Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. No, Mr. Chairman, it would not. My perfecting amendment would reduce it to $1.8 billion, and retain the section 606, which is $500 million. Here is what I would suggest we do for the good of the cause. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw the amendment, so we can continue the discussions between the chairman and the ranking minority member and the subcommittee chair and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and try to work this out. I do not think that there is any argument here, that we are trying to do something that demonstrates to American agriculture that we want to set up something that is earmarked specifically for their needs in addressing the problem of nonpoint source pollution, but we want to do it in such a way as to permit flexibility for the State Governors and the administrators of the State revolving fund. I would like to think that we are creative enough to accomplish both worthy objectives.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is my understanding.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to the amendment be modified, in the interest of clarity, so that my colleagues will understand, to strike $2.3 billion each place it appears in the bill and insert $1.8 billion. So what we do, in effect, is retain the section 606 that sets up this nonpoint source pollution revolving fund at $500 million, when added to the $1.8 billion totals the $2.3 has set as his ceiling. So that is the perfecting amendment. I would hope on a bipartisan basis the perfecting amendment can be accepted. Then we could have the vote on the Largent amendment as perfected and everyone can work as they wish.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, you cannot take anything away from nothing. That is what they are now getting, zero, zip, zilch, nothing. I want to say here is some hope. You might have an opportunity to get something. I think that serves our best interests. It serves the best interests of American agriculture, and I will urge support of my perfecting amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, no.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman maintains his objection, you, as a senior member of the committee of jurisdiction, know full well, because we have examined this very thoroughly in long, long hearings, American farmers are not getting one penny out of the State revolving fund to do some of the things that we are suggesting from on high here in Washington they should do to be part of the solution rather than just standing idly by and being perpetuators of the problem. We want to give them a source of money so that they can apply to their State government. We want to give their State government the flexibility that I think you and I would agree they should have to make the decisions at that level. Louisiana knows what is best for Louisiana, what is good for Louisiana, as does New York know best what is good for New York.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that would be the same formula as we had for the SRF.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, what I want my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana, to note is that the funds are interchangeable. This gives the flexibility to the State government, the State government agency administering the fund. As you well know, because you are a student of this, as you well know, presently farmers get zip from the State revolving fund, nothing. We are setting up something that says, We are responsive to your need for financial assistance. We will give the money in a State revolving fund. We will fence off $500 million for nonpoint source pollution. However, in recognition of your legitimate concern, we will give the flexibility to the State. The State can use all of that money for other than nonpoint source pollution, if that is its highest priority. But I would respectfully submit to the gentleman, and that has been pointed out to me by a number of my colleagues from agriculture States, that in many States they have done very will in terms of addressing the problem of waste water treatment plants. They have got what they need. But they need more assistance for nonpoint source pollution and they have not had the source.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a very interesting amendment. I think it should be very carefully considered. The purpose of my rising today is to address an undercurrent that is going on in the House right now. That undercurrent pertains to the vote last night on the coastal zone management program. There are a number of Members who are wondering what really is going to happen now that the House has spoken its will by a vote of 224 to 199. There are a lot of Members wondering what people outside this Chamber who have a vested interest in the success of this program are saying. So I thought it would be timely to share with my colleagues in the House a letter I have received just today from the Coastal States Organization which says: ``We are writing in great appreciation for the vote on the floor of the House yesterday in restoring and fixing the coastal nonpoint pollution control program during the debate on the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. Finally, through your amendment''--the letter is addressed to me--``we can address the critical problem of coastal nonpoint pollution in a manner that grants the coastal states, rather than the federal agencies, the flexibility and authority to determine which coastal waters are threatened or degraded, target the coastal nonpoint pollution program as well as prioritize which waters to address first, utilize voluntary measures first to address coastal nonpoint pollution rather than being required to implement mandatory requirements and start working to address this serious problem now, not five years from now.'' The letter from the Coastal States Organization goes on to say: ``Through your amendment, this program has been redesigned to be a state-implemented program. Thank you for taking this `states