Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, maybe we can resolve this. I have had some conversations away from the microphone. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. In doing so, I do not stand alone. I am reflecting not only my own position but that of the National Governors' Association, most State Attorneys General, 40 at last count, the Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and every single environmental group who view this issue as of such magnitude that they are going to double score it. It is an unusual coalition and they have come together on this for good reason. The reason is simple: This bill violates the most basic principles of federalism. That is just as true of the manager's amendment as it is of the original text. That is not, as some say, a narrow procedural fix. Far from it. Would all these groups be arrayed against powerful developers if the bill was a narrow procedural bill? I doubt it. The bill would fundamentally alter the balance between localities and the Federal Government, between developers and neighborhoods, between the legislative and the judicial branches. The bill would overturn a 7- to-1 Supreme Court decision, a decision in which all the conservative justices of the time, Burger, Rehnquist, O'Connor, concurred. Make no mistake about it, H.R. 1534 represents a fundamental shift in American law and will rob communities of the opportunity to determine their own destinies. Forget about legal doctrine for a minute. Let us look at the practical impact of the bill. It basically removes any incentive for a developer to negotiate with a community because the developer will always be able to threaten to take the community immediately into Federal court. That will change the look of every single community in this country. Think about it. Now, supporters of the bill sometimes say, ``We're just making sure that the fifth amendment claims can get to Federal court.'' We think fifth amendment cases should get to Federal court, but the Federal court cannot determine if the fifth amendment has been violated until they know exactly what a zoning board would allow, exactly how much a local action reduced property values and exactly what compensation was offered. Bringing Federal courts in prematurely, as this bill does, simply allows Federal judges to substitute their judgment for the locality's before all the facts are in. Again, do not take my word for it. Here is what the Judicial Conference of the United States says: ``The bill would alter deeply ingrained federalism principles by prematurely involving the Federal courts in property regulatory matters that have historically been processed at the State and local levels.'' Here is what the National Governors' Association wrote in a letter signed by Governor Voinovich of Ohio: ``The result will be substantially more Federal involvement in decisionmaking on purely local issues.'' Listen to the experts who do not have a financial interest in the outcome of this bill. This bill says we do not trust local governments. This bill says devolution; that is, sending authority from the Federal Government to the State and local governments, is a cockamamie idea. This bill says all wisdom is vested in Federal courts, not in State and local courts. I urge opposition to H.R. 1534 unless the sensible Boehlert amendment is passed.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota, and I support Davis-Bacon.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the Committee on Resources. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your willingness to work with me to develop a compromise to allay some of the concerns that H.R. 1127 has raised. As the gentleman knows, last Tuesday night we arrived at a compromise with which we both felt quite comfortable. Unfortunately, because of a problem with the rule, we were told that that compromise could not move forward. We had to delete the sections ensuring that no single Member of either this or the other body could block a resolution of approval. That is obviously an essential provision. I would include the compromise we reached for the Record at this point. Amendment to H.R. 1127, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Hansen of Utah Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. With those assurances, I will support this compromise to enable the bill to begin moving forward. As I said, I will support the compromise embodied in the manager's amendment. That compromise improves on the bill by allowing a monument declaration to take effect immediately, rather than requiring a wait for congressional approval. In other words, in the case in point, the President could have done what he did after giving 30 days advanced notice to the Governor, along with a request for comment from the Governor. The President would consider those comments, but if he did not agree with them, he could still go forward with the declaration, and the declaration would be in effect for 2 years; but then there would be a sunset provision, and after 2 years, if Congress did not pass a joint resolution approving the monument, then the monument would be no more. I support this compromise because I believe my friends from the West have some reasonable complaints with the current system. It is not unreasonable to involve Congress in changes in the status of huge tracts of land, tracts of land of 50,000 or more acres, as is the case in point. The President still has the authority to move forward with the designation of smaller tracts of land, and I think that is an appropriate responsibility for the President. But in the rare cases where we have large tracts of land in excess of 50,000 acres, I think we should have some congressional involvement, but we ought to make darn sure that no single person can block consideration by the Congress. However, congressional involvement must not make the 1906 Antiquities Act a dead letter. The act has served this Nation well and it should not be fundamentally altered. If our original compromise had remained intact, that standard would have been met unequivocally. Unfortunately, the compromise was blocked by the Committee on Rules because we were told last week that the bill had to come to a vote last week. I support the current version of the compromise only because I have the commitment of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the subcommittee, to restore the original compromise as we move forward. The gentleman has acted in good faith, and I know he will continue to do so, but I must be clear: If this bill comes back from Congress without the full compromise in place, I will enthusiastically and vigorously oppose it. We need to pass a bill that gives Congress a reasonable chance to review Presidential declarations, but we cannot pass a bill that allows any single Member of Congress to veto a monument declaration. That was the problem with the original bill, and it is still a problem with the manager's amendment. The problem would have been solved by the procedures that had to be dropped from the compromise. So again, I thank Chairman Hansen for his help. I urge support for the manager's amendment, and if it passes, for final passage of the bill. I do so because this puts us on a path to a reasonable compromise. A reasonable compromise will balance congressional and Presidential responsibilities in a way that does not threaten the protection of western lands. