Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. The gentleman from Pennsylvania proved my point. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleague this: If you are for a cleaner, healthier, safer environment, and I think you all are, support this important legislation.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make four points. This is inside baseball. Point No. 1, in response to the gentlewoman from California, the conference was not delayed by inaction on the part of any Republican. As has been accurately reported in National Journal's Congress Daily, the conference was delayed because two Members, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], objected and refused to sign the conference agreement. Point No. 2, this is very important, the dollars that are claimed to have been lost I am convinced will not be lost, because every Member of this body and the other body wants to make certain that that 24-hour delay does not in any way jeopardize the funding that we need for safe drinking water. Point No. 3, the total amount in dispute is one-quarter of 1 percent of the total amount of money funded in this bill. Point No. 4, the grants program we are talking about is to help needy communities who are striving to provide a cleaner, healthier, safer environment for their constituents by improving their water system. That is what this program is all about. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give this bill the support it deserves.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute an outstanding young woman who has been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award by Foothills Girl Scout Council in Utica, New York. She is Christy Willey of Girl Scout Troop 429. She is being honored on August 1, 1996 for earning the highest achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. The award can be earned by a girl aged 14-17, or in grades 9-12. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving over 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than 20,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must earn four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award, and the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout and is carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. As a member of Foothills Girl Scout Council, Christy began working toward the Girl Scout Gold Award in 1994. She completed her project in the areas of Adapted Aquatics and Water Safety, and I believe she should receive the public recognition due her for this significant service to her community and her country.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I wish to congratulate the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] for all his hard work on it, for the thoroughness with which he took this challenging assignment on, for the openness of the process, for the methodical manner in which this final product was developed. Wayne Gilchrest is a class act. The choice we face in this debate is between ideological purity and practical impact. The purists want to push an approach to fishing in which no dolphins will ever become entangled in tuna nets. That sounds good, and we would all feel good voting for it, having demonstrated our purity. There is only one problem: that is, the practical impact that vote would have. If we vote down this bill or amend it, we walk away from an international agreement that has been enormously successful in saving dolphins. Dolphin deaths have dropped from over 400,000 in the 1970's to less than 4,000 last year. The agreement will continue to move us toward reducing mortality to zero. The agreement would fall apart. Other countries would go back to their old means of fishing, and dolphin mortality would increase again if we voted other than for the Gilchrest bill. Not only that, bycatch of other species such as sea turtles would increase. So our choice is to vote for this bill and accept a small and declining level of dolphin mortality, or to pretend to purity and cause the death of dolphins and other sea creatures. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], as one would expect, has taken the moderate approach. It has won the support of even such immoderate groups as Greenpeace. Some of my friends are for this bill. People ask me, what about your friends? I point out some of my friends are for this bill, and some of my friends are not so enthusiastic. But let me tell the Members about my friends that are for this bill: The National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Center for Marine Conservation, our good friends in the maritime trades department of the AFL-CIO, the American Sport Fishing Association, the American Tuna Boat Owners. The Washington Post twice has editorialized in support of this Gilchrest bill, and so has the New York Times and the Houston Chronicle. Seasoned observers who care deeply about this process have all examined very carefully the Gilchrest proposal, and they have urged us, the Representatives of the American people, to vote for it. I proudly identify with my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], and I enthusiastically support this bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], ranking minority member, for their significant input into this legislative process. And, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], my good friend, the ranking member of the subcommittee, my special thanks for all that he has done. Mr. Speaker, this is a product of Members of Congress from all sections of the country, from different political persuasions coming together and working together because it makes good sense for America. I particularly want to thank Mike Strachn of the professional staff. He came to us from the Corps of Engineers. He had a very distinguished career and he has lent his expertise to us as we fashioned this very important bill. All the staff is good, but Mike is very special in my heart, and I thank