H 4690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Neal

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Owens

Oxley

Packard

Pallone

Parker

Pastor

Paxon

Payne (NJ)

Payne (VA)

Peterson (MN)

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Pomeroy

Porter

Portman

Poshard

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Rahall

Ramstad

Rangel

Reed

Regula

Reynolds

Richardson

Riggs

Rivers

Roberts

Roemer

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roth

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Royce

Rush

Sabo

Salmon

Sanders

Sanford

Sawyer

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Schumer

Scott

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Serrano

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Shuster

Sisisky

Skaggs

Skeen

Skelton

Slaughter

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Spratt

Stark

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stokes

Studds

Stump

Stupak

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thompson

Thornberry

Thornton

Thurman

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Traficant

Tucker

Upton

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Volkmer

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

Whitfield

Wicker

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Wolf

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

NAYS—4

Dingell

Jefferson

Schroeder

Yates

NOT VOTING—16

Bliley

Bunning

Cardin

Collins (IL)

Ford

Graham

Lewis (KY)

Lincoln

Moakley

Murtha

Pelosi

Peterson (FL)

Rogers

Talent

Waxman

White

b 1316

Mr. HILLEARY changed his vote

from ‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’

So the resolution was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertPERSONAL EXPLANATION

fently detained and missed rollcall No. 311,

adoption of the Rule for H.R. 961, the Clean

Water Act amendments of 1995. Had I been

present, I would have voted ‘‘aye.’’

CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF

1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

WICKER). Pursuant to House Resolution

140 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares

the House in the Committee of the

Whole House on the State of the Union

for the consideration of the bill, H.R.

961.

b 1316

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union for the

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

amend the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act, with Mr. MCGINNIS in the

chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

rule, the bill is considered as having

been read the first time.

Under the rule, the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] will be

recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from California [Mr. MINETA]

will be recognized for 1 hour.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER].

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES] for

purposes of debate only, and I ask

unanimous consent that the gentleman

from Louisiana control the time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield

15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES],

and I ask unanimous consent that he

may control that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

California?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES] will be recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER].

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act

Amendments of 1995.

This debate, Mr. Chairman, is essentially between two groups, between the

professional environmentalists, the

Washington-knows-best crowd, the

EPA, the career bureaucrats, and the

K-Street lobbyists on the one hand and

the rest of America on the other hand.

It is extremely important to note,

Mr. Chairman, that we bring this bill

to the floor with strong bipartisan support. This bill passed the subcommittee

by an overwhelming 19-to-5 vote with

both a majority of Republicans and

Democrats voting in favor of it. This

bill passed the full committee by an

overwhelming vote of 42 to 16, an overwhelming majority of Republicans voting for it and a full half of all the

Democrats voting for it.

This bill, contrary to some of the fiction that is being spread about, keeps

the goals of the successful clean water

program while it fixes the problems

that we have uncovered. And indeed,

our process has been a very open process all along the way.

We have heard some crocodile tears

here today about how quickly this bill

has moved. The truth of the matter is,

this essentially is the bipartisan bill

that we tried to pass last year. Indeed,

it is very significant to note that,

while we have proceeded with an open

process in committee and on the floor

here today, an open rule today, last

year this legislation was bottled up by

the Democratic majority to the point

that we were never even permitted to

get a vote on this legislation.

So now we hear complaints about the

process not being open enough when, in

fact, it was worse than a closed process. It was a slammed-door process last

year, and now I am very pleased that

we do, indeed, have an open process

and, in fact, the bill as reported out of

committee was on the Internet 24

hours after it passed committee and

has been available for the past several

weeks.

Well, what does this bill do? It gives

more flexibility to the State and local

water quality officials. It is a fundamental shift from current Federal,

top-down approach. Those who oppose

the approach in this bill are saying

that they do not trust the Governors

and the State regulators. It provides a

more reasonable risk-based regulation,

consistent with recent House-passed

legislation.

This bill requires EPA to subject its

mandates and its regulations to risk

assessment and cost-benefit analysis.

In a major victory for common sense,

this bill gives State and local government the flexibility to manage and

control stormwater like other forms of

runoff. And this bill provides marketbased approaches allowing for trading

in certain circumstances to provide the

most cost-effective pollution reduction.

And this bill addresses unfunded

mandates by providing regulatory

flexibility. The bill reduces the cost of

unfunded mandates, particularly in the

area of stormwater management,

where billions, yes, not millions, billions of dollars can be saved as a result

of the approach in this bill.

Cities estimated—get this—cities estimated that the unfunded Federal

mandates in the Clean Water Act cost

the cities $3.6 billion in 1993. Grand

Rapids, MI, a city of 250,000 people, had

to spend $400,000 preparing its

stormwater permit. The average cost

to larger cities for stormwater permits

exceeds $600,000. Tulsa, OK, had to

spend $1.1 million just on their permit

application, without solving the problem at all.

This bill also reforms the wetlands

program. It provides for comprehensive

reforms to the beleaguered wetlands

permitting program. No longer will we

have a situation, as in Morristown, NJ,

where an airplane, the airport there,

the pilot was unable to see the runway.

And they were told they could not cut

down a tree that was blocking the view

because it was in a wetland. Or in Muncie, IN, an 80-year-old farmer, who had

farmed his land all his life and his father and grandfather before him, inadvertently broke a water pipe and it

flooded the field. They went in and told

him he was no longer allowed to farm

his farm because it was a wetland.

And there are hundreds and thousands of horror stories of the excessive
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4691

regulation of wetlands, and this bill attempts to cure that. In fact, we have

heard today about the National Academy of Sciences coming out with, finally, its wetlands approach and saying, alleging, that our approach is not

scientific. Well, there is absolutely no

scientific approach in the original

clean water bill, because the original

clean water bill does not even mention

wetlands.

In fact, it is very interesting and sad

to see the National Academy of

Sciences politicized because their report was due 19 months ago. Then we

were told, our staff was informed just

last week that it would be, even though

it was 19 months late, it would be impossible to have it before the 18th of

May. And surprise, surprise, we scheduled this legislation for floor debate

today, and it appears magically yesterday.

Well, of course, the American people

should know that the study was funded

by the EPA bureaucrats downtown. So,

sadly, the National Academy of

Sciences has been politicized for this

debate. We regret that.

Beyond the wetlands issue, our bill

provides renewed investment in our

Nation’s clean water infrastructure.

We provide over $3 billion a year authorized for this program.

Antienvironmental? We provide more

money for the program than has previously been provided. Indeed, in spite

of all the money we provide, clean

water costs in 1996, estimated by EPA,

are $23 billion for our country. Yet the

total Federal environmental grants to

State and local governments will total

a little over $3 billion. In fact, EPA estimates that the States face long-term

clean water capital needs of over $137

billion over the next 20 years.

Well, what is it that this bill does not

do? There has been a concerted effort

to mischaracterize the provisions of

this bill. This bill does not, as has been

alleged in the left-wing press, abolish a

requirement that industry treat contaminated water for toxic chemicals

and heavy metals for discharging it

into urban reservoirs.

The bill allows for the removal of redundant pretreatment requirements

before Industry sends their wastewater

to municipal treatment plants. Those

plants must still enforce local

pretreatment standards that prevent

pollutants from interfering with or

passing through the treatment works.

This bill does not wipe out the coastal nonpoint program, and, as some

claim, make nonpoint programs weaker everywhere. The bill authorizes

more funding for nonpoint programs. It

retains environmental safeguards such

as achieving water quality standards

while providing more flexibility in getting there.

Yes, it repeals the controversial

coastal zone provision, but—and get

this—it includes the successful components into the national nonpoint program. It eliminates two separate

nonpoint programs, but it combines

them into one in a victory for both

State flexibility and regulatory reform.

Nothing has been sadder than to see

our process mischaracterized. The New

York Times, in what could only be described as yellow journalism, wrote

that this bill was written by Republicans behind closed doors with industry.

b 1330

What is the truth? What is the easily

verifiable set of facts? The original introduction of this bill had 16 cosponsors, 8 Republicans, 8 Democrats. Written by Republicans? Behind closed

doors? The National Governors Association sent us a letter commending us

for including them more than they had

ever been included in the past. Behind

closed doors? With industry?

Let me share with Members just

some of the groups that strongly support our legislation, and were key participants. Just today, today, May 9, we

received this letter from the National

Governors Association which said, and

I quote: ‘‘we urge approval of this bill,

H.R. 961.’’ Let me say it again: ‘‘We

urge approval of this bill, H.R. 961.’’

They go on to say:

Once again, we wish to express our strong

appreciation for the unprecedented opportunities for State input in the development of

an effective Clean Water Act reauthorization

bill.

Written behind closed doors? I thank

the governors of America, Republican

and Democrat, for saying they support

our bill, and for thanking us for including them in the process.

It does not end there. We have a letter, again dated today, from the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the U.S.

Conference of Mayors, which says:

Of particular concern to the Nation’s local

elected officials is the future of the

stormwater management program. The National Association of Counties, the National

League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of

Mayors—who together represent all the Nation’s local elected officials—strongly oppose

any efforts to amend the stormwater program approved by the Committee.

They go on to say:

Charges that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection and that it guts the Clean

Water Act are totally unfounded,

this from all the local officials across

America.

However, it does not end there. Again

we have another letter today from the

Association of State and Interstate

Water Pollution Control Administrators, the people on the firing line, the

people who have to implement our

laws, who write:

With its new comprehensive approaches to

nonpoint source, watershed and stormwater

management, H.R. 961 sets forth a framework that better protects this Nation’s waterways.

It goes on to say:

It maintains a firm commitment to the

Clean Water Act’s goals, with more flexibility at the State and local levels to determine

how they are best achieved.

It does not stop there. We have in

front of us a letter dated today from

the Water Environment Federation,

42,000 water quality specialists across

America and around the world, which

says:

We therefore want to again urge you to

support the Clean Water Act Amendments of

1995 (H.R. 961) on the House floor.

Therefore, what about these spurious

allegations that the bill was written

behind closed doors, by Republicans,

with industry? They are demonstrably

factually false. Why is the national

media writing that? The national

media is in the hip pocket of the environmental bureaucrats here in this

town, and they have not given us a fair

shake. The American people should understand that. There is no sense in our

ducking that reality. It needs to be

said, and it needs to be said very, very

clearly.

Beyond the support I have just outlined, agriculture across America

strongly supports our bill. The NFIB

has said that not only is final passage

of this legislation a key NFIB vote this

year, but they have informed us in

writing that a vote against the Boehlert substitute will also be a key NFIB

vote this year, so we have not only the

National Governors, the NFIB, the

League of Cities, the Association of

Counties, the Conference of Mayors,

the Association of State Water Pollution Control Administrators, the State

Metropolitan Sewage Association, the

Water Environment Federation, and on

and on, a broad-based support to this

bill.

What kind of attacks have we been

subjected to? I must confess that originally I was a little perturbed when

some environmental extremists attempted to disrupt our markup by

throwing at us bottles of dirty water

marked ‘‘Shuster spring water.’’ That

did not pleasure me. Then when they

started passing out posters ‘‘Wanted,

Bud Shuster, for polluting our Nation’s

Waters.’’

However, upon reflection, I was delighted that they did this. I was delighted that they did it, because it

gives the American people an opportunity to see the kind of hysterical, irrational opposition we have to our legislation, so I thank those radical environmentalists for giving us this opportunity to point out the lack of substance to their arguments, and the fact

that they must resort to these kinds of

personal attacks.

Indeed, if the election last November

was about anything, it was about our

reforming government control, topdown government regulations, and

clean water is one of the areas crying

out for reform.

Let me conclude by quoting something that Supreme Court Justice

Breyer, a Democrat, wrote in a recent

book. He talked about the environmental regulations, and he called environmental regulations an example of

the classic administrative disease of

tunnel vision. He wrote:
H 4692 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Tunnel vision arises when an agency so organizes its tasks that each employee’s individual conscientious performance effectively

carries single-minded pursuit of a single goal

too far, to the point when it brings about

more harm than good. The regulating

agency * * * promulgates standards so stringent that the regulatory action ultimately

imposes high costs without achieving significant additional safety benefits. Removing

that last little bit [of pollution] can involve

limited technological choice, high cost, * * *

large legal fees, and endless arguments.

That is what this bill is about today,

to fix these problems. I would urge my

colleagues to support the bill we bring

to the floor today, the bill which has

strong bipartisan support, overwhelming Republican support in the committee, and a full half of the Democrats in

the committee voting for passage of

this bill. It deserves to be passed.

Let me also commend the chairman

of the Committee on Appropriations,

the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.

LIVINGSTON], who has been quoted numerous times as saying if legislation

does not get authorized, there are not

going to be any appropriations.

I would say to my friends, and particularly some in the other body, who I

am told think that perhaps the way to

stymie these reform efforts is to simply block this so there no authorization, ‘‘If you care about the environment, I urge you to be in support of

having an authorizing bill, because if

there is no authorizing bill, according

to the distinguished chairman of the

Committee on Appropriations, there

are not going to be any appropriations

for clean water,’’ so I think all of us

had better get together and support

good legislation so we can continue to

clean up our Nation’s waters.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. MINETA asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, Americans know that there is very little as

important in their daily lives as clean

water. Their health depends on it, the

quality of life in their community depends on it, and the prospects for economic growth depend on it. That is

why Americans hold in such high regard the efforts we have made over the

past two decades to clean up our Nation’s rivers, lakes, and coastal areas.

Americans know they cannot clean

up the water in their own community

by themselves, because the pollution in

their water comes from others upstream, maybe even in another State.

It may come from a factory, it may

come from a sewage treatment works,

it may come from a feed lot—but what

somebody else in another jurisdiction

puts in the river becomes one of the

most important issues in their lives.

They drink it, their kids swim in it,

they rely on a supply of clean water to

attract new jobs to their area.

That is why we have a Federal Clean

Water Act. And that is why we should

not weaken the Clean Water Act now

on the books.

There are many complex provisions

in the Clean Water Act. But what matters most to the majority of Americans

is that somebody is limiting the

amount of pollution being dumped into

the river upstream from them by factories and by sewage treatment works.

That is what the American people

want. That’s what they have in the existing Clean Water Act. And that is exactly what this bill would take away

from them.

This is a bill by and for major polluters.

There are differences of opinion

about how to fix problems in the

stormwater program. There are differences of opinion about how to fix the

wetlands program. There are differences of opinion about whether or

not we should do more to deal with pollution which runs off farms.

But when you get to the core of the

Clean Water program, and you ask the

question whether factories and sewage

treatment works should be able to do

less treatment than they are doing

today before they discharge into the

river, very few Americans would say

that is what they want. Some want factories and sewage treatment works to

do more, but very few think they

should do less.

Yet that is exactly what this bill

would so. Over a hundred pages of this

bill are rollbacks, waivers, and loopholes for factories and sewage treatment works to dump more pollution

upstream than they are allowed to

today. Americans did not march in

here and ask for that. Americans do

not want that.

How did all these rollbacks, loopholes, and waivers for big industry and

big sewage treatment works get into

this bill? Almost none of them were in

the introduced bill. Almost none of

them were in the bill we held hearings

on. Almost all of them first appeared

after hearings were over and right before we went into markup, at which

point the bill roughly doubled in size.

What do these hundred-plus pages do?

Too much to itemize here, but the administration’s veto statement provides

a brief summary. It says,

H.R. 961 would undermine the strong standards which have produced significant water

quality improvements in the last twenty

years. H.R. 961 would allow polluters to circumvent national industrial performance

standards * * * [and] would also undercut

the existing Clean Water Act commitment to

fishable and swimmable waters by allowing

new ways to avoid or waive water quality

standards. These provisions could create incentives for polluters to pressure states into

offering environmental concessions. * * *

Lower standards in an upstream state would

mean higher costs to achieve clean water in

downstream states.

These rollbacks, loopholes, and waivers sometimes repeal a requirement

outright; they are sometimes written

as though they are a waiver at the discretion of the regulating agency, but

under the bill the agency in fact would

have no discretion; and they are sometimes written as though it really is up

to the regulating agency, but if the

agency says no, the polluter will have

new grounds to sue and to tie the issue

up in courts for years, while the pollution continues. This is, in fact, one of

the worst features of this bill, because

it will make the Clean Water program

more like the Superfund program, all

litigation and no cleanup.

This bill has many other features

which are contrary to the public interest.

It attempts to fix the wetlands program, but in so doing eliminates 60 to

80 percent of all wetlands from the program, including parts of the Everglades; it directly contradicts the National Academy of Sciences study just

released; and it puts huge new cost burdens on taxpayers.

It attempts to fix the stormwater

program as it effects cities, but then

uses that as an excuse to virtually

eliminate the stormwater program as

it effects industrial sites.

It adds billions to the deficit just in

the next 3 years, and much more beyond that, according to OMB.

It adopts a version of risk assessment

which was rejected on the floor of the

House after the advocates of risk assessment argued it would be unworkable.

And it would result in increased costs

to many municipal ratepayers who will

have to try to pay for more pollution

cleanup because others are doing less.

But the worst thing it does is to

allow factories and sewage treatment

works, upstream from somebody else’s

town, somebody else’s property, somebody else’s drinking water intake, to

pollute more than they do today. That

is wrong, and we should not allow that

to happen. In some cases industries

would be turning off treatment facilities they have already built and are

successfully operating. Whatever you

think about wetlands or stormwater or

feedlots, there is no excuse at the end

of the day for voting yes on a bill that

allows factories and sewage treatment

works to do less than they are already

doing.

I and other Members will offer

amendments to strike these industrial

and sewage rollbacks. But if we are not

successful, then I would urge you to

vote no on the bill itself. Make no mistake about it, this Nation would be

better off, and our people would enjoy

cleaner water, if we passed no bill, than

if we passed this bill.

If we defeat this bill we can go back

and do what we should have done all

along—produce a moderate bill which

fixes the wetlands program without

throwing out most wetlands protection

and raiding the Treasury; which fixes

the municipal stormwater situation;

which provides the basic authorization;

and which, unlike this bill, can be

signed into law.

b 1345

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance

of my time.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4693

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from California [Mr.

CONDIT], chairman of the Blue Dog Coalition.

Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman from Louisiana for

yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me

thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], the chairman of the

committee, and the gentleman from

California [Mr. MINETA], the ranking

minority member, for their graciousness in allowing us their time. We appreciate that very, very much. It gives

us an opportunity to add some constructive and positive input into H.R.

961. We want to thank them publicly

for that.

Let me also make recognition of the

contribution on the committee of the

gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES]

and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.

LAUGHLIN]. They have done a great

service to this House and to people

across this country in fighting the

good battle of adding language and

having a constructive input in that

process, in making this what we believe to be a better bill.

Let me just remind the Members that

are listening that what H.R. 961 does,

some of the things that we have been

working and fighting on for a long period of time. It provides comprehensive

wetlands reform, which we have

worked on and taken action on already

this year, but we need to do it once

again.

It establishes something that we

have been fighting for for a long time

in this House, and that is risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, consistent

with what we did with H.R. 9. It also

helps place greater emphasis on voluntary incentives to base nonpoint

source programs, which is extremely

important to those of us who represent

agricultural areas throughout this

country.

Finally, what this bill does that I

think is extremely important, it adds

flexibility and responsibility to States

and local governments which they have

been asking for for a number of years.

We have a great opportunity today,

and that is to make changes in the

Clean Water Act, at the same time protecting the public interest.

I once again want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES]

and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.

LAUGHLIN], and particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], the chairman of the committee,

for their leadership in this area. I encourage all the Members who are interested in those issues that I have mentioned, plus other issues to come down

today, listen to the debate, reject those

amendments that do not improve this

bill, and pass this bill on final passage.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BLUTE].

Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time and for his efforts on

this important reform legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of

H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments

of 1995, because it provides a progressive and innovative framework for addressing the environmental water quality issues that our Nation faces. It is a

practical, bipartisan bill that builds

upon the important environmental

standards and safeguards encased in

the 1972 Clean Water Act, but reassesses the direction of the legislation

to provide flexibility for States and

local communities in achievement of

those standards.

Everyone recognizes that the Clean

Water Act of 1972 was a seminal piece

of legislation which laid the groundwork for significant improvement in

our Nation’s water quality. When it

was written over 20 years ago, it focused on the major environmental

problem facing our country at the

time, point source pollution. By imposing uniform nationwide standards and

centralizing control of those standards

in Washington, the Clean Water Act of

1972 provided a successful initial approach to pollution cleanup. It has

been an effective tool for getting us to

where we are today.

But times have changed, and it has

become apparent that the one-size-fitsall approach that worked over two decades ago is not wholly and completely

relevant or effective today. Point

source pollution has been reined in significantly. Now it is evident that the

problems associated with non-point

source pollution have not been adequately addressed.

In fact, there are many unintended

problems that have emerged from this

old legislation, most notably the unacceptable costs and regulatory burdens

that have been placed on States and

local communities which dwarf dwindling environmental gains. My State of

Massachusetts, for example, faces the

highest per capita cost in the country

for compliance with the mandates imposed by the current Clean Water Act.

The one-size-fits-all approach worked

well to level the playing field initially,

but it overlooked the fact that our Nation is composed of a series of diverse

regions.

Mr. Chairman, I would end by saying

I strongly support this Clean Water Reform Act. I commend the chairman for

his work in this area.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield

31⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. BORSKI], the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on

Water Resources and Environment who

has done so much work on this.

(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my

strong opposition to H.R. 961, a bill

that is inaccurately called the Clean

Water Act Amendments of 1995.

Let us be clear about this, Mr. Chairman. If this bill becomes law, our waters will be dirtier, there will be more

outbreaks of waterborne disease and

there will be far fewer valuable wetlands.

It cannot be hidden behind talk of

flexibility or local option, the goal of

this bill is to make it easier to pollute

our Nation’s waters.

This bill takes us back to the days

before 1972 when many rivers were open

sewers and some even caught on fire.

In 1972, when the Clean Water Act

was passed, only one-third of our Nation’s rivers were fit for fishing and

swimming. Today, more than 60 percent of our waters meet that test.

This is a record which should make

us proud. It is not time for reversal of

the Clean Water Act.

H.R. 961 will lead us backward by removing 60 to 80 percent of our Nation’s

wetlands from protection, including

parts of the Florida Everglades, the

great dismal swamp, and the New Jersey shore.

It will do virtually nothing to reduce

pollution from runoff, the No. 1 cause

of pollution in our Nation’s waters.

Polluted run-off into drinking water

caused 400,000 illnesses and 104 deaths

in Milwaukee 2 years ago.

This bill will mean more Milwaukees

in the future. This bill even eliminates

the one effective program we have to

control run-off pollution in coastal

areas—over the objections of the coastal States organization.

It is not just the coastal States organization that has concerns about this

bill. It is the National conference of

State Legislators, the Association of

State Wetland Managers, the National

Governors’ Association, inconsistent

with their wetlands policy, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Associations.

There are just too many concerns

that have been raised by too many

groups about this bill.

It is a bill that will gut the core of

the Clean Water Act, the basic national

clean water standards that everyone

must meet.

This bill will give us anti-environment races all over the country as

local governments compete to attract

development by reducing environmental standards and sending the pollution downstream. This is simply the

wrong direction for the Clean Water

Act.

We should be working to fix what

needs to be fixed in the Clean Water

Act so we can continue to protect the

environment while promoting economic growth.

I have had my frustrations with parts

of the Clean Water Act and the way

some of it has been implemented.

These parts should be fixed.

We should fix the stormwater program to make it rational and sensible.

We should eliminate the unnecessary

administrative requirements of the

State Revolving Loan Fund and get the

money out to the States.
H 4694 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

We should fix the coastal zone NonPoint Pollution Program to allow

targeting of impaired or threatened

waters.

We should approve the new combined

sewer overflow policy to help the Nation’s older urban areas.

We should fix the wetlands permitting process that ties up too many

projects in a snarl of red tape and

treats all wetlands alike.

Instead, this bill gives us waivers, exemptions, repeals and limitations that

will mean less environment protection

for all Americans.

The American people do not want us

to allow more water pollution. They

want us to protect them from corporate polluters.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on

H.R. 961 and let us write a bill that

gives the American people clean water

and environmental protection

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. BREWSTER].

(Mr. BREWSTER asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I

first want to thank Chairman SHUSTER

and members of our committee who

have worked tirelessly in producing

what I think is a common sense balance between Federal and local control

over clean water programs.

This bipartisan bill recognizes the

critical need for flexibility at the State

and local level. While, at the same

time, the bill retains all existing EPA

water quality standards and requirements.

Most importantly, this bill represents a renewed investment in our

Nation’s clean water infrastructure by

authorizing $15 billion for the State revolving loan fund, among other programs.

This bill gives States and local officials the flexibility to manage and control stormwater like other forms of

runoff. By providing this regulatory

flexibility, the bill reduces the cost of

unfunded mandates to our States.

The bill also provides needed comprehensive reforms to the Wetlands

Permitting Program, while protecting

true wetlands for all of us to enjoy.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a commonsense approach to reauthorizing

the Clean Water Act, and would urge

my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. EHLERS].

(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman from Pennsylvania for

granting me time, because I rise with

some hesitation to speak against the

bill as it came from the committee.

On the one hand, I appreciate what

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the

chairman of the committee, has done,

because clearly we need more commonsense application of the laws governing

the environment and the regulations

that are formulated.

At the same time, coming from the

State of Michigan, which has more

coastline than any of the 48 contiguous

States and which has numerous wetlands, I must rise to speak against the

wetlands provisions of the bill. They

are unworkable. It would do great damage to wetlands in many States, and

particularly in the State of Michigan,

if those standards were applied in our

State.

In particular, the hunters and fishers

of our State, and of many States

around the Midwest who come to

Michigan to pursue their sport, will be

deeply disappointed in the wetlands

provisions because they are going to

have a very deleterious effect upon the

population of waterfowl, the population of fish, and, of course, there will

be environmental damage as well due

to the loss of the filtration properties

of the wetlands that we have in our

beautiful State.

Therefore, although I support the attempt to have a more commonsense approach to environmental regulation,

and I will continue to support that,

through risk assessment, and so forth,

I do oppose the new provisions regarding wetlands and certain other portions

of the bill and support the SaxtonBoehlert substitute.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. PALLONE], a former colleague on our committee who has now

gone on to the Committee on Commerce, but who has exhibited a great

deal of interest in the work of our committee.

b 1400

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just

wanted to take my 2 minutes if I could

to talk about the economic impact of

this bill. It is interesting because I

think that many of the proponents

have been making the argument, looking at the so-called cost-benefit or the

risk assessment provisions and suggesting that somehow we need to revise

the Clean Water Act during this reauthorization to look at cost-benefit and

risk and other things which I might

characterize as monetizing the Clean

Water Act, something that was mentioned in the New York Times.

From my perspective though and I

think from that from many of the

coastal states and other parts of the

country, by severely weakening the

Clean Water Act as this bill does it is

jeopardizing many of our most important industries, most notably the tourism industry.

In my part of New Jersey, in fact

New Jersey as a whole, tourism is the

No. 1 industry and we know that estimates are something like $400 billion a

year in this country nationwide comes

from the travel and tourism industry.

We also have to note that clean

water is very important to the fishing

industry, a $55 billion a year industry

in this great Nation and also concerns

about drinking water. Everyone relies

on drinking water, municipal drinking

water or other drinking water supplies.

The point I am trying to make, Mr.

Chairman, is that by severely weakening the Clean Water Act we are in effect putting on our country and on our

citizens and on our taxpayers a great

deal of expense because if they lose the

money that comes from travel and

tourism, if we lose the money that

comes from the fishing industry, if we

are required to spend billions of dollars

in the future to provide for better

drinking water or cleaner water than

ultimately the taxpayers and the country and the economic output of the

country suffers. And I think that those

who are urging that somehow weakening this act benefits the taxpayer because the taxpayer is in some way

going to save some money is simply a

false argument.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. TANNER].

(Mr. TANNER asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 961, the bipartisan clean

water reauthorization. I would like to

say at the outset no one disputes the

importance of clean water to our citizens. Nor does anyone that I know of

dispute that the Clean Water Act has

generally been a successful vehicle for

improving the quality of our water.

Having said that, I think that it is

equally clear that some of the provisions of the act need reform. In my

view the area of current law that is in

most need of an overhaul is section 404

of the Clean Water Act.

Over the years in our part of the

country this section has been increasingly abused by Federal regulation and

regulators. This abuse has made the

wetlands permitting process a nightmare for private land owners and has

led in some cases to literally an assault

on the rights of many Americans.

This bill which the gentleman from

Louisiana [Mr. HAYES] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. LAUGHLIN]

have helped to author takes, I think,

constructive steps to correct some of

these problems. The new wetlands classification process will permit the protection of our valuable wetlands while

pragmatically allowing development of

property that is of no importance to

our environmental concerns.

Additionally the bill includes language from H.R. 925 that was overwhelmingly passed earlier this year in

the House, and it would simply require

compensation for landowners whose

property value is diminished through

government regulatory action.

I think most everyone agrees that as

protectors and defenders of our Constitution no one can countenance the

taking of private property without just

compensation.

I have been contacted by many people in our district in middle and west

Tennessee in what is a rural district
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4695

over the years. Many of these farmers

have been crying for relief from the

burden of this out-of-control wetland

permitting process. And I think this

bill today is a most important step in

this process.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. TATE].

Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding time to me.

First of all I would like to commend

the chairman for his fine work on this

particular piece of legislation. This

truly is a clean water bill. And it advances our congressional commitment

to protecting our environment. It is

common sense, it is cost effective.

Things are now going to be based on

sound science and not on fad, not on

emotion and not on the whims of the

day.

And it upholds property rights, protects fairness, and provides incentives

for people to comply, not a big club,

but encourages people to do what they

believe is right and that is protecting

our clean waters.

It also streamlines the bureaucracy,

and we need the bureaucrats back here

in Washington, DC, not to be making

every decision for cities that they cannot even pronounce in my district.

Most importantly, this bill protects

the Puget Sound which is the pristine

waters that border my district. It is a

bipartisan bill, has strong bipartisan

support and it upholds the true values

that we are concerned about and that

is clean water, not just more redtape,

and I urge the support of Members of

this body to support truly a clean

water bill.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Rhode

Island [Mr. KENNEDY].

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.

Chairman, I stand in strong opposition

to H.R. 961. The Clean Water Act was

written in 1972. In my State of Rhode

Island, we have made a great deal of

progress since then, thanks to the act.

In 1970 the Blackstone River, north of

Woonsocket was a dead river. Today at

least 16 different fish species swim in

the Blackstone, including game fish

such as large-mouth bass and brown

trout.

In 1970 the Rhode Island Department

of Health discovered metals in the fish

of Narragansett Bay. Quahogs contained mercury, lead, and chromium.

Today these are down 90 percent and

are well within the safe zone because of

private industry cutting back on discharges due to more stringent permits.

In 1970 because Jamestown had no

sewer treatment plant, 200,000 gallons

of raw sewage was dumped into Narragansett Bay everyday. Shellfishing and

swimming areas were closed. Today the

town has a secondary sewage treatment plant and most of the Island is

open to shellfishing and swimming.

The Clean Water Act not only provides Rhode Island with the tools necessary to restore our coastal waterways, but also fosters economic development by preventing future shellfish

bed closures through a full implementation of its coastal nonpoint source

management program.

Anyone who has ever farmed Mount

Hope Bay or the Kikamuit River knows

that because of stormwater runoff from

parking lots and failing septic systems

the wildlife in the water becomes polluted and inedible. Simply changing

the definition of swimmable and fishable does not change the fact that the

fish will be inedible. Hence, it does not

mean the fish can be sold. The economy and the environment are not competing interests.

In my State, relaxing standards will

do more economic harm than good.

