Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Otter

Amendment No. 4: Insert before the short title at the end

the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Small Community Options for Regulatory Equity Act. Rural communities across my state and elsewhere are being unfairly burdened by Environmental Protection Agency regulations that have questionable benefit.

While we all want to ensure a clean, safe drinking water supply for our communities, we must remember that fiscal restraints sometimes require tradeoffs and accommodations. Many small communities believe that EPA regulations will do more harm than good by wasting limited public health funds complying with standards that do little to advance the interests of public health.

For those of you who may have forgotten the arsenic debate of just a few years ago, let me refresh your memory. The Safe Drinking Water Act was used in the past to clean up pollution caused by previous business practices. Now the EPA is using the act to clean up Mother Nature herself. Arsenic is a naturally occurring component in the soil and water of many Western states, including Idaho. Using questionable science, the EPA has committed to ensuring all domestic water systems meet the arbitrary 10 parts-per-billion standard for arsenic--no matter how small those systems are. This is down from the 50 parts-per-billion standard set in 1975.

When the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed, Congress provided flexibility for EPA to determine whether it is economically or technologically feasible to obtain a certain level of reduced contamination. Essentially, the act states that if it's too expensive, smaller systems simply need to get as close to the standard as they reasonably can. Unfortunately EPA has decided not to use that flexibility. EPA has determined that paying $1,000 per year per user for the smaller water systems to meet the arsenic standard is affordable.

We know that many of our rural communities have low-income residents who make difficult decisions each month. They must choose which bills to pay and which to put off. These folks aren't worried about the cable bill; they're worried about being able to cover their heat, food, power and even prescription drug costs every month. And when faced with those choices, they'll choose to pay their water bill first. But the EPA--in its infinite wisdom--has decided to place a higher priority on marginal reductions in arsenic level than such basic needs as food and shelter.

That is unacceptable, which is why I am introducing legislation today to allow small and rural communities, those under 10,000 in population, to choose whether they want EPA to enforce regulations on naturally occurring contaminants. If the eligible community determines it is too costly to comply with the rule it can request an exemption from the regulation, which EPA must grant.

No one is talking about removing all the arsenic from the water. We are talking about removing parts per billion, which is removing a very small amount of something that is barely even there. There is no bright line of concentration at the parts-per-billion level beyond which arsenic becomes unsafe. EPA views 9.9 parts-per-billion as safe and 10.1 as unsafe, despite the fact that there is little health difference between such small differences. EPA can't determine how much arsenic ingestion above the federal standard is harmful. While EPA has said that arsenic concentrations above its standard don't necessarily present an unreasonable risk to health, concentrations above 10 parts- per-billion do create a significant financial burden for small communities.

This mandate doesn't consider the unintended consequences and it can't balance competing local priorities. Local communities are in the best position to determine where their scarce resources need to go. EPA is not going to the communities and suggesting ways they can comply or technology they can use. Rather than being a good partner, EPA is once again just an enforcer, and is waiting until 2006 to impose fines on communities that are not in compliance. Such one-size-fits-all government ``solutions'' do nothing to make the water cleaner. They only provoke bitterness and stifle cooperation.

One small community in Idaho already has had to lay off its only police officer in order to afford studies and other requirements related to complying with the arsenic regulation. Now we are asking people to choose between real public safety and a theoretical health benefit. Further compounding the problem for this rural community, the EPA recently denied its request for a compliance extension, as provided for in the agency's own regulation. Community leaders know they can't comply by 2006 and are trying to do the right thing--but EPA refuses to help them.

We are supposed to have a democratic process here in the United States. In this case, the EPA is overriding the will of local citizens. I believe it's time to put the power back into the hands of those most impacted to determine what truly is best for them.

I remain concerned that this regulation will have very adverse economic impacts on thousands of rural communities across the nation, without addressing legitimate human health concerns. Since there is no economically feasible way for small communities to meet this standard and the standard may result in no health benefits, I support allowing each eligible rural community to decide whether to comply. I encourage you to join me in cosponsoring the Small Community Options for Regulatory Equity Act

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, it is reassuring to hear the gentleman who just spoke from California now willing to use the Bush administration figures on the economy when for weeks, maybe months, I have sat on this very floor on all issues relative to the economy and unemployment and how bad things were, how wrong the Bush administration has been. But now, all of a sudden, we have a report that the gentleman from California is willing to adhere to, and it will only affect the economy of Yellowstone by 1 percent.

