Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the minority, I would agree with the chairman.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I want to return the body and the Members to the issue at hand, and the issue is the loss of wetlands in the United States of America. This year, we will lose approximately 70,000 to 90,000 acres of wetland. The two provisions in the bill are not going to lead to the entire loss of all of those wetlands, but they are contributing factors; and for every acre we lose, we cannot get it back. The gentleman indicated earlier that as far as the authorization bill, we had other issues to deal with, and I appreciate the Chairman's comments. We have other issues to deal with in this bill to the tune of about $20 billion, and that is what we ought to be focused on. We ought to remind ourselves that in the last three Congresses, there were 225 on other bills dealing with issues related to wetlands and permitting, similar to that being debated at this point in time, and we have not ourselves, Republicans or Democrats alike, been able to resolve those in the authorization process. This is not the time, this is not the place, this is a mistake and is subject to a veto, and I would ask my colleagues to support the Visclosky-Oberstar-Borski amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, given the exchange of unanimous consents, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes to close.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comment and would ask why this issue was not addressed in the Water Resources Act.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would, first of all, indicate my regard for the abilities, intellect, as well as the commitment to the environment of the gentleman of New York (Mr. Boehlert). I appreciate his working with the chair and the committee to make the bill a better bill. But I make a couple of observations to my colleagues. The first is that the language proposed by the gentleman from New York essentially provides for a political solution to a fundamental flaw in the legislation as far as the Clean Water Act and protecting wetlands. Secondly, I do think that, again, the underlying language that we are talking about is extraordinary as far as the additional costs to the Corps to now issue these reports and studies, the diversion of their energies, and a potential delay from the proposed end of these programs; and that is for the jurisdictional issue to be resolved in September and permit 26 to be resolved in November. That, despite the December 30 date in both of these instances, the time frame we are facing today is shorter, so there is still a delay involved. Additionally, I think it is extralegal because, under permitting, there is no requirement for the agency to provide a costs study. So what is being requested here is outside of what is legally required under the law. The gentleman's language does not touch upon the issue of jurisdiction that is part of the amendment that is pending before the House. But saying that, I can read English. I respect the gentleman. The gentleman has, in a way, improved the language of the bill, and I appreciate him for doing it. I accept the gentleman's language, and I would ask every one of my colleagues in the House to do the same.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. My question, Mr. Chairman, is if the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is adopted, will the Visclosky-Oberstar-Borski amendment to strike still be the pending business before the House, and will our amendment, that is, the Visclosky-Oberstar-Borski amendment, if adopted, strike the perfected language?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would indicate that the amendment before the body is offered by myself, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and it goes to correct the one deficiency in the bill relative to the Clean Water Act, relative to preserving wetlands in the United States of America, and relative to the veto issue by the administration relative to the language. It relates to two provisions in the bill, jurisdiction as far as wetlands and the Army's Corps of Engineers, and a program called Permit 26. I have talked about the importance of wetlands in my earlier remarks. I have talked about the generic situation we find ourselves in. I would like to use the time allotted to me to talk about the potential arguments raised against the amendment, and why I think the amendment ought to be adopted. As far as the jurisdictional arguments, I do believe that they would, as the bill is currently constituted, lead to more litigation. Several speakers before us on the floor today talked about the delay involved as far as the implementation of the new procedures as far as the appeal, the new permitting process. There would be much further delay if the language continues to stand. There would be additional burden on the Corps, and again, we would see an increase in litigation. As far as Permit 26, some might argue that Permit 26 works. It facilitates the process. To some minor extent, they would be correct. The problem is as far as the overarching policy we are concerned about here, that is, the preservation of our wetlands. I would note again that we are losing 70,000 to 90,000 acres a year. Permit 26 is part of the problem. I would not presuppose that it is all of the problem, but it is part of the problem, and it ought to be fixed for that reason, and for the reason that it is not in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Some would say that this is going to increase the workload for the Army's Corps of Engineers. Earlier when the acreage was reduced in Permit 26, this same argument was raised: We are going to increase delays, we are going to increase the process, and burden two property owners. The fact is, that turned out not to be true. There were 55,000, approximately, general permits issued in 1996 before the acreage was reduced. In 1998, general permits issued to facilitate the process did increase to 64,000. But on the other hand, the individual permits, which do take more time, were reduced from 5,028 in 1996 to 4,931. Will there be some increase as far as the burden to the Corps? Quite possibly, but it is manageable, and the Corps is ready to assume that responsibility. Is there going to be increased cost to those who own property, who develop property? Only if they deal with wetlands. As far as the time delay, I would point out that, again, before Permit 26 was changed in 1996, the average evaluation time for individual permits was 88 days. In 1998, it was reduced to 87 days, and it is my understanding for the individual development of a property that the delay, if you would, or the time involved before construction is started is anywhere from 6 months to a year. These are not consecutive sequences, they are concurrent. Does the Corps listen to anybody? Has the Corps simply run roughshod over the process? That is another issue that has been raised. I think, again, it is incorrect. There have been over 10,000 comments issued in three different public comment periods. In some cases the Corps has made fundamental changes and agreed with the developmental community. The developmental community wanted time limits for the Corps to respond regarding a completed application, and as far as the proposed Permit 26, the Corps said, you are absolutely right, it should be included. Inversely, as far as the environmental community is concerned, they asked at one time that there be a complete prohibition in critical waters in 100-year floodplains. They asked for a complete revocation of permit 26 with no replacement, clearly an additional burden to the developmental community and the Corps said absolutely not. That is going too far in the other direction. In the earlier debate, there was talk about the delay involved. This is a very precise, very complicated issue. The Corps is trying to do it correctly and have been about that task in both instances since 1996. Perfecting Amendment Offered By Mr. Boehlert

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would concede the point of order.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my right to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the gentleman may need up to 6 minutes, and I am happy to yield him that 6 minutes for purposes of control.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. If the gentleman will yield, I would agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).