Look at the facts. In Rhode Island

commercial fishing industry is a $100

million industry, up 700 percent since

the Clean Water Act was first implemented in 1972. Oppose H.R. 961. It is

bad for the environment and bad for

our economy.

Many of you may not know that Rhode Island is the Ocean State. Because of the vast

array of beaches, rivers, and boating marinas,

the travel and tourism industry generates almost $1.5 billion a year for my State. The vast

majority of this occurs in and around Narragansett Bay. Salt water swimming is enjoyed

by 67 percent of the Rhode Island population

and $70 million is spent in sport fishing every

year. I seriously doubt that Rhode Island

would be such an attractive place for almost 2

million people to visit every year if our waters

were polluted with metals that are especially

harmful to our children and the elderly.

I ask you, who would want to smell the raw

sewage blowing off the bay or pull a dying fish

from the water. In short, if we gut the Clean

Water Act today we will not only be jeopardizing our health, but the economies of our Nation’s coastal States.

It was the Clean Water Act regulations that

allowed Rhode Island to reduce pollution in

the Mount Hope Bay, adding 800,000 lbs. of

additional quahogs to each years harvest.

It was the Clean Water Act that saved Narragansett Bay so that many of New England’s

most important fish, like winter flounder,

striped bass, and fluke could safely repopulate

themselves.

And it was the Clean Water Act that helped

publicly owned wastewater treatment plants in

Narragansett Bay achieve a 57-percent reduction in the amount of pollutants they discharge.

I ask all my colleagues to look not at the

short-run interests, but the long-term concerns

and quality of life of our citizens. We must act

wisely to avoid the same recklessness that

forced us to legislate the Clean Water Act in

the first place.

Unfortunately, environmentalists are typically

characterized as eccentrics, with nothing better to do than complain about obscure pollutants or rare animals. I abhor that characterization. In my State, environmentalists come in

many forms. They are the hard-working

lobstermen and quahogers who farm Narragansett Bay. They are the sportsmen who

canoe down the Runnins River or fish for

striped bass in the Atlantic. Most importantly

they are our children who swim in our rivers

and play in our parks.

I am proud to call myself an environmentalist. A person who sees the future not just on

a balance sheet but by the air we breathe, the

water we swim in, and the diverse variety of

life we share our community with. In the words

of Teddy Roosevelt, our 26th President and

renowned conservationist:

To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead

of using it so as to increase its usefulness,

will result in undermining in the days of our

children the very prosperity which we ought

by right to hand down to them amplified and

developed.

Oppose H.R. 961 and support economic

environmentalism rather than economic expediency.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman I yield 21⁄2

minutes to the gentleman from Illinois

[Mr. POSHARD].

(Mr. POSHARD asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise

in support of this bill. In particular, I

rise in support of the balance this bill

bring to our public policy on nonpoint

source pollution control as well as wetlands definition and enforcement.

Representing a large rural district in

central and southern Illinois there is

not a single day that goes by that I do

not deal with these problems.

The real question facing the rural

areas of America is how we can best

manage to come into compliance with

the standards of clean water in this

country, and in this bill, in the most

cost-effective and efficient way possible. We do not have unlimited resources in this country.

The farmers of this country have

been good conservationists; they have

to be to sustain a family income on

which they can live. They have proven

through the conservation reserve program and other solid environmental

protection measures that they can

produce excellent watershed management on a voluntary basis without additional government mandates. And

those good voluntary watershed management practices have made positive

contributions to the clean water in this

country, not negative.

With respect to wetlands, not every

acre that is on the books today are

true wetlands, and even the true wetlands are not all of the same value.

And in any case, there is absolutely no

need for three separate Federal agencies to have jurisdiction over this

issue. This bill brings a commonsense

solution to these problems.

To suggest, as someone has already

done today, that Americans should be

afraid of turning on their tap water as

a result of this bill, that we are all

going to be drinking bottled water, is

the kind of talk I just cannot believe.

That kind of talk only fuels the paranoia against government that is running rampant in this country today.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LATOURETTE].
H 4696 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

(Mr. LATOURETTE asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Chairman,

first I want to commend Chairman

SHUSTER for his leadership in bringing

H.R. 961 to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support

of H.R. 961, and in particular title I of

H.R. 961, which reauthorizes environmental programs that are critical to

the waters of the Great Lakes region.

More than $12 billion in Federal investment has brought the Great Lakes

back from the brink of death and is

credited for making the Great Lakes

great again. A $4.5 billion annual Great

Lakes sport fishing economy is a further testament that our country will

continue to reap important economic

benefits by passing H.R. 961 by providing $3 billion in programs such as

wastewater treatment facilities. This

will serve to build on the success of the

Clean Water Act.

H.R. 961 also seeks to address the

contaminated sediments problem that

clogs the Great Lakes system.

H.R. 961 also contains provisions to

better coordinate research activities

among Federal agencies engaged in research on the Great Lakes.

H.R. 961 is also supportive of making

sure the fish in the Great Lakes are

safe to eat.

I urge passage of H.R. 961.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PETRI].

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of the bill and in opposition to

the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support

for H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of

1995.

This bill makes significant commonsense reforms to our Nation’s clean water program. It

maintains the goals of the Clean Water Act

while providing more flexibility to our States

and local authorities who know their States

and their waters and know best how to reach

those goals. Let me point out that this flexibility is given to the States and also to EPA to

utilize if they see fit—industry has not been

given sweeping unilateral waivers from critical

requirements of the act as has been charged.

This bill strengthens the current nonpoint

source program and replaces the current broken stormwater program with one that will be

more effective and gives States a range of

tools—from voluntary measures to site-specific

permits—to deal with stormwater runoff.

The section on watershed management encourages States to pursue comprehensive

point and nonpoint source programs on a watershed basis to most efficiently meet water

quality standards. The bill continues the Federal-State partnership by authorizing Federal

assistance to the States for the construction of

wastewater treatment plants, to address

nonpoint source pollution, to continue cleanup

of the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes,

and for a host of other pressing water quality

needs.

H.R. 961 also incorporates many of the principles that the House has already passed,

such as risk assessment and cost-benefit

analysis to ensure that our limited financial resources are utilized in such a way as to get

the greatest water quality benefit.

Now, with any bill of this length which addresses such complex issues, there undoubtedly will be some provisions that may cause

some concern. For example, I may have some

concerns regarding some of the wetlands provisions, but I realize that this bill will continue

to be a work in progress and undoubtedly

more revisions will be made before the bill finally is enacted into law.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, we know that

Americans want to preserve and protect our

environment, particularly our precious water

resources, and we know that they want commonsense regulation—that was made clear in

last year’s elections. I believe we can have

both as is accomplished in this bill, and I urge

the House to approve H.R. 961.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER], the very distinguished ranking Democrat on the Committee on Resources.

(Mr. MILLER of California asked and

was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before

us today exemplifies the dangerous liaison between private interests and the

majority in the House when it comes to

amending our Nation’s laws.

That close partnership is no where

more evident than in the proposed revisions of the Clean Water Act—the law

that has cleaned up San Francisco Bay

near my district, and thousands of

other rivers, streams, bays, and other

bodies of water throughout America

over the past quarter century.

Are there problems with the Clean

Water Act? Of course. I have concerns

about some of the ways in which the

law has been implemented, too, and if

we had a real commitment to reform, I

have little doubt we could develop a

sound alternative to this bill.

But let us make no mistake: H.R. 961

is not about fixing the mistakes. It is

about devastating one of the great

achievements of environmental policy

in this country. And this emasculation

of the law is taking place at the request, and at the direction of, powerful

special interests who have been granted unprecedented access to the drafting

of the legislation.

Strewn throughout H.R. 961, particularly in title III, are special exemptions, waivers, and exclusions that benefit these special interests:

An exemption from effluent limitations for coal remining operations that

discharge into waters that already fail

to meet water quality standards;

A provision limiting EPA’s ability to

upgrade discharge standards for industrial polluters which benefits the pulp

and paper industry and others;

An exemption from wetlands permit

requirements for iron and steel manufacturers;

An exemption from the silver discharge standard for the photoprocessing industry;

An exemption for oil and gas pipelines.

Exemption after exemption provided

to high polluting industries by this legislation that masquerades as reform.

This is not reform. It is a clear example of special interest legislation, written on behalf of powerful interests and

at the expense of our environment and

the health and safety of the people of

the United States.

I have introduced legislation that

would require that the authors of any

legislation prepared by private entities

be disclosed before the Congress voted

to make special interest provisions the

law of the land. Although the majority

has not yet accorded me a hearing on

my bill, I am hopeful that the majority

will voluntarily disclose who sought

and wrote these special interest provisions before asking our colleagues to

vote them into law.

Regardless who authored these exemptions, they are bad policy and

should be rejected by the House.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, DC, March 2, 1995.

To: Distribution.

From: Patricia Law.

Re: Clean Water Task Forces.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in a

very ambitious legislative timetable for reporting a Clean Water bill, but one which we

hope you will find constructive and will result in a product that we can all support.

Attached is the list of participants from

yesterday’s meeting indicating each organization’s primary area of focus if it was provided. We will notify you as soon as possible

of the Subcommittee Member assignments

and dates for Task Force meetings. Our hope

is to have these meetings at the beginning of

next week. In the meantime, we encourage

you to work together to identify outstanding

issues and to formulate your proposals for

addressing them. The following groups have

agreed to take the lead for this front work.

If you are not identified on the attached list

as having an interest in a particular task

force, we suggest that you call the lead.

Nonpoint Source and Watershed: Thomas

W. Curtis, Director, Natural Resources

Group, National Governors Association, Hall

of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite

267, Washington, D.C. 20001–1512, 202/624–5389,

202/624–5313 (fax).

Point Source: Charles W. Ingram, Associate

Manager, Environment Policy, U.S. Chamber

of Commerce and Clean Water Industry Coalition, 1615 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20062–2000, 202/463–5627, 202/887–3445 (fax).

Funding and Unfunded Mandates: Robert K.

Reeg, Manager, Congressional & State Relations, National Society of Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA

22314–2794, 703/684–2873, 703/836–4875 (fax).

Stormwater: Carol Kocheisen, Counsel, Center for Policy and Federal Relations, National League of Cities, 1301 Pennsylvania

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2004, 202/626–

3028, 202/626–3043 (fax).

Wetlands: Kim Putens, Executive Director,

National Wetlands Coalition, 1050 Thomas

Jefferson Street, N.W., 7th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/298–1886, 202/338–2361 (fax).
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4697

Please feel free to call me with any questions or assistance that you require from us.

Again, we appreciate your involvement and

look forward to working with you.

CLEAN WATER TASK FORCE PARTICIPANTS

Joseph M. McGuire, Director, Legislative

and Regulatory Affairs, Allied Signal, 1001

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/662–2657, 202/662–2674

(fax), (point source).

Lee Garrigan, American Consulting Engineers Council, 1015 Fifteenth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/347–7474, 202/898–

0068 (fax), (funding).

Sam White, America Crop Protection Association, 1156 15th Street, N.W., Suite 400,

Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/872–3846, 202/463–

0474 (fax), (nonpoint source).

Mark Maslyn, American Farm Bureau Federation and Clean Water Working Group, 600

Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20024, 202/484–3615, 202/484–3604 (fax)

(nonpoint source).

Karla Perri, Director, Legislative Affairs,

American Forest & Paper Association, 1111

19th Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington,

D.C. 20036, 202/463–2436, 202/463–2424 (fax),

(nonpoint source, wetlands, point source,

stormwater).

Christopher Myrick, Director, Government

Relations, American Home Products Corporation, Suite 1001 1726 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/659–8320, 202/659–

2158 (fax), (point source, nonpoint source).

Cary L. Cox, Ashland Inc. and American

Petroleum Institute, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., North Building, Suite 540, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/223–8290 x223, 202/293–

2913 (fax), (point source).

Jennifer Boucher, Associated Builders and

Contractors, 1300 North Seventeenth Street,

Rosslyn, VA 22209, 703/812–2000, 702/812–8202

(fax), (funding).

Heidi H. Stirrup, Director, Congressional

Relations, Associated General Contractors of

America, 1957 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20006–5199, 202/393–2040, 202/347–5412 (fax),

(stormwater, funding).

Ken Kirk, Association of Metropolitan

Sewerage Agencies, 1000 Connecticut Avenue,

N.W., Suite 410, Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/

833–4653, 202/833–4567 (fax), (funding).

Linda Eichmiller, Deputy Director, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, 750 First

Street, N.E., Suite 910, Washington, D.C.

20002, 202/898–0905, 202/898–0929 (fax),

(stormwater, point source, nonpoint source,

funding).

Rose Marie Sanders, Legislative Representative, Air & Water Chemical Manufacturers Association, 2501 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20037, 202/887–1123, 202/463–

1598 (fax), (point source).

Edward M. Kavjian, Washington Representative, General Motors Corporation,

1660 L Street, N.W., Suite 401, Washington,

D.C. 20036, 202/775–5086, 202/775–5032 (fax).

David T. Modi, Senior Director, Government Affairs, Georgia Pacific Corporation,

1875 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 775, Washington,

D.C. 20006, 202/828–9631, 202/223–1398 (fax).

Aleesa L. Bell, Washington Representative,

International Paper and Great Lakes Water

Quality Coalition, 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/

628–1223, 202/628–1368 (fax), (point source).

Victoria Shaw, Senior Manager of Government Relations, National Association of

Metal Finishers, 1200 19th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/429–5108, 202/223–

4579 (fax), (point source).

Greg Ruehle, Director, Private Lands,

Water and Environment, National Cattlemen’s Association and Clean Water Working

Group, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/347–

0228, 202/638–0607 (fax), (nonpoint source).

Karen Ann Mogan, Director, Environmental Affairs, National Food Processors Association, 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/639–5929, 202/637–

8068 (fax) (stormwater, point source).

Thomas W. Curtis, Director, Natural Resources Group, National Governors Association, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol

Street, Suite 267, Washington, D.C. 20001–

1512, 202/624–5389, 202/624–5313 (fax), (nonpoint

source).

Carol Kocheisen, Counsel, Center for Policy and Federal Relations, National League

of Cities, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/626–3028, 202/626–

3043 (fax), (stormwater, nonpoint source, watershed, funding).

Robert S. Long, Vice President, Government Affairs, National Mining Association,

1130 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20036–4677, 202/463–2663, 202/833–1965 (fax),

(stormwater).

Robert K. Reeg, Manager, Congressional &

State Relations, National Society of Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–2794, 703/684–2873, 703/836–4875

(fax), (funding).

John M. Stinson, Director, Government Affairs, National Steel Corporation, 1575 Eye

Street, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C.

20005, 202/638–7707, 202/289–4616 (check fax),

(point source).

A. William Hillman, Director of Government Relations, National Utility Contractors Association and Clean Water Council,

4301 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 360, Arlington,

VA 22203–1627, 703/358–9300, 703/358–9307 (fax),

(funding).

Kim Putens, Executive Director, National

Wetlands Coalition, 1050 Thomas Jefferson

Street, N.W., 7th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20007, 202/298–1886, 202/338–2361 (fax), (wetlands).

Robert Hurley, Senior Vice President, R

Duffy Wall & Associates, Inc., Suite 410

South, 601 13th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20005, 202/737–0100, 202/628–3965 (fax).

Jean R. Toohey, Manager, Government Relations, Rhone-Pouleac, 1401 Eye Street,

N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/

898–3185, 202/628–0500 (fax).

Jeffrey S. Longworth, Stormwater Reform

Coalition, c/o Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott,

3050 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007,

202/342–8642, 202/338–5534 (fax), (stormwater).

Jeffrey L Leiter, Stormwater Reform Coalition, c/o Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott,

3050 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007,

202/342–8490, 202/338–5534 (fax), (stormwater).

Charles W. Ingram, Associate Manager, Environment Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Clean Water Industry Coalition,

1615 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20062–

2000, 202/463–5627, 202/887–3445 (fax).

Philip Cummings, Attorney at Law, Clean

Water Act Reauthorization Coalition,

McKutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, 1101

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/628–4900, 202/628–4912

(fax), (point source).

Peter A. Molinaro, Assistant Director,

Government Affairs, Union Carbide Corporation and Clean Water Act Reauthorization

Coalition, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Suite 230, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/393–

3211, 202/347–1684 (fax), (CWARC, point

source).

b 1415

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Ohio

[Mr. TRAFICANT].

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I

support the bill. This is a commonsense approach and balance between

regulations and jobs, and it is sorely

needed in our country.

This Nation has gotten so overzealous with this environmental business

that if a dog accidentally passes water

in a parking lot some government

agent might deem it to be a wetland. A

farmer cannot even maintain the

creeks on their own property from

spilling over and ruining their own

cropland. What kind of sense is this?

The American people have had it.

They are asking Congress to employ a

little common sense. That is what this

bill does.

I have a couple of amendments. No. 1

is, the first, a standard buy American,

and there should be no problem. The

second one, though, states that my

amendment would allow for a waiver

for the encouragement and development and use of innovative pollution

prevention technologies, but only if

those technologies are American made

to every extent practicable. I expect to

have support on that amendment.

But what I really wanted to talk

about today is this Great Lakes initiative. The report is out. The Great

Lakes initiative was originally to be

guidelines, not strict binding rules,

guidelines, not rules. I support the language in this bill that maintains guidelines, not binding rules for the following reasons: If implemented under

binding status, the Great Lakes States

will suffer as much as $11 billion in

cost factors and as many as 33,000 jobs.

Now, that makes no sense.

Finally, I want to talk about this wethey business. Manufacturers, with

this bill, are not getting carte blanche

to go out and ruin our environment,

and there is a common-sense approach

that will, in fact, encourage jobs to

stay here in America instead of being

chased offshore by these overzealous

regulators.

And, Congress, let me say this, we

are not going to have a job left in

America if you continue with oppressive regulations that allow an open

door policy to leave our country. There

is a balance. That balance can be

reached. Let us reach it here today.

I support H.R. 961 and urge its passage.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

distinguished gentleman from Utah

[Mr. HANSEN].

(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I stand

in favor of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, today I stand to applaud the

fine bipartisan work of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee in crafting, what

should be recognized as a victory for the

American people, the environment, and common sense.
H 4698 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

This bill recognizes the critical need for flexibility at the State and local level. The approach of H.R. 961 is to preserve environmental standards and safeguards in the Clean

Water Act, while providing flexibility in achieving those standards. The Clean Water Amendments of 1995 recognizes and reaffirms the

fundamental thrust of the original 1972 act

while focusing on those areas where the law

clearly needs updating. H.R. 961 is a common-sense approach to provide flexibility to

local officials, reduce unfunded mandates,

ease redundant and costly regulations, and

makes bureaucrats factor risk assessment into

their decisions.

In crafting this bill, Members of both parties

have realized that officials at the local level

know how to address their water quality matters a lot better than the bureaucrats in Washington. It was the desire to have cleaner water

in my small town of Farmington, UT, 30 years

ago that brought me into politics. It is the desire of all of us to have clean, safe water to

drink and use. To mandate how standards

must be reached may have worked in 1972,

but it is my belief that city councilmen, mayors, Governors, and State regulators can be

fully trusted to care for the water quality of

their communities. They are closest to the situation and have the most to gain from achieving the high standards set out in this bill.

Without question, the current section 404

wetlands regulatory program is badly in need

of reform. Since enactment of the Clean Water

Act in 1972, the wetlands permitting program

has been expanded broadly from a program

affecting navigable waters, to a program regulating activities on 75 million acres of privately

owned property.

I strongly support the wetland provisions of

H.R. 961 as a major victory to achieve the Nation’s wetlands conservation goals, while at

the same time respecting the property rights of

individuals. I applaud Chairman BUD SHUSTER

and his committee for their fine work and urge

strong support for passage of this historical

bill.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

1 minute to the distinguished chairman

of the Committee on Agriculture, the

gentleman from Kansas [Mr. ROBERTS].

(Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding me

this time.

The gentleman from California just

made an allegory, made a statement

that this is a dangerous liaison. It is

not that. It is a partnership effort to

prevent close encounters of the regulatory kind.

This is a good bill. For 15 years we

have tried to get a bill like this making a partnership with industry, agriculture, environmentalists. Fifteen

years we have been spinning our

wheels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

your leadership in finally bringing a

good bill to the floor of the House.

I want to talk about wetlands. The

gentleman from Ohio just made a rather graphic reference to what the problem has been. It is true. We have now

a well established procedure that says

the land must be flooded if it is going

to be a wetland. It must support water

loving plants, and it must have hydric

soils. The land must show clear evidence of all three characteristics.

Too long, too long we have been subjected to regulatory nightmares where

a low spot in some farmer’s field was

declared a wetland in an area where no

self-respecting duck would ever land.

Let us end this business.

Let us pass this bill. It is a good partnership. I commend the chairman. I

commend his leadership. No member of

the Committee on Agriculture on either side should vote against this bill.

It is a very good reform bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of

H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of

1995, as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

As the Transportation Committee noted in

its report, the Clean Water Act was last

amended in 1987 and most of its authorizations expired in 1991. Because past Congresses could not get a bill out of either committee, our Nation’s water quality programs

have suffered. And, more importantly, Federal

regulators have been allowed to run amok on

private lands, entangling farmers, ranchers

and other American businesses in

unlegislated, prescriptive regulation. It is time

to tell the regulators what the policy will be

and follow up the enactment of this bill with

vigorous oversight.

This bill sets sound policy for nonpoint pollution protection of the Nation’s waters and

amends Section 404 for a commonsense approach to the conservation of wetlands. Farmers and ranchers will find this policy to be both

understandable, reasonable—and with proper

implementation, very workable for American

agriculture.

I want to emphasize two important parts of

this bill that make it essential policy for the future of American agriculture: amendments to

section 319 dealing with nonpoint source programs and title VIII amendments that rewrite

section 404 provisions dealing with wetlands.

State water quality programs under section

319 of the bill are to be developed using voluntary, incentive-based standards that are

likely to be achieved within the 15-year timetable set out in the bill. The amendments fully

express the committee’s correct understanding

that the way to achieve water quality standards is not through command-and-control regulations, but by adopting policies that are possible, and timeliness and deadlines that make

sense.

To the extent agriculture is responsible for

nonpoint source discharges, the committee

rightly chose to avoid the top-down approach

to regulation. We cannot regulate nonpoint

sources as if pollution was coming from the

end of a pipe. In addition, the bill includes section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Management

Act within section 319, ending a duplicative

regulatory regime for agricultural producers in

coastal areas.

I would caution Members about one provision that admittedly has caused me some concerns—concerns the Agriculture Committee

may want to address once this bill is law and

the 1995 farm bill has been enacted. That provision gives authority for the chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service at the

U.S. Department of Agriculture to enter into

written agreements with States as they develop their section 319 water quality programs.

The incentive for such an agreement would be

to give agricultural producers the assurance

that they are in compliance with the Clean

Water Act. But, the problem is how the agreement may be written.

Frankly, farmers and ranchers have not

been well served by a similar agreement on

wetlands that was hailed by the Clinton administration as the end of controversy on the regulation of wetlands under both the Clean

Water Act and the 1985 Food Security Act.

We were told under this agreement farmers

would no longer be subject to successive visits by Federal bureaucrats. There would be a

final outcome on wetland determinations on

the ground. Unfortunately, the members of the

Agriculture Committee took this announcement

on good faith. That faith has been sorely

abused. The same kind of regulatory abuse is

possible here. The Agriculture Committee intends to watch this closely.

The wetlands provisions of this bill are redesigned to finally end the abuse of farmers,

ranchers, and other landowners. Title VIII is

sound policy. It is derived from H.R. 1330, a

bill introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES] to restore sanity to our national wetlands policy. It recognizes there are

different functions and values of wetlands and

allows for a ‘‘type C’’ wetlands classification

that will be left outside of Federal jurisdiction.

The Chairman’s amendment to be offered

today eliminates the concept that land no

longer meeting wetland criteria can be classified a prior converted wetland, serving limited

wetland functions. A prior converted cropland,

one that was drained or filled prior to December 1985, no longer exhibits wetland characteristics—and, should be in law and regulation

considered as an upland. These agricultural

bottomlands, many of which have been dry for

a generation or more, are not wetlands.

However, under current law, regulators look

at prior converted croplands as just another

parcel of private property they control through

regulatory fiat which means more regulation,

more hassles for the landowner, but no significant gains are realized for the environment. I

want to make certain this is clear: prior converted croplands are not wetlands. Under this

bill, they fall outside of Federal jurisdiction

under the Clean Water Act.

The delineation procedures established

under the committee-reported bill will make

sense to farmers and ranchers. The land must

be flooded. It must support water-loving

plants. It must have hydric soils. The land

must show clear evidence of all three characteristics.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, farmed wetlands and

other agricultural lands determined to be exempt from subtitle C of the 1985 Food Security Act shall be exempt from the Clean Water

Act so long as those lands are used for agricultural purposes.

To my colleagues, I say this is good, positive legislation. It protects the wetlands the

public believes need protection; it, hopefully,

will keep the bureaucrats off private property

at least for the purposes of the Clean Water

Act. It will bring to an end nearly a decade of

abusive, over-reaching regulation. I urge its

enactment.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to our very fine colleague, the

gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. RAHALL], the ranking Democrat on the
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4699

Surface Transportation Subcommittee

of our committee.

(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed fitting that we are considering

this bill today, this alleged reauthorization, the Clean Water Act.

I say this because on this day, 123

years ago, President Grant signed into

law a bill that has perhaps created

more environmental disasters than any

other single measure.

The law he signed has left us with a

legacy of acidified rivers and streams,

devoid of aquatic life, running shades

of orange and red.

A law that has left us with a legacy

of mammoth open pits that serve as

toxic swimming pools for migrating

birds.

A law that has left us with a legacy

of cyanide laced rock and debris, a

ticking timebomb for future generations.

In short, a law that has given rise to

more Superfund sites due to the activities it endorses than has any other

type of activity.

This activity is hardrock mining, for

minerals such as gold and silver, on

Federal lands in the Western States.

And the law is known as the mining

law of 1872.

So today, on its 123d anniversary, we

find ourselves considering another bill

that if enacted promises to cause further environmental degradation and

depravation.

I say this because the pending legislation represents a direct assault on

the goals of the Clean Water Act.

Make no mistake about it, these are

goals which are widely supported by

the citizens of this country.

Moreover, the pending bill even goes

so far as to significantly roll-back the

progress that has already been made in

achieving water quality.

And it does so for no particular reason at all.

In the Appalachian Region of this

country—where we do not have

hardrock mining under the mining law

of 1872, but rather live on a daily basis

with the environmental, health and

safety threats of past coal mining practices—in many places we too have

acidified rivers and streams running

those shades of orange and red.

For example, the Cheat River in West

Virginia, once a prime destination of

whitewater rafting enthusiasts, today

is so acidic that its water irritates the

eyes and skin of anyone who dares traverse its rapids.

Our loss is not only the aquatic life

that once inhabited parts of this river,

but a healthy amount of revenue from

tourism.

But rather than seek to promote the

rehabilitation of this river, rather than

seek to require that its designated

water quality standards are met, the

pending legislation takes the position

that if something is polluted, well, it

just might as well stay polluted.

And it does so by gutting the NPDES

process, creating countless loopholes

and waivers for point-source pollutants.

It does so by allowing effluent limitations for point sources of pollution to

be based on new, weaker standards.

It does so by repealing the entire

stormwater permit program, and by

hampering efforts to control nonpoint

source pollution.

And it does so by attacking the very

basis for the promulgation of water

quality standards, allowing non-scientific, arbitrary and capricious factors to be used in standard setting.

No Member from the Appalachian region should be able to vote for this bill.

And I would submit that those of our

constituents who live with the ravages

of mining, whether it be hardrock or

coal, simply did not elect us to come

up here and endorse the continued contamination of their water sources: The

rivers, the streams, the groundwater

that serves as the very lifeblood of our

natural environment.

Finally, on the question of wetlands,

I think all of us agree that something

must be done to provide relief from a

permitting process that has become a

bureaucratic nightmare.

Yet, I do not believe that the majority of

Americans want to see over 80 percent of our

Nation’s wetlands destroyed as could occur

under the pending measure.

This does not constitute responsible wetlands reform, and, it would have far-reaching

consequences.

For instance, I have been advised that this

legislation would significantly reduce duck

populations and diminish prospects for future

duck-hunting seasons.

Obviously, ducks require duck habitat to

survive, and that habitat—wetlands—would be

seriously threatened by the pending legislation. This is something of concern to sportsmen and women throughout America, and I

know it is a matter of great concern to sporting

groups in my State of West Virginia.

For these, and many other reasons, I urge

this body to reject the pending measure.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Texas

[Mr. LAUGHLIN], one of the founding coalition members.

(Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I

first want to thank the distinguished

chairman of our committee for turning

this bill into a truly bipartisan bill,

and I commend our last chairman, the

gentleman from California [Mr. MINETA], for tying to work with us in the

last Congress to pass a clear water bill.

But let me set the record straight

about the we-and-the-they and the special interests. Half the Democrats on

the Transportation Infrastructure

Committee have supported this bill,

not three or four, not a couple from the

South, not a couple of boll weevils, 50

percent, have supported this.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the bill and encourage the continuation of the bipartisan support.

Not only do I support the bill, I want

to address a focus on the nonpoint

source pollution provisions, especially

as they relate to agriculture. Too often

we have tried to clean up the water of

America by saying it is agriculture’s

fault, and when we come to cleaning

up, look in the last few years, we have

put over $60 billion into the point

source, yet we put less than $1 billion

into nonpoint source, and we have tried

to tell agriculture across America,

‘‘You have got to do it by these rules,’’

when in fact agriculture in one part of

the country has a different focus and a

different set of rules and a different set

of criteria, and we cannot clean up the

agricultural lands of America simply

by having one set of rules that fit all.

In fact, it is farmers like Harley Savage, Steve Ballas, and other farmers

who should have the ability to do what

they know how best to do. They cannot

produce a crop with dirty water, even

though there are some in my party

that want to say this is a dirty water

bill.

But the farmers of America cannot

produce what they do better than any

industry in America, and that is to

outproduce the rest of the world in producing their products, whether it is

cotton, corn, rice, poultry, beef, or any

other agricultural product, and we

need to give them the flexibility to do

what they do best and to make sure

that they continue, unlike some big

cities.

The agricultural community is not

dirtying the water to the degree that

they are given the blame.

So I urge we implement and pass this

bill so the agricultural community can

do the implementation with flexibility

to ensure that they continue giving us

the clean water that all of us, whether

we are from the rural areas, from the

cities, whether we are Democrats or

Republicans, we not only deserve but

we want and we strive to achieve.

So this is not a we-they bill. I urge

support of 961, and I wanted at this

point to thank the gentleman from

Louisiana [Mr. HAYES] for his great

leadership in ensuring that this is a bipartisan bill.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the chairman for yielding me this

time.

I just wanted to remark there has

been much said here today about the

economic implications, whether they

be good or bad, of this attempt to

change the Clean Water Act as it currently exists.

I would just like to say if you represent a coastal State and if you look

at the provisions of this bill as it

stands today and if you think that is

good for your economy, then you

should have spent the years of the middle 1980’s with me in New Jersey or

with the Representatives of Long Island when water was dirty. Those were
H 4700 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

the dirty water days. And we got past

them.

If you think that doing damage to

the wetlands provisions as they exist

today, in removing 90 percent of the

wetlands in my home State from the

rolls of wetlands, if you think that is

good for my economy, then you should

vote for this bill.

If you think it is good for the economy to gut the CZMA provisions that

pertain to nonpoint source pollution, I

do not think it is, but if you think it is,

then you should vote for this bill.

I would just say that the Coastal

States Association does not think that

is good, because we have adopted their

provisions, and we have done that in

the name of the economy. If you think

that doing damage to the storm water

discharge permitting process, as it happens in this bill, is good for the economy of coastal States, then you should

vote for this bill. But I cannot do that,

because I know, having lived through

the years of the middle 1980’s in New

Jersey and what happened on Long island, that is not good for the economy.

