May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4681

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION

OF H.R. 961, CLEAN WATER

AMENDMENTS OF 1995

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call

up House Resolution 140 and ask for its

immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. RES. 140

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the

House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for

consideration of the bill (H.R. 961) to amend

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with

section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall

be confined to the bill and shall not exceed

two hours equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member

of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of

amendment under the five-minute rule the

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the

bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by

title rather than by section. The first three

sections and each title of the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute

shall be considered as read. Points of order

against the committee amendment in the

nature of a substitute for failure to comply

with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 5(a) of

rule XXI or section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During

consideration of the bill for amendment, the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

may accord priority in recognition on the

basis of whether the Member offering an

amendment has caused it to be printed in the

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule

XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. Before consideration of any

other amendment it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in the report of

the Committee on Rules accompanying this

resolution. That amendment may be offered

only by a Member designated in the report,

may amend portions of the bill not yet read

for amendment, shall be considered as read,

shall be debatable for ten minutes equally

divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure, shall

not be subject to amendment, and shall not

be subject to a demand for division of the

question in the House or in the Committee of

the Whole. If that amendment is adopted,

then the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as so amended shall be

considered as original text for the purpose of

further amendment. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment for

the Committee shall rise and report the bill

to the House with such amendments as may

have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on an

amendment adopted in the Committee of the

Whole to the bill or to the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The previous question shall be considered as

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto

to final passage without intervening motion

except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. QUILLEN]

is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman

from California [Mr. BEILENSON], pending which I yield myself such time as I

may consume. During consideration of

this resolution, all time yielded is for

purposes of debate only.

(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was give

permission to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House

Resolution 140 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 961,

the Clean Water Amendments of 1995.

The rule provides 2 hours of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure. The rule waives section

302(f) of the Budget Act, prohibiting

new budget authority in excess of the

committee’s section 602(b) allocation,

against consideration of the bill.

The rule also makes in order the

committee amendment in the nature of

a substitute as original text for amendment purposes, which shall be read by

title rather than section for amendment, with each title considered as

read. The rule provides the following

waivers against the amendment in the

nature of a substitute: waives clause 7

of rule XVI pertaining to germaneness;

clause 5(a) of rule XXI, prohibiting appropriations in a legislative bill, and

section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Before consideration of any other

amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. This is an en

bloc amendment addressing concerns of

other committees of jurisdiction and

makes technical amendments. This

amendment may be offered only by Mr.

SHUSTER or his designee, may amend

portions of the bill not yet read for

amendment, shall be considered as

read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes

equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, shall not be

subject to amendment, and shall not be

subject to a demand for division of the

question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. If that amendment is adopted, then the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute as so amended shall be considered as original text for the purpose of

further amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point

out that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee furnished the

Rules Committee with a list of waivers

required and specified the provisions

requiring such waivers. Therefore, I do

not object to the waivers provided in

this rule.

Under this rule, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

Finally, the rule provides one motion

to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act

has not been amended comprehensively

since 1987, and I strongly support this

bill. I’m particularly pleased to see

that the bill takes giant steps toward

relieving the enormous burdens placed

on the States, on business and industry

and agriculture, and on individuals by

outrageous and unnecessary Federal

regulations. The Clean Water Act has

done a good job in getting Federal,

State, and local governments and private industry to work together to provide our Nation with clean, healthy

water. But the Clean Water Act has not

been without controversy, and this bill

before us today provides an important

balance between environmental protection and private property rights. It

provides much needed clarification of

wetlands issues and requires risk assessment and cost benefit analysis for

any new clean water regulations. Perhaps most important, this bill provides

flexibility to State and local governments in implementating regulations.

H.R. 961 has been strongly endorsed

by almost all agricultural, business,

and industry organizations, and this

widespread support is a clear indication that a great deal of cooperation,

dedication, and common sense went

into the development of this important

legislation. I commend the members of

the Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee for their hard work.

This open rule will allow Members to

offer any relevant amendments to address their particular concerns, and I

urge adoption of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the

RECORD the following material comparing open and closed rules in the 103d

and 104th Congresses:

THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,1 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS

[As of May 9, 1995]

Rule type

103d Congress 104th Congress

Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total

Open/Modified-open 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 44 24 75

Modified Closed 3 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 47 8 25

Closed 4 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 9 0 0
H 4682 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,1 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS—Continued

[As of May 9, 1995]

Rule type

103d Congress 104th Congress

Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total

Totals: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 104 100 32 100

1 This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only waive points of

order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an open amendment process under House rules. 2 An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule subject only

to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be preprinted in the Congressional Record. 3 A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which preclude

amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open to amendment. 4 A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the committee in reporting the bill).

SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS

[As of May 9, 1995]

H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule

H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 5 ............................... Unfunded Mandate Reform ................................................................................................ A: 350–71 (1/19/95).

H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) ....................................... MC .................................... H. Con. Res. 17 ...............

H.J. Res. 1.

Social Security ....................................................................................................................

Balanced Budget Amdt.

A: 255–172 (1/25/95).

H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 101 ........................... Land Transfer, Taos Pueblo Indians .................................................................................. A: voice vote (2/1/95).

H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 400 ........................... Land Exchange, Arctic Nat’l. Park and Preserve ............................................................... A: voice vote (2/1/95).

H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 440 ........................... Land Conveyance, Butte County, Calif .............................................................................. A: voice vote (2/1/95).

H. Res. 55 (2/1/95) ......................................... O ...................................... H.R. 2 ............................... Line Item Veto .................................................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/2/95).

H. Res. 60 (2/6/95) ......................................... O ...................................... H.R. 665 ........................... Victim Restitution ............................................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/7/95).

H. Res. 61 (2/6/95) ......................................... O ...................................... H.R. 666 ........................... Exclusionary Rule Reform ................................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/7/95).

H. Res. 63 (2/8/95) ......................................... MO .................................... H.R. 667 ........................... Violent Criminal Incarceration ........................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/9/95).

H. Res. 69 (2/9/95) ......................................... O ...................................... H.R. 668 ........................... Criminal Alien Deportation ................................................................................................. A: voice vote (2/10/95).

H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 728 ........................... Law Enforcement Block Grants .......................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/10/95).

H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 7 ............................... National Security Revitalization ......................................................................................... PQ: 229–100; A: 227–127 (2/15/95).

H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) ....................................... MC .................................... H.R. 831 ........................... Health Insurance Deductibility ........................................................................................... PQ: 230–191; A: 229–188 (2/21/95).

