Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. The letter is March 28. The gentleman from California has the time. He has yielded some time to me, and I am going to respond to that. The letter is addressed to me: We have been greatly encouraged by your willingness, as well as that of Representative Shuster and others in the bipartisan group, to include States in the development of

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the pages if they would return to the easel with that very dramatic permit process chart because I would like to use it for a moment. All the work that went into the preparation of this chart, I do not want it to go to waste. Let me tell my distinguished vice chairman from Tennessee I could not agree more with him. The American people are overtaxed and overregulated, and this is exactly, this convoluted maze is exactly, why we need the Boehlert amendment, because we want to change the permitting process. We want to give more control, more authority, to State governments. We want to bring them into the process, and he talks about the problem people in Tennessee have, people around the country, with, as my colleagues know, pieces of land one-eighth acre. I could not agree more with him; he is absolutely right. That is why the Boehlert amendment provides the fast-track provisions for all property across this country of 1 acre or less. The permitting process would take no longer than 60 days, the clock would start running, and, boy, the American public is entitled to a swift and complete answer from the Government, and it would be provided under the Boehlert amendment. I would also like to point out one last thing, and then I will sit down. Over 90 percent of the permits applied for are approved, over 90 percent. There is only a small fraction that causes some problems and causes some delays.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding and for the very fine work he has contributed to the work of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. A couple of things I want to point out: First, the Boehlert amendment includes the same exemptions for agriculture as the committee bill. One of the reasons why it does is that the gentleman from Missouri has been so persuasive, so we have included those same exemptions as the committee bill. Plus we have added an exemption in response to a concern expressed by our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham] to deal with repair and construction of tiles on agriculture land. I would also point out this convoluted committee that creates so much concern is an advisory committee. What we do is reach out to the States, to the Governors, and to local governments and say we are going to work with you, Federal, State, and local government, but we are shifting the decisionmaking authority from Washington to the States. Two States right now have performed in an exemplary manner: One is New Jersey and the other is Michigan. I think more States should follow their lead. I could not agree more with the gentleman from Missouri. Washington is not the source of all wisdom, and agriculture is important, and both of those facts are recognized in the Boehlert amendment. I thank the gentleman for his generosity.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to allay the gentleman's concerns, because the Boehlert amendment provides a specific exemption for grazing land, so I say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], I want you to know we addressed your concern. Let me tell you who is outraged. The American people are outraged by the prospect of eliminating 60 percent to 80 percent of our Nation's wetlands.

Mr. BOEHLERT. We include representatives from the National Governors' Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, in an advisory capacity. In effect, what we say is, ``Come let us reason together.''

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, because I could not agree more with the gentleman about the excess of bureaucracy and regulations in Washington. That is precisely why we crafted the Boehlert amendment in the manner in which we did. We do not create a huge new bureaucracy. What we do do is create an advisory committee, composed of a representative from the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties. What we want to do is bring these people in in an advisory capacity. Second, we agree with you that there have been loose definitions of what a wetland really is. That is why we tried very hard to delay action until we had the benefit of the National Academy of Sciences report, which was just released last week. The National Academy of Sciences report really says in the committee bill the basis for defining wetlands has no scientific basis whatsoever. It is by the seat of their pants. What we are trying to do is have good science define wetlands. I am not mad at the scientists of America. I want to use them to the best advantage, and have common sense prevail, as the gentleman wishes, too. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will further yield, my puzzlement is, what do the opponents have against good science? We have finally received a long-awaited report, 2 years in the making, over $1 million in expenditure to develop this report. Incidentally, the prominent scientists that participated were not paid. They produced a report that was released to the American people last week, ``Wetlands, Characteristics and Boundaries.'' Among other things, they point out something that you have done repeatedly, that there are different wetlands in different areas of the country. If I may read for just a moment from an excerpt on a report, The United States contains many different kinds of wetlands, from the cypress swamps of Florida to the peatlands of northern Minnesota and from mountainous headwaters to tidal salt marshes. The differences among wetlands in various parts of the country account for much of the difficulty in wetlands delineation. Wetlands regulation--a source of considerable friction between private landowners and the Federal Government--is needlessly complicated by multiple definitions, field manuals and agency responsibilities. The use of a single regulatory definition, a single manual to identify wetlands-- Keeping in mind the geographic differences-- And, even more ambitiously, the consolidation of regulatory authority within a single Federal agency would improve the regulation of wetlands substantially.