rights' approach and granting us the authority and flexibility to address this serious problem as the states deem appropriate as well as for saving over four years worth of work. Please convey our gratitude to all the Members of Congress who supported your efforts to restore and protect this nation's companies.'' Less than 24 hours ago, the House, by a decisive vote, voted to protect the coastal management program. Now the undercurrent in this Chamber indicates that there is a secretive plan to undo what we did. I want Members to know the Coastal States Organization does not want any secret plan to be implemented. The Coastal States Organization does not want any sleight of hand. The Coastal States Organization, with 30 States involved, representing tens of millions of people, are watching us, and they are saying ``Don't back down.'' I thought it was very important, so timely, to present this letter to this Chamber, so that we could all have the benefit of the wisdom of the Governors in the States and the people we are trying to effectively serve. What we are about today is addressing a most sensitive environmental and public health piece of legislation. Let no undercurrents undermine what we have already done.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for a very eloquent statement. I want to point out it is not just the 23 coastal States, also all the Great Lakes States are heavily involved and deeply interested in this. The Coastal States Organization represents 30, 30 coastal States, Great Lakes and coastal States, so it is very important. I thank the gentlewoman for a fine statement.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker did not extend the courtesy of yielding at the conclusion of his time. I would like to directly rebut a couple of comments he made. First of all he said the States do not want it. He is wrong. The States do want it. As matter of fact, the secretary of state for New York was in town today lobbying for this. I will tell you who wants it: every single coastal State up and down the east coast and west coast and on along the Gulf of Mexico and along the Great Lakes region. And second, and this is very important as my colleague knows, It is no secret, say the Coastal States Organization, that we have had complaints about this program. Nonetheless, we believe that the immediacy of the coastal nonpoint pollution program this is very important. The coastal States, 30 of them, have invested over 4 years of work in developing the 6,217 programs; they are nearly complete, with that program and it will be submitted in July. Why throw out, say the coastal States, 4 years of diligent work, throw it out the window 2 months before the completion date. I thank my colleague for yielding.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. If my distinguished chairman would yield one more time, I would point out my amendment fixes the problem you are referring to. That is exactly why the amendment deserves to be supported.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the reason it is very difficult to lift that very heavy document is because that is not a document that contains regulations, it contains options for the States.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will my colleague yield?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I think the last vote, the last recorded vote, indicates that there is strong sentiment for making some adjustments to H.R. 961, as reported from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. As a matter of fact, we had a 184 vote, indicating that people want some adjustment. I have been told that if we break down the overall package and bring some of the most important component parts before this body, we will have a better chance of achieving our objective. Therefore, we are doing just that. This amendment I am offering deals with the Coastal Zone Management Program. As we all know, the committee's bill repeals that very important program. The program cries out for reform, not repeal. nationwide than any other pollution source. Nearly half of all estuarine waters are impaired or threatened, mostly from nonpoint sources. Pollution has limited the harvest of over one-third of all shellfish beds in the United States, and more than 10,000 beaches, 10,000 beaches, were closed to the public over the past 5 years, and 46 out of 50 States have banned or issued health advisories on fish consumption, because of contamination from dangerous toxins. Clearly, this is a public health-public safety issue, as well as an environmental issue. The health costs pose even greater threats to the public welfare, not to mention the declining fisheries, the lost income, jobs for the tourism industry. Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act reauthorization amendments is the only enforceable program developed by Congress to prevent nonpoint source pollution. It was adopted in 1990 expressly to address polluted runoff in coastal areas by creating a State-Federal partnership to develop and implement coastal nonpoint source pollution control programs. Mr. Chairman, we look, and we have reached out to others beyond this institution, beyond this Nation's Capitol, for input. We have gone to those most directly affected by that. In this instance, we have been dealing with the Coastal States Organization, representing 30 coastal States, all up and down the east and west coasts of the United States and along the Gulf of Mexico. The Coastal States Organization has endorsed the coastal zone provisions that I am referring to in this amendment as a substitute to the Clean Water Act reauthorization as it remains silent on that issue. Actually, it is more than silent. It repeals it. Let me read from the letter of the Coastal States Organization; once again, 30 States, 30 Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, people who day in and day out have to live with this issue. The letter says: We are encouraged to hear you will offer an alternative package to the Clean Water Act reauthorization that would amend, rather than repeal, the coastal nonpoint pollution control program. . . . Runoff pollution causes significant economic harm. Commercial and recreational fisheries are being closed. Beaches are being closed to the public. Nonpoint pollution poses serious human health and safety concerns, while at the same time degrades wildlife habitat. This problem needs to be addressed now, before this country suffers further economic losses, health hazards, and environmental degradation. . . . We ``strongly support,'' says the Coastal States Organization, representing 30 States, 30 Governors, ``We strongly support your efforts to amend, not repeal, the nonpoint pollution coastal program established under section 6217 of'' the act. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to give this the very careful consideration it deserves. I know this has been a long day. It has been a good day, however, because the House has proven that we are spirited in debate, that competing ideas are considered, pro and con, and finally we will render a judgment in the people's behalf. I urge support of my amendment.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would defer to our colleague, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus], because I understand he has a noncontroversial amendment that will be accepted by both sides.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague. Mr. Chairman, now we come to the moment of decision. The vote on our amendment presents this House with a clear, stark question: Are we truly for reform of the Clean Water Act, or is the word reform simply an alias to mask the evisceration of our Nation's most successful environmental statute? That is the choice. If what Members want is to retreat on the Clean Water Act, support H.R. 961 as reported. However, if what they want is true reform of the Clean Water Act, this substitute provides it. Let me give some of the details that highlight the difference between reform and repeal. Let us look at the wetlands provisions. Are there problems with the wetlands provisions of current law? Of course there are. My district has wetlands, including agricultural wetlands. I know there are problems. How would H.R. 961 propose to deal with these problems? By allowing the wholesale elimination of wetlands, wetlands that purify our waters, and prevent flooding. Is that a remedy? And on what basis does H.R. 961 allow the destruction of these wetlands? Certainly not on a scientific basis. The National Academy of Sciences' distinguished panel on this issue has stated that the definitions in H.R. 961 have no scientific basis, and with all due respect to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] let me point out that these eminent scientists are not paid by the Environmental Protection Agency. There services are on a voluntary basis the Environmental Protection Agency only pays the National Academy of Sciences for printing and distribution of the report. The wetlands provisions of H.R. 961 would not reform current law. They would reform the surface of the Earth by allowing the destruction of precious wetlands. Our substitute on the other hand propose true reform. Where do our wetlands reform provisions come from? From the National Governors' Association, not exactly a bunch of tree-huggers. We give the States more control over the regulation of there own wetlands, local control, not Federal control. We take a sensible, middle-ground approach, State control to allow more sensible regulation without threatening essential wetland protection. Another example of real reform in our bill, control of coastal zone nonpoint source pollution. H.R. 961 would simply repeal the current program of protection. On what basis? None, really. You do not have to be a scientist to understand the problem runoff causes in coastal areas. All you have to be is someone who has not been able to go to a beach on a hot summer day because the beach was closed because of pollution; 10,000 beaches in America last year. Eliminating the coastal zone program is not reform. It would allow toxic substances to reform our Nation's beaches. But are there problems with current law? Of course there are. Our substitute would take care of those problems with real reform. States Organization, which represents 30 Governors of coastal States. Again not a bunch of environmental radicals. Here again we allow more State control to eliminate red tape while maintaining environmental protection. And what about stormwater runoff? Same situation. H.R. 961 would just pretend that stormwater does not cause pollution, despite all of the scientific evidence to the contrary. Are there problems with current stormwater law? Of course there are. We offer real reform. We create an exemption for cities with populations under 100,000 and for light industry. Regulations of these entities may not be worth the cost of compliance, and we recognize it. But we do not allow larger cities and major industries to just return to using our Nation's lakes and rivers as sewers. What about point source pollution? We cannot ignore this. More than 40 percent of the Nation's waters are still impaired, so in this case we do retain the provisions of current law. And what about the many other areas H.R. 961 would affect? In those areas 70 percent of the bill, our alternative, 70 percent of that bill retains the language of H.R. 961. There are many areas of agreement. Where H.R. 961 offers real reform, we adopt its provision. Where H.R. 961 raises the banner of reform to mask environmental degradation, we substitute real reform for sleight of hand. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bipartisan Saxton-Roemer- Boehlert amendment. It would accomplish exactly what the public is seeking. Our substitute will prevent environmental damage while lessening the burden of regulation. Our amendment substitutes pragmatism for ideology. Our amendment substitutes reform of regulation for its repeal. Our amendment substitutes hope for the future, not the abandonment of future generations. I urge passage of the bipartisan substitute alternative.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].