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] to arrive at a final product that will meet that standard.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that I share his enthusiasm for moving with dispatch on reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. It is very important not just to our committee or to this Congress but to the Nation, and that is something that will have my undivided attention at the appropriate time. It looks like the appropriate time will be early in the next session of the House.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill would amend the Clean Water Act to allow a community in Puerto Rico to apply to EPA for an alternative to secondary treatment requirements. Any alternative approved by EPA would be, and this is important, would be subject to requirements and conditions necessary to assure the adequate protection of coastal resources. Mr. Speaker, this bill could help save the community up to $65 million by avoiding the construction of more costly facilities while including appropriate environmental safeguards. Another provision in the bill, added in committee, modifies the Clean Water Act's national estuary program. The bill allows the use of Federal funds for implementation, as opposed to just development, of comprehensive conservation and management plans. This is a widely supported approach to protecting America's estuaries. Allowing Federal funds to be used for implementing the national estuary program is an initiative strongly supported by State, local, and regional interests, including the environmental community. Many States have completed their comprehensive conservation and management plans required under the national estuary program, and it is time to help put their plans to work. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure members should be congratulated for their efforts in developing the Coastal Pollution Reduction Act. I would particularly like to recognize the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking Democrat of the committee, and my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. In addition, I would be remiss if I did not thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo] the primary sponsor of the bill. His efforts to address this matter and promote greater flexibility in the Clean Water Act have been thoughtful and persistent. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young, our colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, for his role in supporting the bill and helping to clarify that the intent of the national estuaries program amendment is not to provide any new or expanded authority to regulate land use. Finally, I want to thank representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency and the environmental community, particularly in Puerto Rico, for their input. The final text of the bill and the detailed committee report largely reflect their comments and concerns. Throughout the development of this bill, our intent has been to fashion a responsible approach to meet a site-specific need for flexibility under the Clean Water Act and to strengthen the national estuaries program. I think we have succeeded. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2207, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2207) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act concerning a proposal to construct a deep ocean outfall off the coast of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as amended.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 131, expressing the sense of Congress regarding the ocean and recognizing 1998 as the international year of the ocean. Congress, this Nation, and countries throughout the world need to foster a greater understanding and appreciation of our oceans. This resolution is one small but important step toward that end. Ocean waters cover nearly 75 percent of the Earth's surface. They comprise such a dominant part of our national, social, and cultural environment that it would be foolish to try to even begin listing all the benefits and functions they provide. Unfortunately, they are also fragile--at least more fragile in many respects than we would like to admit. Pollution, invasive species, encroaching populations, and other stressors can take their toll. Concerted efforts are needed. The world's nations, including ours, should work more closely together to respect and conserve our global marine resources. I commend Representative Saxton for his efforts and the Resources Committee in general for its role in moving this resolution forward. I should also add that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee did not seek a referral of House Concurrent Resolution 131 but has various jurisdictional interests in it and in other efforts relating to oceans. The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Wayne Gilchrest, and the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, which I chair, are particularly interested in various environmental and transportation-related aspects of the oceans. We look forward to working on additional initiatives and legislative provisions that are consistent with the spirit of this resolution and protect and promote various aspects of the world's oceans. I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 131.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2207, the bill just considered.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, in section 8123 of the conference report, the Secretary of Defense is given the authority to waive Buy American restrictions under certain conditions. I am very concerned about the potential economic impact that would result if the Secretary uses this authority in the area of specialty metals. To avoid any negative impact, I believe the Secretary should not waive the Buy American restrictions for products classified under the headings of 8211 through 8215 in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] would continue to yield, I appreciate his attention to this vital concern.