Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging the chairman of the committee in a colloquy. It is my understanding that the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] also would like to enter into part of this discussion. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee again for the excellent environmental section of this bill. This is something I know the chairman has worked on very hard, and I appreciate that, following through on what he did in his days as a California legislator. As we know, the House passed another excellent environmental bill yesterday, the Safe Drinking Water Act. That bill was passed by a voice vote and it authorized $16 billion for the New York City watershed, which is the water supply for nearly 10 million Americans. The Senate version of the bill, which passed unanimously, includes $15 million for the watershed. That money would implement a model agreement in which the watershed will be protected without imposing burdensome limits on development in my area, and without forcing the expenditure of $8 billion on the part of the city of New York on a new filtration plant. The program is a model because it relies on voluntary changes in land use policy to protect drinking water for the Nation's largest city. It is my understanding that the chairman is supportive of this agreement, and that funding the watershed agreement will be a priority in conference. Is my understanding correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in support of the point of order. The usually mild-mannered gentleman from New York is incensed by what my mild-mannered friend from New Jersey is saying. He is just at odds with the facts. The budget resolution creates a Superfund reserve fund. This reserve fund allows the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to increase the committee allocations when the Superfund taxes are extended and the program is reformed. That is what we are all about. We want to reform a program that everyone agrees is broken. It is deficit neutral, this fund, because it will come from the reauthorized Supefund business taxes. This bill sets the marker for the funding level that will be provided when these conditions are met. We are saying that we are committed, let me repeat that, we are saying that we are committed to fund a reformed Superfund at $2.2 billion and will use the extension of the Superfund taxes for that purpose. What we have said repeatedly from the beginning of this historic 104th Congress is that we want to reform Superfund. We have a plan; it is falling on deaf ears. Mr. Chairman, I support the point of order.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my colleague was a little bit conservative when she suggested that the filtration plant would cost $6 billion. As a matter of fact, we have had cost estimates as high as $8 billion. In addition to that, it would cost $350 million a year just for operation and maintenance. We are getting smarter around this institution. What we are proposing is a modest expenditure to save billions of dollars. I am comforted by the chairman's good words, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's support.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, like the gentlewoman from California, I strongly support NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. I view this program as a crucial piece of our Nation's commitment to environmental research and development. I would like to emphasize that Mission to Planet Earth is truly about science. As the chairman knows, the National Research Council stated that the science underlining the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program and Mission to Planet Earth is fundamentally sound. Does the chairman agree with this assessment?

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to yield for 30 seconds, because I want half of that time. This is fairness.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that what I am proposing would permit continued consent decrees to be entered into with the hope that some relief will be provided in the near future, because the Democrats and the Republicans are very actively seeking Superfund reform legislation this year. What the Markey amendment will do is provide a disincentive for anyone to settle and to begin to clean up, because they are going to hold out hope that some day in the future this will happen. I want to get in with Superfund cleanup so that we can have a cleaner, healthier, safer environment for our kids and our grandkids.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I would like to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone]. The proposal I advanced last July which was spoken so highly of by the Administrator of EPA would eliminate retroactive liability for 250 codisposal sites across the country, the idea being to get small businesses out from any liability and to get communities out from any liability, have the trust fund pay for the cleanup, because I want cleanup just as much as the gentleman does and this is a faster way to get the cleanup.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this is a good time to reclaim my time since we are talking about the halo over my head. I will reclaim my time, because that is a good note on which to close, referring to a halo over someone's head. Administrator Browner was not talking about me, and I would appreciate any kind words she would care to share about me, but she was talking about the Boehlert proposal. That is very important. We want meaningful Superfund reform. We want a cleaner, safer, healthier environment for our kids and grand kids, and I think we can get it if we deal in a responsible manner by voting for what I will soon offer as a responsible substitute to the Markey amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Would the gentleman entertain an request for an agreement on time? I know both the chairman and the ranking member are anxious to move this along. I would be receptive to an agreement on time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, is there an agreement on time for this amendment?

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield under his reservation of objection, if we have the current iteration of the Markey amendment, it is a movable target. There have been so many adjustments in the past 24 hours, I am not sure what we are talking about in terms of the Markey amendment. I would be glad to share my amendment.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, how do we address the Boehlert amendment, which will serve as a substitute for the Markey amendment?

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, we are getting smarter as we go along. We have developed a very good bill that responds to a legitimate need of the American people. That is to deal in a responsible manner with safe drinking water. The American people have said to us they want smaller, less costly, less intrusive government, and we are responding. But they do not want us to dismantle government and they for darn sure want us to be responsible in protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink, and the food we eat. This measure, the Safe Drinking Water Act, does just that. I would point out to my distinguished colleague from California this bill does not, let me repeat, this bill does not contain any earmarks. The bill does not include any site- specific provisions. EPA and the States have the authority to select their own priorities. Let me make that abundantly clear. This bill does not have any earmarks. This bill has some language making recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency, but the Environmental Protection Agency is given free rein to make the best possible judgments consistent with the objectives of this legislation. Let me also point out that, if Congress fails to appropriate at least 75 percent of the authorization for the grants program and if the States and localities do not come up with at least a 50/50 cost sharing match, two very responsible ways to deal with the legislation, then all bets are off. It is important for all my colleagues following this debate very closely to understand this bill does not include any earmarks. What it does include is hope for communities all across this country who have said to us in no uncertain terms, please help us, please give us some resources so that we can do the job that our constituents have every right to expect us to do; that is, to protect the water we drink. We can go all around the world, and there are very few countries where you can do what I am about to do, reach over and grab a glass of water from a public water system. This is not any fancy imported water. This is from the Washington public water system. I can drink it knowing full well that I am not placing my health in jeopardy. Do you want to know why? Because we have the Environmental Protection Agency, because we have Federal employees implementing Federal regulations, operating under Federal law. Here is to you America. And we are going to do something more. We are going to protect that water supply.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding, and I do not wish to interrupt his fun, but I do appreciate his giving me a time to respond to some of his comments. The gentleman from Michigan is suggesting that what used to be called the Committee on Public Works which is now called the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this is the new era----