him. This bill reflects regional, environmental and Political balance. Every single American will benefit from the water resources improvements provided for in this legislation. Our Nation's water infrastructure is critical to both the economic and environmental health of our Nation and the proposal before us today provides for continued improvement in both of these areas. I am particularly proud of the new course that the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 charts on the environment. WRDA '96 is the ``greenest'' Corps bill in the history of the republic. Perhaps since the original 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, no Congress has placed a greater emphasis than the 104th Congress on using the Corps of Engineers' considerable engineering expertise to improve the environmental quality of our Nation's lakes, rivers, and harbors. Nearly 25 percent of all the funding in this bill will go to environmentally sensitive water infrastructure programs and projects. The legislation before us also seeks to maximize the amount of flood protection we receive for our Federal resources by changing the Federal-local cost share from 75 percent Federal-25 percent local to 65 percent Federal-35 percent local. This change in cost share is also viewed by members of the environmental community as a step toward ensuring that the wisest path for flood control management is pursued. I strongly support this adjustment and believe it demonstrates this committee's commitment to sensible fiscal and environmental policies. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996, beyond its impressive environmental mission, also ensures that our Nation's ports and rivers will continue to be efficient conduits for commerce. Many claim that water transportation is the most efficient form of transportation in this country, and with the passage of WRDA '96, our Nation will enjoy this efficient mode of transportation well into the next century. Though we often take it for granted, most of the fuel we consume and the food we eat has traveled on our Nation's waterways. I think it is evident from my remarks I am very proud of the bipartisan water resources bill, not just because I am privileged to serve as chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, but because I am privileged to work with people like the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski]; Republicans and Democrats alike, taking seriously the people's business and the mission of shaping responsible public policy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give this bill the overwhelming and enthusiastic support it deserves for all the right reasons.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his support, and I want to thank the ranking minority member for the interest he has evidenced in this. Before I sit down, I want to say on behalf of all of my colleagues how much we appreciate the work of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and all the great work the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] did over the years. It has been a pleasure for all of us to work with them, and I say, both of these gentlemen are going to be deeply missed. amendment offered by mr. klug Mr. Klug. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Petri amendment. This amendment is just common sense. It applies the principles of fiscal responsibility and cost-benefit analysis that the project's supporters always claim to support. And it protects an environmentally precious area from needless degradation--another goal to which we all claim allegiance. Let's look at the economic issues first. The project would return only 36 cents for every dollar invested. Who reached that conclusion? Not an opponent of the project, but its sponsor--the Bureau of Reclamation. And not only does the project have a laughable cost-benefit ratio, it has already exceeded its indexed cost ceiling--and that's without factoring in the usual cost overruns. How can we balance the budget if we fail to pull the plug on projects that cannot justify their costs or live within a budget? But this project would not only provide inadequate benefits, it would cause actual and irreparable harm. It would divert almost half the flow in one of the last free-flowing rivers in the West. It would destroy numerous wetlands. It would jeopardize the existence of endangered species. It would cause water quality violations in New Mexico. It is no wonder that a broad coalition of taxpayer and environmental groups are calling for passage of this amendment. The arguments are compelling. Vote for the Petri amendment and pull the plug on wasteful and environmentally damaging Federal spending.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of engaging the chairman in a brief colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by recognizing the efforts to produce a water and energy appropriations bill that continues the Federal commitment to improving our Nation's water infrastructure. As the chairman of the House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I share the gentleman's strong interest the quality of America's harbors, reservoirs, rivers, canals, locks, and dams. Water infrastructure, as we all know, is a critical component of this Nation's economic and environmental future and the bill before us today reflects this reality. As my colleagues know, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reported the 1996 Water Resources Development Act this week, and is likely to consider this legislation on the House floor next week. Included in WRDA 1996 is a measure that is critical to the public health of 9 million Americans. That is section 554, the New York City Watershed Program. WRDA 1996 authorizes $25 million for the Corps of Engineers to carry out critical water-related environmental infrastructure projects in the 2,000 square mile New York City Watershed. Through this and other targeted programs in the watershed we will be able to protect the drinking water supply for 9 million Americans while saving $8 billion in unnecessary filtration expenditures. This point bears repeating--we will be able to protect the drinking water supply for 9 million Americans and save taxpayers over $8 billion through the New York City Watershed Program. It is my understanding that the chairman understands the critical nature of the New York City Watershed Program authorized in WRDA 1996 and that funding this program will be a priority in conference. Is my understanding correct?