H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 830 ........................... Paperwork Reduction Act ................................................................................................... A: v.v. (2/22/95).

H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) ....................................... MC .................................... H.R. 889 ........................... Defense Supplemental ........................................................................................................ A: 282–144 (2/22/95).

H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 450 ........................... Regulatory Transition Act ................................................................................................... A: 252–175 (2/23/95).

H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 1022 ......................... Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................ A: 253–165 (2/27/95).

H. Res. 100 (2/27/95) ..................................... O ...................................... H.R. 926 ........................... Regulatory Reform and Relief Act ..................................................................................... A: voice vote (2/28/95).

H. Res. 101 (2/28/95) ..................................... MO .................................... H.R. 925 ........................... Private Property Protection Act .......................................................................................... A: 271–151 (3/1/95)

H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 988 ........................... Attorney Accountability Act ................................................................................................ A: voice vote (3/6/95)

H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) ....................................... MO .................................... H.R. 1058 ......................... Securities Litigation Reform ...............................................................................................

H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) ....................................... MO .................................... .......................................... ............................................................................................................................................. A: 257–155 (3/7/95)

H. Res. 108 (3/7/95) ....................................... Debate .............................. H.R. 956 ........................... Product Liability Reform ..................................................................................................... A: voice vote (3/8/95)

H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) ....................................... MC .................................... .......................................... ............................................................................................................................................. PQ: 234–191 A: 247–181 (3/9/95)

H. Res. 115 (3/14/95) ..................................... MO .................................... H.R. 1158 ......................... Making Emergency Supp. Approps. .................................................................................... A: 242–190 (3/15/95)

H. Res. 116 (3/15/95) ..................................... MC .................................... H.J. Res. 73 ..................... Term Limits Const. Amdt ................................................................................................... A: voice vote (3/28/95)

H. Res. 117 (3/16/95) ..................................... Debate .............................. H.R. 4 ............................... Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 .................................................................................. A: voice vote (3/21/95)

H. Res. 119 (3/21/95) ..................................... MC .................................... .......................................... ............................................................................................................................................. A: 217–211 (3/22/95)

H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1271 ......................... Family Privacy Protection Act ............................................................................................. A: 423–1 (4/4/95)

H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 660 ........................... Older Persons Housing Act .................................................................................................

H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) ....................................... MC .................................... H.R. 1215 ......................... Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995 ................................................................. A: 228–204 (4/5/95)

H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) ....................................... MC .................................... H.R. 483 ........................... Medicare Select Expansion ................................................................................................. A: 253–172 (4/6/95)

H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 655 ........................... Hydrogen Future Act of 1995 ............................................................................................. A: voice vote (5/2/95)

H. Res. 139 (5/3/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 1361 ......................... Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 ............................................................................................... A: voice vote (5/9/95)

H. Res. 140 (5/9/95) ....................................... O ...................................... H.R. 961 ........................... Clean Water Amendments ..................................................................................................

Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.

b 1200

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of

my time.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield myself such time as I may

consume.

Mr. Speaker, we support this open

rule for H.R. 961, the clean water

amendments of 1995, which makes

major and substantial changes in current requirements for controlling

water pollution and protecting wetlands.

Fortunately, the majority on the

Committee on Rules did not accede to

a request from the chairman of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that a time limit be place

don the amendment process. This is an

enormously controversial bill that

would in the view of many of us reverse

many of the gains in water quality

that have been achieved by what is

probably our most successful environmental law, and Members should not be

shut out by an arbitrary time limit.

As the gentleman from Tennessee has

explained, the rule does contain several

waivers. We are told that the waiver of

the Budget Act prohibition against legislation containing new budget authority in excess of the committee’s 602(b)

budget allocation is necessary because

of the provision in the bill that waives

the Federal Government’s sovereign

immunity under the Clean Water Act.

We would point out to Members that

the Congressional Budget Office was

unable to provide estimates for the

cost of this provision that is being protected, but it did report that the cost

‘‘could be significant.’’

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules

heard criticism yesterday about the

process of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in considering this bill. Many of us are concerned

that some of the most controversial

provisions of H.R. 961 did not receive

adequate attention in the hearings

that preceded markup of the bill. The

provisions in question are those that

provide waivers, loopholes, and

rollbacks of existing Clean Water Act

provisions relating to major dischargers of pollution in our waters.

We are concerned that the public did

not have the opportunity to comment

on the new provisions in the bill that

were added late in the process and

which would weaken or revoke many of

the basic features of the Clean Water

Act that have made it so successful

over the years.

We are concerned, too, about widespread reports that those provisions of

H.R. 961 were written in large part by

lobbyists representing industries that

are major polluters. Several agencies,

including the EPA and the Department

of Justice, have protested that they did

not have the opportunity to comment

in a timely manner on these new and

very damaging provisions.

This open rule will give us the opportunity to discuss and emphasize some

of those changes and ensure that the

public has a greater awareness of their

impact on the quality of our Nation’s

water supply.

Mr. Speaker, we will agree that there

are reasonable changes that should be

made in the Clean Water Act. Its requirements should be as rational, efficient, and cost effective as possible.

Complying with its regulations

should not be more expensive or more

burdensome than is necessary for the

municipalities, industries, and private

landowners affected by the provisions

of the act.

Unfortunately, the bill before us

would have widespread and serious consequences for the quality of the Nation’s water supply. It would make legitimate regulation much more difficult, in many cases impossible.

Interestingly, many of its provisions—including the new classification

system and compensation program for

wetlands—would set up cumbersome

and costly procedures that are likely

to require more Federal employees and

agency costs at a time when we are
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4683

trying to downsize the Federal bureaucracy, or the agencies in charge

will simply have to decide not to effectively enforce the law.

And, as CBO reported, the cost of the

compensation program for landowners

of wetlands is impossible to estimate,

but it is a program that could dramatically increase costs to the taxpayers.

There are preliminary estimates that

indicate that the effect of the bill

would be to increase the deficit by several billion dollars during fiscal years

1995–98.

The Clean Water Act has been one of

our most successful environmental

laws and one of the most popular ones

with individual citizens, a great majority of whom would prefer to see the act

strengthened, and not weakened as

H.R. 961 would do. This is legislation

that threatens to overturn very important health protections that citizens

have under the law as it is currently

written.

The bill in its present form is likely

to invite massive amounts of new litigation that ignores scientific information, most notably in making major

changes in wetlands regulation without

the benefit of a congressionally-mandated study on wetlands that was released just yesterday and which, and I

quote from the article in the New York

Times discussing it, ‘‘repudiates the

basic approach taken by the bill,’’

mainly because it found that the costbenefit analysis requirements in the

bill are inflexible and unrealistic.