So if you are concerned about the

economy of the coastal areas in this

United States, whether it be in Maine,

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New

Hampshire, New York, New Jersey,

Maryland, or Virginia or the Carolinas,

I am not so sure about Georgia; I have

never been there, or Florida or the Gulf

States or California or Oregon or Wisconsin, if you are not concerned about

the economic implications of this bill,

then you have not observed what has

gone on in those States that have developed dirty water climates.

In the summers of 1987 and 1988, for

example, in New Jersey, people were

afraid to go to the ocean, afraid to go

in the water. They were afraid to take

vacations in those kinds of places. So

that is our economy, and this bill does

damage to it.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to our very fine colleague, the

gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms.

DELAURO].

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise

in strong opposition to H.R. 961, the

Clean Water Amendments of 1995. This

bill would roll back decades of progress

in cleaning up our rivers, lakes, and

coastal waters, and it threatens the

fragile ecosystems of our Nation’s wetlands.

This bill has rightly been called a

polluters’ bill of rights. Special interests representing some of our Nation’s

largest polluters wrote this bill, so it is

not surprising that it is riddled with

custom-made loopholes to let industries pollute.

The bill would increase from just 5 to

70,000 the number of industrial pollutants that could be dumped into our Nation’s waterways. It would open up our

Nation’s most fragile wetlands to development, including more than half of

all the wetlands in my home State of

Connecticut.

This bill poses a threat to our safe

drinking water and to the rivers,

streams, and lakes in which we swim

and fish.

My constituents along Long Island

Sound would be especially harmed by

provisions of this bill repealing efforts

to clean up our coastal waters. Our

coast protection program has proven to

be true—that good environmental policy is good economic policy. Clean

coastal waters generate billions of dollars in tourism revenue, creates jobs in

fishing and other industries, and provide numerous recreational activities.

Connecticut’s Coastal Zone Management Program has made great strides

at cleaning up the Long Island Sound.

It has successfully restored over 1,500

acres of critical tidal wetlands. From

1991 to 1993, the number of beach closings along Long Island Sound was reduced from 292 to 174. But we clearly

have more work to do. More than 25

percent of Long Island Sound’s beaches

still are chronically closed due to

pathogen contamination. We need policies and financial resources to continue

our progress, not reverse them as this

bill would do.

I look forward to supporting the

Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute because it preserves our coastal cleanup

effort, it takes a more reasonable approach to wetland protection, and

closes the polluter loopholes of H.R.

961. I am grateful that the substitute

provides strong support for the estuary

protection goals of H.R. 1438, the Water

Pollution Control and Estuary Protection Act introduced by my colleague

from New York, Ms. Lowey, and myself.

The negative impact of H.R. 961 is

immeasurable. It is bad news for everyone, except for those industries that

will enjoy numerous loopholes and

waivers. I urge my colleagues to join

me in voting against this bad bill.

b 1430

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. DANNER].

(Ms. DANNER asked and was given

permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of H.R. 961 which maintains

and builds on the current safeguards in

place and complements the needs of

States for flexibility. Those directly

responsible for water quality in our

communities, such as the National Association of Counties, the National

League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, support H.R. 961 because it makes environmental benefit a

primary focus of H.R. 961 and establishes a program that Congress can

support in a truly bipartisan approach

to solving our Nation’s pollution dilemmas.

Let me read just one sentence from a

letter that we have received from the

presidents of respectively the National

Association of Counties, National

League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, not the Members of

Congress, but members who represent

our constituency across the United

States. Charges, and I quote exactly,

charges that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection and that it guts

the Clean Water Act are totally unfounded. The measure restores common

sense to this unaffordable and undoable

mandate.

Remember, my colleagues, we have

passed legislation here to do away with

unfunded mandates. The people that

represent our constituents, as well as

ourselves, ask us to recognize unfunded

mandates as a real problem. I urge

each of my colleagues to support H.R.

961 and to follow the discretion of the

chairman and the full Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure by

retaining the allotment formula in the

bill and opposing any efforts to change

the formula.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Chairman SHUSTER and the entire Transportation

and Infrastructure Committee staff for their diligence and exemplary work on H.R. 961.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support

of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act amendments

of 1995 which maintains and builds on the

current safeguards in place in our system and

complements the State needs for more flexibility.

Those directly responsible for water quality

in our communities—such as the National Association of Counties, the National League of

Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors

support H.R. 961 because it makes environmental benefit a primary focus of H.R. 961

and establishes a program that Congress can

support in a truly bipartisan approach to solving our Nation’s pollution dilemmas.

In a letter submitted from the groups I previously mentioned they said and I quote:

Charges that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection and that it guts the Clean

Water Act, are totally unfounded. The measure restores common sense to this

unaffordable and undoable mandate.

I urge each of my colleagues to support

H.R,. 961 and to follow the discretion of Chairman and the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by retaining the allotment formula in the bill and opposing any efforts to

change the formula.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr.

GILCHREST].

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding.

If I could just have a couple of seconds to give the audience a history lesson. Late in the 1500’s we all remember

Galileo, and he said at that time he

was trying to educate people that the

sun was the center of the solar system.

Well the Pope heard that, Pope Urban

VIII, the head of the early Roman Empire, and he said, if Galileo repeats

that comment, the sun is the center of

the solar system, he will have his arms

and legs dislocated.

Mr. Chairman, I want to put

everybody’s mind at ease. I do not fear

that my arms will be dislocated by

making a comment about the provision

in this Clean Water Act taking away

wetlands, but by the Pope telling that
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4701

to Galileo it made no difference. The

sun was still the center of the solar

system. In this legislation this will not

be a wetland.

Now we can say anything we want

about wetlands. We can describe them

any way we want to describe them. But

that does not change the way nature

works, and this type of filtration system is absolutely essential if we are

going to have any productive coastal

fishery, if we are going to have any

clean water.

This, my colleagues, regardless of

what the bill says, is a wetland.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from San

Diego, CA [Mr. FILNER], a very fine

member of our committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

(Mr. FILNER asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding, but more

importantly I thank the gentleman for

his tireless efforts on behalf of protecting our environment. I say to him,

‘‘Mr. MINETA, we may lose today’s battle, but under your leadership I’m confident we’re going to be back, and we

will win the long-range war.’’

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I rise

today during this debate to urge my

colleagues not to turn our back on the

health and safety of Americans and to,

once again, reassure my constituents

in San Diego that they will not have to

spend billions for an unnecessary sewage facility. San Diego is assured to

regulatory relief with either of the

major alternatives on the floor, but we

must also be sure that we can fish and

swim in San Diego’s rivers, lakes, and

beaches.

The critical questions that San

Diegans must ask themselves about

these bills before us is, will I have

clean water to drink, will I have a

clean beach to swim at, and will I get

relief from the multi-billion-dollar secondary treatment boondoggle? With

the Boehlert substitute, which I am

supporting, the answers are ‘‘yes’’ to

safe drinking water, ‘‘yes’’ to clean

beaches, and ‘‘yes’’ to relief from increased sewage bills. I cannot support

any bill that purports to help San

Diego on the one hand and destroys the

safety of our drinking water and beaches on the other.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. TAUZIN].

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding, and I particularly want to thank the chairman

of the committee, the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], for bringing this bill to the floor, and I particularly want to pay a great debt of gratitude, I hope, on behalf of this entire

House for the efforts, the long-standing

efforts that have been made by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from

Louisiana [Mr. HAYES], in this effort

that has finally reached the floor to reform the wetland laws of America and

create some sound, sensible regulations

of wetlands in America combined with

the right of property owners to be reimbursed when their property is taken

for these regulatory purposes.

My colleagues, one of my colleagues

from California rose earlier today to

complain about lobbyists’ hands in the

writing of this bill. Let me set the

record straight. This bill, the reforms

have long been on this table, not this

year when the new majority came to

town. These reforms have long been on

the table, never brought to the floor of

this House unfortunately, but long on

the table, drafted in part by the efforts,

personal efforts of the gentleman from

Louisiana [Mr. HAYES], the gentleman

from Texas [Mr. LAUGHLIN], many

other Members of this body who have

urged this House to consider these

amendments for many, many years

when the Democratic Party was in the

majority.

I want to remind my colleagues from

California that it was at a meeting

with lobbyists of the radical environmental groups in this town on March 4,

1992, with some Members of this House,

that a decision was made then to kill

the holy trinity, ‘‘unholy trinity’’ they

called it, ideas called property rights,

unfunded mandates and the risk assessment cost-benefit analysis regulatory

reform. It was that link, that collusion

between the radical environmental left

and Members of this House that prevented this bill, these ideas, from ever

getting to the floor.

Let me finally make a point. I say to

my colleagues, this bill is not just

about pollution and clean water. This

bill is also about land regulations and

activities that are not polluting activities, activities like building a home,

activities like forming your property,

activities like simply digging a drainage ditch on your property so it drains

properly, nonpolluting activities that

do not create nuisances for anybody,

that have nothing to do with violations

of local zoning laws, that simply have

to do with the right of a person to use

his property for the purposes he intended it for, perhaps to cut a tree for

timber purposes, to grow some corn for

agricultural purposes, perhaps just to

build a house for that son or daughter

on the farm so that they can live close

to their parents. Those activities are

regulated as land-regulated activities

under this clean water bill in the guise

of wetlands protection, and so when we

discuss this bill, and you hear talk

about pollution and this bill being only

a bill dealing with pollution, remember

this is land regulation, too, of nonpolluting activities.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OXLEY].

(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am

pleased to support this reauthorization

of the Clean Water Act. It allows us to

protect our precious waterways in a

cost-effective manner.

I have a particular interest in the

Great Lakes provisions in this bill.

Lake Erie is a tremendous asset to my

home State of Ohio. States like Ohio

want to be able to protect this resource

in a way that makes regulatory and financial sense.

The language in this bill gives them

the flexibility to do exactly that, and

we will achieve more real progress than

we would get if the EPA’s Great Lakes

Water Quality Initiative was imposed

as a rigid, mandatory regulation.

Municipalities in my district have

been concerned about the costly provisions of the G–L–I. Wastewater treatment plants are being told to reduce

the discharge of mercury to a level

lower than what naturally occurs in

rainwater. That amounts to spending

millions of dollars to remove a substance that is put back into the Great

Lakes every time it rains.

Even if implemented as written,

there is no guarantee that the G–L–I

will lead to the lifting of a single fish

advisory or the opening of an additional mile of shoreline for unrestricted use.

Mr. Chairman, this is a strong bill.

Let us support it.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. MCCARTHY], a member of the

Committee on Science and the Committee on Small Business, who has

been contributing a lot to this effort.

(Ms. MCCARTHY asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

her remarks.)

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman from California

[Mr. MINETA] for yielding this time to

me and for his efforts on behalf of

sound legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express

my concerns with H.R. 961, the Clean

Water Amendments of 1995. My State

of Missouri is a land of mighty rivers,

and clean water is a gift from our ancestors and our legacy to our children.

H.R. 961 would mean the end of our

coordinated efforts to improve the

quality of this national resource. The

strange patchwork of waivers and credits envisioned by this bill would allow

polluters to choose the way they will

diminish our water quality.

Mr. Chairman, the nine States in the

Midwest which suffered devastating

floods in 1993, including Missouri, are

working to expand wetlands that will

help absorb the shock of future flooding.

The National Conference of State

Legislatures agrees that title VIII of

this bill will cripple those efforts, expose Midwesterners to greater risk of

flooding, and expose U.S. taxpayers to

greater risk of having to pay for future

flood cleanups.

While the funding formula currently

in the legislation would provide for additional pollution run-off funds for

Missouri, H.R. 961 does not explain to
H 4702 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Missourians how to pay for new treatment plants when the lifeblood of their

State, the great Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, run thick once again

with pollution. It does not explain how

to pay for new homes and businesses

when the rivers overflow their banks.

I hope that as we debate amendments

to H.R. 961 we will focus on quality of

life, and that includes not only new

jobs but a clean environment. I hope,

too, that we adopt amendments to

strike a proper balance between increased State authority and preservation of minimum Federal standards.

These goals are compatible; the

Clean Water Act has proven that time

and again.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT].

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my

colleagues, the debate we begin today

on the Clean Water Act is quite simply

the test of whether the center can hold.

We are faced on the one hand by the

clean water statute that, despite its

many strengths, has clear flaws that

must be remedied.

b 1445

We are confronted, on the other

hand, with a proposal that instead of

simply repairing those flaws, rolls back

existing protections, imperiling our

rivers, lakes, and coastal waters.

Clearly, neither the status quo nor

the proposed rewrite of the Clean

Water Act are acceptable alternatives.

What is needed is an approach that preserves our water resources without

causing undue economic hardship. The

gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

SAXTON], the gentleman from Indiana

[Mr. ROEMER], and I will offer a substitute later today that offers just such

an approach.

What we have done is to take the

best proposals being offered around

town and combine them into one bill.

Our litmus test has not been ideology,

but practical input, which proposal was

the most likely to reasonably protect

our Nation’s waters.

For example, we have adopted the

National Governors’ Association proposal for wetlands protection, a solid

middle ground position. H.R. 961, on

the other hand, would allow the wholesale destruction of more than half the

Nation’s wetlands. That is not my

opinion, that is what we learned from

the scientists. We have just had a report yesterday from the National Academy of Sciences. That would mean increased flooding, less fresh water, and a

decline in the fishing and tourism industries.

Current law is too restrictive, and

administratively burdensome. The

Governors’ proposal, which gives

States a greater say over wetlands protection, is a sensible approach. It is

also a cheaper approach, eliminating

the need for a large Federal bureaucracy and a new entitlement through

the takings provisions.

Similarly, we have adopted the

Coastal States Organization’s proposal

on coastal nonpoint pollution, which

gives States a greater say over how to

meet environmental requirements.

H.R. 961 would repeal coastal zone protections, increasing the likelihood that

beaches will have to be closed to the

public, 10,000 were closed last year, and

that runoff pollution will close commercial fisheries, threatening a $55 billion industry.

The Coastal States Organization, a

group of 30 Governors, has endorsed

this provision of our substitute, because we amend the Clean Water Act to

eliminate its excesses while retaining

its protections. Let me stress that, we

eliminate its excesses while retaining

its protections. This is an approach we

have taken throughout the bill, shopping around for the most sensible, rational approach, eliminating the bureaucracy and redtape of current law,

which preventing the environmental

degradation of H.R. 961.

Such a centrist approach should be

welcome in a country that is clearly

sick of ideological warfare and hungry

for solutions to our Nation’s problems,

a country in which 76 percent of the

American people want us to do more to

protect our Nation’s waters, but are

skeptical of overbearing Government.

Perhaps that is why our substitute

has broad bipartisan support. I look

forward to the debate we will have this

afternoon, because we will pass this

substitute if good sense is allowed to

triumph over ideology on both ends of

the political spectrum.

A lot of people think Republicans do

not give a damn about the environment. A lot of people are wrong. Keep

in mind, one person’s effluent is another person’s drinking water.

Finally, let me point out what the

National Conference of State Legislatures has to say. Unless H.R. 961 is significantly amended during floor consideration, the National Conference of

State Legislatures urges you to vote

against the bill.

We have that significant amendment.

We urge you to support Saxton, Boehlert, and Roemer and to oppose the

committee bill.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentlewoman from Texas

[Ms. JACKSON-LEE].

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman from California

for his great leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say

that H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments Act of 1995, as presently drafted

lessens environmental protection and

endangers the very quality of life of all

Americans. I have been listening to the

debate and, coming from local government, I know there are real concerns

about storm water runoff, sewage

wastewater, and certainly wetlands.

But we must also listen to the EPA administrator that has criticized the bill

as being unworkable.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we will come to

this process with a bipartisan attitude

to fix and correct, but not to eliminate.

Currently the Clean Water Act is regarded as one of the most successful

environmental mandates passed by

Congress. Yes, some of the portions of

the act may need some additional flexibility or fine-tuning, but we only have

one environment, one planet Earth,

and we ought not to take undue risks

with it.

As for Texas, I know firsthand that

the city of Houston is spending $1.3 billion to address its sanitary sewer overflow. It is important that we follow

through. It is important that we continue to improve the quality of our

drinking water. Let us not turn back.

Let us make sure we fix, but not eliminate the Clean Water Act.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield

21⁄2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska [Mr. YOUNG].

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.

961. As chairman of the Committee on

Resources, we had joint jurisdiction

over this legislation. But also being

ranking on the committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], the chairman of the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure, I

watched the building of this bill and

watched what he has been able to do,

and our committee, full committee,

with the exception of two people, fully

agreed with what we are attempting to

do here, and that is to have clean

water.

We have to keep in mind what has

been said prior to some of the other

speakers about how bad this bill is.

This bill achieves many things, but one

of the main things that it achieves is

clean water realistically. It requires

clean water as it should be without the

regulations, without the dominance of

government interference. It is a needed

bill. It has to occur.

One of the things I have heard from

most of the Governors around the

country is whatever happens, you must

review and revamp the Clean Water

Act so we can make it apply to our

communities and stop making us waste

money on testing that is unnecessary,

meeting requirements that are unnecessary. And in Alaska alone, which I

will have an amendment later on, the

biggest city in Alaska had to add fish

guts to make sure we met the standards for the particular amount in the

water that comes out at the end of the

effluent. We had pure water. I could

drink it. To say we want to stay with

the present bill, the regulations that

should never have been applied, is absolutely ludicrous.

More than that, in this bill there is a

provision which I hope everybody is listening. The one provision from this bill
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4703

that should draw your attention because it affects every State in the

Union is the wetlands provision.

You have seen what the wetlands

have done to this country, how it has

been implemented and enforced by a

Federal Government without any jurisdiction of written law, other than a

dredging law through regulatory law,

where they can tell my State of Alaska

that all of your land is wet. You have

no longer a right to build or take and

construct schools or do things good for

your community because we have decided it is wet, without compensation.

They have put inroads into our ability

to take and produce.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest we also have

to keep in mind this Congress in 1971

gave 44 million acres of land to the

Alaskan natives, the American Eskimos in Alaska. We gave that land to

them as a commitment to them for

their economic and social well-being.

And what do we do under the wetlands

provision? We take it away, because we

tell them under the Federal control it

is 98 percent wetlands.

You call that justice? I am saying it

is time we support this bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] and the committee have done an

excellent job. When I hear members of

the committee say this is a bad bill, I

say shame on you. This is a good bill

that should be passed.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Oregon

[Mr. DEFAZIO].

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, today’s young people

think I am making a joke when I tell

them about a river catching fire. That

actually happened to the Cuyahoga in

Ohio, it was so polluted with industrial

wastes and inflammable solvents. In

Oregon 3 million residents take for

granted the fact they can swim, fish,

and even drink Willamette River

water. Well, the Willamette River was

more like an open sewer in the mid

1960’s than it was a pristine river.

They say you cannot turn back the

clock. Who would want to turn back

the clock to those bad old days? Who

indeed? Well, watch for the votes on

this bill. A vote for this bill is a vote to

turn back the country to the days

when our rivers were more like open

sewers and industrial cesspools than

they were precious resources.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas

[Mr. DELAY], the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, in reference to the previous speaker, fear,

fear, fear. That is all we have to offer,

is fear. We are here to rise in support of

the Clean Water Act that brings some

common sense, good science, and responsibility, adding much needed reforms to the Clean Water Act, bringing

a responsible approach to the Clean

Water Act.

I just want to point out a situation in

my own district. The city of Lake

Jackson, TX, is no stranger to the current tangle of regulatory policies when

it comes to wetlands.

Mayor Doris Williams has led that effort since the late eighties to see that

the city be allowed to construct a public golf course, despite the U.S. Corps

of Engineers’ objections that Lake

Jackson had not adequately defined all

of its jurisdictional wetlands.

You know what that is in this case?

Footprints of cows. They had to go out

and map every footprint from a cow on

these 400 acres of property.

This small city purchased 400 acres of

property, and after 4 years of working

with regulatory agencies at a cost of

well over $100,000, a lot of money to

this small city, the city is only now eligible to submit an application to the

U.S. Corps of Engineers for an individual 404 permit to construct a public

golf course.

There is no guarantee at this time

that a permit will be awarded, despite

the city’s significant efforts and investment. This bill brings the promise

of reason and relief to communities

such as Lake Jackson.

The time has come for sensible environmental reform. The Clean Water

Act Amendments of 1995 provides for

risk-based regulation and requires the

EPA to subject its mandates to both

risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. It offers flexibility to the States in

their efforts to determine how each

may best comply with Federal law and

contribute to long-term pollution control. Support the bill.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Rhode

Island, [Mr. REED].

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

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

opposition to H.R. 961. The Clean Water

Act has been instrumental in cleaning

up our waters and protecting our environment. H.R. 961, if enacted, would

devastate Rhode Island, both its environment and, just as importantly, its

economy. We depend upon a clean Narragansett Bay to support not only environmental activities, but also our

economy.

In 1989, $42 million was generated by

our commercial fishing industry. $11

million was generated by our

shellfishing industry. If we lose the

Clean Water Act, we will lose a lot of

these profits and a lot of the jobs associated with them.

We depend on tourism: $146 million in

1989 for marine recreation activities;

$637 million in 1989 for the marine industry in general. Without the Clean

Water Act, we will not be able to realize this type of economic activity.

We have to support a strong Clean

Water Act. This bill does not do that.

We also have to provide the States the

resources through the revolving fund

to provide cleanup until Rhode Island

and elsewhere. Again, this act does not

do this. Mr. Chairman, we should reject

this provision and support a Clean

Water Act.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield

11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from

Texas [Mr. PETE GEREN], a former

member of the committee, now on temporary leave, who helped enormously

on these issues last year.

(Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked

and was given permission to revise and

extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr.

Chairman, I rise in strong support of

this very important legislation. I want

to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES],

and the chairman, the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], for bringing us to where we are today. A lot of

work over a lot of years has made this

day possible. The legislation we have

today brings long overdue balance back

to the implementation of this most important piece of environmental legislation.

I would like to talk about a specific

provision in the bill, the risk assessment and the cost benefit analysis provisions in H.R. 961. These provisions

will result in greater improvements in

water quality because they help to

focus the Clean Water Act’s requirements on significant risk reduction in

a manner that provides the greatest

amount of environmental benefit for

the costs expended.

Mr. Chairman, we have reached the

point in every area of this Government

where we cannot afford to waste a

dime. It is only through cost-benefit

analysis and risk assessment that we

can make sure that the scarce dollars

are targeted for the most important

environmental initiatives.

For 20 years the Clean Water Act has

been addressing the problems of water

quality in this country. The act imposed technology that forced requirements on industry and municipalities

and imposed additional water quality

controls where technology controls

were not enough. These have been successful in cleaning up our Nation’s

water. It is now time for more precision in order to better focus the resources that are put in play by this act.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues

to support H.R. 961 and commend those

who have worked so hard to make this

day possible.

b 1500

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] has

111⁄2 minutes remaining, the gentleman

from California [Mr. MINETA] has 17

minutes remaining, and the gentleman

from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES] has 7 minutes remaining.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from New

York [Mr. NADLER], a member of our

committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the

Clean Water Act, since 1972 has been

one of the most successful pieces of

legislation ever enacted by this Congress. Yet many Members of this body
H 4704 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

are willing to throw away all the advances we have made.

During the first 100 days of this Congress, we have heard a lot of talk of

Government waste and commonsense

reform. Apparently this talk applied

only to legislation in the first 100 days.

Two years ago, for example, we ordered a study by the National Academy

of Sciences of wetlands to define just

what a wetland is. The findings of that

study were released just yesterday.

What use has H.R. 961 made of this

information? None. The findings of this

multimillion dollar study are not reflected in this bill at all. We all knew

the study results were promised for

May, but the authors of H.R. 961 could

not wait. Apparently whatever is driving this bill, it is not scientific information.

The Nation’s wetlands, of course,

provide a vital source of filtration for

our drinking water. But this bill attempts to redefine wetlands. H.R. 961

provides that only 20 percent of the

wetlands in the region may be deemed

a critical wetland. That leaves 80 percent of the wetlands open for development. Why is only 20 percent of our

wetlands going to be protected? This

arbitrary standard will deprive 80 percent of our wetlands of any protection

and will deprive us of the benefits of

that 80 percent.

In New York City we have some of

the cleanest drinking water in the

United States. We have accomplished

this not by building a massive filtration system but by protecting the integrity of our watershed and letting

nature do its job. This bill throws out

or makes voluntary many of the regulations that protect our watershed. If

this dirty water bill passes, it is likely

that New York City will have to spend

between $6 and $8 billion to build a filtration system to imitate what nature

has already accomplished; is that

right?

Mr. Chairman, this is not fiscal conservatism. It is not anything we should

do.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve

the balance of my time.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. HARMAN].

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given

permission to revise and extend her remarks.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise

today in strong opposition to H.R. 961

and hope all our colleagues know how

lucky California is to have the leadership of the gentleman from California

[Mr. MINETA].

Nowhere will the bill’s assault on

clean water be felt more strongly than

in my district. H.R. 961’s many loopholes, waivers and exemptions would

allow partially treated sewage to be

dumped into Santa Monica Bay, a body

of water only now recovering from

years of neglect and pollution.

The EPA has reviewed the ocean discharging provisions in H.R. 961 and has

stated that they are neither scientifically nor environmentally justifiable

and could result in harm to the people

who depend upon the oceans and coasts

for their livelihood and enjoyment.

While some claim that economics necessitates granting sewage treatment

exemptions, dirtier and unsafe oceans

will actually hurt southern California’s

economy by keeping tourists away

from our beaches.

The bill does not just relax sewage

treatment standards, it also dismantles

the storm water and wetlands programs. Such disdain for these important clean water safeguards is especially troubling in Los Angeles where

storm water or nonpoint source pollution is now recognized as a major

threat to the health of Santa Monica

Bay.

Mr. Chairman, over the past 20 years,

the Clean Water Act has been one of

our most effective and most popular

environmental statutes. In less than 20

weeks, the House will have effectively

reversed this progress, if it passes H.R.

961. I urge my colleagues to stand up

for clean water and to vote against this

dirty water bill.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. EWING].

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

Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise

today in strong support of H.R. 961, the

Clean Water Amendments of 1995, and

urge my colleagues to support the bill

as reported by the committee and to

reject weakening amendments which

seek to gut the bill and preserve the

present regulatory status quo.

I also want to thank the gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] for

his strong leadership and commitment

to clean water.

I would make the points that this bill

is very important because it requires

the EPA to subject its mandates and

regulations to a risk assessment. The

regulations must be performancebased. Market incentives can be used

to achieve environmental goals. Environmental regulation should be based

on the best science, and it is a major

victory giving States and local governments control over runoff.

Finally, let me say that it ends the

wetlands regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support

of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of

1995, and urge my colleagues to support the

bill, as reported from committee, and to reject

weakening amendments which seek to gut the

bill and preserve the present regulatory status

quo. I also want to thank Chairman SHUSTER

for his strong leadership and commitment to

Clean Water Act reform.

For the benefit of my colleagues who do not

serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee, and who may be confused by the

rhetoric of the opponents of H.R. 961, I would

like to take a few moments to set the record

straight.

H.R. 961 does not weaken the existing

Clean Water Act. The committee’s bill preserves the same water quality standards as

the original Clean Water Act, it authorizes $3

billion annually for water quality programs, and

it restores the Founding Father’s notion of federalism by freeing State and local governments from one-size-fits-all Federal mandates

and empowering them with the flexibility to

meet each State’s unique regional needs and

water quality challenges.

Make no mistake, opponents of H.R. 961

do not trust State and local officials to do what

is right for their communities. They only trust

Federal Government bureaucrats to make responsible decisions. I do not agree with this

type of big government arrogance. The farmers and landowners in my congressional district have had enough of unnecessary interference and costly mandates from Federal bureaucrats.

In addition to stressing State and local management solutions, H.R. 961 is consistent with

the regulatory reform themes contained in the

Republican Contract With America. H.R. 961

adopts a commonsense approach which requires EPA to complete a regulatory cost-benefit analysis before issuing new rules. The bill

also protects States and localities from unfunded Federal mandates, and landowners will

receive compensation for regulatory takings of

private property. Some of these commonsense

provisions have been in law for over a decade, but H.R. 961 finally enforces them.

H.R. 961 applies reason and consistency to

the Federal wetlands permitting process. By

consolidating the section 404 permitting process under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, landowners will not have to

waste their resources and spend months, or

sometimes years, trying to obtain the necessary permits from both EPA and the Army

Corps. Title VIII of the bill outlines reasonable

wetlands delineation standards, and represents sound, fair, and workable wetlands

policy.

Arguments that the House should refrain

from passing wetlands delineation standards

until the National Academy of Sciences study

is complete, only reflect H.R. 961’s opponents’ desire to leave the current, fragmented,

and overly burdensome wetlands permitting

process in place. Congress has patiently waited for over 19 months from the time the NAS

study was originally due, and the results of the

study will still not resolve our Nation’s wetlands permitting difficulties. Only the language

in title VIII of H.R. 961 affirmatively resolves

the wetlands permitting problem.

H.R. 961 also prescribes progressive solutions to regulation of nonpoint source pollution

and stormwater permitting. Indeed, common

sense dictates that there is no need to require

permits for stormwater discharge that does not

come into contact with pollutants. Yet most importantly, the bill recognizes that voluntary

compliance incentives are often more effective

than punitive measures.

My colleagues, programmatic change is

often met with some resistance, as illustrated

by supporters of the status quo who have

been critical of many provisions in this legislation. But careful examination of H.R. 961 reveals a bill that strikes a reasoned balance between funding realities and the national goals

of the Clean Water Act. It is time to abandon

the outdated logic which claims the Federal

Government always knows what is best for

States and localities, and to give States and

the regulated community the flexibility to try
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4705

new and innovative approaches to water pollution control.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to

reject the alarmist rhetoric of the other side,

and to support H.R. 961.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

distinguished gentleman from Colorado

[Mr. SCHAEFER].

(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise

in strong support of the legislation before us.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support

of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s efforts to improve the Clean Water

Act. I applaud Chairman SHUSTER and all of

the members of the committee who worked on

this proposal.

There is no doubt that America enjoys extremely clean water. However, the problem

with the current statute is not the intent: maintaining clean water is an admirable and necessary goal. The problem is its rigid standards. It imposes Federal mandates without regard to individual State and local circumstances and, ironically, it exempts Federal

facilities from compliance. H.R. 961 goes a

long way toward correcting these flaws.

State and local water systems as well as

businesses are crying for relief from the current Federal standards. The one-size-fits-all

attitude has created nightmare compliance

scenarios for these entities. The clean water

Americans currently enjoy will not be sacrificed. Rather, the Federal Government will

relinquish its stranglehold and allow State and

local officials to determine how to best achieve

this worthy goal.

Most importantly, H.R. 961 brings the Federal Government itself into compliance with

Clean Water Act standards. Currently, the

Federal Government is allowed to taint the

very water it claims to protect, all under the

guise of sovereign immunity.

H.R. 961 would end this double standard

and ensure full compliance at all Federal facilities. At last, communities that happen to be

near polluted Federal lands will benefit from

the clean water all other citizens enjoy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to

support the Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee’s thoughtful efforts to improve

clean water regulation and its endeavor to end

Federal exemption from environmental laws.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. FARR].

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise

today in strong opposition to H.R. 961

and urge my colleagues to reject this

overreaching piece of legislation. The

Clean Water Act is really one of our

Nation’s most effective environmental

laws, one of our Nation’s most effective

environmental laws.

In 1972, the year of the Clean Water

Act’s birth, only one our of three rivers

are clean enough for people to fish or

swim. Now, the EPA estimates that

over 60 percent of our waters are clean

enough for fishing and swimming.

