakes and waters that are adjacent to the coastline of the United States. ``Coastal recreation waters'' is not synonymous with the ``coastal zone'' as defined under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The geographic scope of this act does not include any inland waters and does not extend beyond the mouth of any river or stream or other body of water having unimpaired natural connection with open sea. Clarifies that Indian tribes with coastal recreation waters are eligible for grants for monitoring programs. Clarifies that Federal agencies are to implement monitoring programs for federally-owned beaches, such as national seashores. Finally, the amendment changes the short title of the bill to refer to ``awareness'' rather than ``assessment.'' Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), the person most responsible in this whole United States of America, out of 250 million people, for bringing us to this point today, the author of the bill. (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

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