The bill has many other objectionable features including those that reduce water quality protection by undermining the strong national standards that have produced significant

water quality improvements in the last

20 years. It seeks to repeal regulations

that protect city water from pollution

runoff.

It eases Federal protections for industrial polluters, and allows development of protected wetlands that are

critical to our Nation’s water supply.

In fact it would redefine wetlands in

such a way that well over half of the

Nation’s wetlands, including parts of

the Everglades, would be removed from

protection.

Mr. Speaker, one would think from

reading this bill that we have gone too

far or certainly far enough in attempting to clean up our Nation’s waters. In

fact, however, over 40 percent of our

waters do not meet the standards for

the uses designated under existing law.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the administration strongly opposes the bill because,

in its words, it threatens to undermine

achievement in cleaning up the Nation’s waters and would significantly

delay progress in addressing remaining

water pollution problems.

Among its most objectionable provisions, the bill would reduce water quality protection, eliminate fundamental

wetlands protections, create enormous

new costs, fail to address effectively

non-point source pollution, and finally

would paralyze the Federal Government’s ability to issue regulations and

guidance to protect the Nation’s waters.

Fortunately as we have discussed, as

the gentleman from Tennessee told us

at the outset, this is an open rule, so

we will have the opportunity to try to

change many of the most worrisome

features of the bill. We hope that

amendments strengthening the act, or

at least returning it to its existing

state, are approved.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we support the

rule for H.R. 961. We urge its approval

so that we may proceed with consideration of this legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following

for the RECORD.

Floor Procedure in the 104th Congress; Compiled by the Rules Committee Democrats

Bill No. Title Resolution No. Process used for floor consideration Amendments

in order

H.R. 1* ..................... Compliance .................................................................................................. H. Res. 6 ..................... Closed .................................................................................................................................................. None. H. Res. 6 .................. Opening Day Rules Package ....................................................................... H. Res. 5 ..................... Closed; contained a closed rule on H.R. 1 within the closed rule ................................................... None. H.R. 5* ..................... Unfunded Mandates .................................................................................... H. Res. 38 ................... Restrictive; Motion adopted over Democratic objection in the Committee of the Whole to limit

debate on section 4; Pre-printing gets preference.

N/A.

H.J. Res. 2* .............. Balanced Budget ......................................................................................... H. Res. 44 ................... Restrictive; only certain substitutes ................................................................................................... 2R; 4D. H. Res. 43 ................ Committee Hearings Scheduling ................................................................. H. Res. 43 (OJ) ........... Restrictive; considered in House no amendments ............................................................................. N/A. H.R. 2* ..................... Line Item Veto ............................................................................................. H. Res. 55 ................... Open; Pre-printing gets preference .................................................................................................... N/A. H.R. 665* ................. Victim Restitution Act of 1995 ................................................................... H. Res. 61 ................... Open; Pre-printing gets preference .................................................................................................... N/A. H.R. 666* ................. Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995 ....................................................... H. Res. 60 ................... Open; Pre-printing gets preference .................................................................................................... N/A. H.R. 667* ................. Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995 ................................................ H. Res. 63 ................... Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap on amendments ................................................................................... N/A. H.R. 668* ................. The Criminal Alien Deportation Improvement Act ...................................... H. Res. 69 ................... Open; Pre-printing gets preference; Contains self-executing provision ............................................ N/A. H.R. 728* ................. Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants ..................................... H. Res. 79 ................... Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap on amendments; Pre-printing gets preference ................................... N/A. H.R. 7* ..................... National Security Revitalization Act ............................................................ H. Res. 83 ................... Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap on amendments; Pre-printing gets preference ................................... N/A. H.R. 729* ................. Death Penalty/Habeas ................................................................................. N/A .............................. Restrictive; brought up under UC with a 6 hr. time cap on amendments ...................................... N/A. S. 2 .......................... Senate Compliance ...................................................................................... N/A .............................. Closed; Put on suspension calendar over Democratic objection ....................................................... None. H.R. 831 ................... To Permanently Extend the Health Insurance Deduction for the Self-Employed.

H. Res. 88 ................... Restrictive; makes in order only the Gibbons amendment; waives all points of order; Contains

self-executing provision.

1D.

H.R. 830* ................. The Paperwork Reduction Act ...................................................................... H. Res. 91 ................... Open .................................................................................................................................................... N/A. H.R. 889 ................... Emergency Supplemental/Rescinding Certain Budget Authority ................ H. Res. 92 ................... Restrictive; makes in order only the Obey substitute ........................................................................ 1D. H.R. 450* ................. Regulatory Moratorium ................................................................................ H. Res. 93 ................... Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap on amendments; Pre-printing gets preference ................................... N/A. H.R. 1022* ............... Risk Assessment .......................................................................................... H. Res. 96 ................... Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap on amendments ................................................................................... N/A. H.R. 926* ................. Regulatory Flexibility .................................................................................... H. Res. 100 ................. Open .................................................................................................................................................... N/A. H.R. 925* ................. Private Property Protection Act .................................................................... H. Res. 101 ................. Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap on amendments; Requires Members to pre-print their amendments

in the Record prior to the bill’s consideration for amendment, waives germaneness and

budget act points of order as well as points of order concerning appropriating on a legislative bill against the committee substitute used as base text.

1D.

H.R. 1058* ............... Securities Litigation Reform Act ................................................................. H. Res. 105 ................. Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap on amendments; Pre-printing gets preference; Makes in order the

Wyden amendment and waives germaness against it.

1D.

H.R. 988* ................. The Attorney Accountability Act of 1995 ..................................................... H. Res. 104 ................. Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap on amendments; Pre-printing gets preference ...................................... N/A. H.R. 956* ................. Product Liability and Legal Reform Act ...................................................... H. Res. 109 ................. Restrictive; makes in order only 15 germane amendments and denies 64 germane amendments

from being considered.

8D; 7R.

H.R. 1158 ................. Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions ........... H. Res. 115 ................. Restrictive; Combines emergency H.R. 1158 & nonemergency 1159 and strikes the abortion provision; makes in order only pre-printed amendments that include offsets within the same

chapter (deeper cuts in programs already cut); waives points of order against three amendments; waives cl 2 of rule XXI against the bill, cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule XVI against the

substitute; waives cl 2(e) od rule XXI against the amendments in the Record; 10 hr time cap

on amendments. 30 minutes debate on each amendment.

N/A.