I would ask the gentleman from California that if we should come up with a national policy which would only affect the economy of California by 1 percent, would the gentleman from California then be most willing to accept that without any argument?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is not unusual, as the gentleman just represented and as the potential leader of the gentleman's party, it is not unusual for him to flip-flop back and forth, depending upon how the argument will fit the present issue.

But getting to the issue that we are debating here on the Yellowstone National Park, not too long ago, perhaps far too long ago for certain people to recall, someone once said, ``and they sent hither swarms of agents to harass our people and eat out their substance.'' And that is precisely what these swarms of people from New Jersey and from other places east of the Mississippi River, and a few other misguided souls that have found their way west, perhaps are doing with this issue.

I want to remind the gentleman from New Jersey that when that report was written there was no such thing as a 4-stroke engine in a snow machine. So how convenient to use that argument when there was no 4- stroke engine. The EPA report dealt only with 2-stroke engines, not 4- stroke engines.

So I would just like to remind all of those who have argued today that let us set the standard right here and now, and that is what we are doing, because I know of at least three potential national monuments, three wilderness areas that are coming up in my State for consideration, and if this is the way my colleagues are going to treat a well-compromised agreement over the course of 10 years and finalized within the last three, that with every new whim and every new Congress and every idea that somebody east of the Mississippi River comes up with wants to come and then change the order in which we agreed to that compromise, then I am going to start voting not only against this amendment, but I will vote against each and every compromise that comes down on anything, many of those which I was willing to at least accept because they were a compromise made in good faith. But if every time we want to change something, we decide well, this is our generation's turn and even though it was compromised out in 1980s on the Frank Church- River of No Return Wilderness Area, now all of a sudden we are wanting to change that compromise. Which other compromise will we change today?

So what we do today, Mr. Chairman, what we do today, I should say will set the order for every compromise that we should ever consider on this floor. Because once these compromises are reached, we thought they were agreements that were made in good faith and not to be changed at the whim of every new environmental organization that may need to raise some funds and, therefore, create a clause appropriate to raising those kinds of funds.

So with that, I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), if he wants to stop, if he wants to erase all traces of mankind in a national park, he is just a couple of thousand years too late.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I would remind the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) that it was the agreement in the compromise that they were looking to at the time that caused the snowmobile industry to engage in research on the four-stroke engine.

Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation of families, and for good reason. The family unit is the foundation of society. And America's future depends on the success of our families. Our jobs as Members of Congress should be to nurture an environment in America where families can flourish and provide and support the opportunity of freedom and the sense of civic virtue that children need to become responsible citizens.

We did the right thing by increasing the child tax credit in 2001. We did the right thing by accelerating that process last year. And now, by making the child tax credit permanent, we ensure that families continue to retain more control over their own money and we enable them to plan for the future, and we give them the freedom to help their children accomplish their dreams.

There are almost a quarter of a million children in my State whose families will benefit if we pass H.R. 4359. But without this legislation, those families will feel the weight of a significantly increased burden next year. In fact, under current law, tax-paying families in Idaho will pay $757 million more in taxes than they did last year. That money should be staying in their pockets. They should continue to enjoy the fruits of their labors, planning for tomorrow's doctors and teachers and scientists and leaders.

This legislation is about creating an environment that enables those families to take care of their own. It is about time we let them take care of their own.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I missed the vote on H. Con. Res. 409 ``Recognizing with humble gratitude the more than 16,000,000 veterans who served in the United States Armed forces during World War II and the Americans who supported the war effort on the home front and celebrating the completion of the National World War II Memorial on the National Mall in the District of Columbia''. Had I been present I would have voted for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to the wisdom of a child.

One of my constituents, an 11-year-old girl from Post Falls, Idaho, named Dori Thompson, recently delivered a simple but compelling speech about the Pledge of Allegiance, about American values, and about the source of the freedoms we enjoy.

I'd like to share it with you now:

Our nation's Pledge of Allegiance is 31 words. ``I pledge

allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and

to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,

indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.'' Are all

those words important? I have been saying those words ever

since I was in preschool and wanted to know what those words

meant, where those words came from, and why our courts want

to take ``under God'' away.

In 1892 our country was planning for the 400th anniversary

of America's discovery. Two men, Francis Bellamy and James

Upham, were interested in education and the planning of

Columbus Day celebrations. To this day it is still not known

which of the two men actually wrote the pledge, but it was

published in ``The Youth's Companion'' September 8, 1892.

One month later more than 12 million school children said

those words for the first time in schools around the nation.

The pledge went through several changes over the years and

the last change happened in 1954. Dwight D. Eisenhower added

the words ``under God'' to confirm the belief that America's

heritage and future were built upon faith in God. He thought

that school children should dedicate our nation to God each

day.