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, there is a very basic reason why this House by a vote of 328-99 just rejected an amendment to eliminate funding from EDA. Let me point out that this is an increase in support for EDA over last year. Why? Because EDA is an agency who has as its mission preserving existing jobs and creating additional jobs in areas of distress. Let me point out that we are cutting back military installations all over this country to save dollars. EDA has 27 percent of its total budget allocated to help these distressed communities recover from this devastating blow. Mr. Chairman, the favorite four-letter word of many of us in this Chamber, and it is a word you can use in polite company, that favorite four-letter word is jobs. EDA, the Economic Development Administration, is an agency that has proven year after year that it is working with communities in partnership to help preserve jobs, to help create new jobs, and it very much deserves our support.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's motion is a motion to instruct the House conferees to express the House position, a position developed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, so it is always a pleasure for me to stand on the floor of this House and to thank my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], when he is endorsing a position taken by the subcommittee that I am privileged to chair. I do not have a problem with his language, not at all. Our committee included that language regarding the 75-percent trigger in the safe drinking water bill precisely to address the same type of concerns, real or perceived, that the gentleman has raised. Title V of the House- passed drinking water bill will supplement, not undermine, let me stress that, supplement, not undermine the State revolving fund. Everyone agrees our priorities should be to capitalize the State revolving fund. The 75-percent trigger is just one of several safeguards to ensure this remains a priority. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat, I am pleased to stand on this floor and thank the gentleman from Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Committee on Commerce, for recognizing the work of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is through these partnerships that we address a very important national problem and get some results. I want to comfort my colleague by reminding him that there are no earmarks in this bill, that the funding is contingent upon Congress first appropriating adequate amounts for the State revolving fund, and the grants program is intended for hardship communities and areas. My distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, I think would agree that they are the communities that deserve the most consideration as we try to go forward and guarantee a cleaner, safer, healthier environment for all Americans. We have worked well together, and I am pleased to support the gentleman's instructions.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, as I rise in opposition to this amendment, I would say to my colleagues that this is just pandering to base instincts. Quite frankly, what we should learn from the lessons of the past is that we should treat ourselves and treat judges and Cabinet-level and senior executive service members and other high-level officials of the Government the same way we treat the custodians of the building, the custodians of every other building. We should have the same cost of living adjustments on a regular basis as they do. What we do, we defer it year after year after year, thinking we are appealing to everybody, and then we say we are going to play catch-up ball and we propose 15- or 20-percent increases and everybody gets upset about it and rightly so. This is an ill-advised amendment. We have already saved $53 billion in spending, $53 billion in a year and a half in this Congress. That is movement in the correct direction.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which won the 1996 Public Employees Roundtable Public Service Excellence Award in the Federal Category. FEMA's Disaster Assistance Program faced stiff competition as one of 300 entries considered by the Public Employees Roundtable. After watching FEMA at work following January flooding in my district, it comes as no surprise to me that FEMA won. When eight of the nine counties of my district in New York State were devastated by winter flooding, FEMA staff rallied to our aid. James Lee Witt, FEMA administrator, and New York Governor George Pataki personally accompanied me on a tour of flood ravaged areas, to see and experience the problem and commit themselves to being part of the solution. FEMA was magnificent. Flooding occurred on a Friday and Saturday. FEMA Region II, under Director Lynn Canton, was providing technical assistance to New York State officials on Friday, monitoring the situation and laying the groundwork for the communications, organization and logistics so necessary for an effective recovery effort. And within 10 days of the flood, families who applied for aid were receiving checks. This timely response was invaluable as communities with limited resources struggled to cope with overwhelming devastation. Equally invaluable is the continuing support FEMA provides. Four months after the flood, FEMA is still on the job and my office is in daily contact with the Disaster Field Office in our State