[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.

                          ____________________