Now what do these 31 words mean? This is what I think:

I promise to be loyal to and love our symbol of freedom,

our flag. It means each one of us is free; free because

hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died for us so that we

can have that right. I promise to be loyal to and love our

government because it is for and has been chosen by the

American people. Our nation exists because of God and was

founded by our faith in Him, the Lord who is life, light,

justice, truth, and love. Our nation cannot be divided under

Him and we all have the right to our freedom and should be

treated fairly, each and every one of us.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the Pledge is

unconstitutional because of the words ``under God.'' Our

country and values were made under the belief of God. So much

of the world does not believe in God anymore. The world wants

him taken out of everything. The Bible is not taught in

public schools and therefore the world is not completely

educated. Since these judges say that ``under God'' is

unconstitutional, why do they start the day by saying ``God

save the United States and this honorable court?''

The Pledge of Allegiance should not be changed because some

people are offended by it. It is part of our national

heritage. I am a Christian and I understand the meaning of

all those wonderful 31 words.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't have put it better myself.

Dori attends Classical Christian Academy in Post Falls. She is the kind of young person who gives me hope and faith in America's future. Mr. Speaker, I hope you find her words and her example as inspirational as I do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the city of Shelley, Idaho, a community in the heart of my state's rich potato country that this year is celebrating the centennial of its founding.

John F. Shelley settled eastern Idaho in 1892, just two years after statehood. He built the first home, and later a store, in the town that would bear his name. The railroad saw promise in the area's rich volcanic soil and stalwart pioneers, and put in a spur line to connect them with the world. Shelley officially became a city in 1904.

In 1927, community leaders in Shelley organized the first annual Idaho Spud Day, a tradition that grew through the years and continues each September with the support of area growers and processors. Indeed, Shelley has become so thoroughly identified with Idaho's world famous potatoes that its high school teams are known as the ``Russets.''

That heritage has a special place in my heart, Mr. Speaker. My career in private business was focused on the potato industry. Over 30 years, selling Idaho potato products around the world, I came to know and appreciate my state's farmers and the towns and businesses and families their labors support--like Shelley.

It is a community with a rich and proud history, built on hard work and faith and values that endure. It is a place where people know one another, and look after one another. The people of Shelley are tough and resilient, and they are committed to keeping their hometown the kind of place much of America would still like to be.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Shelley and its fine citizens for a remarkable century of tradition, achievement and progress. I'm confident that Shelley, Idaho, will remain a special place to live, work and raise a family for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I missed the vote on H.R. 1779 ``Guardsmen and Reservists Financial Relief.'' Had I been present I would have voted for this bill.

Madam Speaker, those of us lucky enough to live in Idaho and the Northwest are blessed. Besides the unmatched beauty and the incredible quality of life we enjoy, our rivers provide us with relatively abundant and affordable hydropower that gives us a competitive advantage in the world marketplace.

As residents of an arid State, my Idaho colleagues and I know better than to take it for granted. Yet despite being a Nation that depends too heavily on foreign sources of fossil fuels, America for too long has taken energy for granted. We have gone a dozen years now without a national energy policy. The time to change that is now.

As our economic recovery picks up steam, it is more important than ever that the United States maintain an abundant and reliable energy supply; and, frankly, we are not going to achieve that without the kind of comprehensive national energy policy already passed three times in this House.

While the recent rise in energy costs has caught many consumers by surprise, it is important to remember that the energy supplies and price concerns are nothing new. Many of us in Congress, especially on this side of the aisle, along with energy industry observers and analysts, have long been warning of the energy train wreck that is about to happen.

And it is not just about oil and gas. A national energy policy must address a relicensing process for hydropower dams that has become a cumbersome and inordinately expensive proposition. It must make a sound commitment to alternative energy production and provide reasonable incentives for market-driven conservation, and it must set the stage for a new generation of safe and more efficient nuclear reactors that could further improve our energy independence.

Indeed, I am more optimistic than ever about the potential for nuclear power. One of the ways in which we can reverse the mistakes of the past decade and start down the right track toward a stable domestic energy marketplace is through the expanded use of clean nuclear energy.

Nuclear power stands out as an obvious answer to the many energy- related challenges we now face. Back home, the Idaho National Energy Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and the Argonne National Laboratory-West are working on the next generation of nuclear reactors. Their vision for nuclear energy is one that will provide America's energy consumers with a cheap, reliable, environmentally friendly and inherently safe source of electricity as far into the future as the human mind can envision.

