Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I would like to make two points. If it is the State of Minnesota that is giving you some problems, I suggest you deal with the State and not question the Federal law.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, the debate we begin today on the Clean Water Act is quite simply the test of whether the center can hold. We are faced on the one hand by the clean water statute that, despite its many strengths, has clear flaws that must be remedied. We are confronted, on the other hand, with a proposal that instead of simply repairing those flaws, rolls back existing protections, imperiling our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. Clearly, neither the status quo nor the proposed rewrite of the Clean Water Act are acceptable alternatives. What is needed is an approach that preserves our water resources without causing undue economic hardship. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and I will offer a substitute later today that offers just such an approach. What we have done is to take the best proposals being offered around town and combine them into one bill. Our litmus test has not been ideology, but practical input, which proposal was the most likely to reasonably protect our Nation's waters. For example, we have adopted the National Governors' Association proposal for wetlands protection, a solid middle ground position. H.R. 961, on the other hand, would allow the wholesale destruction of more than half the Nation's wetlands. That is not my opinion, that is what we learned from the scientists. We have just had a report yesterday from the National Academy of Sciences. That would mean increased flooding, less fresh water, and a decline in the fishing and tourism industries. Current law is too restrictive, and administratively burdensome. The Governors' proposal, which gives States a greater say over wetlands protection, is a sensible approach. It is also a cheaper approach, eliminating the need for a large Federal bureaucracy and a new entitlement through the takings provisions. Similarly, we have adopted the Coastal States Organization's proposal on coastal nonpoint pollution, which gives States a greater say over how to meet environmental requirements. H.R. 961 would repeal coastal zone protections, increasing the likelihood that beaches will have to be closed to the public, 10,000 were closed last year, and that runoff pollution will close commercial fisheries, threatening a $55 billion industry. The Coastal States Organization, a group of 30 Governors, has endorsed this provision of our substitute, because we amend the Clean Water Act to eliminate its excesses while retaining its protections. Let me stress that, we eliminate its excesses while retaining its protections. This is an approach we have taken throughout the bill, shopping around for the most sensible, rational approach, eliminating the bureaucracy and redtape of current law, which preventing the environmental degradation of H.R. 961. Such a centrist approach should be welcome in a country that is clearly sick of ideological warfare and hungry for solutions to our Nation's problems, a country in which 76 percent of the American people want us to do more to protect our Nation's waters, but are skeptical of overbearing Government. Perhaps that is why our substitute has broad bipartisan support. I look forward to the debate we will have this afternoon, because we will pass this substitute if good sense is allowed to triumph over ideology on both ends of the political spectrum. A lot of people think Republicans do not give a damn about the environment. A lot of people are wrong. Keep in mind, one person's effluent is another person's drinking water. Finally, let me point out what the National Conference of State Legislatures has to say. Unless H.R. 961 is significantly amended during floor consideration, the National Conference of State Legislatures urges you to vote against the bill. We have that significant amendment. We urge you to support Saxton, Boehlert, and Roemer and to oppose the committee bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the substitute, the alternative that will be advanced by my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and I, 70 percent of our alternative is identical to the committee bill. So there is much to be said for a number of provisions in the committee bill that address some problems that concern us all. We are focusing narrowly on those areas that need the most attention to preserve, and protect and enhance our Nation's waterways.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule we will vote on this morning. I am proud that the people's House will bring this landmark legislation up for debate under an open rule that allows for maximum debate. I think it is a sign of the maturity and confidence of the new majority that we are willing to air our disagreements over major legislation. Competing ideas are not just permitted, but encouraged to percolate to the top, where we will have full and open debate. Let me also say that I believe the committee's hearing process was open as well. As Chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, I presided over six major hearings in Washington, and one field hearing in upstate New York, that one dealing exclusively with the subject of nonpoint source pollution. The process was open, and I applaud that. I voted for the bill out of subcommittee to report it to the full committee despite the fact that I had major objections, but I feel that the day has long since gone when one person in the House can deny all of the I voted for that bill to come out of the subcommittee to the full committee, but I could not in good conscience vote for that bill in the full committee, and let me tell Members why. First of all, a 334-page bill was filed last Thursday. For most Members, the first opportunity that they had to be exposed to the extensive material on this complex legislation was yesterday when we returned to the Nation's Capital, and today we are debating the legislation. This legislation will remove over 60 percent of our Nation's wetlands from any level of protection, and allow the destruction of maybe 80 percent of the Nation's wetlands. Just yesterday the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, and