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield further, there is nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing, let me repeat, nothing in the committee bill that refers to science. What are we afraid of? We spent $1 million in 2 years to hear a report from the National Academy of Sciences, and we are ignoring it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have found repeatedly that America's farmers are among the best stewards of our land. They drink the water that we drink, they breathe the air that we breathe. They want to be responsible, but they lack the resources. And, very honestly, and I think everyone here will admit that under the present State revolving fund program, not one dime goes to American farmers to give them a helping hand. I want to guarantee that they know that there is a source of money that is fenced off for them. They can apply for it, they can use it. They can help be part of the solution. That is what they want to do. But, as I said earlier, the farmers of America are tired of our sanctimonious sermons coming from Washington, on this great hill, the citadel of freedom, telling them very pompously, ``We want you to be part of the solution. But, incidently, we are not going to give you any money to solve the problem.'' That is not responsible. So I fail to see why my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma would not accept the perfecting amendment that does not add one penny to the total bottom line amount. Not one penny. It just says for the first time, after this great deliberation in our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, after I worked hand in glove with the chairman to develop something that was going to be meaningful. And it passed with not one dissenting vote. Nobody voted against it. Every single member of that committee, Democrat, Republican; liberal, conservative; supported the Boehlert amendment, because they said you are right, we have got to do something to recognize the problem, and we have got to do it with more than just words and good intentions.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] once again, now that he has had a chance to reflect upon this, if he might see a different perspective to it; and, as the gentleman approaches the podium, I want to remind him, we are not adding one penny to the bottom line. What we are adding is something the gentleman has fought vigorously for, as you have campaigned, and I welcome you here to be part of the new majority, you said during that campaign you want to return more authority to local government. Boy, I agree with the gentleman 100 percent. The gentleman said during his campaign he wants to cut down as much as possible the Federal spending. I could not agree more with the gentleman. I, too, want to cut down as much as possible Federal spending. The gentleman has said, and I have said, we want to march together, to go forward, to help American agriculture, and I want to do that. So I would ask the gentleman if, upon sober reflection, if he has any new insights he would like to share with this distinguished body.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to know one of the reasons I am proceeding is we are trying to draft the language for the perfecting amendment, so we can all appreciate that sometimes takes a little time. We have got great scholars and wizards in the back room doing that. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Latham was here on the floor, my good and distinguished colleague and great friend from Iowa telling us of the problems of American agriculture. I serve as the chair of the Subcommittee on Water, Resources, and the Environment. We had a hearing in upstate Utica, NY, on this very subject, exclusively devoted to that subject of nonpoint-source pollution. We have talked to agriculture. Agriculture likes this initiative. They want us to get it in part of the final language, and so do I. So I know nobody, that, really sincerely, when they evaluate all the facts of this, would argue that we should turn our backs on American farmers. I am not going to do so. I am privileged to serve as chair of the Northeast Agriculture Caucus. In that capacity I work with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to listen to America's farmers, to work with them. I want to help them, and the perfecting amendment I am suggesting would be very much in order and would help them. amendment offered by mr. boehlert to the amendment offered by mr. largent