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman and my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I wish to come back to something that is very important, that we repeat several times to make certain all clearly understand this. This bill does not have any earmarks. That is very important. The funding for the grants program, incidentally, is in response to the demand, the cry, the plea from our Governors, our county officials, and our mayors that we come up with a grants program. The grants program is contingent on Congress first appropriating at least 745 percent of the amount authorized for the revolving loan fund. They are intended for hardship communities. Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle should be working hand in glove, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] has with me on this subcommittee as we have brought this out on a bipartisan basis, because we recognize there are communities that have legitimate needs and just do not have the wherewithal to address those needs. Thus, the creation of this grants program. It is a good program, and I urge my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to join me in supporting it.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues I helped author that provision, so I am going to be very supportive. Just let me say, despite what anyone might suggest, no one can convince me that this is a glass of vintage wine. This is a glass of water. We may call it vintage wine, we may repeat it over and over, but it does not change the fact it is still water. The fact of the matter is there is no pork in this bill. There are no earmarks.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is presiding over some very important hearings at this very hour dealing with aviation safety. Otherwise, he would be here.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I do wish to point out to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] that the retroactive liability discount that concerned him also concerned me. That is off the table. That is not part of our proposal. That is history, as it should be. Mr. Speaker, I do want my colleagues to know that I rise in support of the rule and in support of H.R. 3666. This bill increases the funding for the Environmental Protection Agency over the fiscal year 1996 spending levels. This is a good bill for the environment, and I urge Members to support it. I would like to commend Chairman Lewis and Chairman Livingston for providing $1.339 billion in funding for the current Superfund Program. I appreciate the constraints we face in this era of declining Federal spending. However, the cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites is very important and it must continue even though the statute that governs those programs is in desperate need of a major overhaul. I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and we could get together and have that meeting for Superfund reform. What our Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations have done is provide a mechanism that will allow increased funding for Superfund when we get a bill. Let me stress that: when we get a bill that overhauls Superfund in a way that requires additional funding and when the Superfund taxes go back into effect. In the budget resolution, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Kasich] provided a Superfund reserve account that allows him to increase the allocations of spending authority when new money is brought into the Treasury through the extension of those business taxes that fund the Superfund Programs. This reserve account will allow Chairman Lewis and Chairman Livingston to appropriate $2.2 billion, $861 million more than the current funding level for Superfund, without busting the budget. That is a responsible way to proceed. What the VA-HUD appropriations bill before us does is make the firm commitment that our Committee on Appropriations will appropriate that additional money after all the conditions are met. We are all committed to fully funding any reforms we make to the Superfund Program, and this bill demonstrates that we are ready, willing, and able to make good on those promises. Now, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], and I love them dearly, we work so well together, would like to call this promise smoke and mirrors. Well, it is not. The commitment to provide additional funding for a reformed Superfund is right there in black and white in the bill. All we need to do is agree on a Superfund reform package and reauthorize the Superfund taxes. So what are we waiting for? We are waiting for the administration and the leadership of the Democrat Party and the leadership of the Committee on Commerce from the Democrat side and the Democrat leadership of the Committee on Transportation to make good on their promises to work with us to achieve a fair and a responsible and fully funded reform of Superfund. Last year I was very hopeful that we could achieve a bipartisan agreement. I really felt good about it. As a matter of fact, in July 1995, I issued a proposal to reform Superfund liability by allowing the most complex sites to proceed to clean up directly without waiting for years of litigation and negotiation among hundreds of parties. I wanted to get out of the courts and get in the field and clean up these toxic waste sites. As a matter of fact, the EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, and I would love to call her Madam Secretary because I think that agency should be at Cabinet level, she called this proposal a very attractive proposal. Those are her words, not mine, but I was flattered. I agreed with her, as a matter of fact. She said it was one that the Clinton administration would feel very, very comfortable with, but the Administrator was pulled back by the political types at the White House. Quite frankly, I think somebody is whispering in the President's ear, shhh, do not do it. Do not do that Superfund reform. If you dare do it, then the Republicans will claim credit because they are in charge and they are the one that proposed it. Do not do it, Mr. President. Now, I am not one to question motivation, and I am not sure I have the inside track to the inside of the White House, but I think that is probably what happened. Now, if I were cynical, I would say there is a conscious effort to deny the Republicans, which are trying to go forward with responsible Superfund reform, with an opportunity to claim that we have done something meaningful in this very sensitive area. I would like to see us move ahead with Superfund reform. I think we are, I know we are very serious about it. We have been working very hard, long and hard, people like my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski, and I, have had hearings on this subject, extensive discussions. I know my friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who represents the southern part of the downriver area of Detroit is interested. We all are. Why are we not moving ahead with Superfund reform? We should be. Now is the opportunity. Let us do it, but this bill has the money to fund the program if we have the get up and go to do it.