I am the first to acknowledge that it

is not perfect, and that sometimes it

imposes rigid and unneeded requirements that it need not do. Unfortunately, the bill as written fails to target what is broken in the Clean Water

Act and build on what works. Instead it

throws out good along with the bad.

H.R. 961 would remove 60 percent of

our Nation’s remaining wetlands from

any level of protection. It would weaken standards that protect our waters

from industrial pollution by creating

dozens of waivers and loopholes. And

frankly, it would repeal the entire

coastal zone nonpoint source pollution

program which on the coastal counties

of California would severely hamper

the State of California’s efforts to preserve the waters off of our coast so

that they can be indeed recreational

and economically viable for the fish industry.

These changes do not make environmental sense if they are going to gut

the bill. And they certainly do not

make any economic sense.

The drafters of H.R. 961 have created

a bill that accounts for the cost of everything but the value of nothing. I

have no doubt that H.R. 961 will save a

great many people a great deal of

money. But is this good value for future generations?

Clearly, the answer is no. Future

generations will pay dearly in many

ways to recover the environmental and

economic damage that H.R. 961 will

allow.

The best feature of the Clean Water

Act is that it is a prevention program.

It stops pollution before it gets into

our waters. H.R. 961 would make the

Clean Water Act more like the

Superfund, one of the most broken environmental programs. It litigates first

and cleans up later.

I urge my colleagues to support the

substitute offered by the gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON].

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve

the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. LATHAM].

(Mr. LATHAM asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want

to compliment the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] on bringing this great bill up. I rise today to

express my strong support for H.R. 961,

the Clean Water Amendments Act reauthorization.

Over the next 3 days, Members of

Congress who supported the regulatory

reforms of the Contract With America

will have an opportunity to put those

general principles into existing environmental statute. H.R. 961 restores a

proper regulatory balance between

Federal, State, and local governments,

and it was developed with unprecedented input from the real environmental experts, men and women from

local governments and water systems.

It includes individual property rights

protection, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and protects against unfunded mandates.

Ultimately, H.R. 961 is a choice between those who believe good government should always regulate more and

those who believe government should

regulate smarter.

I believe government should regulate

smarter, and I encourage my colleagues to support and vote for H.R.

961.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from California [Mr. MINETA] has 11

minutes remaining, the gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] has

91⁄2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES] has

7 minutes remaining.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve

the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] has

the right to close the debate.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. EMERSON].

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Missouri

[Mr. EMERSON].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Missouri [Mr. EMERSON] is recognized for 3 minutes.

(Mr. EMERSON asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentlemen for yielding time

to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very

strong support of the Clean Water Act

Amendments of 1995 and against the socalled Boehlert-Roemer substitute. Parochially, let me say that this bill has

tremendous positive implications for

both rural America and the critical agricultural economy that sustains these

same rural communities. But this is

also a very genuine bipartisan effort

led by the distinguished chairman, the

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

SHUSTER], and I welcome this opportunity to finally address both the needs

and the solutions that are the subject

of this legislation.

The commonsense approach found in

this bill is long overdue. I want to commend the chairman for his leadership

in bringing this bill before this body.

With this being the first major piece of

environmental legislation in the new

Congress, I am impressed by the broad,

bipartisan support behind this bill.

b 1530

Mr. Chairman, we all agree that adequate attention must be given to preserving and protecting our environment, but I believe that the pendulum

has swung way too far in obstructing

the control of this Nation’s private

property owners over their own land.

There must be an appropriate balance,

and this bill restores balance. Anyone

who believes that private landowners

should retain reasonable control over

private land as guaranteed by our Constitution should vote for this bill.
H 4706 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

In addition, for far too long, Federal

wetlands law has been the primary

land management tool for any Federal

agency that wants to dictate its own

wetlands policy. Without congressional

debate or public comment, various government agencies and departments

that promulgate our wetlands rules

and regulations have acted freely in

holding farmers and small business

owners hostage to their wetlands definition. The fact of the matter is that

the contrast between pristine wetlands

and a mud puddle is not distinguishable by the various Federal agencies

dealing with wetlands. The approach

taken in this bill resolves the everchanging definition of what constitutes

a wetland by defining them according

to their value and function. This bill

also provides needed reforms in the

current regulatory system and directs

Federal regulators to consider the

value of wetlands from competing social, economic, and environmental

needs.

In other words, true wetlands have to be

wet. And if they are determined to be a pristine wetland, they are protected. And if they

are taken by the Government, then landowners will be paid for their economic losses.

It is a pretty basic concept, but one that the

Federal Government has had a hard time figuring out.

The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995

provides for voluntary, incentive-based programs in local, State, and Federal partnership

to advance clean water goals with nonpoint

source pollution. It also gives State and local

officials the flexibility to manage and control

stormwater like other forms of runoff which

helps reduce the high cost of unfunded mandates. Finally, it requires the Environmental

Protection Agency [EPA] to subject its mandates and regulations to risk assessment and

cost benefit analysis.

For the first time in a long time, we are successfully working together at all levels of government to meet our water quality needs. We

do not need straitjackets to have clean drinking water, nor should we allow Federal bureaucrats who know the least about farming or

operating a small business to deem what’s a

wetland from their Washington offices.

Through its increased flexibility, the Clean

Water Amendments of 1995 benefits farmers,

businesses, consumers, local and State governments, and their taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, any last-minute reactions to

derail and weaken this bipartisan effort, whether they be in the form of amendments or socalled substitutes, should be voted down.

Such efforts are a breach of our Contract With

America and renege on the need for smart

regulation, good science, cost-effective risk reduction, and commonsense. The Washington

bureaucracy and professional environmental

elitists have been ramming these edicts down

the throats of the American taxpayer for too

long. It is time for the farmer, the rancher, and

the small business owner to finally have a say

in the process, and we have provided for that

forum in this legislation. Vote for the Clean

Water Amendments Act of 1995 and vote

against any and all efforts to weaken it.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I am

privileged to yield 4 minutes to the

gentleman from Michigan [Mr.

BONIOR], our distinguished minority

whip.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, clean

water is not just an issue of us versus

them. It is about our health, it is about

our environment, it is about a quality

of life. For many of us, it is about jobs.

Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has

made great strides in cleaning up our

waters. Today 60 percent of our waterways are clean.

I remember as a boy taking my bike,

driving down to Lake St. Clair to go

swimming, and seeing a sign on the

beaches, on the fences by the beaches,

saying ‘‘No swimming today—pollution.’’ We have cleaned up about 60 percent of that problem. The bad news is

that the remaining 40 percent of our

water is still polluted.

In the past few years alone we have

seen 104 people die in Milwaukee due to

drinking water poisoned with cryptosporidium. In my community beaches

were closed 2 months last summer, and

businesses lost millions of dollars, due

to water so choked off by bacteria and

seaweeds that ducks could literally

walk across it. If anything, we should

be strengthening the Clean Water Act,

not gutting it. However, the bill before

us today will stop a quarter century of

progress dead in its tracks.

Mr. Chairman, why do we want to

make it easier to poison or lakes and

our streams? Why do we want cities

and factories dumping raw sewage into

the same lakes and rivers we get our

drinking water from? Because a few

corporations and lobbyists oppose the

safeguards we have now? Does anybody

really believe these people are looking

out for the public interest and public

safety first?

In the Great Lakes region, we have

seen recent stories of some mothers

who ate fish from Lake Michigan during pregnancy and are finding that

their children are having developmental problems. Instead of finding answers, however, some people are now

suggesting that we weaken the Great

Lakes water quality initiative, which

was put together so painstakingly with

Republicans and Democrats during the

Bush administration and into this administration over the last few years.

I sure hope this is not the case, but

Mr. Chairman, after all this time, can

we not agree that making our waterways safe benefits us all, especially

business?

When Lake St. Clair, which borders

on my district, was shut down for 2

months last summer, it did not just affect the quality of life, it devastated

business. Local marinas and restaurants, businesses which bring in

over $1 billion each year from boaters

and beachgoers, suffered losses in the

millions. When we wondered how it

happened, we found out that State inspections were lax, sewer overflow discharges unchecked, and in some instances, Mr. Chairman, in some cases,

State permits had not been renewed in

nearly 20 years.

I understand the desire to send responsibility back to the States. That is

the movement we are in now at the

Federal level. However, we have to

strike some sense of healthy balance

here. It seems to me that a bill written

by lobbyists on behalf of some of America’s most notorious polluters takes us

exactly in the wrong direction. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for common sense, vote

for clean water, vote ‘‘no’’ on this irresponsible bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise the parties of the time remaining.

The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.

HAYES] has 6 minutes remaining; the

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

SHUSTER] has 71⁄2 minutes remaining,

and the gentleman from California [Mr.

MINETA] has 7 minutes remaining.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

minute to the distinguished gentleman

from Minnesota [Mr. PETERSON].

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr.

Chairman, there is a lot of misinformation floating around about this bill. I

just want to briefly touch on a couple

of them.

I represent a prairie pothole region

up in the northern part of the United

States, and there is letter that has

been put out by a wildlife group that

claims that there are going to be, in

this bill, changes that are going to devastate these prairie pothole regions.

That is absolutely not the case. The

swampbuster, which is what governs

most of our problems, is not even included in this bill.

Second, there is an exemption for the

prairie pothole region, so clearly, this

letter was written by somebody who

has not read the bill and does not understand what the situation is.

The other thing that is thrown

around about this bill is this is somehow or another going to allow industry

to pollute. If we believe that, then we

are going to believe that the EPA or

the State Environmental Protection

Agency is going to allow this to happen, because in this bill, they have to

sign off for these changes.

I just hope that people would read

the bill before they engage in all of this

rhetoric that really, in my judgment,

misses the point. I ask support for the

bill.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BARR].

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, as I listened a few moments ago to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr.

BONIOR], I was struck with something.

That is, yes to his question that we

have had in this country tremendous

improvements in the water supply and

our waterways over the last 20 years or

more, but let us ask ourselves, why

have we seen those changes? Why have

the improvements come from? Have

they come from the basic Clean Water

Act that we passed over a generation

ago? The answer is yes.

Have those improvements, has that

cleaner water, come, though, from the
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4707

numerous additional amendments, regulations, and bureaucrats that have

been foisted on our communities, our

businesses, and our local governments

since that time? The answer to that

question is no.

What this bill does, and I rise in

strong support of H.R. 961, is get us

back to where we ought to be, and that

is with the basic legislation that is

good, and yet does not saddle our communities, our business, and ultimately,

the taxpayers in this country, with

needless regulation that does not do

any good, other than raise the cost to

our people. Let us bring balance, let us

bring rationality back to this process.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5

minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. GEPHARDT], our very distinguished minority leader.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise

today to urge my colleagues to defeat

this bill, to let all of America know

that when it comes to the water that

we all drink every day, the water we

use to cook, and to feed to our children, there can be no compromise, and

we can allow no special interest agenda.

The fact is this so-called clean water

bill is anything but clean. It rolls back

decades of environmental controls designed with one purpose in mind: to

make sure that the water that comes

out of our faucets, the water that we

swim in and bathe in, is clean and safe.

That is not a Democratic or a Republican goal. Basic health and safety,

freedom from pollution and contamination, is something that knows no bound

of party or politics. However, in my

view, this bill serves an interest that is

outside the political process. It serves

the interests of industrial polluters

looking to save a few pennies, even if

that means contaminated water and

disease for people.

If Members ask me, that is not what

the American voter voted for last November: polluted drinking water, contaminated soil in which to grow good

food, filthy water in which to swim.

Some will try to argue that there is

no national role in clean water, that

States should set their own standards.

However, clean water is a national

issue. My town of St. Louis, MO, gets

all of its drinking water from the Mississippi River, which originates in

other States. If those States allow pollution, we in St. Louis drink the consequences.

At the same time, I know that this

bill will cost my State millions of dollars in lost sewage treatment funds,

money that we desperately need to

keep our water clean. Mr. Chairman, if

we vote for this bill, we will have more

than dirty water. We will have an unclean conscience. This is a bill of special interests, by the special interests,

for the special interests. In my opinion,

that is reason enough to vote a resounding no.

Then with our drinking water saved

from the special interest assault, we

can roll up our sleeves and go back to

work for the people for a change. I urge

Members, in the interests of having

safe drinking water in our towns and

villages all across this country, to defeat this bill. We can do better.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself the remainder of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES] is recognized for the balance of his time, a period of 5 minutes.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I wish

the leadership in my party, and I wish

my friends in the other party, could all

take a short journey with me right at

this instant down the mighty Mississippi River and across a marsh to a

small town that many of Members

would not recognize, but it is named

after the gentleman in that portrait,

Lafayette. I wish they could stand for

a few moments in what is my home.

In the back of my home are lakes. In

the back of my home are marshes. In

the back of my home are cypress trees.

I am quite familiar with all of them. In

the back of my home are the last

memories I have of the last time I saw

my grandmother. In the back of my

home are the footsteps still left by my

father when he filmed a television commercial, so proud that his son had not

only finished school, which he was

never able to do because of the Depression, but had gone on to be a Congressman, which to him meant public service. The place is a piece of land, but it

is inextricably tied to my family.

I wish I could take those folks to

whom land is a few square feet and a

high-rise apartment, to understand the

boundaries and the linkages between

individuals who plant it and plow it

and love it, and those who believe it

could be better handled by regulators

who have never in all likelihood seen

it, and assuredly would not understand

it.

My mother still lives in that home.

She cannot understand why a lake that

we dug would be treated as a wetland

when it was not before we did it. To her

a wetland was made in the marsh by

God, not dug by tractors and Caterpillars. She thinks there is a difference

between the two.

My mother, who understands the

marshes of Louisiana, which are indeed

class A wetlands, as they are in the

marshes of Maryland, cannot understand why the parking lot of a shopping center in the middle of our towns

been declared by the Corps of Engineers as the jurisdictional waters of

the United States, nor can I understand how anyone could represent a

congressional district, with its half

million people, almost any where and

not understand that what we have in

this debate is a clash of rights of individuals versus powers of Government.

I cannot imagine anyone would support a substitute that insists upon having not one, but 5 Federal agencies

veto the actions of potentially 7 other

Federal agencies, and want to say that

this bill that does nothing but streamline and have a single stop with a single Federal agency is for special interests.

b 1530

The folks who shrimp in the Gulf of

Mexico are special to me. The folks

who live there are special to me. The

folks who vote there, and send me to

Congress to be their voice, want somebody to say enough is enough, and

there is a difference between the waterfowl lands that we know and hunt and

the lands in individual residential subdivisions that are already for years before of no more ecological value but

are very important, and property

rights to the individuals who now own

them.

I wish somebody could take that

journey. Quite frankly, I agree with

the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.

BONIOR]. I wish I could go back a decade, because right now I am being instructed by folks who cannot understand how to stop crime in their big

city on how to do a crime bill, for folks

who where I live have been pretty managing and able to have power and

rights in their sheriffs to do that for

some time, and who do not want cities

to teach them how to fight crime, and

who sure do not want Manhattan and

New York City to tell them about the

environment.

They are especially tired of hearing

about people that live in Washington

DC, which by the way is a marsh, and

which under any definition would be a

wetland, but no one here who is a bureaucrat would dare treat the people in

Washington like they treat the people

in Lafayette, LA, on exactly the same

kind of property.

The folks at the EPA who paid for

the scientists to do the study talk

about how useful it is. Well, if I paid

for it, I would expect it to be real nice

to me, too. Instead I have people who

actually paid for it because they wrote

the checks for the tax dollars, and who

are explaining to the EPA that they

work for them and that they ought to

have some of their interest in mind.

I wish we could take that journey. It

would be more philosophical than it

would be in the 1,200 miles of distance,

and it would have more education than

the combined degrees of all of the scientists who prepared the report, and it

would distinguish for you the clear and

simple decision to be made in supporting the Clean Water Act.

Clean water is for people, people who

in many cases own property, who care

about the quality of life there more

than any of these whose greatest desire

is to exert bureaucratic control over

the future of their lives. They believe

more in their hometown than they believe in Washington. They believe more

in their State than they believe in

Washington, and they are right. That

will be the degree to which we measure

the independence and individuality of

this vote on this floor. I hope Members

will join me in voting yes.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 3 minutes.
H 4708 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Mr. Chairman, I was astonished by

some of the comments of my good

friend from Michigan, the minority

whip, and indeed the gentleman from

Missouri, the minority leader. They

perhaps were not on the floor when we

quoted directly from the National Governors Association and others, to have

them say that this bill is written and

supported by polluters and by special

interests.

Let me share again who some of

those so-called polluters and special interests are. I guess the National Governors Association are polluters and

special interests, because we have a

letter from them saying, ‘‘We urge approval of this bill.’’

I suppose the National Association of

Counties, National League of Cities

and U.S. Conference of Mayors are polluters and special interests, because we

have this letter from them saying that

when together we represent all of the

Nation’s elected officials and charges

that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental

protection and that it guts the Clean

Water Act are totally unfounded.

I suppose, according to their definition, the Association of State and

Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators are polluters and special

interests, because we have a letter

from them saying with its new comprehensive approaches to nonpoint

source watershed and water management, H.R. 961 sets forth a framework

that better protects this Nation’s waterways.

I support the Water Environment

Federation, made up of 42,000 water

quality specialists, are polluters and

special interests, because we have a

letter from them saying, ‘‘We, therefore, want to again urge you to support

the Clean Water Amendments of 1995

on the House floor.’’

So by the definition of my liberal

friends on the Democratic side, I guess

the special interests and the polluters

are the Governors and the majors and

the county leaders and the people responsible for seeing to it that clean

water is maintained across our States.

However, let us suppose for a moment all the terrible things that we

have heard about this legislation are

true. Under this legislation, every

State has the absolute right to impose

whatever stricter standards it chooses

to impose in its State.

So assuming the very worst, the

States still have the right to impose

whatever standards they choose to impose.

Yes, the bottom line here is what our

friends on the other side are embracing, is the ‘‘Washington knows best’’

crowd. That is the argument here

today. Does Washington know best or

do our States and our localities know

best?

That is the fundamental issue, and it

is for that reason that we should support this legislation, we should reject

the Boehlert substitute. We should support this legislation because it indeed

goes a long way toward further improving the clean water of America.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes, the balance of our time, to

the gentleman from Massachusetts

[Mr. KENNEDY.]

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.

Chairman, first I want to thank the

gentleman from California [Mr. MINETA], the ranking member, for the tremendous work he has done on trying to

protect America’s clean water.

This bill that has become known as

the Clean Water Act is fast becoming

the dirty polluters protection act. The

fact is that we have a nation today

where 40 percent of our water fails to

meet State designated water standards

for swimming, fishing, drinking, and

other uses. If we are truly interested in

protecting this country, not only for

our generation but for future generations, the last thing in the world we

ought to be doing is allowing this country to create dirtier water that will ultimately affect the basic fundamental

health care of this country.

In this bill, we see specific standards

being rolled back. The water quality

standards will be downgraded. There

will be a rollback on the point source

pollution issue, which means that big

corporations will be able to pollute the

drains that go and take water directly

into our harbors, and the ratepayers

that pay for the sewage treatment will

be charged directly for the pollution

that the biggest companies in America

will go ahead and continue. We see the

storm water runoff program again

being gutted; the nonpoint source pollution program being gutted.

I heard the chairman of the committee suggest that the mayors and the

Governors are all in favor of this bill,

but the fact of the matter is he knows

right well that they oppose unanimously the provisions in this pertaining to wetlands. The wetlands provisions will absolutely gut the budget of

America. If we end up having to pay

the billions and billions of dollars

which this bill calls for to the owners

of wetlands that right now are needed

to protect the fundamental environment of this country, it will not only

wreck our environment but it will

wreck the fundamental economy of

this country.

Therefore, let’s recognize this bill for

what it is. This bill is nothing more

than a transfer, again, of power from

the ordinary citizens of this country to

the biggest corporations in America,

saying we will turn a blind eye to what

they do, to what the polluters do, in

order to look out after the corporations. The Clean Water Act is going to

be flushed down the toilet of the Republican agenda.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

the balance of our time for closing the

debate to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. WAMP], the distinguished

vice chairman of our Subcommittee on

Water Resources and Environment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Tennessee [Mr. WAMP] is recognized for 31⁄2 minutes.

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

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, several

months ago dozens of us were sent to

Washington, DC, to try to bring back

to this institution balance and reason.

The American people want the pendulum to come back to the middle. We

have gone too far with regulation. We

have gone too far with litigation. We

have gone too far with taxation. I

could go on and on. The pendulum

needs to come back to the middle.

We are not, as you hear from the

other side, rolling back and gutting

and destroying and all of these emotional words. We are bringing the pendulum back to the middle and preserving clean water and doing the right

thing, but making it tolerable for our

free society.

I am proud to come from Chattanooga, TN, a city that at one time

was on the dirty air list in this country. Through a spirit of cooperation

from the private sector and some government regulations—yes, some but

not too many—we have gone from the

dirty air list in this country in Chattanooga, TN to the clean air list. We

are now becoming a model with respect

to water quality and the improvements

there in Chattanooga, but it is done

out of a desire to cooperate between

the private sector and the public sector, and it is not a result of Federal

Government micromanagement in

every single affair of our citizenry in

this country.

H.R. 961 maintains our commitment

to clean water while honoring our constitutionally protected private property rights. Every mud puddle in America should not be a wetland. We do not

live in Eastern Europe or the Soviet

Union. We must protect our constitutional rights. Sometimes in order to

understand where we need to go, we

need to look back.

Today I reference Thomas Jefferson’s

quote. He said, ‘‘A wise and frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another but shall leave them

otherwise free to regulate their own

pursuit of industry and improvement.’’

The Clean Water Amendments of 1995

meet Thomas Jefferson’s charge of the

balance of regulation.

Back home, since I came here, the

folks say to me, ‘‘Isn’t there anything

that Democrats and Republicans can

agree on? Do they always have to go to

the House floor and say they’re the

worst and we’re the best and engage in

all this partisan division?’’

Folks, this is it. This is a historic

piece of legislation, and dozens of reasonable Democrats are going to join us.

I worked on the subcommittee and the

committee level with these reasonable

Democrats and they led the charge:

good men and women from all across

the country saying this is a case where

the government has become too big and
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4709

intrusive, and we cannot continue to

thrive as a free society with these onerous regulations.

Bring the pendulum back to middle.

All of my reasonable colleagues on

both sides of the aisle join us in support of H.R. 961. We will do the right

thing together.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong

opposition to the bill before us today. Most of

us agree that the Clean Water Act has been

instrumental in cleaning up our nation’s waters, yet we are debating a bill that, if enacted,

would move us backwards and undercut the

progress that we have made to ensure that

our nation’s waters are drinkable, swimmable,

and fishable.

If enacted, H.R. 961 would devastate Rhode

Island. Rhode Island’s 420 miles of coastline,

beaches, and water have long been a destination for tourists. Indeed, Narragansett Bay has

played an integral role in my state’s historical,

social, and financial development. In 1989

alone, commercial fishing revenues generated

over $42 million, marine recreation generated

$146 million, the marine industry generated

$637 million, and in 1992, the shellfishing industry yielded a harvest worth $11 million.

Total revenues associated with Narragansett

Bay exceeded $1 billion for the State of

Rhode Island in 1989.

This sort of economic stability is predicated

on clean water. However, there is still more

work to be done. Beaches are monitored but

periodically exceed safe water quality tests.

And bans against shellfishing in Rhode Island

still occur all too frequently. In December of

1992, 2,800 acres of prime winter shellfish

harvesting areas were closed, causing a loss

of $1 million in revenues. The state was able

to begin to address this environmental and

economic disaster because of the support provided under the Clean Water Act’s coastal

nonpoint source management program, the

National Estuary Program, and the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES).

In 1994, the state was able to re-open part

of the shellfish harvesting area. However, 40

percent of the shellfish beds are still periodically closed due to coastal nonpoint source

pollution, stormwater runoff, and combined

sewer overflows. Rhode Island’s share of our

nation’s total quahog landings was nearly 50

percent in 1986. In 1993, it had dropped to 13

percent. Seventy percent of this drop was due

to a decrease in water quality. What this

means is that every time it rains,

shellfishermen in Rhode Island are reminded

that the problem has not been fixed yet.

Rhode Islanders also recognize the importance of a clean bay. A 1992 poll by the state

Department of Environmental Management

and the Narragansett Bay Project found that

98 percent of those surveyed believed that

Narragansett Bay is important to Rhode Island, and 93 percent said that it is important

to take steps to reduce pollution in Narragansett Bay.

And today we are debating a bill, which, if

enacted, would repeal the Clean Water Act’s

coastal nonpoint source management program. It does not contain any of the language

of the DeLauro-Lowey Water Pollution Control

and Estuary Restoration Act. And, it eliminates

the storm water permit program.

Our water resources are already being

pushed to their limits. Population in coastal

areas continues to increase. In fact, by the

year 2010, Rhode Island’s population is expected to grow by 10 percent, with 47 percent

of this growth occurring in coastal areas. This

increase in population, along with development and pollution, puts more strain on our

natural resources, particularly estuaries. And

75 percent of the fish caught by sportsmen

and fishermen are estuarine-dependent.

The Clean Water Act has meant jobs, increased revenues for my state, and an increased quality of life for the residents of

Rhode Island, as well as many other coastal

states. The Clean Water Act provides states

with the tools they need to combat the problems that still pollute our waterways. We

should increase funding for the State Revolving Funds, but we need to do it in a meaningful way.

Now is not the time to rollback regulations

that have improved our nation’s economy, environmental resources, and health. I urge my

colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to

express my deep concern about the Clean

Water Act amendments we are considering

this week. Twenty years ago, Congress

passed the landmark Clean Water Act that is

responsible for remarkable improvement in the

quality of our Nation’s streams, rivers, and

oceans. The Clean Water Act is a success

story. It demonstrates the ability of Government to positively address a serious national

problem. Today, economic development and

revitalization, as well as tourism, are thriving

along once threatened waterways. And while I

encourage careful scrutiny of Federal agency

actions, a balance must be struck between

economic interests and Federal regulations affecting our water resources. Unfortunately,

H.R. 961 does not strike this balance and simply goes too far.

As the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Management and a member

of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, I have serious problems with the provisions of H.R. 961 that would eliminate protection for a large percentage of American wetlands and significantly relax our national water

quality standards.

Wetland protection is not just a local issue.

It affects all parts of our country and provides

billions of dollars in economic benefits. Wetlands are vital for both flood control and water

quality as well as providing the spawning

grounds for fish that are important to the commercial and recreational fishing industries. Our

Nation’s coastal communities, that support a

multimillion-dollar fishing and tourism industry,

are dependent on the continued safety and

protection of our water resources.

As a member representing this nation’s largest port city, I am fearful that H.R. 961 will halt

the progress the Clean Water Act has

achieved in cleaning up the Hudson River,

New York Harbor, and Long Island Sound.

Over the past 20 years, the Clean Water Act

has been successful in both improving the

quality of our Nation’s ocean and coastal waters and in renewing the public’s faith in Government’s ability to protect our environment.

Mr. Chairman, clean water is crucial to ensuring public health, welfare, and quality of

life. I urge my colleagues to oppose this illconceived measure.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961, the Clean

Water Act amendments, even knowing that it

is a flawed bill. While this legislation accomplishes a number of positive things, it also unnecessarily retreats on some important clean

water initiatives. Nonetheless, no other clean

water legislation can secure sufficient votes to

pass this House and failure to address the inadequacies of the current Clean Water Act is

not an alternative which I can support.

It is important to continue to move the clean

water debate forward, and it is my hope that

the Senate and conference committee will improve this legislation so that the final version

of this bill will be a more carefully deliberated

and moderate legislative effort.

Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of

H.R. 961 and commend Chairman SHUSTER

and the other members of our committee who

have put this comprehensive reform package

together.

Our committee spent months working with

governors, state legislatures, local governments, and the regulated community to learn

what the problems are with the current law

and how to solve them. We kept what is best

in the Clean Water Act and provided the necessary funding to tackle the really difficult

problems like nonpoint source pollution.

Our bill is a bipartisan bill with strong committee support, introduced by 8 Republicans

and 8 Democrats, and passed the subcommittee 19 to 5 and full committee 42 to 16.

Don’t be fooled, this bill has strong support

at home and in Congress.

As you listen to the debate over the next 3

days, remember what this past election taught

us. The American people want a government

that achieves results. They want a government

that respects their rights, their property and returns authority to the States.

This bill does all of this: reforms the disastrous wetlands program; sets strong water

quality criteria that are also cost effective; provides States the flexibility to meet these standards; respects private property rights; and

most importantly, it has the money to achieve

its goals.

WETLANDS EXAMPLE—1992 VENTURA FLOOD

Let me give you one example of why we

need to pass HR 961:

In 1992 Ventura County tried for months—

unsuccessfully—to get a 404 wetlands permit

to clear vegetation out of a flood control channel. The county knew that a severe rainstorm

would cause terrible flooding if the channel

was clogged with plants. The EPA called the

area a wetland and spent months processing

the permit. When torrential rains finally came,

Ventura was forced to have Governor Wilson

and two Congressman secure an emergency

wetlands permit. The county set bulldozers

into the channel during the storm and a few

hours before the flood hit.

The flooding devastated communities and

took several lives.

It is clear that any program that results in

these problems must be reformed.

COST EFFECTIVE GOALS AND STANDARDS

Our bill sets tough water quality goals for

the States to achieve; allows the Federal Government to enforce water quality criteria; requires EPA to consider costs and benefits;

and makes risk assessment a prominent element of water quality decisionmaking.

STATE FLEXIBILITY

As a former city engineer, I know that the

solutions to water quality problems in my district are different than New York’s solutions.
H 4710 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

The goal is the same, but the ways to get

there are as diverse as the communities in our

country. That’s why we need flexibility in the

law.

Our bill recognizes this diversity and gives

States the tools to achieve Federal goals:

Authorizes pollutant trading within watersheds.

Allows States to develop watershed protection programs that integrate nonpoint source

and point source solutions to reach Federal

water quality goals.

Again, if the States fail to improve water

quality, then the Federal Government can enforce the Federal criteria.

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

The American people are tired of a Federal

Government that fails to recognize the economic repercussions of its actions.

Our bill is consistent with HR 965 which already passed the House.

Requires the Federal Government to compensate landowners whose property value has

been diminished 20 percent or more by a Federal wetland restriction.

This does not prevent important health or

safety regulations, but recognizes the constitutional requirement of private property compensation.

FUNDING—ENDS UNFUNDED MANDATES

Perhaps the strongest argument that our bill

improves water quality is that it gives States

the money to achieve Federal water quality

goals: It authorizes $15 billion over 5 years for

the State revolving loan fund; authorizes $1

billion over 5 years for nonpoint source funding, and $750 million over 5 years for state

administration block grants.

Many Members would have you believe that

you can’t have clean water without bureaucratic nightmares, burdensome regulations, or

unfunded mandates. But you can. The American people demand it. And this bill will give it

to you.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the

chairman’s bill and oppose weakening amendments.

Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, for

many years now I have been advocating that

we make use of scientific and technological information in the formulation and implementation of public policy. Listening to the many

calls for, and endorsements of, the use of

sound science that have been made in the

104th Congress you would think that I would

feel some sense of accomplishment. Instead,

I am shocked and appalled at how far the

rhetoric has diverged from reality. The gap

has never been wider. Although many supporters of this legislation have emphasized to

me their wish to have public policy based

upon sound science I cannot reconcile the

concept of sound science with the legislation

before us. H.R. 961 contains provisions that

demonstrate a flagrant disregard for that state

of scientific and technological knowledge in

the area of water quality. In many cases, it

seems the Committee went out of its way to

ignore scientific information. The wetlands

classification provisions of this bill are but one

illustration of this.