in effect at the briefing these preeminent scientists said there is no scientific basis for the wetlands provision in the committee bill. We have to deal with good science. We have gone, those of us who are proposing an alternative, my colleagues Congressman Saxton of New Jersey and Congressman Roemer of Indiana, we have gone with an extensive outreach program with the National Governors Association and we have listened. That is what we are supposed to do in Washington, listen, and we have embraced the National Governors Association section of our bill dealing with wetlands. The bill, the committee bill, repeals the coastal zone nonpoint source pollution control problem, a very serious mistake with very serious consequences, so we reached out. We went to the coastal zone organization, comprised of 30 States, their Governors, their key environment and public safety people, and we have embraced, adopted their provision to deal with the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act amendments. The bill repeals entirely the storm water permitting process. We think that is a big mistake. We recognize problems for smaller communities and smaller businesses, so we have put into our alternative a 10-year moratorium that would exempt communities of less than 100,000 or smaller industries. We have tried to be responsive. Time after time, poll after poll, the people of America said they want us to do something meaningful about clean water. There is not one person in this House, not one person in America, who would hesitate in this richest, most technologically advanced nation to go to a water fountain in any city to quench their thirst, but they did that in Milwaukee and 104 people died in 1993; 400,000 were made ill. Four hundred thousand were made ill, and that is just the most recent, the flagrant example of how the public health is in jeopardy if we do not do a better job with our Nation's clean water program. My colleagues in the House, the people across America, I urge you to give very careful consideration to the alternative that will be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], myself, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. Clean water should be an American birthright.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives will take up the most serious public health environmental legislation considered yet in this historic 104th Congress. The proponents of the measure have labeled it good environmental legislation. That is a violation of the truth in advertising law. The fact of the matter is the legislation we will consider today would decimate our Nation's wetlands, would end the stormwater permitting process, would do serious damage to our coastal waters. We have worked, those of us identified with the Saxton-Boehlert alternative, with the National Governors Association, with the Coastal States Organization, with public health groups, with environmental organizations all over the country, to say that we can be responsible in dealing with clean water in America. Those who are concerned about this subject are urged to call their elected representatives to let them know that they want clean water, and the time for meaningful action is now.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hydrogen Future Act. Hydrogen research has long had broad, bipartisan support, and with good reason: Hydrogen has the potential to be a cheap, clean, and efficient fuel. As one of the strongest environmentalists in this Congress, I believe we need to do everything possible to develop such resources. Regulation and improvements in internal combustion technology can only get us so far. Our greatest hope for a future of economic prosperity and environmental health is to develop new propulsion technologies, such as hydrogen. This bill will bring government, universities, and industry together to conduct research on hydrogen in a way that would not happen without government involvement. And the bill ensures that the Government would be active only in research that would not occur absent its assistance. That is a sensible R&D policy directed at an important end. Hydrogen research has not been a source of controversy in the past. And there is no technical reason that it should be controversial now. I urge all my colleagues to support this work to develop an environmentally benign fuel.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory of people killed in an event so horrific that at the time, there was no word to describe it. I am referring to the mass slaughter of Armenians that began on April 24, 1915. The Armenian people endured a forced deportation from their homes that turned into a death march. It is estimated that more than 1 million Armenians died during this tragic event. Today we have a word for crimes like this: genocide. And we have learned as well the result when genocide is allowed to be carried out with impunity. Adolf Hitler asked rhetorically, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' He used the example of the atrocities against the Armenians to reassure his followers that no one would care if he exterminated the Jewish people. It would be wonderful to say that, following the hardships inflicted upon them in the early part of this century, the Armenian people have been able to enjoy peace and prosperity. Unfortunately, that is far from the case. Instead, decades of Communist rule meant hunger and deprivation. The Soviet Union has collapsed, but Armenia is surrounded by hostile neighbors, and Armenians are enduring a blockade against all goods, including humanitarian assistance. There would be no more fitting memorial to those who died in Armenia than to build a just and lasting peace for all people. To do otherwise would be to condone genocide.