H.J. Res. 73* ............ Term Limits .................................................................................................. H. Res. 116 ................. Restrictive; Makes in order only 4 amendments considered under a ‘‘Queen of the Hill’’ procedure and denies 21 germane amendments from being considered.1D; 3R.

H.R. 4* ..................... Welfare Reform ............................................................................................ H. Res. 119 ................. Restrictive; Makes in order only 31 perfecting amendments and two substitutes; Denies 130

germane amendments from being considered; The substitutes are to be considered under a

‘‘Queen of the Hill’’ procedure; All points of order are waived against the amendments..

5D; 26R.

H.R. 1271* ............... Family Privacy Act ....................................................................................... H. Res. 125 ................. Open .................................................................................................................................................... N/A. H.R. 660* ................. Housing for Older Persons Act .................................................................... H. Res. 126 ................. Open .................................................................................................................................................... N/A. H.R. 1215* ............... The Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995 ................................... H. Res. 129 ................. Restrictive; Self Executes language that makes tax cuts contingent on the adoption of a balanced budget plan and strikes section 3006. Makes in order only one substitute. Waives all

points of order against the bill, substitute made in order as original text and Gephardt substitute..

1D.

H.R. 483 ................... Medicare Select Extension ........................................................................... H. Res. 130 ................. Restrictive; waives cl 2(1)(6) of rule XI against the bill; makes H.R. 1391 in order as original

text; makes in order only the Dingell substitute; allows Commerce Committee to file a report

on the bill at any time..

1D.

H.R. 655 ................... Hydrogen Future Act .................................................................................... H. Res 136 .................. Open .................................................................................................................................................... N/A. H.R. 1361 ................. Coast Guard Authorization .......................................................................... H. Res 139 .................. Open; waives sections 302(f) and 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act against the bill’s

consideration and the committee substitute; waives c1 5(a) of rule XXI against the committee substitute.

N/A.
H 4684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Floor Procedure in the 104th Congress; Compiled by the Rules Committee Democrats—Continued

Bill No. Title Resolution No. Process used for floor consideration Amendments

in order

H.R. 961 ................... Clean Water Act ........................................................................................... H. Res 140 .................. Open; pre-printing gets preference; waives sections 302(f) and 602(b) of the Budget Act against

the bill’s consideration; waives c1 7 of rule XVI, c1 5(a) of rule XXI and section 302(f) of the

Budget Act against the committee substitute. Makes in order Shuster substitute as first order

of business.

N/A.

* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation, 68% restrictive; 32% open.   Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so called modified open and modified

closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from

the Rules Committee in the 103rd Congress. ** ** Not included in this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R. 440.

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

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. GOSS], a very

valuable member of the Committee on

Rules.

(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the

distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. QUILLEN], the chairman

emeritus, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this

open rule for the clean water amendments of 1995. The Clean Water Act is

one our most important and far-reaching environmental laws, and the policies associated with it deserve a full

hearing on the floor of this House.

I congratulate Chairman SHUSTER

and Subcommittee Chairman BOEHLERT for their hard work in acting on

this reauthorization in such a timely

manner—it is a credit to them and the

Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee that we have this bill on

the floor in early May.

Mr. Speaker, clean water is vital to

everyone in America, but nowhere

more so than in the State of Florida.

We are literally surrounded by water—

the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of

Mexico. In southwest Florida, we have

lakes, streams, and wetlands that are

national treasures like the Everglades

and Big Cypress—all of which are vital

to our economy and our well-being.

Thousands of new residents move to

my district every year for the pristine

beaches, the clear harbors, and the subtropical climate, providing tremendous

economic growth. Each one of our

major industries—tourism, fishing, and

agriculture, depend on clean water and

a healthy environment.

For years, the Clean Water Act has

helped to remove pollution from many

of America’s lakes, rivers, and coastlines. It has aided in the preservation

of our more pristine bodies of water.

And yes, it has created some problems

along the way. Wetlands protection, for

instance, has become a regulatory

nightmare for most ordinary citizens.

Obtaining permits can take years, enforcement can be inconsistent, and

local conditions are sometimes not

considered. States and local governments have complained about rigid

Federal mandates that are both costly

and inefficient.

Improvements to the Clean Water

Act can and should be made, and I look

forward to addressing these issues in a

full and open debate. I am especially

pleased that this debate will include a

substitute amendment offered by my

friend, JIM SAXTON, from New Jersey.

The floor discussion on the fine

points of these proposals will likely be

determinant for the way many Members will vote. For instance, I will be

seeking answers to questions like, will

H.R. 961 replace one inefficient, unworkable wetlands bureaucracy with

another? How will the classification

criteria used by the Army Corps of Engineers relate to the just-released National Academy of Sciences Wetlands

Report? Would it be better to address

the problems associated with wetlands

permitting by adopting the National

Governor’s Association proposal to do

the work at the local level, with Federal oversight?

In addition, I will be interested in the

debate over the coastal zone management provisions in H.R. 961; specifically, are we better off eliminating the

nonpoint source pollution provisions

from the CZMA, or do these just need

some basic reforms? And if we do repeal section 1627 of the CZMA, are we

providing enough coastal protection in

other areas?

Finally, I am concerned about the

takings language in H.R. 961 that

would provide automatic compensation

for any portion of a property that lost

20 percent of its value. Estimates from

the Congressional Budget Office suggest that the cost to the Corps of Engineers of this provision alone could be

$15 billion. The alternative could be to

leave our most vital wetlands unprotected.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to

support this open rule.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield such time as he may consume to

the gentleman from California [Mr. MINETA], the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

(Mr. MINETA asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I thank

my colleague, the gentleman from

California, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this

rule. It provides no limitations in

terms of amendments, nor any limitation on the time available for amendments.

This is a very large and very complex

bill with enormous consequences for

people from all across America. It will

determine how healthy or unhealthy

their drinking water supply will be. It

will determine whether the water that

flows through their community is a

blessing or a blight, and whether they

need to try to keep their kids from

swimming in it or fishing in it. It will

determine whether they have enough

clean water to be able to attract new

businesses with new jobs.

This is a big bill. When it was introduced, it was 141 pages. Now it is 326

pages. This bill makes far-reaching

changes in the Clean Water Act, one of

the most important and successful

basic protections that our citizen have.

b 1215

This bill will reach into every community, every home and come out

through every faucet in America. This

is a bill which requires careful and

thorough consideration. This is a bill

where we cannot afford to make mistakes and we cannot afford to act in

haste. It is therefore imperative that

this rule does not limit amendments or

amendment time. Whatever concerns

Members have, we need to hear from

them. We need to consider them. We

need to correct them if they need correcting, and for the same reasons it is

important to hear all points of view in

general debate.