Yesterday, the National Academy of

Sciences released their study, ‘‘Wetlands:

Characteristics and Boundaries.’’ This review

of wetland delineation was undertaken at the

request of Congress. Anyone who takes the

time to read through this report or its Executive Summary cannot possibly claim that the

wetland classification and delineation scheme

contained in this bill has a basis in science. It

does not. H.R. 961 contains a political wetland

classification scheme that is designed to undermine both federal and state protection of

these valuable ecosystems. Defend this

scheme, if you wish, on its political merits, but

since science was left out of the process of

drafting it, be consistent and leave science out

of the defense of it.

In looking at this bill, there are many provisions that have been driven by a number of

factors: politics, special interests, short-term

concerns about the costs and benefits as they

affect water pollution-prone industries, and a

blind faith that good intentions will maintain

water quality. However, I find little evidence

that science or commonsense were included

and this bill shows a staggering lack of consideration of the many factors embodied by the

term ‘‘social justice.’’ Every human being,

every household on this planet requires water.

Every one.

There are many competing uses for our

water resources, and they should all be carefully considered and weighed against one another. The discharge of wastewater into water

bodies is one of these uses, and it is one that

has the potential to preclude other critical uses

if not carefully monitored and managed. Numerous provisions in this bill give more consideration to minimizing the cost to polluters of

controlling pollution discharges than they do to

minimizing the social and economic costs of

degrading our water supplies, thus elevating

the disposal use above all others. To make

cheap pollution disposal the primary focus of

this country’s water quality policy is totally irresponsible and scientifically, economically, and

socially indefensible.

The Clean Water Act is one of our greatest

public health and environmental success stories. There are some challenges that remain,

and there are sections of the law that should

be altered to address the achievement of

water quality in a more cost-effective manner.

H.R. 961 does not do this. I cannot believe

that after all the public money that has been

spent to clean up air, water, and land when

we have failed to adequately control disposal

of pollutants that we will now proceed to return

to failed policies that promoted pollution rather

than prevention.

Our constituents do not want to return to the

days before the Clean Water Act was implemented in this country. Clean water is essential for public health and economic health. Enactment of this bill will be devastating to both.

I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this bill,

and to insist that the Members of the Transportation Committee draft a responsible piece

of legislation that balances all competing uses

and all human needs for water in an equitable

and truly cost-effective manner.

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments

of 1995, a bill that would turn back progress

of the Clean Water Act and undermine two

decades of progress in improving the Great

Lakes—an important recreational and economic resource to the people of my State. Millions of jobs are directly or indirectly dependent upon water from that body of surface

water. H.R. 961 would threaten the economic

and environmental resources that the lakes

provide.

I am concerned that H.R. 961 eliminates the

concept of a level playing field for businesses

in the Great Lakes basin, the basis of the

Great Lakes Governors’ Agreement of 1986

and the Great Lakes initiative. H.R. 961 allows

a State to adopt some provisions of the recent

Great Lakes initiative, and not others. Clearly,

this creates interstate competition based on

willingness to degrade the environment.

H.R. 961 also allows companies and municipalities to avoid compliance with proven and

accepted environmental standards and in effect rewards those who have done the least to

prevent pollution with the greatest opportunity

to reduce the cost of wastewater treatment. Indeed, time and time again, this bill guts the

Clean Water Act and seriously weakens the

Great Lakes water quality initiative—a landmark program designed to ensure that all

States within the Great Lakes basin have uniform water quality standards to protect these

national treasures—the Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, many of the problems facing

the Great Lakes are interstate in character

and cannot be addressed by any State acting

alone. Over the past two decades my State

and others have come to rely upon the StateFederal partnership that is the cornerstone of

our system of public health protection. This

concept of partnership was the basis for the

cooperative effort of eight States to develop a

water quality guidance program to protect the

Great Lakes ecosystem. The overall objective

is a consistent, basin-wide water quality standard for the protection of human health, aquatic

life, and for the first time, wildlife. This bill

would significantly erode that partnership.

H.R. 961 steps backward, away from the

call for cost-effective best management practices at the earliest possible date. The new

deadline for action would be 20 years from

now—a generation away. At the same time

some industries would continue to release significant amounts of hazardous substances into

the lakes.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that now is not the

time to weaken the current clean water law

which has been highly effective in improving

the Nation’s water resources. The argument

that the Clean Water Act has become more

burdensome than pollution itself is without

foundation. What is clear, and rests on a secure factual foundation, is that the Clean

Water Act has done much to protect the

public’s health and increase social and economic opportunities. And even more must be

done. Unfortunately, H.R. 961 will ensure that

we do less, not more. For these reasons I

urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 961.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for general

debate has expired.

Pursuant to the rule, the Committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by titles as an original bill for

the purpose of amendment. The first

three sections and each title are considered as read.

During consideration of the bill for

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member who has

caused an amendment to be printed in

the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will

be considered as read.

Before consideration of any other

amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in House

Report 104–114. The amendment may be
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4711

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 not be subject to amendment, and shall not be

subject to a demand for a division of

the question.

The amendment shall be debatable

for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure.

If the amendment is adopted, the

Committee amendment in the nature

of a substitute as so amended shall be

considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

The Clerk will designate section 1.

The text of section 1 is as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as

the ‘‘Clean Water Amendments of 1995’’.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Definition.

Sec. 3. Amendment of Federal Water Pollution

Control Act.

TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELATED

PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. National goals and policies.

Sec. 102. Research, investigations, training, and

information.

Sec. 103. State management assistance.

Sec. 104. Mine water pollution control.

Sec. 105. Water sanitation in rural and Native

Alaska villages.

Sec. 106. Authorization of appropriations for

Chesapeake program.

Sec. 107. Great Lakes management.

TITLE II—CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

Sec. 201. Uses of funds.

Sec. 202. Administration of closeout of construction grant program.

Sec. 203. Sewage collection systems.

Sec. 204. Treatment works defined.

Sec. 205. Value engineering review.

Sec. 206. Grants for wastewater treatment.

TITLE III—STANDARDS AND

ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Effluent limitations.

Sec. 302. Pollution prevention opportunities.

Sec. 303. Water quality standards and implementation plans.

Sec. 304. Use of biological monitoring.

Sec. 305. Arid areas.

Sec. 306. Total maximum daily loads.

Sec. 307. Revision of criteria, standards, and

limitations.

Sec. 308. Information and guidelines.

Sec. 309. Secondary treatment.

Sec. 310. Toxic pollutants.

Sec. 311. Local pretreatment authority.

Sec. 312. Compliance with management practices.

Sec. 313. Federal enforcement.

Sec. 314. Response plans for discharge of oil or

hazardous substances.

Sec. 315. Marine sanitation devices.

Sec. 316. Federal facilities.

Sec. 317. Clean lakes.

Sec. 318. Cooling water intake structures.

Sec. 319. Nonpoint source management programs.

Sec. 320. National estuary program.

Sec. 321. State watershed management programs.

Sec. 322. Stormwater management programs.

Sec. 323. Risk assessment and disclosure requirements.

Sec. 324. Benefit and cost criterion.

TITLE IV—PERMITS AND LICENSES

Sec. 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated animal feeding operations.

Sec. 402. Permit reform.

Sec. 403. Review of State programs and permits.

Sec. 404. Statistical noncompliance.

Sec. 405. Anti-backsliding requirements.

Sec. 406. Intake credits.

Sec. 407. Combined sewer overflows.

Sec. 408. Sanitary sewer overflows.

Sec. 409. Abandoned mines.

Sec. 410. Beneficial use of biosolids.

Sec. 411. Waste treatment systems defined.

Sec. 412. Thermal discharges.

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Consultation with States.

Sec. 502. Navigable waters defined.

Sec. 503. CAFO definition clarification.

Sec. 504. Publicly owned treatment works defined.

Sec. 505. State water quantity rights.

Sec. 506. Implementation of water pollution laws

with respect to vegetable oil.

Sec. 507. Needs estimate.

Sec. 508. General program authorizations.

Sec. 509. Indian tribes.

Sec. 510. Food processing and food safety.

Sec. 511. Audit dispute resolution.

TITLE VI—STATE WATER POLLUTION

CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

Sec. 601. General authority for capitalization

grants.

Sec. 602. Capitalization grant agreements.

Sec. 603. Water pollution control revolving loan

funds.

Sec. 604. Allotment of funds.

Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.

Sec. 606. State nonpoint source water pollution

control revolving funds.

TITLE VII—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Technical amendments.

Sec. 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water

Quality Research Laboratory.

Sec. 703. Wastewater service for colonias.

Sec. 704. Savings in municipal drinking water

costs.

TITLE VIII—WETLANDS CONSERVATION

AND MANAGEMENT

Sec. 801. Short title.

Sec. 802. Findings and statement of purpose.

Sec. 803. Wetlands conservation and management.

Sec. 804. Definitions.

Sec. 805. Technical and conforming amendments.

Sec. 806. Effective date.

TITLE IX—NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

Sec. 901. References to act.

Sec. 902. Ocean dumping permits.

Sec. 903. Dredged material permits.

Sec. 904. Permit conditions.

Sec. 905. Special provisions regarding certain

dumping sites.

Sec. 906. References to Administrator.

b 1545

AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer

en bloc amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.

The text of the amendments is as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. SHUSTER:

Page 6, line 21, before the first period insert the following:

and not unreasonably restrict outdoor recreation and other socially beneficial activities

Page 7, strike lines 14 through 16 and insert

the following:

(b) BASIC RESEARCH AND GRANTS TO LOCAL

GOVERNMENTS.—Section 104(b)(3) (33 U.S.C.

1254(B)(3)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(3) in cooperation with Federal, State and

local agencies and public or private institutions, organizations, or individuals, conduct

and promote a comprehensive program of

basic research, experiments, and studies relating to causes, sources, effects, extent, prevention, and detection of water pollution and

make grants to State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, local governments, other public or nonprofit private

agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals for such purposes;’’.

Page 8, line 1, after ‘‘grants to’’ insert

‘‘States, local governments, and’’.

Page 8, line 3, after ‘‘works’’ insert ‘‘(including treatment works that utilize an alternative wastewater treatment system)’’.

Page 8, line 17, after ‘‘works’’ insert ‘‘and

alternative wastewater treatment systems’’.

Page 8, line 20, strike ‘‘water’’ and insert

‘‘wastewater’’.

Page 9, strike lines 6 through 13 and insert

the following:

(2) by inserting before the period at the end

the following: ‘‘; (7) not to exceed $21,243,100

per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996

through 2000 for carrying out the provisions

of subsection (b)(3); and (8) not to exceed

$10,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal

years 1996 through 2000 for carrying out the

provisions of subsections (b)(8) and (b)(9)’’.

Page 31, line 15, after ‘‘works’’ insert ‘‘and

alternative wastewater treatment systems’’.

Page 32, line 15, strike ‘‘not later than’’

and all that follows through ‘‘established’’

on line 16 and insert the following:

within a reasonable period of time as determined by the Administrator or the State, as

appropriate, considering facility planning,

design, construction, and other implementation factors

Page 34, line 5, strike ‘‘such Act’’ and insert ‘‘the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977’’.

Page 34, strike lines 6 through 10 and insert

the following:

‘‘(B) the post-mining levels of pollutants

(other than pH) discharged from such operation do not exceed the levels of pollutants

discharged from the remined area before the

coal remining operation began and the postmining pH levels of the discharges from the

remined area are not reduced below the pH

levels of the discharges from the remined

area before the coal remining operation

began.’’.

Page 36, line 14, strike ‘‘shall reduce’’ and

all that follows through the period on line 17

and insert the following:

shall take into account the permittee’s goodfaith efforts to implement the innovation

and to comply with any interim limitations

and may reduce or eliminate the penalty for

such violation.

Page 37, line 5, strike the closing quotation

marks and the final period.

Page 37, after line 5, insert the following:

‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be

construed to authorize the Administrator or

a State to enforce, place conditions on, or

otherwise regulate emissions into the air or

the treatment, storage, or disposal of solid

waste or require or enforce conditions on the

manufacturing or processing of a chemical

substance or mixture in any permit issued

under this Act.’’.

Page 37, lines 12 and 13, strike ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the

Administrator’’ and insert ‘‘The Administrator’’.

Page 37, line 15, insert ‘‘at the request of

the permittee and’’ before ‘‘after public notice’’.

Page 37, lines 17 and 18, strike ‘‘subsection

(b)’’ and insert ‘‘subsection (b)(1)(A),

(b)(2)(A), or (b)(2)(E)’’.

Page 37, line 24, insert ‘‘from the facility’’

after ‘‘pollutants’’.
H 4712 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Page 38, line 7, strike ‘‘subsection (b)’’ and

insert ‘‘subsection (b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), or

(b)(2)(E)’’.

Page 38, after line 23, insert the following:

‘‘(4) LIMITATIONS ON MODIFICATIONS.—A

modification of an otherwise applicable limitation or standard may not be made under

this subsection if such modification—

‘‘(A) will cause a receiving body of water

that is meeting its designated use for all pollutants to no longer meet such use;

‘‘(B) will prevent a receiving body of water

that is not meeting its designated use for all

pollutants from meeting such use; or

‘‘(C) will cause the introduction of pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works

that interferes with, passes through, or is

otherwise incompatible with such works or

will cause such works to violate its permit

under section 402 of this Act.

‘‘(5) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 270 days

after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall publish

guidance for determining whether a modification of an otherwise applicable limitation or standard under this subsection will

achieve an overall reduction in emissions to

the environment and result in an overall net

benefit to the environment. In developing

such guidance, the Administrator shall consult with the States and other interested

parties.

‘‘(6) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be

construed to authorize the Administrator or

a State to enforce, place conditions on, or

otherwise regulate emissions into the air or

the treatment, storage, or disposal of solid

waste or require or enforce conditions on the

manufacturing or processing of a chemical

substance or mixture in any permit issued

under this Act.

Page 38, line 24, strike ‘‘(4)’’ and insert

‘‘(7)’’.

Page 39, lines 8 and 9, strike ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the

Administrator’’ and insert ‘‘The Administrator’’.

Page 41, line 22, after the period insert the

following:

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed

to authorize the Administrator or a State to

enforce, place conditions on, or otherwise

regulate emissions into the air or the treatment, storage, or disposal of solid waste or

require or enforce conditions on the manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance or mixture in any permit issued under

this Act.

Page 41, after line 22, insert the following:

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON MODIFICATIONS.—A

modification of an otherwise applicable limitation or standard may not be made under

this subsection if such modification—

‘‘(A) will cause a receiving body of water

that is meeting its designated use for all pollutants to no longer meet such use;

‘‘(B) will prevent a receiving body of water

that is not meeting its designated use for all

pollutants from meeting such use; or

‘‘(C) will cause the introduction of pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works

that interferes with, passes through, or is

otherwise incompatible with such works or

will cause such works to violate its permit

under section 402 of this Act.

‘‘(7) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 270 days

after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall publish

guidance for determining whether a modification of an otherwise applicable limitation or standard under this subsection will

achieve an overall reduction in discharges to

the watershed and result in an overall net

benefit to the environment. In developing

such guidance, the Administrator shall consult with the States and other interested

parties.

Page 41, line 23, strike ‘‘(6)’’ and insert

‘‘(8)’’.

Page 51, line 8, insert ‘‘applicable to such

waters for all pollutants’’ after ‘‘uses’’.

Page 51, strike line 18 and all that follows

through line 4 on page 52.

Page 52, line 5, strike ‘‘(iv)’’ and insert

‘‘(iii)’’.

Page 52, after line 10, insert the following:

(d) CONSIDERATION OF INFLUENCE OF EXOTIC

SPECIES.—Section 303(c)(2) is further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(D) CONSIDERATION OF INFLUENCE OF EXOTIC SPECIES.—In establishing, adopting, or

reviewing standards or goals based upon fishable or swimmable uses or uses to assure

protection or propagation of a balanced population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, the

State or the Administrator shall consider

the influence of exotic or introduced species

upon such standards, goals, or uses.

‘‘(E) RECLAIMED WASTEWATER.—If a State

adopts or reviews water quality standards

and policies pursuant to this section, the

State may consider and balance, in addition

to other factors referred to in this section,

the need for allowing the discharge of reclaimed wastewater to navigable waters to

promote the beneficial use of reclaimed

wastewater. In addition, the State may take

into consideration and reflect in the standards—

‘‘(i) the use and value of reclaimed

wastewater for public water supplies;

‘‘(ii) the physical, chemical, and biological

conditions that influence water quality in

the area subject to the standards, including

extremes of temperature, water flow, turbidity, mineralization, salinity, and flooding;

and

‘‘(iii) whether the discharge of reclaimed

wastewater will result in a net environmental benefit to the watershed subject to

the standards.’’.

(e) CLARIFICATION OF MIXING ZONE AUTHORITY.—Section 303 (33 U.S.C. 1313) is amended

by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(i) CONTINUATION OF MIXING ZONES.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the Administrator to prohibit or discontinue mixing zones established by any

State for any pollutant or class of pollutants.’’.

Page 52, line 22, strike ‘‘an aquatic species’’ and all that follows through ‘‘criteria’’

on line 24 and insert the following:

an aquatic species that is indigenous to the

type of waters, a species that is representative of such a species, or an appropriate species that indicates the toxicity of the effluent in the receiving waters

Page 54, line 1, after ‘‘demonstrates’’ insert

‘‘to the permitting authority’’.

Page 54, lines 3 and 4, strike ‘‘indigenous,

or representative of indigenous, and relevant’’ and insert ‘‘indigenous’’.

Page 54, line 6, after ‘‘applicable’’ insert

‘‘numerical’’.

Page 54, line 7, after ‘‘standards’’ insert

‘‘for specific pollutants’’.

Page 54, line 10, strike ‘‘works’’ and all

that follows through the final period on line

12 and insert the following:

works—

‘‘(i) if the source or cause of such toxicity

cannot, after thorough investigation, be

identified; or

‘‘(ii) if the permittee makes to the permitting authority a demonstration described in

subparagraph (A).’’.

Page 54, line 23, strike ‘‘(D)’’ and insert

‘‘(F)’’.

Page 61, line 16, after the first period insert

the following:

In the case of ammonia, the Administrator

shall revise the criteria only to the extent

that the current criteria are more stringent

than necessary to achieve the objectives of

this Act.

Page 63, after line 3, insert the following:

(e) INDUSTRIAL PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS.—Section 304(d) (33 U.S.C.

1314(d)) is amended by adding at the end the

following:

‘‘(5) INDUSTRIAL PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS.—

‘‘(A) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 18

months after the date of the enactment of

this paragraph, the Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State

agencies and other interested persons, shall

publish guidelines for effluent limitations

under section 301 and sludge use and disposal

requirements under section 405 applicable to

publicly owned treatment works designed to

treat a predominance of industrial

wastewater. Such guidelines shall take into

account differences in constituents, treatability, available technology procedures, and

costs resulting from the fact that the publicly owned treatment works treat

wastewater and manage sludge derived predominantly from industrial sources.

‘‘(B) PERMITS.—Following the issuance of

guidelines under this paragraph, permits

under section 402 for such publicly owned

treatment works shall be derived using the

guidelines issued under this paragraph in

lieu of applying the regulations otherwise

applicable to publicly owned treatment

works promulgated under paragraph (1) of

this subsection and section 405(d).’’.

Page 63, line 4, strike ‘‘(e)’’ and insert

‘‘(f)’’.

Page 63, line 7, strike ‘‘3 years’’ and insert

‘‘1 year’’.

Page 63, line 24, strike ‘‘(f)’’ and insert

‘‘(g)’’.

Page 63, line 4, strike ‘‘(g)’’ and insert

‘‘(h)’’.

Page 64, strike line 15 and insert the following:

SEC. 308. PERSONNEL AND REPORTING.

Conform the table of contents of the bill

accordingly.

Page 64, line 16, before ‘‘Section’’ insert

‘‘(a) PERMITTING BOARDS.—’’.

Page 64, after line 23, insert the following:

(b) REPORTING.—Section 305(b) (33 U.S.C.

1315(b)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1) by striking the matter

preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting

‘‘Not later than 3 years after the date of the

enactment of the Clean Water Amendments

of 1995, and every 5 years thereafter, each

State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator a report which shall include—’’;

and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(c) CONSOLIDATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—A State may consolidate any of the

reporting requirements of this Act that relate to ambient water quality into the report

required under this section.’’.

Page 65, line 5, strike ‘‘(5)’’ and insert

‘‘(6)’’.

Page 68, line 20, strike ‘‘20,000’’ and insert

‘‘10,000’’.

Page 68, line 25, after ‘‘alternative’’ insert

‘‘wastewater’’.

Page 74, line 19, strike ‘‘and’’.

Page 74, line 22, after the semicolon insert

‘‘and’’.

Page 74, after line 22, insert the following:

‘‘(E) local limits established by such treatment works in its approved pretreatment

program are preventing and will continue to

prevent the introduction of pollutants into

such treatment works that interfere with,

pass through, or are otherwise incompatible

with such treatment works;

Page 75, lines 1 and 5, before ‘‘local’’ insert

‘‘approved’’.

Page 84, line 14, strike ‘‘or runoff’’.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4713

Page 92, line 2, after ‘‘vessel’’ insert ‘‘or

other facility’’.

Page 93, strike line 7 and all that follows

through line 2 on page 95 and insert the following:

SEC. 318. COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES.

Section 316(b) (33 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended—

(1) by inserting after ‘‘(b)’’ the following:

‘‘REGULATION OF COOLING WATER INTAKE

STRUCTURES.—’’;

(2) by inserting before ‘‘Any’’ the following: ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—’’;

(3) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph (2) of this section, and

moving such paragraph 2 ems to the right;

and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(2) INTAKE STRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall

require the application of the best technology available to new and existing cooling

water intake structures in instances where

the Administrator has determined that such

a structure is having or could have a significant adverse impact on the aquatic environment.

‘‘(B) NEW INTAKE STRUCTURE.—In identifying the best technology available for any

new cooling water intake structure pursuant

to subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall

consider, at a minimum, the following:

‘‘(i) The relative technological, engineering, and economic feasibility of available intake structure technologies for minimizing

adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.

‘‘(ii) The relative technological, engineering, and economic feasibility of available alternatives as to the location, design, construction, and capacity of the intake structure.

‘‘(iii) The relative environmental, social,

and economic costs and benefits of available

technologies and alternatives identified pursuant to this subparagraph or subparagraph

(D).

‘‘(iv) The projected useful life of the point

source at which the new cooling water intake structure is located.

‘‘(C) EXISTING INTAKE STRUCTURES.—In

identifying the best technology available for

an existing cooling water intake structure

pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall consider, at a minimum, the following:

‘‘(i) The relative technological, engineering, and economic feasibility of reasonably

available intake structure retrofit technologies for minimizing adverse impacts to

the aquatic environment.

‘‘(ii) The relative environmental, social,

and economic costs and benefits of available

technologies and alternatives identified pursuant to this subparagraph or subparagraph

(D).

‘‘(iii) The projected remaining useful life of

the point source at which the existing cooling water intake structure is located.

‘‘(D) CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES.—In

identifying the best technology available for

any new or existing cooling water intake

structure, the Administrator shall consider

environmental enhancements or any other

technique that the owner or operator has

identified as appropriate alternatives for

minimizing adverse impacts to the aquatic

environment.

‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the

following definitions apply:

‘‘(A) NEW COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE.—The term ‘new cooling water intake

structure’ means any intake structure the

construction of which commences after the

publication of final regulations implementing this subsection.

‘‘(B) EXISTING COOLING WATER INTAKE

STRUCTURE.—The term ‘existing cooling

water intake structure’ means any intake

structure that is not a new cooling water intake structure.’’.

Page 109, line 3, strike ‘‘and’’.

Page 109, after line 3, insert the following:

‘‘(E) providing financial assistance with respect to those water pollution control activities which have as their principal purpose

the protection of public water supplies; and

Page 109, line 4, strike ‘‘(E)’’ and insert

‘‘(F)’’.

Page 114, line 23, strike ‘‘(j)’’ and insert

‘‘(h)’’.

Page 117, line 7, before ‘‘livestock’’ insert

‘‘agricultural inputs, including’’.

Page 117, line 7, after ‘‘manure’’ insert a

comma.

Page 117, after line 18, insert the following:

(q) CONTROL OF SALT WATER INTRUSION.—

Section 319 is further amended by adding at

the end the following:

‘‘(s) CONTROL OF SALT WATER INTRUSION.—

Nothing in this section authorizes the Administrator to require a State to identify or

establish procedures and methods to control

salt water intrusion beyond what is provided

for in section 208(b)(2)(I).’’.

Page 136, line 16, strike ‘‘and’’ and all that

follows through the period on line 24 and insert the following:

, based on available information, and submit

to the Administrator for approval a

stormwater management program—

‘‘(A) that controls pollution added from

stormwater discharges to the navigable waters within the boundaries of the State and

improves the quality of such waters; and

‘‘(B) that the State proposes to establish

and administer under State law or interstate

compact to apply and assure compliance

with this section.

The initial program submission must meet

the requirements of this subsection and specifically address the first 5 fiscal years beginning after the date of submission of such

management program.

Page 137, lines 24 and 25, strike ‘‘established under subsection (i)’’.

Page 148, line 24, after the period insert the

following:

If, upon review of a stormwater pollution

prevention plan, the State determines that

the plan is inadequate, the State may require the facility to modify the plan.

Page 150, line 24, after the first comma insert ‘‘or’’.

Page 150, line 24, strike ‘‘or (c)(2)(F),’’.

Page 152, line 8, after ‘‘PERMITS’’ insert

‘‘AND EFFLUENT GUIDELINES’’.

Page 152, line 12, after ‘‘a’’ insert

‘‘stormwater’’.

Page 152, line 14, after ‘‘1987,’’ insert ‘‘or

with respect to which an effluent guideline

has been issued before February 4, 1987’’.

Page 153, line 15, strike ‘‘(b)’’ and insert

‘‘(c)’’.

Page 159, lines 17 and 18, strike ‘‘of this

Act’’.

Page 161, strike line 4 and all that follows

through line 24 on page 162.

Page 163, line 1, strike ‘‘(j)’’ and insert

‘‘(i)’’.

Page 163, line 14, strike ‘‘(k)’’ and insert

‘‘(j)’’.

Page 163, line 16 strike ‘‘1996’’ and insert

‘‘1998’’.

Page 165, line 10, strike ‘‘(l)’’ and insert

‘‘(k)’’.

Page 165, line 10, strike ‘‘STORMWATER’’.

Page 166, line 12, before the comma insert

‘‘and section 304(a)(13)’’.

Page 166, line 20, strike ‘‘(m)’’ and insert

‘‘(l)’’.

Page 167, line 1, strike ‘‘(n)’’ and insert

‘‘(m)’’.

Page 167, line 8, strike ‘‘(o)’’ and insert

‘‘(n)’’.

Page 167, line 12, strike ‘‘(p)’’ and insert

‘‘(o)’’.

Page 168, line 2, after the period insert the

following:

Land that was previously used for mining activities for which reclamation requirements

of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 have been met and a performance bond or deposit required under section 509 of such Act has been released under

section 519 of such Act shall no longer be

considered an ore mining and dressing site.

Page 168, after line 17, insert the following:

‘‘(5) ACTIVE COAL MINING SITES.—Discharges

comprised entirely of stormwater from an

active coal mining site operating under a

permit issued under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 shall be

subject to section 319.

Page 168, line 18, strike ‘‘(5)’’ and insert

‘‘(6)’’.

Page 169, after line 19, insert the following:

(d) DEVELOPMENT OF STORMWATER CRITERIA.—Section 304(a) is further amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(13) DEVELOPMENT OF STORMWATER CRITERIA.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—To reflect the episodic

character of stormwater which results in significant variances in the volume, hydraulics,

hydrology, and pollutant load associated

with stormwater discharges, the Administrator shall establish, as an element of the

water quality standards established for the

designated uses of the navigable waters,

stormwater criteria which protect the navigable waters from impairment of the designated beneficial uses caused by stormwater

discharges. The criteria shall be technologically and financially feasible and may include performance standards, guidelines,

guidance, and model management practices

and measures and treatment requirements,

as appropriate, and as identified in section

322.

‘‘(B) INFORMATION TO BE USED IN DEVELOPMENT.—The stormwater discharge criteria to

be established under this paragraph—

‘‘(i) shall be developed from—

‘‘(I) the findings and conclusions of the

demonstration programs and research conducted under section 322(h);

‘‘(II) the findings and conclusions of the research and monitoring activities of

stormwater dischargers performed in compliance with permit requirements of this Act;

and

‘‘(III) other relevant information, including information submitted to the Administrator under the industrial group permit application process in effect under section 402

of this Act on the day before the date of the

enactment of this paragraph;

‘‘(ii) shall be developed in consultation

with persons with expertise in the management of stormwater (including officials of

State and local government, industrial and

commercial stormwater dischargers, and

public interest groups); and

‘‘(iii) shall be established as an element of

the water quality standards that are developed and implemented under this Act by not

later than December 31, 2008.’’.

Page 169, line 20, strike ‘‘(d)’’ and insert

‘‘(e)’’.

Page 169, line 24, before the period insert

‘‘that is subject to section 322’’.

Page 182, line 1, strike ‘‘An’’ and insert ‘‘If

an’’.

Page 182, line 2, strike ‘‘that’’.

Page 182, line 6, strike ‘‘may’’ and all that

follows through ‘‘use’’ on line 9 and insert ‘‘,

such system or facility is exempt from this

Act’’.

Page 183, strike lines 4 through 11 and insert the following:
H 4714 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

(c) DISCHARGE LIMIT.—Section 402(a) (33

U.S.C. 1342(a)) is further amended by adding

at the end the following:

‘‘(7) QUANTITATION LEVEL.—

‘‘(A) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 1

year after the date of the enactment of this

Act, the Administrator shall establish quantitation levels for pollutants based on the

lowest level at which a pollutant can be reliably quantified on an interlaboratory basis

for each test method published under section

304(h).

‘‘(B) PERMIT LEVELS.—Whenever a limitation for a permit issued under this section is

set at a level below the quantitation level established for that pollutant under subparagraph (A) for the test method specified in the

permit, any measurement of the pollutant

greater than the limitation but less than the

quantitation level shall not be considered a

violation of the permit. All measurements

less than the quantitation level shall be

deemed equal to zero for purposes of determining compliance with the limitation.’’.

(d) DISCHARGES UNDER PERMIT APPLICATIONS.—Section 402(k) (33 U.S.C. 1342(k)) is

amended—

(1) in the first sentence by striking ‘‘except’’ and inserting ‘‘except for’’;

(2) in the second sentence—

(A) by striking ‘‘Until December 31, 1974,

in’’ and inserting ‘‘In’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘(1) section 301, 306, or 402

of this Act, or (2)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 402

of this Act or’’; and

(C) by inserting before the period at the

end the following: ‘‘, and provided further

that if the discharge results in a violation of

effluent limitations or standards promulgated under section 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, or

307 of this Act that would be applicable upon

issuance of a permit such discharge shall be

considered unlawful under section 301 of this

Act’’; and

(3) by striking the last sentence.

Page 184, line 17, strike ‘‘be’’ and all that

follows through ‘‘limitation’’ on line 18 and

insert ‘‘have an affirmative defense to such

alleged noncompliance’’.

Page 185, line 20, strike ‘‘be’’ and all that

follows through ‘‘Act’’ on line 21 and insert

‘‘have an affirmative defense to such alleged

noncompliance’’.

Page 187, line 12, strike the semicolon and

insert ‘‘or are directly and proximately connected; or’’.

Page 187, strike lines 13 through 17.

Page 187, line 18, strike ‘‘(iii)’’ and insert

‘‘(ii)’’.

Page 187, line 23, strike ‘‘if, for conventional pollutants,’’ and insert ‘‘for conventional pollutants, to the extent that the discharger demonstrates that’’.