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no particular problem with the rule. It is the subject of the rule to which I object: term limits. I know all the standard arguments that if we have term limits the unelected bureaucracy, the career staff that are here year after year, will run the institution and not the people's chosen representatives, and that the professional lobbyists will become even more important because they will be here year after year and not the people's chosen representative who will be in the revolving door. But I will tell you this. The most compelling argument against term limits is our options and choices, not limit them. I have not had the advantage of conversations with our Founding Fathers, so I cannot tell my colleagues what they would say. But I know what they said, and they said we should not have term limits. The arrogance of Washington, the people in the shadows of the Capitol, telling those people out in the real world that we are now going to impose new conditions on them to choose whomever they wish to entrust with their representational responsibilities. I oppose term limits. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Crane amendment. Mr. Chairman, it strikes me as a bit odd, at a time when we are concerned about universal access to the internet, to laptop computers, to an array of educational technologies, to be talking about eliminating access to the one educational technology that is available to everyone already: public broadcasting. I am old enough to remember in the 1950s, when broadcast television was hailed as the Nation's salvation, offering endless educational and entertainment possibilities--possibilities that did not seem outlandish in the medium's ``golden age.'' And yet by the 1960s, Newton B. Minow famously surveyed the broadcasting landscape and saw nothing but a ``vast wasteland.'' So in the 1990's, as the commercial media become ever more competitive, they reach reflexively for the lowest common denominator of flashy, empty programming, often laden that quality alternatives be offered that the market is slow to provide. The Federal funding in public broadcasting is minimal, and I see no reason we should poor mouth our way into an impoverished culture. Public broadcasting survives, and must survive, to meet real, legitimate, unmet public needs. It is a resource we need more than ever, and I urge my colleagues to vote against rescinding appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the voters of Arizona rejected this. If the bill passes it will reverse decisions of very conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 1993 decision, Chief Justice Rhenquist and Justice Scalia and every member of the Supreme Court reaffirmed 2 basic Fifth amendment principles. Takings can only be decided based on the impact on an overall parcel of property, not just the affected portion. And, and this is extremely important, particularly to this debate, Justice Rhenquist, Justice Scalia, and every member of the Supreme Court said diminution in the value of property is insufficient to demonstrate a taking. I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is taking a very reasoned approach to a problem we all acknowledge, and I would urge that we follow his lead and support his amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment being offered by my good friend and colleague from Illinois, Mr. Porter. The Porter amendment to H.R. 925 is well reasoned, and a fiscally responsible approach to the issue of regulatory takings. The American people voted on November 8 for reasonable and responsible laws. As drafted, H.R. 925 passes neither of these tests. As has been stated repeatedly, H.R. 925 is a budget buster. This legislation could require hundreds of billions of dollars in additional Federal expenditures, not tomorrow, not next week or next month or even next year, but over several years. I cannot support legislation that would increase the Nation's debt in such a sweeping and irresponsible manner. Keep in mind we have got to be serious about addressing our Nation's budget crisis. We are spending $813 million every day just in interest on the national debt. It does not feed anybody or clothe anybody or educate anybody or indeed compensate anybody. It just services the national debt. H.R. 925 is a budget boondoggle whose cost to the American taxpayers cannot be accurately estimated by any Member of this body. Not by the Congressional Budget Office, not by the Congressional Research Office, not by the author of this bill, not by the professional staff of the committee of jurisdiction. We are being asked to venture forth into Rod Sterling's twilight zone. Earlier this week this body passed legislation requiring Federal agencies to do risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses before proceeding with new regulatory actions. Ironically, many of the same proponents of conducting thorough cost-benefit analysis are before us today, asking us to support legislation that may cost the American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over the long haul, without assessing the scope and impact of this far-reaching legislation. The proponents refuse to admit the risk, and they fail to enlighten us as to the cost. Now more than ever, we must take a hard look at the cost and implications of Government actions. The bill before us today needs such a hard look. The Porter amendment assures us that we assess the costs and benefits of regulatory actions that may impact property values. The Porter amendment, which is based on legislation introduced by Senator Dole and an Executive order issued by President Reagan, requires agencies to complete a private property taking impact assessment before issuing a regulation. This is a sensible way to determine if billions of dollars of taxpayers' money should be spent on compensation. It is also worth noting that millions of dollars in litigation costs will also arise out of H.R. 925. I would like now to share with you just a brief passage from an op-ed piece that appears in today's New York Times that outlines one of the many costly unintended consequences that could result if H.R. 925 is amended. The op-ed piece states for their part landowners would be encouraged to shop for the highest possible appraisal of their loss, and lead to a new form of land speculation that had nothing to do with offsetting regulatory harms. That would lead to endless rounds of litigation over the necessity of compensation, the adequacy of economic appraisal and whether each side filled out the forms in the right order. That is not something we want. We have heard about the Porter amendment guts this bill. The only thing being gutted is the taxpayers' wallet. We hear about shame; shame has been repeated over and over. The only shame I would submit is to suggest that the Constitution does not protect private property rights. It does in that sacred document in the Fifth amendment. Let me point out there are a whole list of very respected opponents to this legislation. The National Council of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the National Governors Association. The only vote we have had on this recently was in the very conservative State of Arizona, where by a 60 to 40 margin the voters of Arizona rejected this.