I believe that the Idaho labs are headed in the right direction, and I am committed to helping them achieve their mission to enhance our Nation's nuclear power capabilities. I want to share with Members just a few reasons why I believe in the potential for nuclear power.

First, nothing is burned in a nuclear reactor, so there are no emissions into the atmosphere. In fact, nuclear energy is responsible for over a 90 percent reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions coming from the energy industry since 1973.

Between 1973 and 1996, nuclear power accounted for emissions reductions of 34.6 million tons of nitrogen oxide and 80.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and over the past 10 years nuclear plants have produced over 5 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity production, with absolutely zero carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide or particulate matter emissions. Beyond those benefits, existing and emerging technologies will solve the complexities of storing and recycling spent nuclear fuels.

Second, nuclear power is a safe, reliable abundant source of power. Not only does the world contain plenty of resources for fueling nuclear reactors, but existing and emerging technologies will provide even greater efficiencies in the use of nuclear fuel.

Finally, nuclear energy is a home-grown technology. Thanks to the men and women who have worked in Idaho's labs over the past 5 decades, our Nation has long been the world leader in nuclear technology and continues to be the world's largest consumer of nuclear energy.

The bottom line is this: Without a comprehensive national energy policy, America is a nation at risk.

Congress must act decisively to send President Bush a blueprint for lowering natural gas prices, creating jobs, and making us more independent and secure. Only then will America be the architects of their own destiny.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the enormous contribution to America's continuing freedom that is provided by employers who support our ``citizen soldiers'' in the Guard and Reserve.

In today's perilous world, each of us knows that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The men and women of America's Guard and Reserve are the vanguard of that vigilance. They are clerks and cashiers, merchants and mechanics, doctors and lawyers. Most importantly, they are our friends and neighbors, our sons, daughters, fathers and mothers.

They represent the best among us. Along with the full-time members of our armed services, those volunteers help ensure that we all have the fullest opportunity to exercise the liberties for which generations of American heroes have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, in recent months we all have seen National Guard and Reserve units from our own states and districts called to active duty for the war on terrorism. We all have heard the public declarations of support for those activated troops and the families they leave behind. But the true measure of that support lies not in words but in actions. And there is no greater comfort for our Guard and Reserve personnel than the certainty that they will be able to return to their civilian jobs when they come home, and that their loved ones will continue receiving the benefits of that employment while they are gone.

The employers who provide those assurances, who guarantee the jobs and benefits of America's Guard and Reserve personnel, should be counted among the heroes of the war on terrorism. They are shouldering an important part of the burden of defending our homeland from those who envy and despise us for the freedom to choose liberty, tolerance and diversity. America is blessed with employers who have the foresight to understand the great value of having a force of trained and qualified personnel ready to answer their nation's call to arms with the sure knowledge that they are appreciated and financially protected.

So I encourage my colleagues to join me, Mr. Speaker, in recognizing and applauding the essential role played by employer support of the Guard and Reserve, and the invaluable service they provide to the men and women who bear the weight of battle. The Three Star program launched by Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve committees across the country is one way to acknowledge the understanding and support of those employers who are enabling a new generation of American heroes to go into harm's way unencumbered by concerns for their families' financial well-being. They deserve our patronage, and our thanks.

Mr. Speaker, many veterans in the first district of Idaho, which I represent, live in rural areas where access to VA healthcare facilities is limited.

In Idaho, access for many veterans is limited by geography; mountain ranges, rivers, and great distances. These veterans deserve better access to the health benefits they've earned by serving our country.

While there are no easy solutions to these problems, I feel the VA has worked hard to provide veterans living in rural areas some opportunities to receive care.

A number of programs including outpatient clinics, temporary clinics, and mobile care units have all helped to address the access problem in these areas.

While these programs have shown some success, I believe there are other innovative ways we can address the access issue.

One such way is limited outsourcing. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3777, the HEALTHY Vets Act, which was introduced by my colleague Scott McInnis. This bill creates opportunities for Veterans in rural areas to access timely healthcare from doctors and hospitals in their communities.

Many rural communities understand the value of their community doctors and hospitals. Rural healthcare is expensive, and these communities are fighting hard to maintain these resources. Allowing veterans access to community hospitals makes sense for our veterans and our communities.

I have a deep appreciation for the men and women who have risked their lives for America's freedoms and feel our Nation should keep its promises to our veterans.

Throughout our history our Nation has been forced to maintain our commitment to freedom, and likewise, we must continue our commitment to our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, we in Idaho place a high value on our water, and we understand the critical role that water delivery has played in making the arid West bloom. With that in mind, I am honored to extend my congratulations and best wishes to the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District on the occasion of its centennial, marking 100 years of service to the Treasure Valley on March 9, 2004.

The Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District is the largest entity of its kind in the Treasure Valley, delivering irrigation water to 64,000 acres of farmland and providing water to pressurized urban irrigation systems serving more that 9,500 parcels of land, including residential lots, parks, and commercial areas. The district supplied 177,000 acre feet of water to water users in its system in 2003. Economists estimate the water brought a direct agricultural economic return to the Treasure Valley of approximately $10 million.

On this historic occasion, it is important to pay tribute to the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District and the people responsible for its maintenance and operations for their countless contributions to water users. But I also want to express my gratitude to the district for the cultural, social, and economic contributions it makes to the broader community, to the Treasure Valley, and all of Idaho.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a shining example of our great experiment in democracy. The Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative came to life in 2001, the result of collaboration between the Boundary County Board of Commissioners, the City of Bonners Ferry, and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. The mission of the KVRI is to act as a locally based effort to improve coordination, integration, and implementation of existing local, state, and federal programs that can effectively maintain, enhance,

and restore the social, cultural, economic, and natural resource bases in their community. Mr. Speaker, after personally viewing this group in action, I am happy to report this is a successful endeavor.

The KVRI membership consists of private citizens and landowners, local governments, federal and state agencies, an environmental advocacy group, and Indian Nation, and representatives of business and industry within the lower Kootenai basin of Idaho. The Initiative is a sign of tremendous change in Boundary County. It signals a move from combat to collaboration and should serve as a model for other communities around the country with severe contention over natural resource issues. The members of the KVRI work hard to find areas of common concern with which they, as a community, can pursue solutions to challenges such as fisheries recovery, flood flow elevations, TMDL planning, and the development of a wetland conservation strategy.

Mr. Speaker, the collaborative spirit of the KVRI, and its members' determination to find common sense solutions that move the community forward, should serve as an inspiration to us all. I would like to thank the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative for demonstrating how this great experiment in democracy is supposed to function.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great personal sadness to note the passing of Ron Yanke, a dear friend who left us too soon and whose life and contributions truly made the world a better place.

Ron was a brilliant businessman with boundless energy and passion. He was a visionary philanthropist with unending kindness and generosity. He was a community leader who deflected attention from his many civic achievements. And he was a role model whose honesty, integrity, humility, and positive disposition set the standard for everyone he met.

But more than anything, Ron Yanke was a warm and loving husband, father, grandfather, and friend. I had the joy and privilege of knowing Ron well for much of my life and will forever miss his friendship and counsel. There are few men more deserving of recognition for their accomplishments and few less disposed than Ron was to seek or accept it.

His entrepreneurial talents helped create jobs for thousands of people in Idaho and throughout the Intermountain West with companies like Micron Technology, Yanke Machine Shop, RY Timber, Boise Mobile Equipment, YMC Inc., and Nashua Homes.

His selfless nature advanced such worthy causes as the Peregrine Fund, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Boys and Girls Clubs, and Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center.

His personal charm and compassion enriched the lives of everyone fortunate enough to have known him. Mr. Speaker, I am blessed to be counted in that number, and Idaho is blessed to have been home to Ron Yanke. I hope you will join me in extending the sympathies of the House of Representatives to his wife, Linda, and his family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition to the Potlatch Corporation. The Potlatch Corporation, one of the nation's oldest forest products companies, is currently celebrating its centennial year.

Founded in 1903 as Potlatch Lumber Co., the company built its first sawmill in 1906 at a location in North Idaho where Native American celebrations of gift giving and goodwill known as ``potlatches'' had been held. Today, the Potlatch Corporation is an integrated forest products company with 1.5 million acres of timberland in Idaho, Minnesota and Arkansas, and a hybrid poplar plantation in Oregon. The company's 14 manufacturing operations in Idaho, Minnesota, Arkansas, and Nevada produce lumber, plywood, oriented stand board, particleboard, bleached pulp, paperboard and private label consumer tissue products.

The Potlatch Corporation has earned a national reputation for progressive land management practices and innovative products that efficiently utilize wood resources. Potlatch continues its strong tradition of efficient wood fiber utilization, while supplying customers around the world with quality products and service.

Although recent years have brought many challenges to the domestic wood and paper industry, Potlatch remains competitive in the global market. From its roots in North Idaho, Potlatch has blossomed into an industry leader, and it continues to be a strong contributor to the economy of North Idaho. I wish to congratulate the Potlatch Corporation on a hundred years of success, and I look forward to its continued growth and vitality.