Page 188, line 1, insert ‘‘or substantially

similar to’’ after ‘‘the same as’’.

Page 188, line 12, strike ‘‘that’’ and all that

follows through the period on line 13 and insert the following:

in circumstances that do not meet the requirements of paragraph (1), including circumstances in which the source of the intake

water meets the maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques for drinking

water contaminants established pursuant to

the Safe Drinking Water Act for the pollutant of concern. An appropriate credit for pollutants found in intake water is a credit that

assures that an owner or operator of a point

source is not required to remove, reduce, or

treat the amount of any pollutant in an effluent below the amount of such pollutant

that is present in the intake water for such

facility, except to the extent that the level

of such pollutant in the intake water will

cause adverse water quality impact that

would not otherwise occur.

Page 194, line 20, strike ‘‘paragraph (3)’’

and insert ‘‘paragraphs (2) and (3)’’.

Page 198, line 13, strike ‘‘approved within

180 days’’ and insert ‘‘submitted within 90

days’’.

Page 201, after line 2, insert the following:

‘‘(F) DEEMED APPROVAL OF COMPLIANCE

PLANS.—A compliance plan submitted under

subparagraph (A)(iv) shall be deemed to be

approved on the 90th day following the date

of such submission, unless the Administrator

notifies the remediating party before such

90th day that the plan has been disapproved.’’.

Page 201, line 8, strike ‘‘or its political subdivisions,’’.

Page 201, line 12, strike ‘‘a person described

in clause (i)’’ and insert ‘‘a State or Indian

tribe’’.

Page 202, line 4, strike ‘‘not actively mined

or’’ and insert ‘‘neither actively mined nor’’.

Page 202, line 7, strike ‘‘section’’ and insert

‘‘subsection’’.

Page 203, line 17, strike ‘‘law’’ and insert

‘‘this Act’’.

Page 211, line 17, strike ‘‘VEGETABLE

OIL’’ and insert ‘‘NONPETROLEUM OIL

PRODUCTS AND OIL SUBSTITUTES’’.

Conform the table of contents of the bill

accordingly.

Page 211, lines 18 and 19, strike ‘‘FATS,

OILS, AND GREASES’’ and insert ‘‘PETROLEUM

AND NONPETROLEUM PRODUCTS’’.

Page 211, lines 22 and 23, strike ‘‘a Federal

law related to water pollution control,’’ and

insert ‘‘the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 or the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act,’’.

Page 212, line 2, strike ‘‘for—’’ and insert

the following:

for petroleum and nonpetroleum oil products

and oil substitutes, including animal fats,

vegetable oils, and silicone fluids; and

Page 212, strike lines 3 through line 6.

Page 212, line 10, strike ‘‘fat and oil’’ and

insert ‘‘petroleum and nonpetroleum oil

products and oil substitutes’’.

Page 212, lines 13 through 15, strike ‘‘animal fats and vegetable oils referred to in

paragraph (1)(A)(i) and the classes of oils described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)’’ and insert

‘‘petroleum products and nonpetroleum oil

products and oil substitutes’’.

Page 213, strikes lines 15 and 16 and insert

the following:

SEC. 508. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) LIMIT ON AUTHORIZATIONS.—No funds

are authorized for any fiscal year after fiscal

year 2000 for carrying out the programs and

activities for which funds are authorized by

this Act, including amendments made by

this Act.

(b) GENERAL PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS.—

Section 517 (33 U.S.C. 1376) is amended—

Conform the table of contents of the bill

accordingly.

Page 214, after line 7, insert the following:

(b) TREATMENT AS STATES.—Section 518(e)

(33 U.S.C. 1377(e)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2)—

(A) by striking ‘‘water resources which

are’’ and inserting ‘‘water resources within

the exterior boundaries of a Federal Indian

reservation which are on or appurtenant to

lands’’;

(B) by inserting ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘Indians,’’;

(C) by striking ‘‘member of an Indian

tribe’’ and inserting ‘‘member of the reservation’s governing Indian tribe’’;

(D) by striking ‘‘, or otherwise within the

borders of an Indian reservation’’; and

(E) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;

(2) by striking the period at the end of

paragraph (3) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(4) the Administrator’s action does not

authorize the Indian tribe to regulate lands

owned in whole or in part by nonmembers of

the tribe or the use of water resources on or

appurtentant to such lands.’’.

Page 214, line 8, strike ‘‘(b)’’ and insert

‘‘(c)’’.

Page 215, line 4, strike ‘‘(c)’’ and insert

‘‘(d)’’.

Page 215, line 17, strike ‘‘(d)’’ and insert

‘‘(e)’’.

Page 216, line 1, strike ‘‘(e)’’ and insert

‘‘(f)’’.

Page 222, line 13, after ‘‘quality’’ insert ‘‘of

navigable waters’’.

Page 224, line 22, after ‘‘year’’ insert ‘‘or 1⁄2

percent per year of the current valuation of

such fund’’.

Page 225, line 19, strike ‘‘amended by striking’’ and insert the following:

amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘is consistent’’ and inserting ‘‘is not inconsistent’’; and

(2) by striking

Page 226, line 2, before ‘‘treatment’’ insert

‘‘publicly owned’’.

Page 226, line 4, before the semicolon insert

‘‘without regard to the rank of such project

on the State’s priority list’’.

Page 243, line 15, after ‘‘Secretary’’ insert

‘‘, in consultation with the States,’’.

Page 246, line 2, before the semicolon insert

‘‘based on verifiable, objective science’’.

Page 247, strike line 3.

Page 247, line 4, strike ‘‘(iv)’’ and insert

‘‘(iii)’’.

Page 247, line 5, strike ‘‘(v)’’ and insert

‘‘(iv)’’.

Page 256, strike line 16 and all that follows

through page 257, line 6, and insert the following:

‘‘(A) ANALYSIS.—The Secretary shall determine whether to issue a permit for an activity in waters of the United States classified

under subsection (c) as type A wetlands

based on—

‘‘(i) a sequential analysis that seeks, to the

maximum extent practicable, to—

‘‘(I) avoid adverse impact on the wetlands;

‘‘(II) minimize such adverse impact on wetlands functions that cannot be avoided; and

‘‘(III) compensate for any loss of wetland

functions that cannot be avoided or minimized; and

‘‘(ii) the public interest analysis described

in paragraph (3).

‘‘(B) WATER DEPENDENT ACTIVITY.—For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(I), if an activity

is water dependent, an alternative in an area

that is not wetlands or waters of the United

States shall not be presumed to be available.

A water dependent activity is an activity

that requires access or proximity to or siting

within the wetlands or waters of the United

States in question to fulfill its basic purpose.

Page 257, line 7, strike ‘‘(B)’’ and insert

‘‘(C)’’.

Page 266, line 20, strike ‘‘and’’.

Page 266, after line 20, insert the following:

‘‘(vi) provide, where appropriate, for dual

use of wetlands within the mitigation bank,

as long as the use other than providing compensatory mitigation under this section (I)

shall not interfere with the functioning of

such bank for providing such mitigation, and

(II) shall not adversely impact wetlands or

other waters of the United States; and

Page 266, line 21, strike ‘‘(vi)’’ and ‘‘(vii)’’.

Page 280, line 3, strike ‘‘or’’.

Page 280, line 20, strike ‘‘or’’.

Page 280, line 23, strike the period and insert ‘‘; or’’.

Page 280, after line 23, insert the following:

‘‘(v) result from any silvicultural activity

or practice undertaken on economic base

lands; or

‘‘(S) result from the conduct of recreational hunting or shooting.

Page 284, strike lines 10 through 18.

Page 284, line 19, strike ‘‘(3)’’ and insert

‘‘(2)’’.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4715

Page 285, line 1, strike ‘‘section’’ and all

that follows through the final period on line

2 and insert the following:

subtitle C of title XII of the Food Security

Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.).

Page 285, lines 11 and 19, after ‘‘used’’ insert the following:

, or a good faith effort is shown by the owner

or operator to use such lands,

Page 285, after line 20, insert the following:

‘‘(D) DELINEATIONS GRANDFATHERED.—Delineations by the Secretary of Agriculture

regarding wetlands on agricultural lands and

associated nonagricultural lands that have

become administratively final on or before

the date of enactment of the Comprehensive

Wetlands Conservation and Management Act

of 1995 shall not be subject to further delineation unless the owner requests a new delineation by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Page 289, after line 9, insert the following:

‘‘(G) PERMISSION TO ENTER ONTO PRIVATE

PROPERTY.—The Secretaries shall obtain

written permission from the owner of private

property before entering such property to

conduct identification and classification of

wetlands pursuant to this paragraph.

Page 293, line 4, before the semicolon insert

the following:

; except that, in any case in which guidelines

based on such criteria alone would prohibit

the specification of a disposal site, the economic impact on navigation and anchorage

shall be considered

Page 305, after line 4, insert the following:

‘‘(8) TREATMENT OF EXISTING PROGRAMS.—

Any State which has received approval to administer a program pursuant to this subsection before the date of the enactment of

the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation

and Management Act of 1995 shall not be required to reapply for approval and shall be

permitted to continue administering such

program in a manner consistent with the

provisions of this section. Upon receipt of a

request from the Governor of such State, the

Secretary, with the concurrence of the Governor, shall amend the program.

Page 312, after line 9, insert the following:

‘‘(11) CERTIFICATION.—Notwithstanding any

other provision of this Act, the Administrator shall not, either directly or indirectly,

impose any requirement or condition in a

certification required under section 401 that

the Secretary determines is inconsistent

with the provisions of this section.

Page 312, line 10, strike ‘‘(11)’’ and insert

‘‘(12)’’.

Page 316, after line 13, insert the following:

‘‘(N) VERNAL POOLS.—The term ‘vernal

pools’ means individual isolated wetlands

that have exceptional waterfowl habitat

functions and that exhibit the following

characteristics:

‘‘(i) an area greater than 1⁄2 acre;

‘‘(ii) seasonal standing for no less than 45

consecutive days during the fall and winter

in an average precipitation season;

‘‘(iii) an impermeable subsurface hard pan

soil layer that prevents subsurface water

drainage or percolation; and

‘‘(iv) a surface outlet for relief of water

flow.

Page 316, line 14, strike ‘‘(N)’’ and insert

‘‘(O)’’.

Page 317, after line 16, insert the following:

‘‘(31) The term ‘farmed wetland’ means

those agricultural lands, as defined in section 404, and associated nonagricultural

lands exhibiting wetlands characteristics, as

delineated solely by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Page 317, line 17, strike ‘‘(31)’’ and insert

‘‘(32)’’.

Page 317, line 23, strike ‘‘(32)’’ and insert

‘‘(33)’’.

Page 318, line 4, strike ‘‘(33)’’ and insert

‘‘(34)’’.

Page 318, line 7, strike ‘‘(34)’’ and insert

‘‘(35)’’.

Page 318, line 12, strike ‘‘(35)’’ and insert

‘‘(36)’’.

Page 318, line 18, strike ‘‘(36)’’ and insert

‘‘(37)’’.

Page 318, line 22, strike ‘‘(37)’’ and insert

‘‘(38)’’.

Page 319, strike lines 5 through 11.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania

[Mr. SHUSTER] and the gentleman from

California [Mr. MINETA] will each be

recognized for 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER].

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding after we engage in a colloquy that

this en bloc amendment may be accepted. I would simply like to point out

that the en bloc amendment improves

upon this already widely supported bill

that we reported out. This package of

agreements includes agreements

reached with chairmen of the other

committees of jurisdiction, noncontroversial items brought to our attention since the committee markup,

and other technical matters and miscellaneous issues.

The en bloc also reflects an ongoing

dialog with State and local water officials including various provisions directly responding to the concerns and

clarifying existing environmental safeguards in the bill.

I would emphasize it is very important that once the en bloc amendment

is passed it will be open for amendment

by title as we go through the bill so

Member’s rights are protected as we go

through the bill and they will be able,

if they choose, to offer amendments to

the en bloc amendment.

In the en bloc amendment we deal

with several State issues, for examples,

reducing from 20,000 to 10,000 the population ceiling for eligibility for the

modification of secondary treatment

requirements, this at the request of the

States.

We delete, this is very important because the gentleman from New York in

a previous comment complained about

a 20-percent cap on type A wetlands, we

delete the 20-percent cap for the type A

wetlands for county parishes and boroughs, so this is in response to environmental requests, the various miscellaneous new matters in the bill. At

each stage in the process matters have

been brought to us, a very open process, and as a result we have included

several noncontroversial items in this

particular area.

Finally, with regard to committee issues, the package reflects agreements

reached with the other committees of

jurisdiction in several areas, technical

and otherwise, and I would particularly

focus on the fact that in this area we

provide language that assures that the

classification of isolated wetlands is

based on sound science. This addresses

a concern that all wetlands might be

prejudged as falling into a single classification type. Environmentalists

have talked with us about this and we

have accepted their recommendations

in this area.

And with regard to the technical

amendments themselves, we have an

important clarifying technical amendment that clarifies when local

pretreatment limits apply in lieu of

categorical pretreatment standards,

such local limits must prevent the introduction of pollutants into the treatment works that will interfere with,

pass through, or otherwise be incompatible with the treatment works,

again, another proenvironmental provision which we have included in the en

bloc amendments.

So, that is a very brief description of

what I believe can be acceptable, particularly with emphasis that Member’s

rights are protected to offer amendments relating to any of these en bloc

amendments as we move through the

title-by-title amending process of this

legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance

of my time.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to

inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, the distinguished chair of the full

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, there is a provision in the

en bloc amendment which affects

EPA’s authorities under section 401.

And as the gentleman knows, the

States are very concerned with any

amendments which might affect section 401 and the rights of States to protect their water quality. It is my understanding that the provision is not

intended to affect in any way the

rights of States to protect water quality under section 401. Is that correct?

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the

gentleman is correct. The provision in

question is intended only to clarify

that there is to be no interference from

the EPA in the 401 certification process

relating to section 404 permits.

Mr. MINETA. It is also my understanding that this provision is not intended to affect the broad issues of

States’ rights under section 401 and the

relationship with hydropower relicensing; is that correct?

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, it is

also noted, as has my colleague from

Pennsylvania, that each of the provisions included in the en bloc amendment will be amendable when the appropriate title in the bill is reached,

and I understand that that is the way

this works.

So, with that understanding, I have

no objections to this en bloc amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman.
H 4716 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield

back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendments offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER].

The amendments were agreed to.

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

OFFERED BY MR. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer

an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of

a substitute.

The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute

offered by Mr. SAXTON:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as

the ‘‘Clean Water Amendments of 1995’’.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Definition.

Sec. 3. Amendment of Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELATED

PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. Research, investigations, training,

and information.

Sec. 102. State management assistance.

Sec. 103. Mine water pollution control.

Sec. 104. Water sanitation in rural and Native Alaska villages.

Sec. 105. Authorization of appropriations for

Chesapeake program.

Sec. 106. Great Lakes management.

TITLE II—CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

Sec. 201. Uses of funds.

Sec. 202. Administration of closeout of construction grant program.

Sec. 203. Sewage collection systems.

Sec. 204. Value engineering review.

Sec. 205. Grants for wastewater treatment.

TITLE III—STANDARDS AND

ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Arid areas.

Sec. 302. Secondary treatment.

Sec. 303. Federal facilities.

Sec. 304. National estuary program.

Sec. 305. Nonpoint source management programs.

Sec. 306. Coastal zone management.

Sec. 307. Comprehensive watershed management.

Sec. 308. Revision of effluent limitations.

TITLE IV—PERMITS AND LICENSES

Sec. 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated animal feeding operations.

Sec. 402. Municipal and industrial

stormwater discharges.

Sec. 403. Intake credits.

Sec. 404. Combined sewer overflows.

Sec. 405. Abandoned mines.

Sec. 406. Beneficial use of biosolids.

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Publicly owned treatment works

defined.

Sec. 502. Implementation of water pollution

laws with respect to vegetable

oil.

Sec. 503. Needs estimate.

Sec. 504. Food processing and food safety.

Sec. 505. Audit dispute resolution.

TITLE VI—STATE WATER POLLUTION

CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

Sec. 601. General authority for capitalization grants.

Sec. 602. Capitalization grant agreements.

Sec. 603. Water pollution control revolving

loan funds.

Sec. 604. Allotment of funds.

Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.

Sec. 606. State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving funds.

TITLE VII—MISCELLANEOUS

PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Technical amendments.

Sec. 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh

Water Quality Research Laboratory.

Sec. 703. Wastewater service for colonias.

Sec. 704. Savings in municipal drinking

water costs.

TITLE VIII—WETLANDS CONSERVATION

AND MANAGEMENT

Sec. 801. Short title.

Sec. 802. Findings and purposes.

Sec. 803. State, local, and landowner technical assistance and cooperative training.

Sec. 804. Federal, State, and Local Government Coordinating Committee.

Sec. 805. State and local wetland conservation plans and strategies;

grants to facilitate the implementation of section 404.

Sec. 806. National cooperative wetland ecosystem restoration strategy.

Sec. 807. Permits for discharge of dredged or

fill material.

Sec. 808. Technical assistance to private

landowners, codification of regulations and policies.

Sec. 809. Delineation.

Sec. 810. Fast track for minor permits.

Sec. 811. Compensatory mitigation.

Sec. 812. Cooperative mitigation ventures

and mitigation banks.

Sec. 813. Wetlands monitoring and research.

Sec. 814. Administrative appeals.

Sec. 815. Cranberry production.

Sec. 816. State classification systems.

Sec. 817. Definitions.

TITLE IX—MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 901. Obligations and expenditures subject to appropriations.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

In this Act, the term ‘‘Administrator’’

means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.

Except as otherwise expressly provided,

whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment

to, or repeal of, a section or other provision,

the reference shall be considered to be made

to a section or other provision of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251–

1387).

TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELATED

PROGRAMS

SEC. 101. RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION.

(a) NATIONAL PROGRAMS.—Section 104(a) (33

U.S.C. 1254(a)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (5);

(2) by striking the period at the end of

paragraph (6) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(7) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, conduct, promote, and encourage to the maximum extent

feasible, in watersheds that may be significantly affected by nonpoint sources of pollution, monitoring and measurement of water

quality by means and methods that will help

to identify the relative contributions of particular nonpoint sources.’’.

(b) GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.—Section 104(b)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)(3)) is amended

by inserting ‘‘local governments,’’ after

‘‘interstate agencies,’’.

(c) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR RURAL AND

SMALL TREATMENT WORKS.—Section 104(b)

(33 U.S.C. 1254(b)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (6);

(2) by striking the period at the end of

paragraph (7) and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new

paragraphs:

‘‘(8) make grants to nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance and

training to rural and small publicly owned

treatment works to enable such treatment

works to achieve and maintain compliance

with the requirements of this Act; and

‘‘(9) disseminate information to rural,

small, and disadvantaged communities with

respect to the planning, design, construction, and operation of treatment works.’’.

(d) WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITIES.—Section 104(q) (33

U.S.C. 1254(q)) is amended by adding at the

end the following:

‘‘(5) SMALL IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITIES.—

‘‘(A) GRANTS.—The Administrator may

make grants to States to provide assistance

for planning, design, and construction of

publicly owned treatment works to provide

wastewater services to rural communities of

3,000 or less that are not currently served by

any sewage collection or water treatment

system and are severely economically disadvantaged, as determined by the Administrator.

‘‘(B) AUTHORIZATION.—There is authorized

to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $50,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal

years 1996 through 2000.’’.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

Section 104(u) (33 U.S.C. 1254(u)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘(6)’’; and

(2) by inserting before the period at the end

the following: ‘‘; and (7) not to exceed

$50,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal

years 1996 through 2000 for carrying out the

provisions of subsections (b)(3), (b)(8), and

(b)(9), except that not less than 20 percent of

the sums appropriated pursuant to this

clause shall be available for carrying out the

provisions of subsections (b)(8) and (b)(9)’’.

SEC. 102. STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

Section 106(a) (33 U.S.C. 1256(a)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘$75,000,000’’;

(2) by inserting after ‘‘1990’’ the following:

‘‘, such sums as may be necessary for each of

fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $150,000,000

per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996

through 2000’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘States or interstate agencies receiving

grants under this section may use such funds

to finance, with other States or interstate

agencies, studies and projects on interstate

issues relating to such programs.’’.

SEC. 103. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

Section 107 (33 U.S.C. 1257) is amended to

read as follows:

‘‘SEC. 107. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

‘‘(a) ACIDIC AND OTHER TOXIC MINE DRAINAGE.—The Administrator shall establish a

program to demonstrate the efficacy of

measures for abatement of the causes and

treatment of the effects of acidic and other

toxic mine drainage within qualified hydrologic units affected by past coal mining practices for the purpose of restoring the biological integrity of waters within such units.

‘‘(b) GRANTS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any State or Indian

tribe may apply to the Administrator for a

grant for any project which provides for

abatement of the causes or treatment of the

effects of acidic or other toxic mine drainage
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4717

within a qualified hydrologic unit affected by past coal mining practices.

‘‘(2) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.—An application submitted to the Administrator under

this section shall include each of the following:

‘‘(A) An identification of the qualified hydrologic unit.

‘‘(B) A description of the extent to which

acidic or other toxic mine drainage is affecting the water quality and biological resources within the hydrologic unit.

‘‘(C) An identification of the sources of

acidic or other toxic mine drainage within

the hydrologic unit.

‘‘(D) An identification of the project and

the measures proposed to be undertaken to

abate the causes or treat the effects of acidic

or other toxic mine drainage within the hydrologic unit.

‘‘(E) The cost of undertaking the proposed

abatement or treatment measures.

‘‘(c) FEDERAL SHARE.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the

cost of a project receiving grant assistance

under this section shall be 50 percent.

‘‘(2) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—Contributions of lands, easements, and

rights-of-way shall be credited toward the

non-Federal share of the cost of a project

under this section but not in an amount exceeding 25 percent of the total project cost.

‘‘(3) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The

non-Federal interest shall bear 100 percent of

the cost of operation and maintenance of a

project under this section.

‘‘(d) PROHIBITED PROJECTS.—No acidic or

other toxic mine drainage abatement or

treatment project may receive assistance

under this section if the project would adversely affect the free-flowing characteristics of any river segment within a qualified

hydrologic unit.

‘‘(e) APPLICATIONS FROM FEDERAL ENTITIES.—Any Federal entity may apply to the

Administrator for a grant under this section

for the purposes of an acidic or toxic mine

drainage abatement or treatment project

within a qualified hydrologic unit located on

lands and waters under the administrative

jurisdiction of such entity.

‘‘(f) APPROVAL.—The Administrator shall

approve an application submitted pursuant

to subsection (b) or (e) after determining

that the application meets the requirements

of this section.

‘‘(g) QUALIFIED HYDROLOGIC UNIT DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, the

term ‘qualified hydrologic unit’ means a hydrologic unit—

‘‘(1) in which the water quality has been

significantly affected by acidic or other

toxic mine drainage from past coal mining

practices in a manner which adversely impacts biological resources; and

‘‘(2) which contains lands and waters eligible for assistance under title IV of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977.’’.

SEC. 104. WATER SANITATION IN RURAL AND NATIVE ALASKA VILLAGES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 113 (33 U.S.C.

1263) is amended by striking the section

heading and designation and subsections (a)

through (f) and inserting the following:

‘‘SEC. 113. ALASKA VILLAGE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.

‘‘(a) GRANTS.—The Administrator is authorized to make grants—

‘‘(1) for the development and construction

of facilities which provide sanitation services for rural and Native Alaska villages;

‘‘(2) for training, technical assistance, and

educational programs relating to operation

and maintenance for sanitation services in

rural and Native Alaska villages; and

‘‘(3) for reasonable costs of administering

and managing grants made and programs

and projects carried out under this section;

except that not to exceed 4 percent of the

amount of any grant made under this section

may be made for such costs.

‘‘(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—A grant under this

section shall be 50 percent of the cost of the

program or project being carried out with

such grant.

‘‘(c) SPECIAL RULE.—The Administrator

shall award grants under this section for

project construction following the rules

specified in subpart H of part 1942 of title 7

of the Code of Federal Regulations.

‘‘(d) GRANTS TO STATE FOR BENEFIT OF VILLAGES.—Grants under this section may be

made to the State for the benefit of rural

Alaska villages and Alaska Native villages.

‘‘(e) COORDINATION.—In carrying out activities under this subsection, the Administrator

is directed to coordinate efforts between the

State of Alaska, the Secretary of Housing

and Urban Development, the Secretary of

Health and Human Services, the Secretary of

the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture,

and the recipients of grants.

‘‘(f) FUNDING.—There is authorized to be

appropriated $25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1995, to carry out

this section.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

113(g) is amended by inserting after ‘‘(g)’’ the

following: ‘‘DEFINITIONS.—’’.

SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

FOR CHESAPEAKE PROGRAM.

Section 117(d) (33 U.S.C. 1267(d)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘such

sums as may be necessary for fiscal years

1991 through 1995, and $3,000,000 per fiscal

year for each of fiscal years 1996 through

2000’’ after ‘‘1990,’’; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘such

sums as may be necessary for fiscal years

1991 through 1995, and $18,000,000 per fiscal

year for each of fiscal years 1996 through

2000’’ after ‘‘1990,’’.

SEC. 106. GREAT LAKES MANAGEMENT.

(a) GREAT LAKES RESEARCH COUNCIL.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 118 (33 U.S.C. 1268)

is amended—

(A) in subsection (a)(3)—

(i) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the following:

‘‘(E) ‘Council’ means the Great Lakes Research Council established by subsection

(d)(1);’’;

(ii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (I);

(iii) by striking the period at the end of

subparagraph (J) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(iv) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(K) ‘Great Lakes research’ means the application of scientific or engineering expertise to explain, understand, and predict a

physical, chemical, biological, or socioeconomic process, or the interaction of 1 or

more of the processes, in the Great Lakes

ecosystem.’’;

(B) by striking subsection (d) and inserting

the following:

‘‘(d) GREAT LAKES RESEARCH COUNCIL.—

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL.—There is

established a Great Lakes Research Council.

‘‘(2) DUTIES OF COUNCIL.—The Council—

‘‘(A) shall advise and promote the coordination of Federal Great Lakes research activities to avoid unnecessary duplication and

ensure greater effectiveness in achieving

protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem

through the goals of the Great Lakes Water

Quality Agreement;

‘‘(B) not later than 1 year after the date of

the enactment of this subparagraph and biennially thereafter and after providing opportunity for public review and comment,

shall prepare and provide to interested parties a document that includes—

‘‘(i) an assessment of the Great Lakes research activities needed to fulfill the goals of

the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;

‘‘(ii) an assessment of Federal expertise

and capabilities in the activities needed to

fulfill the goals of the Great Lakes Water

Quality Agreement, including an inventory

of Federal Great Lakes research programs,

projects, facilities, and personnel; and

‘‘(iii) recommendations for long-term and

short-term priorities for Federal Great

Lakes research, based on a comparison of the

assessments conducted under clauses (i) and

(ii);

‘‘(C) shall identify topics for and participate in meetings, workshops, symposia, and

conferences on Great Lakes research issues;

‘‘(D) shall make recommendations for the

uniform collection of data for enhancing

Great Lakes research and management protocols relating to the Great Lakes ecosystem;

‘‘(E) shall advise and cooperate in—

‘‘(i) improving the compatible integration

of multimedia data concerning the Great

Lakes ecosystem; and

‘‘(ii) any effort to establish a comprehensive multimedia data base for the Great

Lakes ecosystem; and

‘‘(F) shall ensure that the results, findings,

and information regarding Great Lakes research programs conducted or sponsored by

the Federal Government are disseminated in

a timely manner, and in useful forms, to interested persons, using to the maximum extent practicable mechanisms in existence on

the date of the dissemination, such as the

Great Lakes Research Inventory prepared by

the International Joint Commission.

‘‘(3) MEMBERSHIP.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Council shall consist of 1 research manager with extensive

knowledge of, and scientific expertise and

experience in, the Great Lakes ecosystem

from each of the following agencies and instrumentalities:

‘‘(i) The Agency.

‘‘(ii) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

‘‘(iii) The National Biological Service.

‘‘(iv) The United States Fish and Wildlife

Service.

‘‘(v) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that expends $1,000,000 or more for

a fiscal year on Great Lakes research.

‘‘(vi) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that a majority of the Council

membership determines should be represented on the Council.

‘‘(B) NONVOTING MEMBERS.—At the request

of a majority of the Council membership,

any person who is a representative of a Federal agency or instrumentality not described

in subparagraph (A) or any person who is not

a Federal employee may serve as a

nonvoting member of the Council.

‘‘(4) CHAIRPERSON.—The chairperson of the

Council shall be a member of the Council

from an agency specified in clause (i), (ii), or

(iii) of paragraph (3)(A) who is elected by a

majority vote of the members of the Council.

The chairperson shall serve as chairperson

for a period of 2 years. A member of the

Council may not serve as chairperson for

more than 2 consecutive terms.

‘‘(5) EXPENSES.—While performing official

duties as a member of the Council, a member

shall be allowed travel or transportation expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United

States Code.

‘‘(6) INTERAGENCY COOPERATION.—The head

of each Federal agency or instrumentality

that is represented on the Council—

‘‘(A) shall cooperate with the Council in

implementing the recommendations developed under paragraph (2);
H 4718 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

‘‘(B) on written request of the chairperson

of the Council, may make available, on a reimbursable basis or otherwise, such personnel, services, or facilities as may be necessary to assist the Council in carrying out

the duties of the Council under this section;

and

‘‘(C) on written request of the chairperson,

shall furnish data or information necessary

to carry out the duties of the Council under

this section.

‘‘(7) INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.—The

Council shall cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with the research coordination efforts of the Council of Great Lakes

Research Managers of the International

Joint Commission.

‘‘(8) REIMBURSEMENT FOR REQUESTED ACTIVITIES.—Each Federal agency or instrumentality represented on the Council may

reimburse another Federal agency or instrumentality or a non-Federal entity for costs

associated with activities authorized under

this subsection that are carried out by the

other agency, instrumentality, or entity at

the request of the Council.

‘‘(9) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.—

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5

U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Council.

‘‘(10) EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.—Nothing in

this subsection affects the authority of any

Federal agency or instrumentality, under

any law, to undertake Great Lakes research

activities.’’;

(C) in subsection (e)—

(i) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘the Program Office and the Research Office shall

prepare a joint research plan’’ and inserting

‘‘the Program Office, in consultation with

the Council, shall prepare a research plan’’;

and

(ii) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ‘‘the Research Office, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and Great

Lakes States’’ and inserting ‘‘the Council,

the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry, and Great Lakes States,’’; and

(D) in subsection (h)—

(i) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

(1);

(ii) by striking ‘‘; and’’ at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting a period; and

(iii) by striking paragraph (3).

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The second

sentence of section 403(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of

1972 (16 U.S.C. 1447b(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘Great Lakes Research Office authorized

under’’ and inserting ‘‘Great Lakes Research

Council established by’’.

(b) CONSISTENCY OF PROGRAMS WITH FEDERAL GUIDANCE.—Section 118(c)(2)(C) (33

U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at

the end the following: ‘‘For purposes of this

section, a State’s standards, policies, and

procedures shall be considered consistent

with such guidance if the standards, policies,

and procedures are based on scientifically

defensible judgments and policy choices

made by the State after consideration of the

guidance and provide an overall level of protection comparable to that provided by the

guidance, taking into account the specific

circumstances of the State’s waters.’’.

(c) REAUTHORIZATION OF ASSESSMENT AND

REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

PROGRAM.—Section 118(c)(7) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(D) REAUTHORIZATION OF ASSESSMENT AND

REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

PROGRAM.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, acting through the Program Office, in consultation and cooperation with the Assistant Secretary of the Army having responsibility for

civil works, shall conduct at least 3 pilot

projects involving promising technologies

and practices to remedy contaminated sediments (including at least 1 full-scale demonstration of a remediation technology) at

sites in the Great Lakes System, as the Administrator determines appropriate.