We have Democrats who oppose the

bill, and Democrats who support the

bill. We have Republicans who oppose

the bill, and we have Republicans who

support the bill. All have different concerns and issues that they wish to air,

and all should be given that opportunity.

The rule contributes to that goal by

providing extra general debate time, 2

hours to be equally divided. But that

still leaves open the question of distributing that time is a way which is

fair to all points of views and allows all

points of view to be heard.

I, for my part, have committed that

I will yield 15 minutes of my time to

Democrats who are in favor of the bill;

namely in opposition to the position I

take. And my suggestion yesterday at

the Committee on Rules was that 15

minutes of the majority time should be

set aside for Republicans who are in opposition to the bill. In that way both

parties and both opponents and proponents would have equal time. To do

otherwise would bar some points of

view from being expressed on the floor,

and would artificially skew the debate

by providing more time for proponents

than for opponents, which would be

clearly an attempt to bias the debate.

I assume that no one here is afraid of

anyone else’s arguments, and so if I

might I would like to ask either the

gentleman from Tennessee, or my very

fine chairman from Pennsylvania, as to

whether or not Republicans who oppose

the bill will have time from the majority side, something on the other of let

us say 15 minutes, as I have given to
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4685

the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.

HAYES] to express their view on the

bill.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. MINETA. I am more than happy

to yield to my friend, the gentleman

from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. I am pleased to respond to the gentleman that the Republican leadership has agreed to give

15 minutes to the Democratic proponents of the bill, and so I of course

will accede to that request. There were

no requests at the Committee on Rules

yesterday formally submitted at the

time we met. It would be my intention

to give as much time as I possibly

could to all points of view.

However, because of the previous

commitment that had been made by

the Republican leadership to those

Democrats who support the bill, I am

constrained to honor that commitment, but I would point out that I understand there is a substitute which

the gentleman from New York [Mr.

BOEHLERT] and the gentleman from

New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON] have which

will be offered and under the rule there

will be unlimited debate made available on that.

So, it certainly would not be my intention at this time to attempt to

limit or constrain their time on their

substitute at all.

Mr. MINETA. If I might reclaim my

time, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it

then under the arrangement then the

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

SHUSTER] will have 45 minutes of general debate time under his control, I

will have 45 minutes of debate time

under my control, and the gentleman

from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES] will then

have a half hour, is that correct?

Mr. SHUSTER. That is my understanding as to what the agreement was

that I am simply carrying out.

Mr. MINETA. And that opponents of

the bill that will be on the floor, then,

will be accorded their time only when

they present their substitute rather

than under general debate time under

H.R. 961.

Mr. SHUSTER. If I have the time I

will be happy to yield to them, but

since I do not know whether I am going

to have any time, I cannot commit a

block of time, because that block of

time previously had been committed

by the Republican leadership. Of

course, the gentleman from California

is certainly free to yield whatever time

he wants to the opponents of the bill.

Mr. MINETA. Absolutely. I am going

to be yielding my time to do that.

I appreciate the gentleman from

California giving me the time.

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

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

additional minutes to the gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER]

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I simply

take this time to announce to the body

that it is our intention to finish this

bill by 1 p.m. Friday afternoon. In consultation with the leadership, I am informed that we might go tonight until

between 9:30 and 10, that we will go tomorrow night as long as is necessary,

so that we can finish this bill by 1 p.m.

I am pleased that we have an open

rule; I am pleased that we have no time

limits. If it appears that it is being

dragged out, or there might be dilatory

tactics, which I certainly do not anticipate, but should there be such tactics

to delay or to get to go to final passage, then I of course reserve the right

to move to put time limits on the debate.

I hope that we do not have to do that.

It is not my intention, but it is indeed

our intention to complete this bill and

have final passage by 1 p.m. Friday

afternoon.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 3 minutes to the distinguished

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

BORSKI], the ranking member of the

subcommittee.

Mr. BORSKI. I want to thank the

gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my

support for the rule and my strong opposition to H.R. 961, an industry-written bill filled with loopholes and waivers to roll back the Clean Water Act.

H.R. 961 will do tremendous damage

to our Nation’s environment, the water

quality of our rivers, lakes, and

streams, and will threaten the health

of the American public.

This bill has been rushed through the

process with no time for adequate consideration.

At no time was the Democratic leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ever consulted

about the drafting of this bill.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the environmental community

were totally excluded from the process.

H.R. 961 is an industry wish-list

drafted by secret industry task forces

that has had no hearings and the barest

minimum of consideration in the committee.

The 326-page industry wish-list was

unveiled for the first time on March 22.

One week later, we went to subcommittee markup.

Less than 1 week after that markup

began in full committee. These were

markups that were scheduled over the

objections of the Democratic leadership.

In only 15 days, we moved from seeing a 326-page bill for the first time,

through subcommittee and full committee markups.

That would be impressive for a noncontroversial bill—but this bill is very

controversial.

The result of that one-sided and exclusive process—a process that is totally unprecedented in our committee—is a bill that will completely gut

the Clean Water Act.

H.R. 961 will roll back 20 years of environmental protection that has

cleaned up many of our Nation’s rivers,

lakes, and streams.

Before 1972, the rivers in many cities

were no more than open sewers. Some

even caught fire.

We must not turn back the clock on

environmental protection.

H.R. 961 would pit State against

State, city against city, in the race to

save money and attract industry by relaxing environmental standards.

It would do virtually nothing to attack the major remaining source of

water pollution—non-point source runoff from rural and urban areas. In fact,

it would eliminate the Coastal Zone

Non-Point Control Act—the one effective program we have for managing

non-point pollution.

In the last 10 years, there have been

more than 100 outbreaks of waterborne

disease. In Milwaukee polluted runoff

in drinking water resulted in 400,000 illnesses and more than 100 deaths.

H.R. 961 would remove protection

from 60 to 80 percent of our Nation’s

wetlands.

It would leave parts of such valuable

areas as the Florida Everglades, the

Great Dismal Swamp and large portions of the New Jersey shore unprotected.

Mr. Speaker, this bill should be defeated. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee should start over

on a bill that will make the reforms

that are truly needed in the Clean

Water Act but will maintain protection

of the environment.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT], who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule we will vote on this morning. I am proud that the people’s House

will bring this landmark legislation up

for debate under an open rule that allows for maximum debate.

I think it is a sign of the maturity

and confidence of the new majority

that we are willing to air our disagreements over major legislation. Competing ideas are not just permitted, but

encouraged to percolate to the top,

where we will have full and open debate.

