[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 19 (Tuesday, March 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1730
                             SPECIAL ORDERS

                                 ______
                                 

                WETLANDS RESTORATION AND IMPROVEMENT ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about our Nation's 
wetlands and a bill I have introduced to protect and expand these 
national treasures. I represent a district in eastern North Carolina 
which includes a majority of the State's coast and 4 major river 
basins. According to the Federal Government, 65 percent of the area can 
be classified as wetlands. Clearly wetlands are very important to me 
and to the citizens of my district.
  Eastern North Carolina appreciates the beauty and value of wetlands 
as much if not more than anybody else. They understand the importance 
of wetlands to the environment, to water quality and to the life they 
support. Eastern North Carolinians also want to respect the rights of 
property owners, and therefore have reached for a balanced approach to 
protecting our wetlands while allowing landowners to have reasonable 
use of their properties.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that the common sense solution we 
have sought is wetlands mitigation banking. Mitigation banking allows 
private property owners to pay wetlands experts to mitigate the impact 
their development will have on wetlands. Those experts, working with 
regulators, do the mitigation in banks of land which are set aside, 
restored to wetland status and, most importantly, enhanced.
  This concept has been embraced by regulators, developers and the 
conservation community. It is an improvement upon traditional 
mitigation, which simply is not working because it is too expensive, 
time consuming and ineffective. Approximately 90 percent of on-site 
mitigation is unsuccessful. Mitigation banking, on the other hand, 
creates complete ecosystems.
  Regulators usually require that more wetlands be restored in a bank 
than are destroyed in a development project. For example, in some parts 
of the South that ratio is 4 to 1, meaning that 4 acres of land must be 
restored for each acre that was destroyed. So instead of only trying to 
protect the remaining wetlands with mitigation banking, we are actually 
increasing wetlands acreage. What is more, because mitigation banks 
give economic value to wetlands, potentially billions of private sector 
dollars could flow into restoring wetlands in sensitive watersheds.
  Mitigation banking is already being implemented in several areas 
throughout our Nation. The problem is there is no statutory authority 
to guide mitigation bankers. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker: The 
problem is there is no statutory authority to guide mitigation bankers. 
Thus investors are hesitant to supply the money needed without legal 
certainty.
  For this reason, I have introduced the Wetlands Restoration and 
Improvement Act, H.R. 1290. The legislation, one, requires the bank to 
meet rigorous financial and legal standards to ensure that wetlands are 
restored and preserved over the long term; secondly, provides for ample 
opportunity for meaningful public participation; and, third, ensures 
that the bank itself has a credible, long-term operation and 
maintenance plan.
  This legislation is the common-sense, balanced approach America needs 
to protect both our valuable wetlands and the rights of property 
owners. I hope my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in the House will look 
seriously at cosponsoring this legislation.

                          ____________________