‘‘(ii) SELECTION OF SITES.—In selecting

sites for the pilot projects, the Administrator shall give priority consideration to—

‘‘(I) the Ashtabula River in Ohio;

‘‘(II) the Buffalo River in New York;

‘‘(III) Duluth and Superior Harbor in Minnesota;

‘‘(IV) the Fox River in Wisconsin;

‘‘(V) the Grand Calumet River in Indiana;

and

‘‘(VI) Saginaw Bay in Michigan.

‘‘(iii) DEADLINES.—In carrying out this subparagraph, the Administrator shall—

‘‘(I) not later than 18 months after the date

of the enactment of this subparagraph, identify at least 3 sites and the technologies and

practices to be demonstrated at the sites (including at least 1 full-scale demonstration of

a remediation technology); and

‘‘(II) not later than 5 years after such date

of enactment, complete at least 3 pilot

projects (including at least 1 full-scale demonstration of a remediation technology).

‘‘(iv) ADDITIONAL PROJECTS.—The Administrator, acting through the Program Office, in

consultation and cooperation with the Assistant Secretary of the Army having responsibility for civil works, may conduct additional pilot- and full-scale pilot projects

involving promising technologies and practices at sites in the Great Lakes System

other than the sites selected under clause (i).

‘‘(v) EXECUTION OF PROJECTS.—The Administrator may cooperate with the Assistant

Secretary of the Army having responsibility

for civil works to plan, engineer, design, and

execute pilot projects under this subparagraph.

‘‘(vi) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.—The

Administrator may accept non-Federal contributions to carry out pilot projects under

this subparagraph.

‘‘(vii) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There are authorized to be appropriated to

carry out this subparagraph $3,500,000 for

each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.

‘‘(E) TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, acting through the Program Office, may provide

technical information and assistance involving technologies and practices for remediation of contaminated sediments to persons

that request the information or assistance.

‘‘(ii) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PRIORITIES.—In

providing technical assistance under this

subparagraph, the Administrator, acting

through the Program Office, shall give special priority to requests for integrated assessments of, and recommendations regarding, remediation technologies and practices

for contaminated sediments at Great Lakes

areas of concern.

‘‘(iii) COORDINATION WITH OTHER DEMONSTRATIONS.—The Administrator shall—

‘‘(I) coordinate technology demonstrations

conducted under this subparagraph with

other federally assisted demonstrations of

contaminated sediment remediation technologies; and

‘‘(II) share information from the demonstrations conducted under this subparagraph with the other demonstrations.

‘‘(iv) OTHER SEDIMENT REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES.—Nothing in this subparagraph limits

the authority of the Administrator to carry

out sediment remediation activities under

other laws.

‘‘(v) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There are authorized to be appropriated to

carry out this subparagraph $1,000,000 for

each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.’’.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

(1) RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT.—Section

118(e)(3)(B) (33 U.S.C. 1268(e)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end

the following: ‘‘, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1995, and $4,000,000 per

fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997,

and 1998’’.

(2) GREAT LAKES PROGRAMS.—Section 118(h)

(33 U.S.C. 1268(h)) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘$25,000,000’’;

and

(B) by inserting before the period at the

end of the first sentence the following: ‘‘,

such sums as may be necessary for fiscal

years 1992 through 1995, and $17,500,000 per

fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996

through 2000’’.

TITLE II—CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

SEC. 201. USES OF FUNDS.

(a) NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM.—Section

201(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1281(g)(1)) is amended by

striking the period at the end of the first

sentence and all that follows through the period at the end of the last sentence and inserting the following: ‘‘and for any purpose

for which a grant may be made under sections 319(h) and 319(i) of this Act (including

any innovative and alternative approaches

for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution).’’.

(b) RETROACTIVE ELIGIBILITY.—Section

201(g)(1) is further amended by adding at the

end the following: ‘‘The Administrator, with

the concurrence of the States, shall develop

procedures to facilitate and expedite the retroactive eligibility and provision of grant

funding for facilities already under construction.’’.

SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION OF CLOSEOUT OF

CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM.

Section 205(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1285(g)(1)) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘The Administrator may negotiate an annual budget with a State for the purpose of

administering the closeout of the State’s

construction grants program under this

title. Sums made available for administering

such closeout shall be subtracted from

amounts remaining available for obligation

under the State’s construction grant program under this title.’’.

SEC. 203. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.

Section 211(a) (33 U.S.C. 1291(a)) is amended—

(1) in clause (1) by striking ‘‘an existing

collection system’’ and inserting ‘‘a collection system existing on the date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of

1995’’; and

(2) in clause (2)—

(A) by striking ‘‘an existing community’’

and inserting ‘‘a community existing on such

date of enactment’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘sufficient existing’’ and

inserting ‘‘sufficient capacity existing on

such date of enactment’’.

SEC. 204. VALUE ENGINEERING REVIEW.

Section 218(c) (33 U.S.C. 1298(c)) is amended

by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting

‘‘$25,000,000’’.

SEC. 205. GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT.

(a) COASTAL LOCALITIES.—The Administrator shall make grants under title II of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act to appropriate instrumentalities for the purpose

of construction of treatment works (including combined sewer overflow facilities) to

serve coastal localities. No less than

$10,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall

be used for water infrastructure improvements in New Orleans, no less than $3,000,000

of the amount of such grants shall be
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4719

used for water infrastructure improvements

in Bristol County, Massachusetts, and no

less than 1⁄3 of the amount of such grants

shall be used to assist localities that meet

both of the following criteria:

(1) NEED.—A locality that has over

$2,000,000,000 in category I treatment needs

documented and accepted in the Environmental Protection Agency’s 1992 Needs Survey database as of February 4, 1993.

(2) HARDSHIP.—A locality that has

wastewater user charges, for residential use

of 7,000 gallons per month based on Ernst &

Young National Water and Wastewater 1992

Rate Survey, greater than 0.65 percent of 1989

median household income for the metropolitan statistical area in which such locality is

located as measured by the Bureau of the

Census.

(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—Notwithstanding section 202(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act, the Federal share of grants

under subsection (a) shall be 80 percent of

the cost of construction, and the non-Federal

share shall be 20 percent of the cost of construction.

(c) SMALL COMMUNITIES.—The Administrator shall make grants to States for the

purpose of providing assistance for the construction of treatment works to serve small

communities as defined by the State; except

that the term ‘‘small communities’’ may not

include any locality with a population greater than 75,000. Funds made available to carry

out this subsection shall be allotted by the

Administrator to the States in accordance

with the allotment formula contained in section 604(a) of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There is authorized to be appropriated for

making grants under this section $300,000,000

for fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain

available until expended and shall be equally

divided between subsections (a) and (c) of

this section. Such authorization of appropriation shall take effect only if the total

amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996 to

carry out title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is at least $3,000,000,000.

TITLE III—STANDARDS AND

ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. ARID AREAS.

(a) CONSTRUCTED WATER CONVEYANCES.—

Section 303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(D) STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTED WATER

CONVEYANCES.—

‘‘(i) RELEVANT FACTORS.—If a State exercises jurisdiction over constructed water

conveyances in establishing standards under

this section, the State may consider the following:

‘‘(I) The existing and planned uses of water

transported in a conveyance system.

‘‘(II) Any water quality impacts resulting

from any return flow from a constructed

water conveyance to navigable waters and

the need to protect downstream users.

‘‘(III) Management practices necessary to

maintain the conveyance system.

‘‘(IV) State or regional water resources

management and water conservation plans.

‘‘(V) The authorized purpose for the constructed conveyance.

‘‘(ii) RELEVANT USES.—If a State adopts or

reviews water quality standards for constructed water conveyances, it shall not be

required to establish recreation, aquatic life,

or fish consumption uses for such systems if

the uses are not existing or reasonably foreseeable or such uses impede the authorized

uses of the conveyance system.’’.

(b) CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE FOR EPHEMERAL

AND EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT STREAMS.—Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(9) CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE FOR EPHEMERAL AND EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT STREAMS.—

‘‘(A) DEVELOPMENT.—Not later than 2 years

after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, and after providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall develop and publish—

‘‘(i) criteria for ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams; and

‘‘(ii) guidance to the States on development and adoption of water quality standards applicable to such streams.

‘‘(B) FACTORS.—The criteria and guidance

developed under subparagraph (A) shall take

into account the limited ability of ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams to support aquatic life and certain designated uses,

shall include consideration of the role the

discharge may play in maintaining the flow

or level of such waters, and shall promote

the beneficial use of reclaimed water pursuant to section 101(a)(10).’’.

(c) FACTORS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED

BY ADMINISTRATOR.—Section 303(c)(4) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘In revising or adopting any new standard

for ephemeral or effluent-dependent streams

under this paragraph, the Administrator

shall consider the factors referred to in section 304(a)(9)(B).’’.

(d) DEFINITIONS.—Section 502 (33 U.S.C.

1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(21) The term ‘effluent-dependent stream’

means a stream or a segment thereof—

‘‘(A) with respect to which the flow (based

on the annual average expected flow, determined by calculating the average mode over

a 10-year period) is primarily attributable to

the discharge of treated wastewater;

‘‘(B) that, in the absence of a discharge of

treated wastewater and other primary anthropogenic surface or subsurface flows,

would be an ephemeral stream; or

‘‘(C) that is an effluent-dependent stream

under applicable State water quality standards.

‘‘(22) The term ‘ephemeral stream’ means a

stream or segments thereof that flows periodically in response to precipitation,

snowmelt, or runoff.

‘‘(23) The term ‘constructed water conveyance’ means a manmade water transport system constructed for the purpose of transporting water in a waterway that is not and

never was a natural perennial waterway.’’.

SEC. 302. SECONDARY TREATMENT.

(a) COASTAL DISCHARGES.—Section 304(d)

(33 U.S.C. 1314(d)) is amended by adding at

the end the following:

‘‘(5) COASTAL DISCHARGES.—For purposes of

this subsection, any municipal wastewater

treatment facility shall be deemed the equivalent of a secondary treatment facility if

each of the following requirements is met:

‘‘(A) The facility employs chemically enhanced primary treatment.

‘‘(B) The facility, on the date of the enactment of this paragraph, discharges through

an ocean outfall into an open marine environment greater than 4 miles offshore into a

depth greater than 300 feet.

‘‘(C) The facility’s discharge is in compliance with all local and State water quality

standards for the receiving waters.

‘‘(D) The facility’s discharge will be subject to an ocean monitoring program acceptable to relevant Federal and State regulatory agencies.’’.

(b) MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311)

is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(s) MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, with

the concurrence of the State, shall issue a 10-

year permit under section 402 which modifies

the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of

this section with respect to the discharge of

any pollutant from a publicly owned treatment works into marine waters which are at

least 150 feet deep through an ocean outfall

which discharges at least 1 mile offshore, if

the applicant demonstrates that—

‘‘(A) there is an applicable ocean plan and

the facility’s discharge is in compliance with

all local and State water quality standards

for the receiving waters;

‘‘(B) the facility’s discharge will be subject

to an ocean monitoring program determined

to be acceptable by relevant Federal and

State regulatory agencies;

‘‘(C) the applicant has an Agency approved

pretreatment plan in place; and

‘‘(D) the applicant, at the time such modification becomes effective, will be discharging effluent which has received at least

chemically enhanced primary treatment and

achieves a monthly average of 75 percent removal of suspended solids.

‘‘(2) DISCHARGE OF ANY POLLUTANT INTO MARINE WATERS DEFINED.—For purposes of this

subsection, the term ‘discharge of any pollutant into marine waters’ means a discharge into deep waters of the territorial sea

or the waters of the contiguous zone, or into

saline estuarine waters where there is strong

tidal movement.

‘‘(3) DEADLINE.—On or before the 90th day

after the date of submittal of an application

for a modification under paragraph (1), the

Administrator shall issue to the applicant a

modified permit under section 402 or a written determination that the application does

not meet the terms and conditions of this

subsection.

‘‘(4) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO RESPOND.—If the

Administrator does not respond to an application for a modification under paragraph (1)

on or before the 90th day referred to in paragraph (3), the application shall be deemed approved and the modification sought by the

applicant shall be in effect for the succeeding 10-year period.’’.

(2) EXTENSION OF APPLICATION DEADLINE.—

Section 301(j) (33 U.S.C. 1311(j)) is amended

by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(6) EXTENSION OF APPLICATION DEADLINE.—

In the 365-day period beginning on the date

of the enactment of this paragraph, municipalities may apply for a modification pursuant to subsection (s) of the requirements of

subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section.’’.

(c) MODIFICATIONS FOR SMALL SYSTEM

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.—Section 301 (33

U.S.C. 1311) is amended by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(t) MODIFICATIONS FOR SMALL SYSTEM

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.—The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, or

a State with an approved program under section 402 may issue a permit under section 402

which modifies the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section with respect

to the discharge of any pollutant from a publicly owned treatment works serving a community of 20,000 people or fewer if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the

Administrator that—

‘‘(1) the effluent from such facility originates primarily from domestic users; and

‘‘(2) such facility utilizes a properly constructed and operated alternative treatment

system (including recirculating sand filter

systems, constructed wetlands, and oxidation lagoons) which is equivalent to secondary treatment or will provide in the receiving waters and watershed an adequate level

of protection to human health and the environment and contribute to the attainment of

water quality standards.’’.

(d) PUERTO RICO.—Section 301 (33 U.S.C.

1311) is further amended by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(u) PUERTO RICO.—
H 4720 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

‘‘(1) STUDY BY GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO

RICO.—Not later than 3 months after the date

of the enactment of this section, the Government of Puerto Rico may, after consultation

with the Administrator, initiate a study of

the marine environment of Anasco Bay off

the coast of the Mayaguez region of Puerto

Rico to determine the feasibility of constructing a deepwater outfall for the publicly

owned treatment works located at Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Such study shall recommend one or more technically feasible locations for the deepwater outfall based on

the effects of such outfall on the marine environment.

‘‘(2) APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION.—Notwithstanding subsection (j)(1)(A), not later

than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section, an application may be

submitted for a modification pursuant to

subsection (h) of the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section by the owner

of the publicly owned treatment works at

Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, for a deepwater

outfall at a location recommended in the

study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).

‘‘(3) INITIAL DETERMINATION.—On or before

the 90th day after the date of submittal of an

application for modification under paragraph

(2), the Administrator shall issue to the applicant a draft initial determination regarding the modification of the existing permit.

‘‘(4) FINAL DETERMINATION.—On or before

the 270th day after the date of submittal of

an application for modification under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall issue a

final determination regarding such modification.

‘‘(5) EFFECTIVENESS.—If a modification is

granted pursuant to an application submitted under this subsection, such modification

shall be effective only if the new deepwater

outfall is operational within 5 years after the

date of the enactment of this subsection. In

all other aspects, such modification shall be

effective for the period applicable to all

modifications granted under subsection

(h).’’.

SEC. 303. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

(a) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.—

Section 313(a) (33 U.S.C. 1323(a)) is amended

by striking all preceding subsection (b) and

inserting the following:

‘‘SEC. 313. FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION CONTROL.

‘‘(a) APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL, STATE,

INTERSTATE, AND LOCAL LAWS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal

Government—

‘‘(A) having jurisdiction over any property

or facility, or

‘‘(B) engaged in any activity resulting, or

which may result, in the discharge or runoff

of pollutants,

and each officer, agent, or employee thereof

in the performance of his official duties,

shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and process

and sanctions respecting the control and

abatement of water pollution in the same

manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity, including the payment

of reasonable service charges.

‘‘(2) TYPES OF ACTIONS COVERED.—Paragraph (1) shall apply—

‘‘(A) to any requirement whether substantive or procedural (including any recordkeeping or reporting requirement, any requirement respecting permits, and any other

requirement),

‘‘(B) to the exercise of any Federal, State,

or local administrative authority, and

‘‘(C) to any process and sanction, whether

enforced in Federal, State, or local courts or

in any other manner.

‘‘(3) PENALTIES AND FINES.—The Federal,

State, interstate, and local substantive and

procedural requirements, administrative authority, and process and sanctions referred

to in paragraph (1) include all administrative

orders and all civil and administrative penalties and fines, regardless of whether such

penalties or fines are punitive or coercive in

nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or continuing violations.

‘‘(4) SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.—

‘‘(A) WAIVER.—The United States hereby

expressly waives any immunity otherwise

applicable to the United States with respect

to any requirement, administrative authority, and process and sanctions referred to in

paragraph (1) (including any injunctive relief, any administrative order, any civil or

administrative penalty or fine referred to in

paragraph (3), or any reasonable service

charge).

‘‘(B) PROCESSING FEES.—The reasonable

service charges referred to in this paragraph

include fees or charges assessed in connection with the processing and issuance of permits, renewal of permits, amendments to

permits, review of plans, studies, and other

documents, and inspection and monitoring of

facilities, as well as any other nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed in connection with a Federal, State, interstate, or

local water pollution regulatory program.

‘‘(5) EXEMPTIONS.—

‘‘(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.—

The President may exempt any effluent

source of any department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch from compliance with any requirement to which paragraph (1) applies if the President determines

it to be in the paramount interest of the

United States to do so; except that no exemption may be granted from the requirements of section 306 or 307 of this Act.

‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—No exemptions shall be

granted under subparagraph (A) due to lack

of appropriation unless the President shall

have specifically requested such appropriation as a part of the budgetary process and

the Congress shall have failed to make available such requested appropriation.

‘‘(C) TIME PERIOD.—Any exemption under

subparagraph (A) shall be for a period not in

excess of 1 year, but additional exemptions

may be granted for periods of not to exceed

1 year upon the President’s making a new determination.

‘‘(D) MILITARY PROPERTY.—In addition to

any exemption of a particular effluent

source, the President may, if the President

determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United States to do so, issue regulations exempting from compliance with the

requirements of this section any weaponry,

equipment, aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or

other classes or categories of property, and

access to such property, which are owned or

operated by the Armed Forces of the United

States (including the Coast Guard) or by the

National Guard of any State and which are

uniquely military in nature. The President

shall reconsider the need for such regulations at 3-year intervals.

‘‘(E) REPORTS.—The President shall report

each January to the Congress all exemptions

from the requirements of this section granted during the preceding calendar year, together with the President’s reason for granting such exemption.

‘‘(6) VENUE.—Nothing in this section shall

be construed to prevent any department,

agency, or instrumentality of the Federal

Government, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof in the performance of official

duties, from removing to the appropriate

Federal district court any proceeding to

which the department, agency, or instrumentality or officer, agent, or employee thereof

is subject pursuant to this section, and any

such proceeding may be removed in accordance with chapter 89 of title 28, United

States Code.

‘‘(7) PERSONAL LIABILITY OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.—No agent, employee, or officer of

the United States shall be personally liable

for any civil penalty under any Federal,

State, interstate, or local water pollution

law with respect to any act or omission

within the scope of the official duties of the

agent, employee, or officer.

‘‘(8) CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.—An agent, employee, or officer of the United States shall

be subject to any criminal sanction (including any fine or imprisonment) under any

Federal or State water pollution law, but no

department, agency, or instrumentality of

the executive, legislative, or judicial branch

of the Federal Government shall be subject

to any such sanction.’’.

(b) FUNDS COLLECTED BY A STATE.—Section

313 (33 U.S.C. 1323) is further amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON STATE USE OF FUNDS.—

Unless a State law in effect on the date of

the enactment of this subsection or a State

constitution requires the funds to be used in

a different manner, all funds collected by a

State from the Federal Government in penalties and fines imposed for the violation of

a substantive or procedural requirement referred to in subsection (a) shall be used by a

State only for projects designed to improve

or protect the environment or to defray the

costs of environmental protection or enforcement.’’.

(c) ENFORCEMENT.—Section 313 is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(d) FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT.—

‘‘(1) ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT BY

EPA.—The Administrator may commence an

administrative enforcement action against

any department, agency, or instrumentality

of the executive, legislative, or judicial

branch of the Federal Government pursuant

to the enforcement authorities contained in

this Act.

‘‘(2) PROCEDURE.—The Administrator shall

initiate an administrative enforcement action against a department, agency, or instrumentality under this subsection in the same

manner and under the same circumstances

as an action would be initiated against any

other person under this Act. The amount of

any administrative penalty imposed under

this subsection shall be determined in accordance with section 309(d) of this Act.

‘‘(3) VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT.—Any voluntary resolution or settlement of an action

under this subsection shall be set forth in an

administrative consent order.

‘‘(4) CONFERRAL WITH EPA.—No administrative order issued to a department, agency, or

instrumentality under this section shall become final until such department, agency, or

instrumentality has had the opportunity to

confer with the Administrator.’’.

(d) LIMITATION ON ACTIONS AND RIGHT OF

INTERVENTION.—Section 313 is further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(e) LIMITATION ON ACTIONS AND RIGHT OF

INTERVENTION.—Any violation with respect

to which the Administrator has commenced

and is diligently prosecuting an action under

this subsection, or for which the Administrator has issued a final order and the violator has either paid a penalty or fine assessed

under this subsection or is subject to an enforceable schedule of corrective actions,

shall not be the subject of an action under

section 505 of this Act. In any action under

this subsection, any citizen may intervene as

a matter of right.’’.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4721

(e) DEFINITION OF PERSON.—Section 502(5)

(33 U.S.C. 1362(5)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘and

includes any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States’’.

(f) DEFINITION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS.—Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(24) The term ‘radioactive materials’ includes source materials, special nuclear materials, and byproduct materials (as such

terms are defined under the Atomic Energy

Act of 1954) which are used, produced, or

managed at facilities not licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; except that

such term does not include any material

which is discharged from a vessel or other facility covered by Executive Order 12344 (42

U.S.C. 7158 note; relating to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program).’’.

(g) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section

313(b) (33 U.S.C. 1323(b)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘(b)(1)’’ and inserting the

following:

‘‘(b) WASTEWATER FACILITIES.—

‘‘(1) COOPERATION FOR USE OF WASTEWATER

CONTROL SYSTEMS.—’’;

(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘LIMITATION ON CONSTRUCTION.—’’ before ‘‘Construction’’; and

(3) by moving paragraphs (1) and (2) 2 ems

to the right.

(h) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments

made by this section shall take effect on the

date of the enactment of this Act and shall

only apply to violations occurring after such

date of enactment.

SEC. 304. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Nation’s estuaries are a vital natural resource to which many regional economies are closely tied.

(2) Many of the Nation’s estuaries are

under a severe threat from point source pollution and polluted run-off (nonpoint source

pollution) and from habitat alteration and

destruction.

(3) Only through expanded investments in

waste water treatment and other water and

sediment pollution control and prevention

efforts can the environmental and economic

values of the Nation’s estuaries be restored

and protected.

(4) The National Estuary Program created

under the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act has significantly advanced the Nation’s

understanding of the declining condition of

the Nation’s estuaries.

(5) The National Estuary Program has also

provided precise information about the corrective and preventative measures required

to reverse the degradation of water and sediment quality and to halt the alteration and

destruction of vital habitat in the Nation’s

estuaries.

(6) The level of funding available to States,

municipalities, and the Environmental Protection Agency for implementation of approved conservation and management plans

is inadequate, and additional financial resources must be provided.

(7) Funding for implementation of approved conservation and management plans

should be provided under the State revolving

loan fund program authorized by title VI of

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

(8) Authorization levels for State revolving

loan fund capitalization grants should be increased by an amount necessary to ensure

the achievement of the goals of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act.

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section

320(a)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(B) PRIORITY CONSIDERATION.—The Administrator shall give priority consideration

under this section to Long Island Sound,

New York and Connecticut; Narragansett

Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts (including Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor);

Puget Sound, Washington; New York-New

Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey;

Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey;

Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware; Albemarle

Sound, North Carolina; Sarasota Bay, Florida; San Francisco Bay, California; Santa

Monica Bay, California; Galveston Bay,

Texas; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary

complex, Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon,

Florida; Charlotte Harbor, Florida; Barnegat

Bay, New Jersey; and Peconic Bay, New

York.’’.

(c) GRANTS.—Section 320(g)(2) (33 U.S.C.

1330(g)(2)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and implementation monitoring’’ after ‘‘development’’.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

Section 320(i) (33 U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended

by striking ‘‘1987’’ and all that follows

through ‘‘1991’’ and inserting the following:

‘‘1987 through 1991, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and

$19,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal

years 1996 through 2000’’.

SEC. 305. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

(a) REVIEW AND REVISION.—Section 319(b)

(33 U.S.C. 1329(b)) is amended by adding at

the end the following:

‘‘(5) REVIEW AND REVISION.—Not later than

18 months after the date of the enactment of

this paragraph, the State shall review and

revise the report required by this subsection

and submit such revised report to the Administrator for approval.’’.

(b) APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—Section 319(d)(1) (33 U.S.C.

1329(d)(1)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or revised management program’’ after ‘‘management program’’ each place it appears.

(c) GRANTS FOR PROTECTING GROUND WATER

QUALITY.—Section 319(i)(3) (33 U.S.C.

1329(i)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘$150,000’’

and inserting ‘‘$500,000’’.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

Section 319(j) (33 U.S.C. 1329(j)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘$130,000,000’’;

(2) by inserting after ‘‘1991’’ the following:

‘‘, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal

years 1992 through 1995, $100,000,000 for fiscal

year 1996, $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1997,

$200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $250,000,000 for

fiscal year 1999, and $300,000,000 for fiscal

year 2000’’; and

(3) by striking ‘‘$7,500,000’’ and inserting

‘‘$25,000,000’’.

(e) AGRICULTURAL INPUTS.—Section 319 (33

U.S.C. 1329) is amended by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(o) AGRICULTURAL INPUTS.—For the purposes of this Act, any land application of

livestock manure shall not be considered a

point source and shall be subject to enforcement only under this section.’’.

SEC. 306. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT.

Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C.

1451 note) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(1)—

(A) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.—’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(B) A State that has not received Federal

approval for the State’s core coastal management program pursuant to section 306 of

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16

U.S.C. 1455) shall have 30 months from the

date of approval of such program to submit

a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program pursuant to this section. Any such State shall

also be eligible for any extension of time for

submittal of the State’s nonpoint program

that may be received by a State with a federally approved coastal management program.’’;

(2) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘to protect

coastal waters generally’’ and inserting ‘‘to

restore and protect coastal waters where the

State has determined that coastal waters are

threatened or significantly degraded’’;

(3) in subsection (b)(3)—

(A) by striking ‘‘The implementation’’ and

inserting ‘‘A schedule for the implementation’’; and

(B) by inserting ‘‘, and no less often than

once every 5 years,’’ after ‘‘from time to

time’’;

(4) in subsection (b) by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(7) IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY AREAS.—A

prioritization of the areas in the State in

which management measures will be implemented.’’;

(5) in subsection (c) by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(5) CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.—The Secretary and Administrator may grant conditional approval to a State’s program where

the State requests additional time to complete the development of its program. During

the period during which the State’s program

is subject to conditional approval, the penalty provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) shall

not apply.’’;

(6) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ‘‘, 1993,

and 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2000’’; and

(7) in subsection (h)(2)(B)(iv) by striking

‘‘fiscal year 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘each of fiscal years 1995 through 2000’’.

SEC. 307. COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Title III (33 U.S.C. 1300–

1330) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 321. COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

‘‘(a) FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND DEFINITIONS.—

‘‘(1) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that comprehensive watershed management will further the goals and objectives of this Act by—

‘‘(A) identifying more fully water quality

impairments and the pollutants, sources, and

activities causing the impairments;

‘‘(B) integrating water protection quality

efforts under this Act with other natural resource protection efforts, including Federal

efforts to define and protect ecological systems (including the waters and the living resources supported by the waters);

‘‘(C) defining long-term social, economic,

and natural resource objectives and the

water quality necessary to attain or maintain the objectives;

‘‘(D) increasing, through citizen participation in the watershed management process,

public support for improved water quality;

‘‘(E) identifying priority water quality

problems that need immediate attention;

and

‘‘(F) identifying the most cost-effective

measures to achieve the objectives of this

Act.

‘‘(2) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section

is to encourage comprehensive watershed

management in maintaining and enhancing

water quality, in restoring and protecting

living resources supported by the waters, and

in ensuring waters of a quality sufficient to

meet human needs, including water supply

and recreation.

‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:

‘‘(A) ECOSYSTEM.—The term ‘ecosystem’

means the community of plants and animals

(including humans) and the environment (including surface water, the ground water with

which it interacts, and riparian areas) upon

which that community depends.
H 4722 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

‘‘(B) ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES.—The

term ‘environmental objectives’ means the

goals specified by States or State-designated

watershed management entities to protect,

restore, and maintain water resources and

aquatic ecosystems within a watershed, including applicable water quality standards

and wetlands protection goals established

under the Act.

‘‘(C) STATE.—The term ‘State’ includes Indian tribes eligible under section 518(e).

‘‘(b) STATE WATERSHED PROGRAM.—

‘‘(1) SUBMITTAL.—A State, at any time,

may submit to the Administrator for approval a watershed management program for

the State.

‘‘(2) APPROVAL.—The Administrator shall

approve a State watershed program submitted under paragraph (1) if the program, at a

minimum, contains the following elements:

‘‘(A) An identification of the State agency

generally responsible for overseeing and approving watershed management plans and a

designation of watershed management entities and lead responsibilities for such entities. Such entities may include other State

agencies and sub-State agencies.

‘‘(B) A description of the scope of the program. In determining the scope of the program, the State may choose to address all

watersheds within the State over a period of

time or to concentrate efforts on selected

watersheds. Within each watershed, the issues to be addressed should be based on a

comprehensive analysis of the problems

within the watershed. The scope of the program may expand over a period of time both

in terms of the number of watersheds and

the issues addressed by the program.

‘‘(C) An identification of watershed management units for which watershed management plans will be developed. In selecting

such units, the State shall consider those

waters in the State that are water quality

threatened or impaired or are otherwise in

need of special protection. To the extent

practicable, the boundaries of each watershed management unit shall be consistent

with United States Geological Service

hydrological units.

‘‘(D) A description of activities required of

watershed management entities (as specified

under subsection (f)(1)) and a description of

the State’s approval process for watershed

management plans.

‘‘(E) A specification of an effective public

participation process, including procedures

to encourage the public to participate in developing and implementing watershed management plans.

‘‘(F) An identification of the statewide environmental objectives that will be pursued

in each watershed. Such objectives, at a minimum, shall include State water quality

standards and goals under this Act, and, as

appropriate, other objectives such as habitat

restoration and biological diversity.

‘‘(2) DEADLINE.—The Administrator, after

consultation with other Federal agencies,

shall approve or disapprove a State watershed program submitted under paragraph (1)

on or before the 180th day following the date

of the submittal. If a State watershed program is disapproved, the State may modify

and resubmit its program under paragraph

(1).

‘‘(3) ANNUAL REPORT.—A State with an approved watershed program under this subsection shall provide to the Administrator

an annual report summarizing the status of

the program, including a description of any

modifications to the program. An annual report submitted under this section may be

used by the State to satisfy reporting requirements under sections 106, 314, 319, and

320.

‘‘(4) EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF APPROVALS.—An

approval of a State watershed program under

paragraph (2) shall remain in effect for a 5-

year period beginning on the date of the approval and may be renewed by the Administrator.

‘‘(5) WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL.—Whenever

the Administrator determines after public

hearing that a State is not administering a

watershed program approved under paragraph (2) in accordance with requirements of

this section, he shall so notify the State and,

if appropriate corrective action is not taken

within a reasonable time, not to exceed 90

days, the Administrator shall withdraw approval of such program. The Administrator

shall not withdraw approval of any such program unless he shall first have notified the

State, and made public, in writing, the reasons for such withdrawal.