capital. This office performs follow-up work on projects and provides guidance to State and local governments as well as to citizens who are still rebuilding. In addition to my personal experience working with FEMA, as chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over Stafford Disaster Assistance programs, I know from a broader perspective how well FEMA does in the field. From earthquakes to floods to hurricanes, this is a Federal agency that prides itself on responding quickly and efficiently. Apart from natural disasters, FEMA also is on hand when man-made disasters strike. The bombing in Oklahoma City is a case in point. In the midst of grief and horror, FEMA staff helped the victims and residents of that shocked city in their recovery efforts. The human spirit is capable of amazing things in times of trouble. With FEMA at the helm, that also can be said of the U.S. Government. In an era when government bashing is a popular sport in some quarters, FEMA shows us the importance of coordinated Federal efforts to overcome adversity. They do us proud.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would add we have already debated this issue and we passed by a voice vote my substitute amendment. Keep in mind, the Markey amendment is antienvironment because it would slow and in some instances actually halt cleanup. We do not want to do that. It is antismall business, and we certainly do not want to be antismall business. Even the administration agrees that we should provide exemption for small business. And it would be antilocal government. The level of government that is most financially strapped. Why would anyone in their right mind voluntarily enter into a consent decree to clean up while we are deliberating endlessly on Superfund reform? They would hold out. We would have no cleanup. It does not make sense from an environmental standpoint, it does not make sense from a business standpoint, it does not make sense from local government standpoint. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes because I know the chairman and the ranking member of the committee have been working very hard and we have all been here for a long time on this very subject. It is an important subject, so we should discuss it in detail. But all that needs to be said has been said pretty much. I would like to add just a couple of thoughts. The Boehlert amendment makes it absolutely clear once and for all that the retroactive liability discount is dead. Please, no more stories about paying polluters. It is all over. Finished. I never supported it in the first place, and it is behind us. It has been for 5 months. The negotiations have gone forward on Superfund reform without any discussion of retroactive liability discounts. Second, the Boehlert amendment preserves the right of Congress, that is a very precious right, to develop bipartisan Superfund legislation that will provide needed relief, liability relief to thousands of small businesses and small communities across the country. We want to get them out of the courts, we want to get them out of the law offices, and we want to get the emphasis on cleaning up toxic waste sites. I think the Markey amendment would actually undermine the most important administrative Superfund reforms being sought by the Environmental Protection Agency. I think we should move forward. This is a responsible pro-environment, pro-small business, pro-small community substitute amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me get to these points and then I will be glad to yield to my friend because we are good friends and we work together on these things and usually on environmental issues we see eye to eye. I do not know how the gentleman got misguided in this instance. We want to say to people who have stepped up to the plate and have accepted their responsibility, good for you, and if we pass legislation that provides some relief for small business, that is going to allow some assistance to these small businesses. That is very important, and we are going to say something else. Mr. Chairman, this may never become law. My colleagues know how we deal in this institution. We may end up never having this measure law, and if we never have this measure law and we go on with a continuing resolution, the Markey language would prevail and never more could we provide any liability relief for small businesses and for municipalities, those communities across the country that are so hard- pressed to make ends meet. And what would they have to do? They would have to go to their taxpayers, their property taxpayers. What a lousy way to raise money, increase their property taxes, all if this amendment as proposed passes. But I do not think it is going to pass, because I think people recognize that we have an obligation to go forward in a responsible way. Now, to those who argue that we do not have a plan to deal with the subject, let me point out, a year ago I presented a plan, a very good plan that a lot of people embraced. Now, you know what the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency said in response to an examination of my plan? This is Carol Browner. I think she should be Secretary Browner, because I think EPA is very important, and I think it should be a Cabinet level agency. She said, Boehlert's proposal is something the Clinton administration would feel very, very comfortable with. It is a very attractive proposal. It goes a long way toward removing lawyers from the system, and I think it is a wise and informed position. Now, let me make this one point, this one point. The point is, and this is why I say it is grand theater. It is disturbing to so many of my good friends on the other side of the aisle that Republicans are acting in a responsible manner dealing with an environmental issue, because guess what? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel they own that issue, and we are the bad guys, we are uncaring and insensitive and we do not want to address in a responsible way the environment, but that is wrong, we do, and we are proving it. Yesterday we proved it with safe drinking water legislation. Today we are proving it as we are urging with all of the compassion that we can find that we have meaningful Superfund reform, and I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], his proposal would not allow that.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman brought that up. I am glad the gentleman brought that up, and reclaiming my time, because my good friend from Massachusetts brought me to my next point, here is the deal there, and it is very important to remember this. We are opposing restrictions on liability relief, as is the administration. Let me point that out. The administration wants to have some liability relief. Because, guess what? Some people have stepped up to the plate, they have assumed their responsibility, they are going to fulfill their responsibility.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Only if you will support that amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in strong opposition to the Markey amendment. Before I get into the meat of my argument, let me just make a couple of points. This is sort of grand theater here tonight. We have witnessed that for the last 48 hours. What really disturbs the new minority is that they are not yet adjusted to the fact that they are in the minority, no longer in the majority, and that the majority is stepping up to the plate and addressing in a responsible way very important environmental issues. For example, the new minority keeps saying the new majority wants to pay the polluters. That is unmitigated nonsense, plain and simple. We are talking about a so-called retroactive liability discount scheme that was floated about several months ago and we rejected it. It is off the table. No one agrees that we should have retroactive liability discount, because we do not want to pay the polluters. Everyone agrees to that. Now, the concept of should those who pollute pay be embraced? You are darn right it should be. We should force those who pollute to pay, because we have an obligation to our children and future generations to leave them with a cleaner, safer, healthier environment, and we intend to do just that. However, my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the author of this amendment, suggests that the present program should be left intact; do not make any adjustments. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the gentleman from Massachusetts talk to his President and my President, the fellow who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He thinks there should be some changes and has provided some money in the budget for liability relief. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, a woman for whom I have the greatest of respect and I work with on a partnership basis, Carol Browner, thinks there should be some liability relief, and I agree with her. Here is who we should relieve. We should relieve those small business people, the innocent people who are victimized and caught up in this scheme. I am not just saying that, you are saying that, your administration is saying that, Carol Browner is saying that, President Clinton is saying that, we are all saying that. However, under Mr. Markey's amendment, oh, no, we do not want to provide any relief for anybody, we want to keep it as it is because we have just heard from another colleague that the system is working quite well. I do not know many people in America that think Superfund reform is working as intended, and believe me, it was well intended, because we want to clean up toxic waste sites. That is very important to all of us. But the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] says things are all right and some of those people who are supporting his amendment seem to conclude that it is all right. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of the subcommittee I am privileged to chair, keeps coming up with the old saw that we are going to pay polluters. I would say to the gentleman that he knows we have no intention of doing so. The gentleman and I agree that that would be lousy policy, and, boy, we are not going to pay those polluters, nor should we. And guess what, fellow Republicans? I know my colleagues have examined that idea and agree that we should not pay them, but should we pay some liability relief? You are darn right. Do my colleagues want to know why? Because the American people are sick and tired of spending all of their time in the courts with their lawyers, everybody suing everybody and these toxic waste sites are not being cleaned up. What about my kids? What about my grandchildren and future generations? We want to leave them with a cleaner, a healthier, a safer environment. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues what is wrong with the Markey amendment. There is a lot wrong with it. First of all, let me increase your comfort, because we are going to eliminate any possibility whatsoever that we can pay polluters, because I am going to offer a substitute amendment pretty soon, and I am sure my colleagues will support that, because we are going to make it abundantly clear to one and all and to history that no way are we going to pay polluters. We are going to make sure that retroactive liability discount scheme never surfaces again, nor should it. That is good news.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to reclaim my time, I am going to let the gentleman continue, because this is grand theater.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. No, I am just listening with rapt attention.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very much for those comforting words, because we are talking about something that has broad implications affecting the water supply for 10 million people. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], who has worked with me on this very important matter.