Let me also say that I believe the

committee’s hearing process was open

as well. As Chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the

Environment, I presided over six major

hearings in Washington, and one field

hearing in upstate New York, that one

dealing exclusively with the subject of

nonpoint source pollution.

The process was open, and I applaud

that. I voted for the bill out of subcommittee to report it to the full committee despite the fact that I had

major objections, but I feel that the

day has long since gone when one person in the House can deny all of the
H 4686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

others the opportunity to consider

major legislation.

I voted for that bill to come out of

the subcommittee to the full committee, but I could not in good conscience

vote for that bill in the full committee,

and let me tell Members why.

First of all, a 334-page bill was filed

last Thursday. For most Members, the

first opportunity that they had to be

exposed to the extensive material on

this complex legislation was yesterday

when we returned to the Nation’s Capital, and today we are debating the legislation.

This legislation will remove over 60

percent of our Nation’s wetlands from

any level of protection, and allow the

destruction of maybe 80 percent of the

Nation’s wetlands. Just yesterday the

National Academy of Sciences issued a

report, and in effect at the briefing

these preeminent scientists said there

is no scientific basis for the wetlands

provision in the committee bill. We

have to deal with good science.

We have gone, those of us who are

proposing an alternative, my colleagues Congressman SAXTON of New

Jersey and Congressman ROEMER of Indiana, we have gone with an extensive

outreach program with the National

Governors Association and we have listened. That is what we are supposed to

do in Washington, listen, and we have

embraced the National Governors Association section of our bill dealing with

wetlands.

The bill, the committee bill, repeals

the coastal zone nonpoint source pollution control problem, a very serious

mistake with very serious consequences, so we reached out. We went

to the coastal zone organization, comprised of 30 States, their Governors,

their key environment and public safety people, and we have embraced,

adopted their provision to deal with

the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act

amendments.

The bill repeals entirely the storm

water permitting process. We think

that is a big mistake. We recognize

problems for smaller communities and

smaller businesses, so we have put into

our alternative a 10-year moratorium

that would exempt communities of less

than 100,000 or smaller industries. We

have tried to be responsive.

Time after time, poll after poll, the

people of America said they want us to

do something meaningful about clean

water. There is not one person in this

House, not one person in America, who

would hesitate in this richest, most

technologically advanced nation to go

to a water fountain in any city to

quench their thirst, but they did that

in Milwaukee and 104 people died in

1993; 400,000 were made ill.

b 1230

Four hundred thousand were made

ill, and that is just the most recent,

the flagrant example of how the public

health is in jeopardy if we do not do a

better job with our Nation’s clean

water program.

My colleagues in the House, the people across America, I urge you to give

very careful consideration to the alternative that will be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON],

myself, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROEMER].

Clean water should be an American

birthright.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from

New Mexico [Mr. RICHARDSON].

(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I

rise in support of the rule and against

this bill. This bill guts one of our

strongest environmental statutes, the

Clean Water Act. This bill is a bonanza

for special interests and polluters.

They are probably jumping for joy over

this bill.

They are doing so because they probably wrote it and, in fact, a better title

for this bill should be ‘‘The Dirty

Water Act of 1995’’ or ‘‘The Polluters’

Bill of Rights of 1995.’’

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a

dirty water bill which would significantly weaken laws, affecting protection of wetlands, enforcement of water

quality standards, regulation of storm

water runoff and a number of other

sewage standards relaxed much too

much. In effect, this legislation would

leave 50 to 70 percent of our Nation’s

most valuable wetlands unprotected. It

would delete controls on the discharge

of more than 70,000 chemicals which

are now regulated by the act, 70,000

chemicals no longer regulated by the

act. It would allow waivers for more

than two dozen cities to discharge sewage into the ocean. It would ignore the

impact of pollution from runoff, which

is the No. 1 source of pollution in our

Nation’s surface waters.

And here is a statement by the administration: ‘‘For these reasons, if

H.R. 961 were presented to the President in its current form, the Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of OMB, and the

Attorney General would recommend

that the bill be vetoed.’’ Again, this

bill reduces water quality protection.

We should support pollution prevention and flexible tailored cost approaches to meeting the goals of the

act, but this bill would undermine the

strong standards that have produced

significant water quality improvements in the last 20 years.

On wetlands, wetlands are critical to

our Nation’s water supply by functioning as natural filters which improve

water quality and mitigate potential

disastrous flooding plus protecting a

number of species. This bill would redefine wetlands and remove even the Everglades—as I said, over 70 percent of

all wetlands.

Now, costs are created by this bill.

We should all support private property

rights, but the takings provision in

this bill would dramatically increase

costs to the taxpayer of protecting our

vital wetlands.

The bill fails to address nonpoint

source pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is the major water quality problem currently facing the country. It

paralyzes the Federal Government’s

ability to issue regulations and guidance to protect the Nation’s water.

The administration believes that

cost-benefit analysis can and should influence environmental decisions and

that regulations should be adopted

upon a reasoned determination that

the benefits of the regulation would

justify its cost, but this bill would impose overly broad and judicially

reviewable risk assessment and costbenefit requirements prior to the issuance of such rules.

And most importantly, if you look at

pay-as-you-go scoring, H.R. 961 would

affect direct spending. Therefore, it

would be subject to the pay-as-you-go

provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and minimum

estimates indicate that the effect of

the bill would be to increase the deficit

by several billion dollars during fiscal

years 1995 and 1998.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It

should be rejected. We should start

over and do this carefully. We must reauthorize the Clean Water Act, but not

with this.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentleman from Tennessee for

yielding me this time.

Let me just say at the outset that I

want to thank the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] and the

Republican leadership for giving us the

opportunity to debate this very important matter under an open rule, giving

us the opportunity to bring our points

forward as the gentleman from New

York [Mr. BOEHLERT] and I will do in a

substitute a little later on. I called the

Speaker on Friday and I expressed my

concerns about this bill from a New

Jersey coastal perspective. The Speaker, without hesitation, said ‘‘You get

together what you think is good for

New Jersey in the way of a substitute

or in the way of however you want to

propose your amendments, and you

bring them to floor, and we will have

an open rule.’’ And I appreciate that. I

also appreciate the cooperation by the

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

SHUSTER] and members of the Committee on Rules in this regard. It truly is

an opportunity for us to debate before

the American people some issues that I

think are of great importance.

I have now been in this House for a

decade, and when I was elected to the

House and became a member of the

Committee on Merchant Marine and

Fisheries, soon to be joined by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

PALLONE], already in place was Mr.

