Sherwood Boehlert

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Mr. Barton and Mr. Gillmor in introducing this compromise version of treaty implementation legislation, which reflects many long hours of serious negotiation between our staffs.

I entered into those negotiations because I believe it is important for the U.S. to be a party to these important treaties to help protect the global environment. This is a view shared by both the environmental community and the chemical industry. The U.S. ought to maintain its traditional leadership role in this area, first, to protect our own national interests and to protect our citizens from hazardous pollutants that circulate globally, but also to improve health and the environment around the world.

The bill we are introducing today is a genuine compromise. It's not what I would write if I were drafting a bill alone, and it reflects movement by Mr. Barton and Mr. Gillmor away from their original vehicle, H.R. 4591. No doubt further improvements could be made to it, but it should serve as a marker to show the way in the next Congress. This bill should demonstrate that it is possible to write worthy implementation language without opening the ``can of worms'' involved in rewriting all of the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA. But the regulatory mechanisms created by this bill should not be seen as a precedent for other environmental statutes.

Let me make one more general point before getting into the interpretation of specific sections: I am cosponsoring this bill because I believe it will enable and facilitate the regulation of pollutants, not stymie that regulation. Quite properly under this bill, the U.S. cannot be forced to regulate a chemical by any international body. But the bill should pave the way for the U.S. to regulate additional dangerous pollutants. If the processes set out in this bill are used primarily as barriers to regulation, then that will mean that the bill is being misinterpreted or abused. The bill does require thoughtful and thorough analysis, but that is not intended to prevent any regulation from moving forward.

With that general precept in mind, let me focus on the important language in the new section 503(e)(1) of TSCA. The language calls for regulation ``to the extent necessary to protect human health and the environment in a manner that achieves a reasonable balance of social, environmental, and economic costs and benefits.'' There are two distinct ideas and processes encapsulated in that language. First, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is to determine whether a substance needs to be regulated ``to protect human health and the environment.'' Then, separately, it needs to determine precisely how to regulate that substance--i.e, the ``manner'' of regulation''--taking into account ``social, environmental and economic costs and benefits.'' I want to say this directly here to clarify language that was intended to make the same point in the Committee report that was filed on H.R. 4591.

The sponsors also want to make clear that the consideration described in the new section 503(e)(2)(A)(v) of TSCA is meant to direct EPA to consider, among other things, both the domestic and international benefits that would flow from U.S. regulation of a substance.

Now let me turn to two important differences between this bill and H.R. 4591. First, we have entirely rewritten the new section 503(e)(4) of TSCA to clarify its intent, to drop the controversial and contested notion of ``weight of the evidence,'' and to remove any implication that that paragraph was creating a new legal or scientific standard of review. Language in the committee report on paragraph (4) does not apply to this bill.

The paragraph (4) in this bill is designed primarily to ensure transparency by requiring EPA to describe the information that was used in its decision-making and the quality of the information on which the agency based its decision.

Second, this bill clarifies when State preemption occurs. Section 6(e) now makes clear that no State preemption occurs unless and until a regulation that has been promulgated under the new section 503 of TSCA has gone into effect. No action short of that and no action under any statute other than TSCA can trigger preemption under this bill.

I greatly appreciate the openness the Energy and Commerce Committee has demonstrated during the negotiations on this bill and the courtesy they have extended to me and my staff. I hope this bill paves the way to U.S. full participation in the important treaties covered by this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my generous colleague for yielding me that time, and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their kind words. It has been a great privilege to serve in this institution, and one of the things I take special pride in is my friendships across the center divide. So I thank you most sincerely.

I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Commission of Independent Colleagues and Universities. Fifty years ago, half a century, the commission was established in my home State of New York with the goal of strengthening private, not-for-profit higher education institutions, a goal I wholeheartedly support and have worked tirelessly to achieve.

New York has a long and proud tradition of higher education, and the CICU has worked day after day, week after week to improve and strengthen that legacy.

Since 1956, enrollment in the independent sector has doubled from 225,000 to nearly a half a million today, 460,000. The 109 independent colleges and universities that make up the commission are spread throughout New York State and the entire educational system. The consortium is led by several of our Nation's most notable institutions, including Columbia, NYU, Cornell, RPI, Hamilton, and many others, including, and pardon my understandable pride, the best of the lot, my alma mater, Utica College.

Together, these institutions award over half of all undergraduate and three-quarters of all graduate degrees in New York, as well as training almost 90 percent of our professional students. That is quite a record of achievement.

As the lead sponsor of this resolution, I thank my colleagues from New York for joining me in honoring the Commission on Independent Colleagues and Universities. I am confident that CICU will continue to help improve educational opportunities throughout New York State and the Nation for many years to come, and that is one of the most worthy of goals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in just about 2 weeks, we will reach the second anniversary of the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami that began off the coast of Indonesia and resulted in the deaths of at least 150,000 people and injuring and dislocation of millions more. It was an event that stunned the entire world and eventually prompted an enormous outpouring of international aid. Among other things, the event was a reminder of the often forgotten but awesome power of nature, which we ignore at our own peril.

But an acknowledgement of nature's power does not mean that we are powerless. Quite the contrary, we needlessly seal our own doom if we fail to take steps that can reduce the significant impact of natural disasters at home and abroad. And in the case of tsunamis, which by definition travel across the seas paying no mind to international borders, the approach has to be global to be effective.

The tsunamis that can cause damage in the U.S. are just as likely to begin overseas as off our own coast. And in addition to humanitarian concerns, the U.S. pays a high price both in aid and in threats to international stability when cataclysmic death results from tsunamis overseas. So we need to take action to improve the understanding of tsunamis by both scientists and the general public, to improve our detection of tsunamis, and to improve our ability to issue warnings about approaching tsunamis, and to ensure populations know how to respond to such warnings.

