Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], and I understand his concern and it is legitimate, had the Boehlert language been in effect we would not have had that 6-year delay that he refers to. The fact of the matter is our substitute amendment is designed to take care of those situations. We want to prevent them from happening in the future.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Sure; the end of calendar year 1998, a pilot program to see how it works.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, what we do is 1998 is the time, and we do this for a very logical reason. What this Congress too often does is passes sweeping legislation for time immemorial. We want to try this as a pilot project. We think our colleague has a good idea; we want to assist him.

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield, I would be glad to respond to the question.

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield, no. The answer is ``no.''

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman will be happy to know that we take care of his primary concerns. First of all my amendment does not deal with only after. We deal with prior to. We have made an adjustment as a result of the Dicks amendment to mine which I accepted. So if there is a substantial threat, we can do the repair work prior to. That is very important.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the resolution. I do so for one overriding reason: it will save lives. In fact, it's rare that we get to cast a vote that will result in such direct, immediate, tangible and unarguable benefits. International family planning agencies depend on this money--money which, remember, we have already appropriated. The work of these agencies saves the lives of women not only by enabling them to prevent life-threatening pregnancies, but by providing basic health care services. Their work also helps save the lives of children who are born into such grinding poverty that they literally cannot survive. And their work helps eliminate misery by stemming the over-population that makes life unbearable in so many parts of the world. Indeed, UNICEF has noted that ``family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race.'' That's an extraordinary statement, and it is no exaggeration. Family planning also prevents abortions. The World Health Organization estimates that 40 percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion--40 percent. Anyone who wants to prevent abortions--and I think that includes those of us who are pro-choice--should vote for this resolution. None of the funds being released can be used to perform abortions, and the services provided with these funds eliminate the demand for abortions. In no way can a ``yes'' vote be reasonably characterized as a pro-abortion or anti-life vote. Indeed, we in Congress are given few such clear opportunities to be so affirmatively and truly pro-life. Vote for this resolution and give the gift of life.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to term limits. Maybe I have spent too much time reviewing the thinking of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson but I find the arguments for term limits a bit hard to follow. Term-limit proponents say they are trying to strengthen democracy. Yet in limiting the voters' choices, they are exhibiting a profound distrust of democracy. Term-limit proponents say they are populists who are trying to return power to the people. Yet term limits take away power from the people. Term-limit proponents say they are trying to make the Congress more responsive. Yet by forcing Members into lame-duck status, term limits eliminate the greatest incentive to abide by the public's wishes. Term-limit proponents say they are trying to limit the power of special interests. Yet by forcing Members to consider their next job rather than concentrating on their present one, term limits can only increase potential conflicts of interest. Term-limit proponents say they are trying to make the Congress a more effective institution. Yet by robbing the Congress of institutional memory and experience, term limits weaken Congress and strengthen the role of less representative branches of Government. Term-limit proponents say that the current system has failed us and has created an unchanging and unchangeable Congress. Yet more than half of the Members of the House, here serving today, were elected in 1992 or later. The contradictions go on and on. Term limits are an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist. And they cannot conceivably accomplish what their proponents promise. That is why American leaders as far back as Madison and Jefferson have rejected term limits. Let us show our faith in the Constitution, the American people, and the democratic process. Government should expand our options, not limit our choices. I say reject term limits. Support the choice of the American people.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, how proud we should be of what we are about because this bill is exactly what the American people want, a parks bill that will benefit all areas of the country, a parks bill that will increase recreational and educational opportunities, a parks bill that will enhance environmental protection and most importantly for the long run, a parks bill that will ensure that future generations will have pristine areas to enjoy. It is not easy putting this kind of package together. There are almost an infinite number of interests to balance. It is of necessity a lengthy and very difficult process. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and his staff for sticking to it, for continuing to work against all odds, for coming up with a final package that only the hypersensitive could quibble with on environmental grounds. This is good legislation, this is a proud moment for this historic 104th Congress, and I urge my colleagues to give this measure the support it deserves.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the bill, H.R. 4283.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, my colleague has those assurances.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4283) to provide for ballast water management to prevent the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species into the waters of the United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, before anything, I would like to compliment the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], for the outstanding cooperation that was evident. It was music to my ears to hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] talk about the fairness and bipartisan nature of the process. We pride ourselves on that in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and we intend to continue in that vein. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a major step forward in developing and preserving the Nation's water resources. Almost one- quarter of the bill's costs are for projects and activities that are solely or primarily for protection and restoration of the environment. This is a conservative estimate. Let me give the Members some examples of major environmental provisions in this measure. There is a requirement for flood plain management plans for flood control projects. There is broadening of existing authority to modify Corps projects to benefit the environment. We broaden the scope of existing environmental dredging. We create new aquatic ecosystem restoration programs. There are several provisions to address contaminated river and harbor sediments, including the Great Lakes and the New York-New Jersey Harbor. We do great work in terms of the Chesapeake Bay habitat Restoration Program and the salmon recovery in the Pacific Northwest. There is a major program to restore the Florida Everglades, and we also do some significant restoration work in the New York City Watershed. I think the Members get the point. This is the greenest Water Resources Development Act in the history of this body. I proudly identify with it. It is not just me and those of us on the committee that are saying good things about this bill. Let me share with the Members a few excerpts from a letter authored by representatives of American Rivers, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. They say, We believe that the conference report . . . makes significant improvements over earlier versions and includes important provisions which reform national flood control policies and expand the U.S. Corps of Engineers environmental restoration programs. Conference members have required that cost-benefit and environmental studies be completed for authorized projects . . . What good work that is. . . . deleted a provision that would support Missouri River navigation at the expense of recreation, and reduced the federal cost of the bill to $3.8 billion. It goes on to say more very complimentary things about this bill, and concludes, H.R. 3592/S. 640 includes reform of our nation's flood control policies, restores Florida's Everglades and expands the Corps' growing environmental restoration program. We are glad to see positive improvements in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 and look forward to working with you to continue these reforms. This is a letter that was addressed to me, to the chairmen, to the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, everybody, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Borski. We are all chairmen in this instance, because we have worked so hard to make this a reality. Let me close by saying no bill of this magnitude gets to the floor of this House with such unanimous endorsement without the hard work of people like Mike Strachn, Ken Kopocis, and Jeff More, and all the people on the staff who did such good work. I urge strong support for the measure.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette], the author and prime mover of this bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3217) to provide for ballast water management to prevent the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species into the waters of the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this broadly supported bipartisan legislation, and I stress, broadly supported and bipartisan legislation, was introduced and championed by Mr. LaTourette. It builds upon the 1990 act that addressed zebra mussels and other invasive species in the Great Lakes. H.R. 3217 is national in scope, extending a voluntary incentive-based approach to all coasts and regions at risk. Whether you call them invasive, exotic or nonindigenous, these species of plants, animals and invertebrates can wreak havoc on infrastructure, on commerce, on recreation and tourism, and the environment. H.R. 3217 coordinates agencies, research institutions and others to prevent and control the introduction and spread of invasive species primarily through voluntary ballast water exchange and management education and research. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's report on H.R. 3217 provides a detailed description of the bill and our committee's intent. Changes have been made in the suspension motion. In brief, these changes improve the bill by: incorporating recommendations by other committees on matters ranging from research grants and peer review to NOAA and the Smithsonian Institution; ensuring a fair and reasonable transition from voluntary guidelines to regulations, if necessary; tailoring the scope and content of the guidelines to account for special factors and situations; targeting research funding and assistance to additional areas at risk in the West; and ensuring the master of the vessel continues to have discretion to ensure the health and safety of the crew and the vessel. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank some of the members of the committees instrumental in moving this important legislation. But more than anyone else, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] is responsible for this bill and its movement through the House. He has worked with all interests to build broadly supported legislation. He has also worked closely with his colleagues from Ohio and in the other body, Senator Glenn, who worked on the 1990 law and the companion Senate bill to H.R. 3217. Mr. Speaker, I do not want anyone to think that because of all the hard work on this that Mr. LaTourette is one-dimensional. He has cosponsored and been a leader in a number of legislative vehicles in this session of Congress dealing with the Great Lakes. Let me point out that the Great Lakes incorporate 20 percent of the world's fresh water surface water. So Mr. LaTourette has proven by performance very early in his distinguished career that he is a leader and a good legislator. We have had the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure members who also deserve a great deal of congratulations for their efforts, particularly the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member of the full committee. The chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], who is my ranking member, and I am privileged to serve as chair of that subcommittee, and the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement]. Other committees have been helpful as well, particularly the Committee on Resources, also the Committee on Science, the Committee on House Oversight, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on National Security and the Committee on Agriculture. I think you get the picture here. Everyone worked together on this one, and Mr. LaTourette is the guy who brought everyone together. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a brief summary of the manager's amendment, as follows: H.R. 3217, National Invasive Species Act of 1996--Summary of Manager's Amendment The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes certain minor changes to the bill to clarify certain exemptions, add a requirement to report to Congress prior to issuing national regulations, authorize additional research funding, address comments made by other committees, and make other technical and conforming changes. A new subparagraph (K) is added to section 1101(c)(2) to clarify the intent that passenger vessels equipped with certain environmentally sound and protective ballast water treatment systems be exempt from otherwise applicable requirements to exchange ballast water. As noted in the Committee Report, H. Rept. 104-815, certain passenger vessels use sodium hyprochlorate solutions or metal electrolytic cathodes to kill undesirable organisms in ballast water. Passenger vessels equipped with such treatment systems are exempt from any requirement to exchange ballast water, unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such ballast water treatment systems are not as environmentally sound and effective as ballast water exchange. A new subparagraph (L) also is added to section 1101(c)(2) to codify an exemption from the national voluntary guidelines for crude oil tankers engaged in coastwide trade from Alaska. Under the laws of some states, these tankers are forbidden to travel within the exclusive economic zone (``EEZ''). By obeying the laws of those states and traveling a short distance outside the EEZ, these tankers could become subject to requirements to exchange ballast water under this Act. Such tankers have been engaged in coastwide trade for many years with no known adverse effect on ecosystems in Alaska or the West Coast. We expect the regional research funding authorized under this bill for the Pacific Coast to be used in part to conduct monitoring to verify that this remains true. The amendment adds a safety exemption from ballast water change requirements under this Act in new section 1101(k). This language codifies the existing exemption found in the Great Lakes regulations and makes it applicable to any new national regulations that may be issued. This exemption applies only to a requirement under the Act to exchange ballast water, and is based on the fact that ballast water exchange may be unsafe for certain vessels. We note that the bill authorizes the Secretary to identify other methods of managing ballast water or other locations for ballast water exchange. If safe and available, a vessel may be required, by regulation, following notice and an opportunity for comment, to conduct such other ballast water management practices as are identified by the Secretary, in accordance with subsection (b) of the Act (for the Great Lakes) or (c) and (e) of the Act (for other waters of the United States). If no such alternative exists, a vessel exercising the safety exemption may not be precluded from discharging ballast. We also note that ballast water exchange by many passengers vessels may be unsafe, and such vessels also are likely to be eligible for the safety exemption from ballast water exchange added by this new paragraph (k). The amendment also adds a requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to submit a report to Congress in new section 1101(d), prior to issuing any national regulations under section 1101(e). The purpose of this report is to provide Congress with an opportunity to review compliance with and the effectiveness of the national program for controlling aquatic nuisance species, before the program becomes enforceable regulations. Several amendments are made to section 1102(e), relating to the regional research grants. First, due to its status as one of the most threatened estuaries, the amendment adds in section 1102(e) an authorization of $750,000 a year for research relating to the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. The reported bill included $500,000 for grants for research on the Pacific Coast. We intend that the Pacific Coast funding be used for research in Pacific Coast areas other than the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. Second, because the Smithsonian does not generally act as a granting entity, the money for the regional research grants is authorized to be appropriated to the Under Secretary of Commerce, to allow the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to act as the granting entity, rather than the Smithsonian Institution. Third, the amendment deletes references to specific research consortia in section 1102(e) and elsewhere in the bill. This change does not reflect any intent to preclude the use of research consortia to assist in administering the regional research grants authorized by section 1102(e) or research under section 1202. The reported bill identified the Chesapeake Bay Consortium, the Louisiana Universities Consortium, and the Lake Champlain Research Consortium as appropriate entities to administer research grants. We encourage NOAA to make use of these research consortia in carrying out the research authorized by this Act. The amendment also makes minor changes to the authorization of appropriations in section 1301(f). First, language is added to the authorization of appropriations to NOAA for aquatic nuisance species research to clarify the intent that the authorization in this bill is not an increase above the funding levels for all of NOAA's environmental research authorization in H.R. 3322, should H.R. 3322 be enacted into law. Second, the amendment modifies the $4,000,000 a year authorized in the reported bill to be appropriated to NOAA's National Sea Grant College Program and land grant agricultural colleges for competitive grants for university research on aquatic nuisance species under section 1202(f)(3). The amendment clarifies this authorization by specifically authorizing $2,800,000 for NOAA and $1,200,000 for the land grant colleges.

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 am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers, who is an interesting person to speak on this legislation, because he also serves as a member of the Committee on Science. He is a Ph.D., he is a fellow of the American Physical Society, so he brings a scientific background to his analysis of this very important legislation, and he also represents a State that the Great Lakes are very important to.