Hughes from New Jersey, we were

there because we had great concerns,
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4687

concerns about water quality particularly in the coastal areas of our State.

I think the same concerns exist in

many coastal States, but perhaps they

were emphasized in New Jersey because

of our density of population. Perhaps

they were emphasized because of our

proximity to the largest city on our

coast in the country, New York City, of

course.

We began to look at some of the

problems caused by that in the Northeast, Long Island, New England, and

along the New Jersey coast; we began

on a bipartisan basis, without consideration for politics, in my opinion, in any

partisan form, to put together programs that were intended to create a

much better condition for inhabitants

and visitors to those coastal areas. We

had massive beach closings in the summers of 1987 and 1988 in New York and

New Jersey and other coastal States.

We had flooding in many areas of our

country, both inland areas as well as

coastal areas, and that has to do very

much with this bill.

We identified sources of pollution

that were relatively easy to take care

of, namely, point sources of pollution,

and we also recognized that there is another category of pollution known as

nonpoint sources of pollution that are

much more difficult to deal with, and

we put in place national policy sometimes tailored specifically to States

through the Coastal Zone Management

Act, and that process to take care of

many of these programs and to take

care of many of these issues and problems as well.

I must say together, as Republicans

and Democrats, we have been very,

very successful. As a matter of fact,

just the day before yesterday, an airplane pilot friend of mine who has been

flying over the Eastern coast for many

years said to us, ‘‘One of the things you

have done right,’’ he said, ‘‘and I know

this from my observations of flying

over these areas and viewing the habitat and the environment, particularly

the water, that you have done a good

job in beginning to turn the corner on

coastal pollution,’’ and we have been

able to do that.

Unfortunately, I take issue with

many or some, at least, of the provisions of this bill relative to the treatment of wetlands and their importance

in keeping the environmental quality

what it should be in coastal areas, with

the repeal of the CZMA section which

has reference to nonpoint pollution,

and that is why the Coastal States Association endorses the Saxton-Boehlert

approach which we think is much more

sensible, as well as the storm water

discharge and the permitting process

which is repealed by this act. All of

these things are vitally important to

the health and welfare and the environmental quality that affects the people’s

lives that inhabit and visit coastal

areas.

One other issue of particular importance, I know it is of importance to the

gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

PALLONE], as it to me, is the ocean

dumping provisions of this bill that relate to dredge spoils being dumped offshore and the elimination of the involvement on a direct basis of the Environmental Protection Agency.

And so we will offer at the appropriate time a substitute which we hope

we will get broad consensus on relative

to these and a few other subjects. And

so, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the

opportunity to express my support for

the rule this morning and my appreciation for the leadership on our side and

the Committee on Rules for permitting

us to offer under an open rule changes

in regard to these provisions.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman

from Colorado [Mrs. SCHROEDER].

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I

thank the gentleman from California

for yielding me this time.

I rise to say to Americans who believe that progress is preordained in

this country, ‘‘Wake up.’’ Because

today we are going backwards. Today

we are on a real slippery slope, and for

people who thought we would always

be able to have clean water in America,

that is one of the things we have been

very proud of, you can turn on a tap,

and rely on it. Guess what, today we

are saying, ‘‘Well, no more. We just do

not want to push the polluters, it costs

them too much to deal with the pollution.’’

And so let me say in the next breath,

for those who are looking for growth

stocks today, I say buy bottled water

stocks, because the real message is we

do not want the polluters to have to

clean up. We are going to have the people who use the water have to go buy

bottled water or whatever in the future.

This is not the America or the Federal Government that I knew, and I

must say I find it a very sad day. I do

not even want to vote for the rule. Yes,

it is open. I do not have any problem

with the rule. The only problem is I do

not think we should be dealing with

this bill today, because the scientific

evidence on this bill is not in.

Eighteen hours before we started debating this bill, the esteemed National

Academy of Sciences released its report, 18 hours. Now, maybe everybody

here is a little quicker than I am, but

to absorb that and figure out how to

deal with that and get it to the House

floor in 18 hours is almost beyond, I

think, most of our capability.

The Chair of that commission is William Lewis, a University of Colorado

professor, and he and the others who

drafted it were not complimentary at

all of this bill. They said it was much

too simplistic, and that it needed

many, many pieces of work. They also

were not particularly accepting of how

the policy had gone on in the past.

They came out with some long awaited

changes of how we might be more efficient, how we might deal with some of

the inconsistencies between different

Federal agencies. To me, that is the

issue I wish we had in front of us.

And I do not think this is the day

that we have had time to get it done,

so I fear that Americans are going to

wake up and suddenly say, ‘‘What happened? Why didn’t you tell us? Why

didn’t we know? We can’t believe anybody undid this.’’ Well, here we are, we

are doing it, and I find it very sad.

As we talk about these issues, you

know, people will talk about the wetlands, the wetlands, how very serious,

there are too many wetlands, we do not

need the wetlands.

Well, what do wetlands do? You

know, wetlands are absolutely vital as

a filter to filter out a lot of the pollutants, a lot of the pesticides, the sediment, the nitrogen that otherwise gets

right into the water source and everything else. We cannot put concrete on

and we cannot develop every inch of

this planet, because the runoff and

stuff needs to go somewhere. It needs

to be filtered through some place, and

the wetlands are a very essential part

of that ecosystem.

When you also look at all the different contaminants being put in and

the level of toxics that go into rivers

that will be considered acceptable,

well, let me tell you, if we are going to

allow these to be in flux, if we are

going to treat much more cavalierly

the 70,000 different pollutants people

have been talking about, that is going

to get transferred to people, and in either having to buy bottled water or in

higher health care costs, and more environmental damage to people’s health,

all sorts of things before you even get

to the fallout on what happens to the

wildlife.

We now know songbirds are dying in

America at a much faster pace than we

would like to see that happen. We do

not know why. We were learning in

this whole ecology debate that we are

having more and more about how interconnected we have become and how important it is to take these things seriously.

But I would hope that this body

would go on good science. I hope that

we find out for people who support this

bill long term when good science says

this is not a good bill to support, I

would hope that it is bad politics not

to support good science.

You know, this has not been a flat

Earth caucus. This has been a Nation

that has been built on good science and

relying on academics and relying on

people who do not have a dog in the

fight, and when the academics have

spoken and when those who are really

with no ax to bear have spoken, but

they have spoken just 18 hours ago and

they are warning this bill is going in

the wrong direction, I hope we wake up

and listen to that. I sincerely do.