Happily, we are not starting from scratch in any of these areas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration already runs research, detection, warning, and outreach programs, and the administration began augmenting those programs in 2005 after the Indian Ocean tsunami. But we need to ensure that the focus on tsunamis continues even as memories of the 2004 tragedy fade, and we need to further strengthen the administration

program along the lines of expert advice we have heard at Science Committee hearings. The experts were particularly concerned that more be done in the area of outreach so that the public understands more about tsunamis and what to do if one is approaching. They also called for more research so we could predict tsunamis and their paths more accurately.

I should add that tsunamis are not a theoretical threat for the U.S. The seismically active west coast is particularly vulnerable and has experienced tsunamis in the past. Even a small tsunami can cause damage. An earthquake off the coast of Japan last month produced a tsunami that hit California with wave surges of only 5 or 6 feet, but it caused an estimated $700,000 in damage in just one town.

So we need to maintain and strengthen the Nation's tsunami programs. That is exactly what H.R. 1674 would do; it would give specific continuing congressional direction to efforts in tsunami research, prediction, detection, warning, and outreach, the full spectrum of needed activities. The bill would also improve congressional oversight of the program by requiring updates on the condition of tsunami monitoring equipment and several studies of the overall effectiveness of the tsunami program.

This is a good, carefully targeted, economical, bipartisan bill. I wish to thank my cosponsor, Jay Inslee, for all his hard work and persistence on this bill. He understands well how his constituents in Washington State could be in harm's way for a tsunami. I also want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Science Committee who, as usual, contributed to the bill which passed the committee long ago by voice vote. I also want to thank the Transportation and Infrastructure and International Relations Committees for working with us on their jurisdictional claims. And, finally, I want to thank Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Dan Inouye and their staffs for working with us to put together a compromise bill. This bill is ready for Senate action and should go to the President for signature this week.

Mr. Speaker, we ought to act now to prevent future tragedies from tsunamis. We can't prevent tsunamis, but we can greatly limit the loss of life from them. This bill will help us do just that, not just in the U.S., but abroad, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1674, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to Mr. Wu how much I appreciate his kind remarks. We are partners on the Science Committee in a bipartisan manner to bring forward an agenda from that committee that not only does the committee proud, does this Congress proud, but does this Nation proud.

And one of the privileges of being the chairman of the Science Committee is to work with my fellow chairmen like Don Young, and I happen to be a senior member of that committee. I appreciate his leadership, don't always follow it, but I really do appreciate his leadership. We have had a good, constructive working relationship in so many areas, and particularly on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who is a real leader not just on the Science Committee but in this Congress. We benefit greatly from his special experience as a scientist, a physicist, a respected member of his profession, but also a respected colleague. When Vern Ehlers talks, we listen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank Mr. Inslee for those very kind comments. I want to thank all my colleagues. It has been a great privilege to work with you and for you and for this great institution.

I also want to observe, before we bring this to a close, the great work of the staff on both sides of the aisle who have labored long and hard, almost 2 years on this bill alone. We don't give enough recognition to the staff. Those of us who are more visible, we come before the House and we are recorded on C-SPAN and everybody says they are doing some good deeds. But the real driving force behind so much of what we do is the very able professional staff that we literally are blessed with, both Democrat and Republican.

And this comes from a former staff member, but I came to Capitol Hill 42 years ago as a starry-eyed young staffer. I got 3 years off for good behavior. I was elected county executive back home, and for the past 24 years I have been privileged to serve in my own right as a Member. But in those 42 years, one of the most dramatic changes, and people are asking me this all the time as I am taking leave, what has changed about the House and about Congress, this institution? One of the most dramatic changes that is so often overlooked is a change for the good, for the positive, the very high degree of professionalism so evident in the staffs of the committees. And I take the Science Committee as a classic example of how it should be done by all. The professionalism, the hard work, dedication on both sides of the aisle.

And we are going into a new chapter. We as Republicans are going from the majority to the minority. The Democrats are going from the minority to the majority. And people are saying, well, what is going to change? Well, I will tell you what is not going to change in the Science Committee. It is the working relationship across that center divide, the professionals who day in and day out prepare us for the debates, the hearings, and for the activities that we are about. That is not going to change. The Democrats will have a few more and the Republicans will have a few less, but I guarantee you this: As the next Congress comes to a close and people are looking back on its performance, I fully expect that the Science Committee once again will be one of the stars in this Chamber.

So with that, let me say to my colleagues on the committee how fortunate I consider myself to have had the privilege of working with and for you over the years, and as I say to all my colleagues in this Chamber, I urge your support for H.R. 1674, as amended. It is a bill that demonstrates that when we work together, we can accomplish so much for so many.

Mr. Speaker, I insert an exchange of letters between the Committees on Science and International Relations in the Record.

I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle, who have labored for more than 2 years on this bill. That includes Eric Webster, who has since moved on to NOAA, and David Goldston, Sara Gray, Chad English, and especially Amy Carroll, who has worked tirelessly to keep this bill moving forward.

Congress of the United States, Committee on International

Relations,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2006.

Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on International

Relations in H.R. 1674, the Tsunami Warning and Education

Act, as proposed for consideration under suspension of the

Rules of the House.

The Committee on International Relations recognizes the

importance of H.R. 1674 and the need for the legislation to

move expeditiously. Therefore, I will not stand in the way of

floor consideration. This, of course, is conditional on our

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my

decision to allow the bill to come to the floor waives,

reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the

Committee on International Relations, and that a copy of this

letter and your letter in response will be included in the

Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House

Floor.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman.

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