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the author of this amendment has acknowledged that every year he comes to the floor and proposes a near identical amendment. When is he going to get the message? Every year this House has increasing support for the Economic Development Administration. Every single year the opposition is on the decline. Why is that? One of my colleagues, a previous speaker, said the American people send us here to make tough choices. Indeed they do. But they do not want us to make dumb choices. I will tell you what the Economic Development Administration is all about. It is about my favorite four-letter word, and you can use it in polite company. That favorite four-letter word is ``jobs,'' jobs that put Americans to work. Now, if you want to tell me that EDA does not work, I will take you to community after community around this country that has been devastated by the loss of a military installation. We are told that is a peace dividend, that we do not need as many military bases, and I can understand that. But what about those communities that one day face the loss of thousands of jobs? Where do they turn to? They look to Washington, and, fortunately, we have the Economic Development Administration to help these communities try to help themselves. What about those communities all across the country that are victims of cruel tricks played by mother nature, devastated by natural disasters? They look to us, those of us in positions of responsibilities, and say help. Thank God we have the Economic Development Administration to help. How about those factories closing? Where do those communities go? Someone earlier said, ``You know, it is $3,000 a job.'' Guess what? I will take you to community after community across this country that would gladly accept jobs if it only cost $3,000. It costs so much more. As a matter of fact, the rule of thumb for EDA is about $10,000 a job. And, guess what? The communities that desperately need them do not even have five cents, let alone $10,000. They lost their tax base. They have lost their employment opportunities. EDA is about hope. Now, I was here as a young staff member sitting in that gallery in August of 1965 when the Public Works and Economic Development Act was first passed. I remember that vividly, Republicans and Democrats joining to create an agency that offered some hope for distressed communities across this country, and through those years, those 32 years, the agency has had its ups and downs. But life has changed for me. Now I serve on the committee that has jurisdiction over the authorization of this program, and I have sat there as witness after witness has come forward, some telling us of the changes needed, and those changes have been made; some telling us that they have ideas for improvement, and improvements have been made. But, one after another, from communities all across this country, we have had local government officials come and say, ``Thank you for the Economic Development Administration. Please continue this important program, because where opportunity has been lost, hope has been provided.'' This measure will pass overwhelmingly to continue the Economic Development Administration. It did the year before, and the year before that, and the year before that. This is a good agency. It is not perfect. I have never seen a perfect agency and unlikely never will. But the fact of the matter is basically this: In an economy that is beginning to move in the right direction, in an economy where more and more we are telling people from all walks of life that you have expanded opportunity, greater hope, there are still areas of distress. Those areas need assistance. And when that assistance is possible in the form of a loan or a grant from the Economic Development Administration, and we are part of the organization that makes that agency possible, I think it is a day's work well done. I would say overwhelmingly, Mr. Chairman, reject this amendment. Support the continued funding of the Economic Development Administration for all the right reasons, but, most importantly, for jobs for America.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in strong support of the Lowey- Gilchrest-Castle-Boehlert Amendment. Protecting our nation's coastal waters from nonpoint source pollution is one of the greatest water quality challenges facing our nation. We must do more to address coastal nonpoint sources of pollution and this amendment is an important step in the right direction. Today, over half of all water quality impairment in the United States is caused by nonpoint source pollution and coastal waters have proven to be exceptionally vulnerable to this source of pollution. Recent fish kills on the Pocomoke and Manokin Rivers in southern Maryland are just a glimpse at what may be ahead for America's coastal resources. Failure to significantly reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution will place in jeopardy the biological, commercial, and recreational viability of every beach, bay and estuary in America. It should be noted that over 75% of all fish harvested by American commercial fishermen begin their lives in estuaries like the Chesapeake. ``Pfiesteria hysteria'' is not completely unfounded. Pfiesteria-like organisms reside in coastal waters on the East Coast, the West Coast, the Gulf of Mexico and throughout the Great Lakes. The time has come to rethink our clean water paradigm. In the last 25 years the Federal government has spent over $60 billion to assist communities in addressing point sources of pollution. However, during this same period the Federal government has spent less than $1 billion addressing nonpoint source pollution--the cause of over half the water quality impairment in America. We must reform the nonpoint source pollution provisions of the Clean Water Act, the section 6217 program, and our spending priorities to address this reality. As the Chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over both the CWA and the Coastal Zone Management Section 6217 program, I urge all my colleagues to support this modest increase in funding for the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program administered by NOAA.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the chairman, for that response. Further, section 2(c) provides for the study of disaster-response training by FEMA. The purpose of this study is to inform the Congress on the adequacy of training for earthquake response. However, it is my understanding this section is not intended to change or otherwise affect the authority for, or implementation of, disaster preparedness training programs. NEHRP does not currently provide authority for such training, and there is no intention that this section is meant to provide such authority. Is that correct?

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support this well-crafted bipartisan bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out that the passage of this legislation shows what can happen when we all work together. Since its inception in 1977, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program has contributed greatly to what we now know about the science of earthquakes as well as how to reduce the damage that they can cause. This bill enables the program to continue its good work through continued research, hazard assessment, and public education. As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, or Stafford Act, as it is commonly referred to, is the primary authority under which FEMA operates many of its preparedness and response programs. The Stafford Act and, in general, Federal management of emergencies and natural disasters falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and, more specifically, under the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment which I chair. The relationship between the Stafford Act and NEHRP has always been complementary, and I just want to clarify how this bill fits in with the Stafford Act. Mr. Chairman, section 2(a) authorizes the development of a prototype seismic hazard warning system. It is my understanding that this system will not dictate how disaster warnings are relayed, who is to receive such warnings, or any other aspects of disaster warning or communication systems which are addressed by section 202 of the Stafford Act. Is that correct?