I am very sorry that this day has

come.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 961 represents a fundamental change in the way we think about

clean water. Unfortunately, the change is not

a positive one.
H 4688 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Under current law, polluters do not have a

right to dump messes into public resources; if

they do, they pay a fine. In my district, for example, paying for the Sand Creek greenway

was part of Conoco’s penalty for discharging

toxics into Sand Creek. Under H.R. 961, the

outcome might be different. The cost benefit

provisions in H.R. 961 essentially make polluting a legally acceptable use of water.

Currently, the level of toxic contamination in

a river or lake that is considered acceptable is

based on human health and ecological standards. The Shuster bill will change that standard. It incorporates the polluter’s needs into

the formula.

Wetlands would change too. For the most

part they would disappear. Wetlands filter

more than 90 percent of the pesticides, sediment, and nitrogen that would otherwise pollute our bodies of water. Wetlands are also

vital to over 75 percent of our fish and shellfish. H.R. 961 eliminates wetlands protection

by narrowly defining a wetland and allowing a

claim as a ‘‘taking’’ for the protection of those

wetlands that fit the difinition.

The original goal of the Clean Water Act

was to make the Nation’s waters swimmable,

fishable, and drinkable. While we have not

cleaned up everything, the Clean Water Act

has brought us a long way on the road to that

goal. The Shuster bill not only abandons that

goal, but if enacted, will threaten our gains.

Vote ‘‘no’’ on H.R. 961.

STEWART SCHOOL,

Oxford, OH, April 7, 1995.

SAVE OUR SEAS,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SIR OR MADAM: We are learning about

oceans in school, and we don’t like the pollution. Not only fish are dying, but birds,

seagulls, and many more animals. I love animals and I hate pollution. Oil spils should be

stopped. Well, I and 24 other friends of mine

hate it.

Sincerely,

fFAITH MANKA.

b 1245

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

GEKAS].

(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, Members

of the House, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the rule which I

support and then to assert that my

support for the bill itself is based on

several propositions.

No. 1, I am impressed by the fact that

this is a bipartisan piece of legislation

that has reached the floor. One can

only read the results of the subcommittee vote and the full committee vote to

assert for themselves that this is indeed a bipartisan crafted piece of legislation. That in itself answers the request of the American people that we

approach this and many other problems in our country on that bipartisan

basis for which they have been yearning for so many years. Here is an excellent opportunity to put into play our

search for bipartisan solutions to the

Nation’s problems.

No. 2, if that were not enough, it also

is bipartisan in this particular unique

tenant about which I am concerned.

The Chesapeake Bay has for a long

time been a strong concern of the environmental community of our Nation,

and not only nationwide are the environmentalists interested in the preservation, and the clean up and the stabilization of Chesapeake Bay, but naturally the regional interests, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, et cetera, are

also interested in the preservation of

the Chesapeake Bay as we once knew

it. In that regard this bill calls for

adoption, as a matter of fact, of increase in, the President’s recommendation for reauthorization of that portion

that has to do with funding the Chesapeake Bay, another facet of the bipartisan approach that we can adopt by supporting the committee’s version of this

vital piece of legislation.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from

New Jersey [Mr. PALLONE].

Mr. PALLONE asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

support of the open rule but against

the bill. I think it is very important

that we do have an open rule without

time limits on this legislation because

it is so controversial, and I do believe

that the bill makes fundamental

changes to the Clean Water Act that

are not in the national interest.

I was very pleased to hear my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey

[Mr. SAXTON], speak before because he

pointed out and reminded me about the

fact that when we were first elected to

the Congress, back in the mid or late

1980’s, that a big part of our election

was because we swore that we would

come down here and try to stop ocean

dumping and improve ocean water

quality. The fact of the matter is that

since those New Jersey beach closings

in 1987 and 1988 the ocean water quality

and the quality of our rivers and harbors have increased dramatically in the

State of the New Jersey and throughout the country. People tell us every

day, and in particular looking forward

to the beach season this summer, they

talk about how improved the water

quality is and how many people want

to come down to the shore and swim

and enjoy our beaches and our water.

We cannot turn the clock back, and

my fear is that this is what this legislation does. It in effect turns the clock

back and makes it very possible that, if

it were to pass 5, 10, 20 years from now,

our water quality would significantly

decrease.

I would want to mention a few

things, and some of them were mentioned by my colleague, the gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON], specifically about what the bill does and how

it is dangerous.

With regard to coastal run off, contaminated run off is the number one

contributor to water pollution. The

committee bill would end an existing

program mandating States to draw up

enforceable run-off control plans in

coastal zones, replacing with a voluntary approach similar to an existing

program in inland areas. Environmentalists and the EPA have said that

our efforts should be directed toward

making run-off programs enforceable,

not voluntary.

With regard to storm water, the bill

would repeal an existing formal permitting process governing city and industrial storm water releases into service water, replacing it with a system

emphasizing voluntary measures of

compliance, again voluntary rather

than mandatory.

With regard to wetlands, by changing

definitions, the proposed legislation

would remove as much as half of the

Nation’s wetlands from protection. The

EPA would also be stripped of its veto

power of decisions by the Army Corps

of Engineers to grant wetlands development permits.

My colleague, the gentleman from

New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON], mentioned a

substitute, and we also from New Jersey have several amendments that

would try to improve and eliminate

some of these more egregious measures

that are in the bill. I urge my colleagues on the Democrat side to support the Saxton-Boehlert substitute.

This substitute would eliminate some

of the worst problems that exist in this

bill.

I was hopeful, however, that this

would be the opportunity, during the

authorization of the Clean Water Act,

to actually improve the existing Clean

Water Act, and so I have proposed, pursuant to this open rule again, certain

amendments that would actually improve the existing law. I am not sure,

and I think perhaps in this atmosphere

it is unlikely that some of these will

pass, but it is important to put them

forward.

One of them is the Clean Water Enforcement Act. We have noticed that

with the existing Clean Water Act

there has not been sufficient enforcement. In many cases it pays to pollute

because the fines that are imposed for

pollution or violating one’s discharge

permit are too small. The Clean Water

Enforcement Act would go after the

bad actors, the repeat violators of their

discharge permits, require mandatory

penalties and increasing penalties so

that it does not pay to pollute.

Another amendment that I will be

proposing today under the open rule is

something that my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES],

has repeatedly introduced and had

passed in this House several times in

previous sessions of Congress that

would basically require a national program for beach water quality testing.

In New Jersey we have a very good program that requires the testing of water

quality before we decide whether

beaches are open to bathers. I would

like to see that included in the Clean

Water Act, and again that would be a

strengthening amendment.