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat perplexed as I face this issue, and it probably is the plight of a moderate. I can appreciate what the chairman is trying to do to get to a lower figure to reflect the everyday realities, the fiscal realities, we have now, and I can support that. But I cannot support eliminating section 606, the State nonpoint-source water pollution control revolving funds, for a very basis reason. We have constantly preached to American agriculture that we want them to identify with the problem and be part of the solution, and quite frankly American agriculture is justified when they come back to us and say, ``Quit giving us the sanctimonious sermon. How about a little financial assistance? You want us to do things that are going to cost money. We don't have the money. How about helping us out?'' I think that is a legitimate request. So during the committee deliberations we debated long and hard on establishing a separate State nonpoint-source pollution revolving fund to the tune of $500 million. Give to the States the flexibility to use those funds to address the problem of nonpoint-source pollution, however, if there is a much higher priority and they want to use those funds for wastewater treatment plants, they can do so. So what we have said to the States and to agriculture is simply this: ``We have heard your pleas. On the one hand the States want flexibility. On the other hand agriculture wants some financial assistance.'' So we say we will accommodate both of those requests by setting up section 606, the nonpoint-source pollution revolving loan fund. Now with this amendment cutting back, and I understand the need to cut back; I am very sympathetic to what the ranking member has said and the chairman of the full committee has said. We know full well the legitimate needs that are out there all across America. It would take $130 billion if we are going to pass the funding right now as the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] has no eloquently stated, but we do not have that money. So we have to deal with the situation, not as we would like it, but as we are faced with it. So what I want to do is ask the author of the amendment if he is sympathetic to my basic request that we retain the section 606, State nonpoint-source pollution revolving fund, and if he would accept a perfecting amendment which would allow us to do so. Then when that is incorporated into his amendment, we can then go on to vote on the amendment as perfected, and everyone can vote as they best see fit.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, not so; not adding another drawer. It goes to the States. That is what the State revolving fund does. We send the money from Washington to the States. The States administer the State revolving fund. We are saying the same people administer it. Do not hire any more bureaucrats; we have enough of them. We are saying take that money and sort of put it over to the side, just like when you sit down and work out the monthly budget at home. You have so much for your mortgage, so much for your car payments, so much for your groceries. If you decide to earmark a specific amount for groceries, you do not go out and add new members to your family. You just sort of move that account over a little bit. What I am saying is let us demonstrate, colleagues, here on the floor of the House of Representatives, let us demonstrate in very tangible form that we want to work with American agriculture. We want to help America's farmers. Once again, let me repeat, they are the best stewards of the land that I know. I am privileged to represent a district where agriculture is very important, and I talk to farmers. I can go and talk to a farmer. A typical farmer in upstate New York might be milking 60 or 70 cows, a farmer, wife, maybe a couple of kids. Along comes somebody and says, Mr. Farmer, we are concerned about the quality of water. Guess what the farmer says? So am I. Then along comes this expert and says we know how to solve part of the problem. We would like you to maybe have a little buffer strip between your land where you are growing crops and where your pasture land is, and the river or stream, or put up a fence, or, maybe even more costly, a little manure management system. It is only going to cost you $10,000. The farmer looks you in the eye and says where in the hell am I going to get $10,000? We say we have set up a special fund. You can apply to your State government, not Washington, not those bureaucrats down there, but your State government. You can go to them and say here is the best management plan that I have worked out. I accept. I think it makes good sense. It is going to protect my land and your land; it is going to protect our water. Now, I would like to have a low-interest, long-term loan from the State revolving fund to help me do it. I think that makes an awful lot of sense.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is unfortunate, because the fact of the matter is what I am suggesting will not add $1, not $1, to the bottom line amount. But what it will add is flexibility for the Governors, and what it will do is guarantee for the first time that America's farmers have a source to apply to receive some assistance to follow through with instilling best management practices, doing the type of things that they want to do.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell you the everyday practical politics of it. Not one penny has gone to farmers. There are all the pressures on the State capitals and the people administering those fund dollars for funds for wastewater treatment plants. If you have this fund fenced off and they say this is what we collectively have agreed on, the Federal Government, the State government, we think this makes sense, I think it would help a great deal.

Mr. BOEHLERT. For this specific amendment only.

Mr. BOEHLERT. With this proviso.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if I may amend my unanimous consent request, the unanimous consent request is to withdraw this amendment at this point, with authority to revisit title VI for the purpose of this amendment only at a later date.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.