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I pause in these deliberations to give some well-deserved recognition. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to announce the passing of baseball Hall-of-Famer Richie Ashburn. Richie Ashburn was my first boyhood hero when he began his career with the Utica Blue Sox back in 1945. Mr. Ashburn played center field, primarily with the Philadelphia Phillies from 1948 to 1962. Ashburn became the starting center fielder in 1948, after the incumbent and previous year's batting champion, Harry ``The Hat'' Walker, broke his foot in spring training. By the time Walker was ready to return, Ashburn had won the job by hitting .348 and was the only rookie named to that year's All-Star game. Ashburn finished the year hitting .333 and led the league with 32 stolen bases and was named by the Sporting News as rookie of the year. In his 15-year career, Ashburn hit .300 or better nine times, won two batting titles, and finished with a lifetime batting average of .308. Despite these impressive hitting numbers, Ashburn was best known for his fielding skills. He set new records by recording 500 or more putouts in 4 different seasons and 400 or more putouts in 9 different seasons. He tied a major league record by leading the league in that category nine times. He was in some very distinguished company. The only ones who did better were Max Carey, Willie Mays, Tris Speaker, and Ty Cobb. In 1962, Ashburn's final season, he became an original member of the New York Mets and was the Mets' first All-Star. He finished his career with six All-Star appearances and a World Series appearance with the 1950 Phillies pennant-winning team that was affectionately known as the Whiz Kids. Ashburn continues to hold that Phillies record for consecutive games played at 731. After retiring, Ashburn considered running for public office, but I think he thought better of it, in his home State of Nebraska. Instead he began a career as a broadcaster for the Phillies where he remained until his death. For many years Richie Ashburn's talents were overshadowed by other outfielders like Mickey Mantle and Duke Snider and Willie Mays. But finally, in 1995, he received well-deserved recognition. He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in my district in Cooperstown, NY. We have not only lost a tremendous player but a great ambassador for the game of baseball. May he rest in peace. I thank my distinguished colleague for pausing in these important deliberations to let me share this sad news with the rest of my colleagues in this House.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax relief and balanced budget legislation which we have long promised and have finally achieved. Today we are going to follow through on our promises to balance the Federal budget for the first time since 1969 while providing the first major tax cut since the early 1980's. I realize that the budget agreement is not perfect, but on balance its benefits enormously outweigh any flaws. First and foremost, the budget accord goes a long way in helping working families make ends meet. Families with young children, under 17, will be able to take advantage of a $500 child tax credit. As these children get older and enter college, we are going to continue helping these families with a package of college tax credits, deductions and other tax incentives to help pay for tuition and pay back school loans. Should this family own a small business or family farm, we are going to help them pass along their livelihood to their children. Currently, many children cannot afford to continue their family business or farm because they must sell all or part of their family business to pay the enormous Federal estate tax. To help individuals keep farms and small businesses in their families, we are raising the estate tax exemption on family-owned farms and businesses immediately from $600,000 to $1.3 million. If this family plans on selling their home or some investments they have made we are going to help them as well. The tax provisions slash capital gains taxes and creates a major exclusion for the sale of their principal residence. Far too many Americans work their entire lives and struggle to make ends meet as they retire. So, we are helping families save for their retirement, purchase a home or pay for college through expanded individual retirement accounts [IRA's]. Millions of seniors depend upon Medicare for their health care. However, medical inflation and a growing elderly population has threatened the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. With this threat hanging over us, the budget agreement takes immediate and decisive action to save Medicare while expanding seniors health coverage--both noble and essential actions. Seniors will benefit from new services which will cover more preventative screenings and diagnostic tests. Furthermore, seniors will be able to choose from an array of plans including medical savings accounts and private unrationed fee for service plans. When all is said and done, the American people are the biggest winners today. We are ensuring that they will continue to enjoy a strong economy, that we will no longer burden future generations with our debt, and that in doing so they are going to be able to keep more of their hard-earned income. Today is a great new beginning for America.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has suggested I gave inaccurate information to the House. The gentleman has suggested that the gentleman in the well has given inaccurate information to the House. I would like the opportunity to correct that statement. How do I get time to do that?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, under the population aid formula, 37 percent distribution of funds, every State except Florida loses money because we eliminate all discretionary spending. Where you gain money, and it is marginal, is under the student aid distribution formula, and that is about 90 cents a student, which will allow them to buy crayons and construction paper.