Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield further, because it is the gentleman's time, the fact of the matter is this is not my opinion. It is prominent scientists. The 17 scientists who developed the Academy of Sciences report on wetlands estimate 60 percent of our Nation's wetlands will be lost if we adopt the committee bill. I agree with the chairman; I have the highest regard for the chairman. That is why we are trying to incorporate in our amendment special exemptions for agriculture, and we are trying to address the needs of Governors and State and local governments.

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield, let me stress, on page 21 of the Boehlert amendment, there is a whole list of exemptions for agriculture. Given the choice, we understand human nature, given the choice of no regulation or some regulation, what are people going to choose? Obviously, no regulation. But the fact of the matter is there are 250 million Americans from coast to coast who are concerned about drinking water, who are concerned about flooding, who are concerned about tourism and fishing, who are concerned about so many things that are ignored.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I would be more than happy to.

Mr. BOEHLERT. But the gentleman is forgetting the frequency part of the definition. That is important.

Mr. BOEHLERT. No, it would not, because that was manmade, and it is frequency that the gentleman is ignoring. That was a one-time occurrence.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this committee will serve without compensation. This committee will serve----

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. It is there to serve in an advisory capacity.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing up that issue which does not directly affect the wetlands debates on the Boehlert amendment, but I want the gentleman to know that I strongly support the position taken by the gentleman from New York, and I strongly support the language in the committee report referred to by the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. We have addressed the special concerns of agriculture in America and the committee bill does that. The wetlands provision that I am introducing and we are debating right now contains the same exemptions as does the committee bill, plus we add a new exemption for repair and construction of tiles which are so very important to agriculture. So I thank the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. BOEHLERT. The fact of the matter is this House has spoken on the issue of takings and on the issue of private property rights. That matter is now before the Senate. What is resolved between the House and the Senate will apply to this matter, and you know it.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding. I always enjoy listening to him. He is very eloquent. But I would remind my colleague that if you refer to a peach as a banana and keep referring to a peach as a banana, it does not make a peach a banana.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to read from the exemption section of my substitute: ``exemptions are for the purpose of maintenance, including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts of currently serviceable structures, such as dikes, dams, levees, flood control channels or other engineered flood control facilities, water control structures, water supply reservoirs, where such maintenance involves periodic water drawdowns which provide water predominantly to public drinking water systems, groins, riprap, breakwaters.'' The point is, you have a legitimate concern and we have addressed it in the Boehlert amendment. I wanted to share that language with you so I think that perhaps you might be supportive of the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California raised some legitimate concerns. We are sort of feverishly checking through these.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate that. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], I would like to point out that the estimate of 60 percent loss of the Nation's wetlands comes from William M. Lewis, Jr., Chair, who is professor and Chair of the department of environmental population at the University of Colorado. That statement was made at the public briefing provided for Members of Congress, their staff, and the news media. I was there. A limited number of Members of Congress, a lot more staff, and a lot of media, and that is why the media has picked up on this 60 percent loss of wetlands, because it comes from the Chair of the committee, a very distinguished scientist. I have no idea if he is a Republican or a Democrat or a green or a brown or whatever he is, but I know he is concerned about our environment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate what is now happening, because both cloakrooms have indicated that there will be no votes this evening, and consequently Members understandably have remained in their districts or with their families. At a time when we have scheduled debate on one of the most sensitive environmental issues not just of the day or the week or the month, of the year, but probably of this generation. We are talking about the Clean Water Act amendments, the Clean Water Act of 1972, which history demonstrates has been one of the most successful pieces of environmental legislation in history. What we should have, what the American people are entitled to, is spirited debate, give and take. Those who have problems with the Clean Water Act amendments should have the opportunity to present those problems on the floor. Those who have proposed solutions, and I am among that group, should be able to offer their proposed solution. But the problem is, because of the change from last Thursday, when we were told we would go into session today at 5 o'clock, and then we would have votes on the Suspension Calendar, then we would proceed with this very important debate, and people had every right to expect that the People's House would take up one of the most serious issues of this Congress and we would have good attendance, we would have good participation, and we would go about the people's business in a responsible manner. But as I say, the Cloakrooms have advised Members that no votes are intended this evening. So we have here a few die-hard, spirited individuals. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] always can be there and counted on, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], a few Members who are here because they really care. The Members who are not here really care too. This is not to fault them. We have been working at a hectic pace since the first of the year, since January 4. This House has done outstanding work for the first 100 days of this historic 104th Congress. We have dealt with a balanced budget amendment, we have dealt with welfare reform and a line-item veto, the list goes on and on. This House has been responsive, has been dealing in a serious manner with serious issues. Now we have another serious issue that deserves that serious attention. But unfortunately we are going to have to carry over until tomorrow, so that the Members can come back from their districts, their meetings, and their families and participate as they should, as they want to participate. The amendment I am offering is designed to streamline current law while continuing to safeguard vital wetlands. It is in full the National Governors' Association language on wetland protection. Let me repeat this: My amendment is the National Governors' Association language on wetland protection. Now that deserves special emphasis, because I think one of the messages of November 8, 1994, is that the American people are saying to us, loudly and [[Page H4940]] clearly, that Washington is not the source of all wisdom. They want those of us who have special responsibility here in our Nation's Capital to reach out across America, to deal with State and local governments in a responsible manner, and to ask of them input and guidance as we develop national policy that will apply in like manner to all, and we have done that. This amendment, the Boehlert wetlands amendment, contains the National Governors' Association language in full. And it is identical to the proposal I made as parts of last Wednesday's substitute. Let me point that out once again. It is identical in language as it deals with wetlands to the proposal I made as part of last Wednesday's substitute, which earned 184 votes. There would have been more. People said to me well, you have a very comprehensive package, I like certain component parts, particularly as you deal with wetlands, but I cannot accept the entire package. One hundred eighty-four did, and boy did we defy the odds. People said, ``Boehlert, you are not going to get more than 100 votes; it's a done deal.'' We got 184, and there are more waiting, there are more waiting, because they have been listening to America. They have been reading editorial comment across this Nation. And they recognize that we have a special responsibility.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman read the substitute. What you are referring to is an amendment, a broad-based amendment considered last week by the House. We earned 184 votes. We did not get the majority, but we earned 184. I would assume all of those would stay with us as we go on with the wetlands. But when you more narrowly look at the wetlands issue, as we have done in this specific amendment, and when you specifically address the needs of agriculture, and I am proud to serve as chairman of the northeast agriculture caucus, I am very mindful that our farmers are among our best stewards of our land, and I wanted to work with them and not against them.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to emphasize that we start from the same premises as the drafters of H.R. 961 did. Keep in mind, I am privileged to serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment. I have been through the entire deliberations. I have chaired seven hearings, six in Washington, DC, to which we brought experts from all over the country, and one specifically geared to nonpoint-source pollution in upstate New York. Seven hearings, experts from all over America, from all walks of life came before us. So we start as the drafters of H.R. 961, the committee bill, did, with the same premise. We want to remove redtape, to increase local control, to address the legitimate concerns of farmers and other property owners, but unlike H.R. 961, we have managed to accomplish those goals without allowing the wholesale elimination of more than half of our Nation's wetlands. During last week's debate opponents of the National Governors' Association wetlands proposal often mischaracterized it, so let me lay it out right at the outset how this amendment, the National Governors' Association proposal, would reform current law. First, our amendment recognizes the needs of farmers. Agriculture is vital to the American economy, and we recognize it. Our amendment not only includes each and every agriculture exemption granted by H.R. 961, the committee bill, but it also adds an additional exception for the repair of tiles. Second, our amendment increases local control, very important. Not everything coming from Washington, not all of the decisionmaking coming from Washington. We say we are partners with State and local governments and we want to increase local control. Our amendment makes it easier and faster for States to become the permitting authority for their wetlands. Third, our amendment does not create any new regulating entity. The coordinating committee that was referred to in last week's debate is an advisory body that includes State and local representatives as well as Federal officials. State, local, Federal, serving on an advisory panel. Fourth, our amendment speeds the regulatory process, and boy is this long overdue. We provide a fast-track permitting process that would require decisions involving wetlands of 1 acre or less within 60 days, 2 months, no longer. Fifth, our amendment provides a reasonable appeals process. You have to have an appeals process. If you do not like the decision, where do you go for an appeal? We provide a mechanism for that. In fact we have exactly the same administrative appeal provisions as the committee bill, H.R. 961. These are real reforms, reforms the Nation's Governors have requested. What neither the Governors nor the public have requested is the wholesale elimination of wetlands; what neither the Governors nor the public have requested is a bill that cavalierly ignores the findings of science; what neither the Governors nor the public have requested is a wetland regime that threatens our tourism and fishing industries and increases the likelihood of flooding. A lot has been said these past few days about the last elections. To my knowledge, the public did not vote for dirty water, did not vote for environmental destruction, did not vote for the end of any sense of common good. What the public did vote for is a reduction in the size of the Federal Government, an end to overreaching regulation, and a reversion of local control. We have responded to that vote in this amendment. I will not belabor this. We have been through it many, many times. But H.R. 961 poses a false choice between regulatory reform and environmental protection. Both are possible simultaneously. Both are accomplished in this moderate, sensible, bipartisan amendment that would codify the National Governors' Association proposal.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I do not want to point out a misstatement. I think it was inadvertent. The Federal, State and local government coordinating committee, contrary to what was alleged, does not have any regulatory authority. It serves in an advisory capacity only. Why did we create it? To reduce duplication, to resolve potential conflicts and to efficiently allocate manpower and resources at all levels of government.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member. I would like to respond to my distinguished colleague from Alaska because he made several points that need to be addressed. First of all, he said this is not the National Governors' Association language; it is written by some bureaucrat someplace. Let me point out here that I will submit at the proper time for the Record a letter from the National Governors' Association. Let me read a couple of excerpts.