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 that I may include extraneous material on the bill just passed.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay particular credit to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], my colleague, for his leadership on this issue. When Mother Nature rears her ugly head, whether it is an earthquake on the West Coast or a storm off the coast of Florida or a heavy winter snowstorm, it can create havoc. Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to micromanage for FEMA, an Agency for which I have the highest regard. I think James Lee Witt is doing a magnificent job. But we are asking the Agency to come up with a coherent policy so that we can give guidance to our constituents and our communities in the event of disaster. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] for his leadership in bringing this issue forward. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for participating in this exercise and providing the leadership necessary to move this legislation forward.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in strong support of this bipartisan legislation to improve the way we manage and promote the use of deepwater ports. Unfortunately, only one deepwater port has been constructed since the passage of the original 1974 Deepwater Ports Act, the Loop facility off the coast of Louisiana. Deepwater ports make environmental and transportation safety sense, and with the passage of this measure, deepwater ports will make economic sense. By unloading supertankers laden with oil in deep offshore waters, we can dramatically reduce the likelihood of catastrophic oil spills like we have witnessed on both the Pacific coast and, most recently, off the coast of Rhode Island. The Louisiana delegation has long realized the benefits of deepwater ports and has taken the lead in developing H.R. 2940. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] has been especially effective in educating the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the merits of deepwater ports. Deepwater ports will become increasingly important as traffic entering our Nation's ports continues to grow. This legislation has been developed with extensive input from transportation and environmental interests, and I am confident that this measure reflects the best ideas of both of these very important constituencies. We should be doing more to promote the use of deepwater ports, and this legislation is a huge step in the right direction. As we enter into the next century, it would be my hope that we could develop deepwater ports for the Atlantic and Pacific coast as well. I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of this Deepwater Port Modernization Act. I thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], for his cooperation, I thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for his leadership, and the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], for his partnership. Together we are moving on important legislation.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 120, honoring the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine and the progress of its political and economic reform. June 26, 1996 will be a day that Ukrainians will honor for generations to come, for on this day the Ukrainian Parliament finally approved a new post-Soviet constitution for the people of Ukraine. This constitution guarantees for the first time the right to private ownership, including the right to own land. It may be hard for many of us to understand what a significant achievement this is for the Ukrainian people who have struggled under various rulers for more than 300 years. We need only to listen to Walter Monastaryski of Margaretville, NY, a proud son of Ukrainian immigrants, or visit the parishioners of Saint Vladimir's Ukrainian Catholic Church or St. Peter and Paul's Ukrainian Orthodox Church, both in Utica, NY, my hometown. They will tell you the stories of their courageous families and friends who gave their lives fighting against Stalin and the Nazis before and during World War II. Few people know more than 10 million Ukrainians died fighting for independence, but now the people of Ukraine and their descendants all over the world can hold their heads up high as Ukraine moves forward to ensure the rights of all citizens to transform its economy to privatize state-owned enterprise and to work in concert with G-7 nations to shut down the nuclear reactors at Chernobyl. This resolution tells the people of Ukraine several things. It tells them we know reform is difficult, it tells them we want to praise them for their sacrifices and for their efforts, and it also tells them that we stand committed to helping them achieve their goals. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important measure for the people of the Ukraine, and I thank my chairman for yielding.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to watch some of the people who are complaining so vociferously against the enlightened action of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The same people, one after another, come before me as chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment and asked for this project and this project and this project. As for my distinguished colleague from Michigan, he is the graddaddy of them all. Do my colleagues know that little pig he had on this desk? That piggy is named River Rouge. Do my colleagues want to know why? Because he got $325 million over 6 years earmarked for River Rouge. He is so found of that that he needs that little piggy, River Rouge. Glad to see the gentleman bring it here; good to see it once again. Let me tell my colleagues, today we are taking a historic step toward improving the quality of the water we drink and the environment on which we all depend. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 is the most significant environmental legislation since President George Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 on December 11, 1990. That historic legislation that President Bush signed, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] and I were teamed up and we worked very hard to have an acid rain provision in that bill. I am sorry we do not completely come eye-to-eye on this bill today but, quite frankly, my colleagues know what the drill is. It is a matter of jurisdiction, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, does not like the fact that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, came up with a good idea in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Mr. Shuster has designed a program that we are warmly embracing. Now my colleagues have got to accept the fact that other people have ideas and other committees other than the Committee on Commerce have some jurisdiction. It is a reality of life that we have to accept. I have, and I think most of our conferees have. The conference report before us today embodies most environmental aspects of the drinking water bills produced by the House and Senate, and I am proud to identify with them. The drinking water provisions before us are pro-environment, pro-State and local government and pro- business. Every major environmental group in the Nation, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the list goes on and on, strongly supports the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996, and do my colleagues want to know why? It is because we provide $7.6 billion through the year 2003 for improvements to our Nation's crumbling drinking water infrastructure. We provide up to $50 million annually in grants to assist America's poorest communities in providing safe, dependable drinking water. We provide critical new information to consumers on drinking water quality through community right-to-know provisions. This is a good bill.