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield further, I have great regard for the gentleman. We serve on the committee together. We oftentimes agree. But it concerns me when we have stories, apocryphal stories, that are told. You know, I think President Reagan, and I love him dearly, is still searching the country for that welfare queen who was driving around in a Cadillac living high on the hog.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I want peer review. I am not sure I would want O.J. sitting on his own jury, for example, so we have some questions about that. There are a number of questions we have, but in the final analysis, we want what you want. But I am concerned. I am thinking of offering an amendment requiring a cost-benefit analysis on the entire bill, because I do not think anyone has the first clue on how much this is going to cost in terms of litigation. I am wondering if there is anyone, the gentleman or anyone advocating passage of this legislation as is, if anyone has an idea how much is this going to cost American industry, American families, in terms of dollars and cents.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman you have stated, I think very well, some of the same objectives that I share. Certainly I want peer review.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the phaseout of lead is widely accepted to have had tremendous benefits for our society, with children's average blood levels falling about 75 percent since the phaseout began in the mid-1970's. But substantial evidence of the relationship between lead and gasoline in our children's blood became available as a result of phaseout rules. It did not exist when the regulations were being developed. If the regulations had not been imposed, lead levels would not have fallen, creating a vicious circle of continued exposure and regulatory paralysis. In addition, the manufacturers of leaded gasoline additives could have delayed the regulation almost indefinitely by arguing that reducing lead exposure from other sources would have been more flexible. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of risk assessment and the knowledge that it is an idea whose time has come. When we talk about billions of dollars being spent across this country for regulation, for the implementation of regulations, that is right, we do spend billions of dollars to implement regulations to guarantee the safety of our food supply, to make sure that the air we breathe is reasonably clear, and to make sure the water we drink is reasonably pure. We have had too many horror stories out there across America where things go wrong, and we do not want things to go wrong when we are dealing with the public's health and safety. So I think we have a reasonable amendment here on the subject of judicial review and I urge my colleagues to give it the very serious consideration that it deserves. Mr. Chairman, I might point out that in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats alike have analyzed this, and there is a growing body of us on both sides of the aisle who think this amendment should go forward and that it would be a constructive addition to the bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman would yield further, I want to increase the comfort zone a little bit by telling the gentleman that we are part of the new majority now, so things will be different now and in the future, in the Congress, in the way Congress responds to agencies.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I stress that I too favor cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. What this amendment points out is that there are going to be disagreements in the future sometime and where there is a failure on the part of the agency to be able to certify all the certifications required in the bill, then that agency has to report back to the Congress, the people's House, and we debate it and we make the necessary changes.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I would point out that the dire emergency is behind us, not prospective, and what we are trying to do is prevent something like Milwaukee occurring again. We cannot foresee a dire emergency in the future. But if we analyze what happened in Milwaukee and we are trying to protect future millions in other cities and we come up with a proposed rulemaking that somewhere along the way something went awry during the development of that rule and someone made a mistake, we would stop everything in its tracks and say, sorry, millions of Americans, we cannot protect your water supply, we cannot protect you because somebody made a mistake and we cannot do it.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me tell you the case about Milwaukee, the cryptosporidium when 104 people died, 400,000 people were made ill because they drank the water from a public water system in one of our Nation's premier cities. I would suggest if we are able to determine the likely cause of that problem to protect other cities and other millions in the future, and there was a proposed rulemaking and somewhere along the line some bureaucrat screwed up, you would say then stop everything, we cannot go forward.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me stress what is said in my amendment under that section entitled ``Failure to Certify,'' it says in the event that the agency head cannot make any certification required under this section, the agency head shall report to Congress that such certification cannot be made and shall include a statement of the reasons therefor in such report and publish such statement together with the final rule. Then Congress would work its will. We are the people elected by the citizens of America. We have the public trust in hand.

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