[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5243-H5244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H5243]]
House of Representatives
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(Continued)
Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
Page 6, line 12, strike ``revise'' and insert
``supplement''.
Page 6, line 17, strike ``proposed rule'' and insert ``rule
proposed on July 21, 1999,''.
Page 6, line 19, after ``(2)'' insert ``after consideration
of the cost analysis for the 1999 proposal to issue and
modify nationwide permits and the supplement prepared
pursuant to this Act and''.
Page 6, line 25, strike ``so that within'' and all that
follows through ``1999'' on page 7, line 3.
Page 7, line 4, after ``specific objective'' insert ``goals
and''.
Page 7, line 5, strike ``Engineers progress'' and insert
``Engineers' progress''.
Page 7, line 7, strike ``at the end of each quarter'' and
insert ``on a biannual basis''.
Page 7, line 15, insert ``and North Atlantic Division''
after ``South Pacific Division''.
Page 7, line 20, insert after ``Public Law 106-60: Provided
further, That'' the following: ``, through the period ending
on September 30, 2003,''.
Page 8, line 4, strike ``That `filed' shall mean'' and all
that follows through ``deemed complete.'' on line 7 and
insert the following:
That the Corps of Engineers, when reporting permit processing
times, shall track both the date a permit application is
first received and the date the application is considered
complete, as well as the reason that the application is not
considered complete upon first submission.
Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask that the
amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward and
noncontroversial. I believe it not only has the support of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky) and other members of the Committee on Appropriations,
but also the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and other
members, on a bipartisan basis, of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
It also accomplishes something that is relatively rare in this day
and age. We have support for the amendment from those within both the
environmental community and the regulated community.
I have details on the amendment. Both the chairman and the ranking
member have the details, and I would have them inserted into the Record
at the end of this statement.
What does this noncontroversial, but important amendment do? It
updates and revises the authorizing language included by Chairman
Packard in his Subcommittee relating to the Corps wetlands permitting
program--specifically nationwide permits and administrative appeals.
The general intent of my amendment is two-fold: (1) to increase the
public's and the regulated community's right to know about the Corps
wetlands permitting program; and (2) to remove provisions that might
cause unnecessary controversy or debate.
While I'm including a detailed summary of the amendment in my written
statement, let me highlight its major features. First, it removes the
reference to the number of pending individual permits at the end of FY
99 as the performance measure of the proposed Permit Processing
Management Plan (PPMP). It shouldn't be necessary to legislatively
require that the Plan revolve around a chosen prior fiscal year. I
would note, however, that there is legitimate concern that the new
nationwide permit restrictions and conditions will create an
unmanageable workload for processing individual permits. To be
effective, the Plan must address this concern head-on; in the context
of its Plan, the Corps may certainly want to look at the number of
pending individual permit applications in FY 99.
The other major highlight of the amendment is to modify provisions on
recording the filing of permits so as to require the Corps to track
both the date of permit application is received and the date the
application is considered complete, as well as the reason the
application is not considered complete upon first submission. This
should go a long way in providing useful information to help resolve
the never-ending debate over the length of time it takes a review and
approve or deny wetlands permit applications.
Chairman Packard is to be commended for his overall efforts in
developing and advancing this year's bill. He has done a good job
balancing the need for increased knowledge about wetlands permit
processing times, workload impacts, and administrative appeals.
My modest, yet important amendment will improve the language in the
bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to accept it.
Deletes the reference to the number of pending individual permits at
the end of FY 99 as the performance measure of the Permit Processing
Management Plan (PPMP) for future years, It shouldn't be necessary to
legislatively require that the Plan revolve around a chosen prior
fiscal year.
Modifies the performance measures report to Congress (and publication
in the Federal Register) from being quarterly to bi-annual (i.e. twice
a year). This should help address concerns about ``excessive''
reporting and paperwork burdens.
Expands the one-year pilot program for the South Pacific Division to
include the North Atlantic Division. Increased geographic diversity
should increase the value of the pilot program.
Modifies provisions on recording the filing of permits to require the
Corps to track both the date a permit application is received and the
date the application is considered complete, as well as the reason the
application is not considered complete upon first submission.
Sunsets after 3 fiscal years the proviso allowing appellants to keep
verbatim records of appeals conference proceedings. This should
[[Page H5244]]
provide ample time to determine if such verbatim records help or hinder
equitable and just resolutions.
Makes technical and clarifying amendments.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Boehlert) yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is a very good amendment, and I
am very pleased to accept the amendment. I appreciate the fact that he
has offered it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise not to object to the Boehlert amendment. I will
not do so, but I do think it is imperative that the House understand
the situation relative to funding for the Army Corps of Engineers.
A year ago on this floor, in considering the bill, we had several
very serious controversies relative to wetland regulation. When the
budget was sent to the United States Congress in January of this year,
those rules were not yet in effect. Subsequent to that period of time,
they went into effect, and the Army Corps of Engineers has estimated
that the additional cost to ensure that there is no delay to developers
and contractors and members of the general public would be 6 million
additional dollars over and above the budget request. Those $6 million
are not contained in this bill.
To add further to the Corps' problem, in the subcommittee mark there
were additional requirements placed on the Corps to the tune of a March
1, 2001, revised report cost analysis for a proposal to issue modified
nationwide permits: to wit, by September 30, the year 2001, prepare and
submit to Congress and publish in the Federal Register a permit
processing management plan; to wit, beginning on December 31, 2001, at
the end of each quarter thereafter, and I would acknowledge the
gentleman has lengthened this to a biannual report, report to Congress
and published in the Federal Register an analysis of the performance of
its programs as registered against the criteria set out in the permit
processing management plan; and, four, implement a 1-year pilot program
to publish quarterly on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regulatory
program for the South Pacific Division.
Additionally, how we compute time relative to delays that had been
complained about was changed in the subcommittee mark. That was an
additional burden. We then went to the full committee. The chairman of
the committee offered an amendment that was ultimately adopted that
further increased that burden by requiring that the Corps Division
Office publish on its Web site all findings, rulings and decisions.
Additionally, a provision that I do think can potentially have a
chilling impact on the appellate procedure that the Corps shall allow
an appellant to keep a verbatim record of the proceedings of the
appeals conference under the aforementioned administrative appeals
process.
The gentleman has now come forth and, as I indicated, changed a
quarterly reporting to biannual. That is an improvement. There were
several other improvements, but it also did place another burden on the
Corps by also now including the North Atlantic Division as far as those
reporting requirements.
So I do not object to what the gentlemen has done. He has added a
burden but he has improved the legislation that was reported by the
committee.
The Corps does not have the money, and I would just want to emphasize
I would hope at some point we have corrected that procedure so there is
no delay to those who seek permits.
Finally, I do think the gentleman has made one important change, and
that is that we do continue the current counting period as far as when
an application for a permit is considered to have been received,
because my concern as expressed in the full committee, and would be
here, that 12 months from now, 24 months from now when the wetlands
issue is potentially debated again, people will come in and say we told
you so. If it was not for those two changes in the year 2000, we would
not have had this additional delay, not because of any failing of the
Corps or the contractor or developer, but because we changed how those
dates are computed. The gentleman in his amendment would compute them
in both fashions, the previous fashion as well as the new fashion
contained in the committee bill.
So I did want to make sure that people understand for the record that
is the situation we find ourselves in. I do not object to what he wants
to do.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Members, we would like to now
offer a motion that will allow us to offer a unanimous consent request
that will put some limitations and some controls on the balance of the
evening, and hopefully shorten the debate.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Quinn) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
4733) making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________