‘‘(c) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT UNITS AND ENTITIES.—A

State with an approved watershed program

under this section may modify such program

at any time in order to designate additional

watershed management units and entities,

including lead responsibilities, for the purpose of developing and implementing watershed management plans.

‘‘(d) ELIGIBLE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

AND PLANNING ACTIVITIES.—The following

watershed management activities are eligible to receive assistance from the Administrator under sections 205(j), 319(h), and 604(b):

‘‘(1) Characterizing waters and land uses.

‘‘(2) Identifying problems within a watershed.

‘‘(3) Selecting short-term and long-term

goals for watershed management.

‘‘(4) Developing and implementing measures and practices to meet identified goals.

‘‘(5) Identifying and coordinating projects

and activities necessary to restore and maintain water quality or meet other environmental objectives within the watershed.

‘‘(6) Identifying the appropriate institutional arrangements to carry out an approved watershed management plan.

‘‘(7) Updating an approved watershed management plan.

‘‘(8) Any other activities deemed appropriate by the Administrator.

‘‘(e) SUPPORT FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

AND PLANNING.—

‘‘(1) INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE.—There is established an interagency committee to support comprehensive watershed management

and planning. The President shall appoint

the members of the committee. The members shall include a representative from each

Federal agency that carries out programs

and activities that may have a significant

impact on water quality or other natural resource values that may be appropriately addressed through comprehensive watershed

management.

‘‘(2) USE OF OTHER FUNDS UNDER THIS ACT.—

The planning and implementation activities

carried out by a management entity pursuant to this section may be carried out with

funds made available through the State pursuant to sections 205(j), 319(h), and 604(b).

‘‘(f) APPROVED PLANS.—

‘‘(1) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.—A State with

an approved watershed program may approve

a watershed management plan when such

plan satisfies the following conditions:

‘‘(A) If the watershed includes waters that

are not meeting applicable water quality

standards under this Act at the time of submission, the plan—

‘‘(i) identifies the environmental objectives

of the plan including, at a minimum, State

water quality standards and goals under this

Act, and any other environmental objectives

the planning entity deems appropriate;

‘‘(ii) identifies the stressors, pollutants,

and sources causing the impairment;

‘‘(iii) identifies actions necessary to

achieve the environmental objectives of the

plan, including source reduction of pollutants to achieve any allocated load reductions

consistent with the requirements of section

303(d) and the priority for implementing such

actions;

‘‘(iv) contains an implementation plan,

with schedules, milestones, projected completion dates, and the identification of those

persons responsible for implementing the actions, demonstrating that water quality

standards will be attained as expeditiously

as practicable, but not later than deadlines

in applicable sections of this Act and all

other environmental objectives identified in

the watershed management plan will be attained as expeditiously as practicable;

‘‘(v) contains an effective public participation process in the development and implementation of the plan;

‘‘(vi) specifies a process to monitor and

evaluate progress toward meeting environmental objectives; and

‘‘(vii) specifies a process to revise the plan

as needed.

‘‘(B) For those waters in the watershed attaining water quality standards at the time

of submission (including threatened waters),

the plan identifies those projects and activities necessary to maintain water quality

standards and attain or maintain other environmental objectives in the future.

‘‘(2) TERMS OF PLAN AND PLAN APPROVAL.—

Each plan submitted and approved under this

subsection shall extend for a period of not

less than 5 years and include a planning and

implementation schedule with milestones

and completion dates within that period. The

approval by the State of a plan shall apply

for a period not exceed 5 years. A revised and

updated plan may be submitted prior to the

expiration of the period specified in the preceding sentence for approval pursuant to the

same conditions and requirements that apply

to an initial plan for a watershed that is approved pursuant to this subsection.

‘‘(g) INCENTIVES FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.—

‘‘(1) POINT SOURCE PERMITS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section

301(b)(1)(C), a permit may be issued under

section 402 with a limitation that does not

meet water quality standards, if—

‘‘(i) the receiving water is in a watershed

with an approved watershed plan;

‘‘(ii) the plan includes enforceable requirements under State or local law for nonpoint

source pollutant load reductions that in

combination with point source requirements

will meet water quality standards prior to

the expiration of plan; and

‘‘(iii) the point source does not have a history of significant noncompliance with its

permit effluent limitations, as determined

by the Administrator or the State (in the

case with an approved permit under section

402).

‘‘(B) SYNCHRONIZED PERMIT TERMS.—Notwithstanding section 402(b)(1)(B), the term of

a permit issued under section 402 may be extended by 5 years if the discharge is located

in a watershed planning area for which a watershed management plan is to be developed.

‘‘(C) 10-YEAR PERMIT TERMS.—Notwithstanding section 402(b)(1)(B), the term of a

permit issued under section 402 may be extended to 10 years for any point source located in a watershed management unit for

which a watershed management plan has

been approved if the plan provides for the attainment and maintenance of water quality

standards (including designated uses) in the

affected waters and unless receiving waters

are not meeting water quality standards due

to the point source discharge. Such permits

may be revised at any time if necessary to

meet water quality standards.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4723

‘‘(2) NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROLS.—Not later

than 30 months after the date of the enactment of this section, a State with an approved watershed program under this section

may make a showing to the Administrator

that nonpoint source management practices

different from those established in national

guidance issued by the Administrator under

section 319 will attain water quality standards as expeditiously as practicable and not

later than the deadlines established by this

Act. If the Administrator is satisfied with

such showing, then the Administrator may

approve the State’s nonpoint source management program that relies on such practices

as meeting the requirements of section 319.

Alternative watershed nonpoint source control practices must be identified in the watershed management plan adopted under subsection (f)(2) of this section.

‘‘(3) FUNDING.—The Administrator may

provide assistance to a State with an approved watershed management program

under this section in the form of a multipurpose grant that would provide for single application, workplan and review, matching,

oversight, and end-of-year closeout requirements for grant funding under sections

104(b)(3), 104(g), 106, 314(b), 319, 320, and 604(b).

A State with an approved multipurpose

grant may focus activities funded under such

sections on a priority basis consistent with

State-approved watershed management

plans.

‘‘(h) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 12 months

after the date of the enactment of this section, and after consultation with other appropriate agencies, the Administrator shall

issue guidance on recommended provisions

to be included in State watershed programs

and State-approved watershed management

plans.

‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There is authorized to be appropriated to the

Administrator for providing grants to States

to assist such States in carrying out activities under this section $25,000,000 per fiscal

year for each of fiscal years 1996 through

2000.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

401(a)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)) is amended by

inserting ‘‘and with the provisions of a management plan approved by a State under section 321 of this Act’’ before the period at the

end of the first sentence.

SEC. 308. REVISION OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.

(a) ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL REVISION.—Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C.

1314(b)) is amended in the matter preceding

paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘and, at least annually thereafter,’’ and inserting ‘‘and thereafter shall’’.

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C.

1314(b)) is amended by striking the period at

the end of the first sentence and inserting

the following: ‘‘; except that guidelines issued under paragraph (1)(A) addressing pollutants identified pursuant to subsection

(a)(4) shall not be revised after February 15,

1995, to be more stringent unless such revised

guidelines meet the requirements of paragraph (4)(A).’’.

TITLE IV—PERMITS AND LICENSES

SEC. 401. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS.

Section 402(a) is amended by adding at the

end the following:

‘‘(6) CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS.—For purposes of this section, waste

treatment systems, including retention

ponds or lagoons, used to meet the requirements of this Act for concentrated animal

feeding operations, are not waters of the

United States. An existing concentrated animal feeding operation that uses a natural

topographic impoundment or structure on

the effective date of this Act, which is not

hydrologically connected to any other waters of the United States, as a waste treatment system or wastewater retention facility may continue to use that natural topographic feature for waste storage regardless

of its size, capacity, or previous use.’’.

SEC. 402. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL

STORMWATER DISCHARGES.

(a) DEADLINES.—Section 402(p) (33 U.S.C.

1343(p)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘1994’’ and

inserting ‘‘2005’’; and

(2) in paragraph (6) by striking ‘‘1993’’ and

inserting ‘‘2005’’.

(b) PROHIBITION ON NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES.—Section 402(p)(3) is amended by adding at the

end the following:

‘‘(C) PROHIBITION ON NUMERIC EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES.—

Permits for municipal separate storm sewers

shall not include numeric effluent limitations.’’.

SEC. 403. INTAKE CREDITS.

Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(q) INTAKE CREDITS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any

provision of this Act, in any effluent limitation or other limitation imposed under the

permit program established by the Administrator under this section, any State permit

program approved under this section (including any program for implementation under

section 118(c)(2)), any standards established

under section 307(a), or any program for industrial users established under section

307(b), the Administrator, as applicable, shall

or the State, as applicable, may provide

credits for pollutants present in or caused by

intake water such that an owner or operator

of a point source is not required to remove,

reduce, or treat the amount of any pollutant

in an effluent below the amount of such pollutant that is present in or caused by the intake water for such facility—

‘‘(A)(i) if the source of the intake water

and the receiving waters into which the effluent is ultimately discharged are the same;

‘‘(ii) if the source of the intake water

meets the maximum contaminant levels or

treatment techniques for drinking water

contaminants established pursuant to the

Safe Drinking Water Act for the pollutant of

concern; or

‘‘(iii) if, at the time the limitation or

standard is established, the level of the pollutant in the intake water is the same as or

lower than the amount of the pollutant in

the receiving waters, taking into account analytical variability; and

‘‘(B) if, for conventional pollutants, the

constituents of the conventional pollutants

in the intake water are the same as the constituents of the conventional pollutants in

the effluent.

‘‘(2) ALLOWANCE FOR INCIDENTAL

AMOUNTS.—In determining whether the condition set forth in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is being

met, the Administrator shall or the State

may, as appropriate, make allowance for incidental amounts of intake water from

sources other than the receiving waters.

‘‘(3) CREDIT FOR NONQUALIFYING POLLUTANTS.—The Administrator shall or a State

may provide point sources an appropriate

credit for pollutants found in intake water

that does not meet the requirement of paragraph (1).

‘‘(4) MONITORING.—Nothing in this section

precludes the Administrator or a State from

requiring monitoring of intake water, effluent, or receiving waters to assist in the implementation of this section.’’.

SEC. 404. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.

Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(r) COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.—

‘‘(1) REQUIREMENT FOR PERMITS.—Each permit issued pursuant to this section for a discharge from a combined storm and sanitary

sewer shall conform with the combined sewer

overflow control policy signed by the Administrator on April 11, 1994.

‘‘(2) TERM OF PERMIT.—

‘‘(A) COMPLIANCE DEADLINE.—Notwithstanding any compliance schedule under section 301(b), or any permit limitation under

section 402(b)(1)(B), the Administrator (or a

State with a program approved under subsection (b)) may issue a permit pursuant to

this section for a discharge from a combined

storm and sanitary sewer, that includes a

schedule for compliance with a long-term

control plan under the control policy referred to in paragraph (1), for a term not to

exceed 15 years.

‘‘(B) EXTENSION.—Notwithstanding the

compliance deadline specified in subparagraph (A), the Administrator or a State with

a program approved under subsection (b)

shall extend, on request of an owner or operator of a combined storm and sanitary sewer

and subject to subparagraph (C), the period

of compliance beyond the last day of the 15-

year period—

‘‘(i) if the Administrator or the State determines that compliance by such last day is

not within the economic capability of the

owner or operator; and

‘‘(ii) if the owner or operator demonstrates

to the satisfaction of the Administrator or

the State reasonable further progress towards compliance with a long-term control

plan under the control policy referred to in

paragraph (1).

‘‘(C) LIMITATIONS ON EXTENSIONS.—

‘‘(i) EXTENSION NOT APPROPRIATE.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the Administrator or the State need not grant an extension of the compliance deadline specified in

subparagraph (A) if the Administrator or the

State determines that such an extension is

not appropriate.

‘‘(ii) NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY.—Prior to

granting an extension under subparagraph

(B) with respect to a combined sewer overflow discharge originating in the State of

New York or New Jersey and affecting the

other of such States, the Administrator or

the State from which the discharge originates, as the case may be, shall provide written notice of the proposed extension to the

other State and shall not grant the extension unless the other State approves the extension or does not disapprove the extension

within 90 days of receiving such written notice.

‘‘(3) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Any consent decree

or court order entered by a United States

district court, or administrative order issued

by the Administrator, before the date of the

enactment of this subsection establishing

any deadlines, schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines, schedules, or

timetables, for the evaluation, design, or

construction of treatment works for control

or elimination of any discharge from a municipal combined storm and sanitary sewer

system shall be modified upon motion or request by any party to such consent decree or

court order, to extend to December 31, 2009,

at a minimum, any such deadlines, schedules, or timetables, including any interim

deadlines, schedules, or timetables as is necessary to conform to the policy referred to in

paragraph (1) or otherwise achieve the objectives of this subsection. Notwithstanding the

preceding sentence, the period of compliance

with respect to a discharge referred to in

paragraph (2)(C)(ii) may only be extended in

accordance with paragraph (2)(C)(ii).’’.
H 4724 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

SEC. 405. ABANDONED MINES.

Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further

amended by inserting after subsection (o) the

following:

‘‘(p) PERMITS FOR REMEDIATING PARTY ON

ABANDONED OR INACTIVE MINED LANDS.—

‘‘(1) APPLICABILITY.—Subject to this subsection, including the requirements of paragraph (3), the Administrator, with the concurrence of the concerned State or Indian

tribe, may issue a permit to a remediating

party under this section for discharges associated with remediation activity at abandoned or inactive mined lands which modifies any otherwise applicable requirement of

sections 301(b), 302, and 403, or any subsection of this section (other than this subsection).

‘‘(2) APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT.—A remediating party who desires to conduct remediation activities on abandoned or inactive

mined lands from which there is or may be a

discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States or from which there could be a significant addition of pollutants from nonpoint

sources may submit an application to the

Administrator. The application shall consist

of a remediation plan and any other information requested by the Administrator to clarify the plan and activities.

‘‘(3) REMEDIATION PLAN.—The remediation

plan shall include (as appropriate and applicable) the following:

‘‘(A) Identification of the remediating

party, including any persons cooperating

with the concerned State or Indian tribe

with respect to the plan, and a certification

that the applicant is a remediating party

under this section.

‘‘(B) Identification of the abandoned or inactive mined lands addressed by the plan.

‘‘(C) Identification of the waters of the

United States impacted by the abandoned or

inactive mined lands.

‘‘(D) A description of the physical conditions at the abandoned or inactive mined

lands that are causing adverse water quality

impacts.

‘‘(E) A description of practices, including

system design and construction plans and

operation and maintenance plans, proposed

to reduce, control, mitigate, or eliminate the

adverse water quality impacts and a schedule for implementing such practices and, if it

is an existing remediation project, a description of practices proposed to improve the

project, if any.

‘‘(F) An analysis demonstrating that the

identified practices are expected to result in

a water quality improvement for the identified waters.

‘‘(G) A description of monitoring or other

assessment to be undertaken to evaluate the

success of the practices during and after implementation, including an assessment of

baseline conditions.

‘‘(H) A schedule for periodic reporting on

progress in implementation of major elements of the plan.

‘‘(I) A budget and identified funding to support the activities described in the plan.

‘‘(J) Remediation goals and objectives.

‘‘(K) Contingency plans.

‘‘(L) A description of the applicant’s legal

right to enter and conduct activities.

‘‘(M) The signature of the applicant.

‘‘(N) Identification of the pollutant or pollutants to be addressed by the plan.

‘‘(4) PERMITS.—

‘‘(A) CONTENTS.—Permits issued by the Administrator pursuant to this subsection

shall—

‘‘(i) provide for compliance with and implementation of a remediation plan which, following issuance of the permit, may be modified by the applicant after providing notification to and opportunity for review by the

Administrator;

‘‘(ii) require that any modification of the

plan be reflected in a modified permit;

‘‘(iii) require that if, at any time after notice to the remediating party and opportunity for comment by the remediating

party, the Administrator determines that

the remediating party is not implementing

the approved remediation plan in substantial

compliance with its terms, the Administrator shall notify the remediating party of

the determination together with a list specifying the concerns of the Administrator;

‘‘(iv) provide that, if the identified concerns are not resolved or a compliance plan

approved within 180 days of the date of the

notification, the Administrator may take action under section 309 of this Act;

‘‘(v) provide that clauses (iii) and (iv) not

apply in the case of any action under section

309 to address violations involving gross negligence (including reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct) or intentional misconduct

by the remediating party or any other person;

‘‘(vi) not require compliance with any limitation issued under sections 301(b), 302, and

403 or any requirement established by the

Administrator under any subsection of this

section (other than this subsection); and

‘‘(vii) provide for termination of coverage

under the permit without the remediating

party being subject to enforcement under

sections 309 and 505 of this Act for any remaining discharges—

‘‘(I) after implementation of the remediation plan;

‘‘(II) if a party obtains a permit to mine

the site; or

‘‘(III) upon a demonstration by the remediating party that the surface water quality

conditions due to remediation activities at

the site, taken as a whole, are equal to or superior to the surface water qualities that existed prior to initiation of remediation.

‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS.—The Administrator

shall only issue a permit under this section,

consistent with the provisions of this subsection, to a remediating party for discharges associated with remediation action

at abandoned or inactive mined lands if the

remediation plan demonstrates with reasonable certainty that the actions will result in

an improvement in water quality.

‘‘(C) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—The Administrator may only issue a permit or modify a

permit under this section after complying

with subsection (b)(3).

‘‘(D) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

PERMIT.—Failure to comply with terms of a

permit issued pursuant to this subsection

shall not be deemed to be a violation of an

effluent standard or limitation issued under

this Act.

‘‘(E) LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—This subsection shall not be construed—

‘‘(i) to limit or otherwise affect the Administrator’s powers under section 504; or

‘‘(ii) to preclude actions pursuant to section 309 or 505 for any violations of sections

301(a), 302, 402, and 403 that may have existed

for the abandoned or inactive mined land

prior to initiation of remediation covered by

a permit issued under this subsection, unless

such permit covers remediation activities

implemented by the permit holder prior to

issuance of the permit.

‘‘(5) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection the

following definitions apply:

‘‘(A) REMEDIATING PARTY.—The term ‘remediating party’ means—

‘‘(i) the United States (on non-Federal

lands), a State or its political subdivisions,

or an Indian tribe or officers, employees, or

contractors thereof; and

‘‘(ii) any person acting in cooperation with

a person described in clause (i), including a

government agency that owns abandoned or

inactive mined lands for the purpose of conducting remediation of the mined lands or

that is engaging in remediation activities incidental to the ownership of the lands.

Such term does not include any person who,

before or following issuance of a permit

under this section, directly benefited from or

participated in any mining operation (including exploration) associated with the

abandoned or inactive mined lands.

‘‘(B) ABANDONED OR INACTIVE MINED

LANDS.—The term ‘abandoned or inactive

mined lands’ means lands that were formerly

mined and are not actively mined or in temporary shutdown at the time of submission

of the remediation plan and issuance of a

permit under this section.

‘‘(C) MINED LANDS.—The term ‘mined lands’

means the surface or subsurface of an area

where mining operations, including exploration, extraction, processing, and

beneficiation, have been conducted. Such

term includes private ways and roads appurtenant to such area, land excavations, underground mine portals, adits, and surface expressions associated with underground workings, such as glory holes and subsidence features, mining waste, smelting sites associated with other mined lands, and areas

where structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or other material or property

which result from or have been used in the

mining operation are located.

‘‘(6) REGULATIONS.—The Administrator

may issue regulations establishing more specific requirements that the Administrator

determines would facilitate implementation

of this subsection. Before issuance of such

regulations, the Administrator may establish, on a case-by-case basis after notice and

opportunity for public comment as provided

by subsection (b)(3), more specific requirements that the Administrator determines

would facilitate implementation of this subsection in an individual permit issued to the

remediating party.’’.

SEC. 406. BENEFICIAL USE OF BIOSOLIDS.

(a) REFERENCES.—Section 405(a) (33 U.S.C.

1345(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(also referred to as ‘biosolids’)’’ after ‘‘sewage

sludge’’ the first place it appears.

(b) APPROVAL OF STATE PROGRAMS.—Section 405(f) (33 U.S.C. 1345(f)) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(3) APPROVAL OF STATE PROGRAMS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the

Administrator shall approve for purposes of

this subsection State programs that meet

the standards for final use or disposal of sewage sludge established by the Administrator

pursuant to subsection (d).’’.

(c) STUDIES AND PROJECTS.—Section 405(g)

(33 U.S.C. 1345(g)) is amended—

(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by

inserting ‘‘building materials,’’ after ‘‘agricultural and horticultural uses,’’;

(2) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end

the following: ‘‘Not later than January 1,

1997, and after providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall issue guidance on the beneficial

use of sewage sludge.’’; and

(3) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘September

30, 1986,’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 1995,’’.

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS

DEFINED.

Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(25) The term ‘publicly owned treatment

works’ means a treatment works, as defined

in section 212, located at other than an industrial facility, which is designed and constructed principally, as determined by the

Administrator, to treat domestic sewage or a

mixture of domestic sewage and industrial

wastes of a liquid nature. In the case of such
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4725

a facility that is privately owned, such

term includes only those facilities

that, with respect to such industrial

wastes, are carrying out a

pretreatment program meeting all the

requirements established under section

307 and paragraphs (8) and (9) of section

402(b) for pretreatment programs

(whether or not the treatment works

would be required to implement a

pretreatment program pursuant to

such sections).’’.

SEC. 502. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER POLLUTION LAWS WITH RESPECT TO VEGETABLE OIL.

(a) DIFFERENTIATION AMONG FATS, OILS,

AND GREASES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In issuing or enforcing a

regulation, an interpretation, or a guideline

relating to a fat, oil, or grease under a Federal law related to water pollution control,

the head of a Federal agency shall—

(A) differentiate between and establish separate classes for—

(i)(I) animal fats; and

(II) vegetable oils; and

(ii) other oils, including petroleum oil; and

(B) apply different standards and reporting

requirements (including reporting requirements based on quantitative amounts) to different classes of fat and oil as provided in

paragraph (2).

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In differentiating between the classes of animal fats and vegetable oils referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) and

the classes of oils described in paragraph

(1)(A)(ii), the head of the Federal agency

shall consider differences in physical, chemical, biological, and other properties, and in

the environmental effects, of the classes.

(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) ANIMAL FAT.—The term ‘‘animal fat’’

means each type of animal fat, oil, or grease,

including fat, oil, or grease from fish or a

marine mammal and any fat, oil, or grease

referred to in section 61(a)(2) of title 13, United States Code.

(2) VEGETABLE OIL.—The term ‘‘vegetable

oil’’ means each type of vegetable oil, including vegetable oil from a seed, nut, or kernel

and any vegetable oil referred to in section

61(a)(1) of title 13, United States Code.

SEC. 503. NEEDS ESTIMATE.

Section 516(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1375(b)(1)) is

amended—

(1) in the first sentence by striking ‘‘biennially revised’’ and inserting ‘‘quadrennially

revised’’; and

(2) in the second sentence by striking

‘‘February 10 of each odd-numbered year’’

and inserting ‘‘December 31, 1997, and December 31 of every 4th calendar year thereafter’’.

SEC. 504. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.

Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361–1377) is amended by

redesignating section 519 as section 521 and

by inserting after section 518 the following:

‘‘SEC. 519. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.

‘‘In developing any effluent guideline

under section 304(b), pretreatment standard

under section 307(b), or new source performance standard under section 306 that is applicable to the food processing industry, the

Administrator shall consult with and consider the recommendations of the Food and

Drug Administration, Department of Health

and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Commerce. The

recommendations of such departments and

agencies and a description of the Administrator’s response to those recommendations

shall be made part of the rulemaking record

for the development of such guidelines and

standards. The Administrator’s response

shall include an explanation with respect to

food safety, including a discussion of relative

risks, of any departure from a recommendation by any such department or agency.’’.

SEC. 505. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361–1377) is further

amended by inserting before section 521, as

redesignated by this Act, the following:

‘‘SEC. 520. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARD.—The Administrator shall establish an independent

Board of Audit Appeals (hereinafter in this

section referred to as the ‘Board’) in accordance with the requirements of this section.

‘‘(b) DUTIES.—The Board shall have the authority to review and decide contested audit

determinations related to grant and contract

awards under this Act. In carrying out such

duties, the Board shall consider only those

regulations, guidance, policies, facts, and

circumstances in effect at the time of the

grant or contract award.

‘‘(c) PRIOR ELIGIBILITY DECISIONS.—The

Board shall not reverse project cost eligibility determinations that are supported by

an decision document of the Environmental

Protection Agency, including grant or contract approvals, plans and specifications approval forms, grant or contract payments,

change order approval forms, or similar documents approving project cost eligibility, except upon a showing that such decision was

arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of law in

effect at the time of such decision.

‘‘(d) MEMBERSHIP.—

‘‘(1) APPOINTMENT.—The Board shall be

composed of 7 members to be appointed by

the Administrator not later than 90 days

after the date of the enactment of this section.

‘‘(2) TERMS.—Each member shall be appointed for a term of 3 years.

‘‘(3) QUALIFICATIONS.—The Administrator

shall appoint as members of the Board individuals who are specially qualified to serve

on the Board by virtue of their expertise in

grant and contracting procedures. The Administrator shall make every effort to ensure that individuals appointed as members

of the Board are free from conflicts of interest in carrying out the duties of the Board.

‘‘(e) BASIC PAY AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.—

‘‘(1) RATES OF PAY.—Except as provided in

paragraph (2), members shall each be paid at

a rate of basic pay, to be determined by the

Administrator, for each day (including travel

time) during which they are engaged in the

actual performance of duties vested in the

Board.

‘‘(2) PROHIBITION OF COMPENSATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.—Members of the Board

who are full-time officers or employees of

the United States may not receive additional

pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of

their service on the Board.

‘‘(3) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—Each member

shall receive travel expenses, including per

diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance

with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United

States Code.

‘‘(f) ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES.—

Upon the request of the Board, the Administrator shall provide to the Board the administrative support services necessary for the

Board to carry out its responsibilities under

this section.

‘‘(g) DISPUTES ELIGIBLE FOR REVIEW.—The

authority of the Board under this section

shall extend to any contested audit determination that on the date of the enactment

of this section has yet to be formally concluded and accepted by either the grantee or

the Administrator.’’.

TITLE VI—STATE WATER POLLUTION

CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

SEC. 601. GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR CAPITALIZATION GRANTS.

Section 601(a) (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended

by striking ‘‘(1) for construction’’ and all

that follows through the period and inserting

‘‘to accomplish the purposes of this Act.’’.

SEC. 602. CAPITALIZATION GRANT AGREEMENTS.

(a) REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF

TREATMENT WORKS.—Section 602(b)(6) (33

U.S.C. 1382(b)(6)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘before fiscal year 1995’’;

and

(2) by striking ‘‘201(b)’’ and all that follows

through ‘‘218’’ and inserting ‘‘211’’.

(b) COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL

LAWS.—Section 602 (33 U.S.C. 1382) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(c) OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.—

‘‘(1) COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL

LAWS.—If a State provides assistance from

its water pollution control revolving fund established in accordance with this title and in

accordance with a statute, rule, executive

order, or program of the State which addresses the intent of any requirement or any

Federal executive order or law other than

this Act, as determined by the State, the

State in providing such assistance shall be

treated as having met the Federal requirements.

‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY OF OTHER

FEDERAL LAWS.—If a State does not meet a

requirement of a Federal executive order or

law other than this Act under paragraph (1),

such Federal law shall only apply to Federal

funds deposited in the water pollution control revolving fund established by the State

in accordance with this title the first time

such funds are used to provide assistance

from the revolving fund.’’.

(c) GUIDANCE FOR SMALL SYSTEMS.—Section 602 (33 U.S.C. 1382) is amended by adding

at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(d) GUIDANCE FOR SMALL SYSTEMS.—

‘‘(1) SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES.—Not later

than 1 year after the date of the enactment

of this subsection, the Administrator shall

assist the States in establishing simplified

procedures for small systems to obtain assistance under this title.

‘‘(2) PUBLICATION OF MANUAL.—Not later

than 1 year after the date of the enactment

of this subsection, and after providing notice

and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall publish a manual to assist

small systems in obtaining assistance under

this title and publish in the Federal Register

notice of the availability of the manual.

‘‘(3) SMALL SYSTEM DEFINED.—For purposes

of this title, the term ‘small system’ means

a system for which a municipality or

intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency

seeks assistance under this title and which

serves a population of 20,000 or less.’’.

SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.

(a) ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.—

Section 603(c) (33 U.S.C. 1383(c)) is amended

to read as follows:

‘‘(c) ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The amounts of funds

available to each State water pollution control revolving fund shall be used only for

providing financial assistance to activities

which have as a principal benefit the improvement or protection of water quality to

a municipality, intermunicipal agency,

interstate agency, State agency, or other

person. Such activities may include the following:

‘‘(A) Construction of a publicly owned

treatment works if the recipient of such assistance is a municipality.

‘‘(B) Implementation of lake protection

programs and projects under section 314.

‘‘(C) Implementation of a management program under section 319.

‘‘(D) Implementation of a conservation and

management plan under section 320.

‘‘(E) Implementation of a watershed management plan under section 321.

‘‘(F) Implementation of a stormwater management program under section 322.
H 4726 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

‘‘(G) Acquisition of property rights for the

restoration or protection of publicly or privately owned riparian areas.

‘‘(H) Implementation of measures to improve the efficiency of public water use.

‘‘(I) Development and implementation of

plans by a public recipient to prevent water

pollution.

‘‘(J) Acquisition of lands necessary to meet

any mitigation requirements related to construction of a publicly owned treatment

works.

‘‘(2) FUND AMOUNTS.—The water pollution

control revolving fund of a State shall be established, maintained, and credited with repayments, and the fund balance shall be

available in perpetuity for providing financial assistance described in paragraph (1).

Fees charged by a State to recipients of such

assistance may be deposited in the fund for

the sole purpose of financing the cost of administration of this title.’’.

(b) EXTENDED REPAYMENT PERIOD FOR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.—Section 603(d)(1)

(33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting after

‘‘20 years’’ the following: ‘‘or, in the case of

a disadvantaged community, the lesser of 40

years or the expected life of the project to be

financed with the proceeds of the loan’’; and

(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘not

later than 20 years after project completion’’

and inserting ‘‘upon the expiration of the

term of the loan’’.

(c) LOAN GUARANTEES FOR INNOVATIVE

TECHNOLOGY.—Section 603(d)(5) (33 U.S.C.

1383(d)(5)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(5) to provide loan guarantees for—

‘‘(A) similar revolving funds established by

municipalities or intermunicipal agencies;

and

‘‘(B) developing and implementing innovative technologies.’’.

(d) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Section

603(d)(7) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(7)) is amended by

inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘or $400,000 per year, whichever is

greater, plus the amount of any fees collected by the State for such purpose under

subsection (c)(2)’’.

(e) TECHNICAL AND PLANNING ASSISTANCE

FOR SMALL SYSTEMS.—Section 603(d) (33

U.S.C. 1383(d)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (6);

(2) by striking the period at the end of

paragraph (7) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new

paragraph:

‘‘(8) to provide to small systems technical

and planning assistance and assistance in financial management, user fee analysis,

budgeting, capital improvement planning,

facility operation and maintenance, repair

schedules, and other activities to improve

wastewater treatment plant operations; except that such amounts shall not exceed 2

percent of all grant awards to such fund

under this title.’’.

(f) CONSISTENCY WITH PLANNING REQUIREMENTS.—Section 603(f) (33 U.S.C. 1383(f)) is

amended by striking ‘‘and 320’’ and inserting

‘‘320, 321, and 322’’.

(g) LIMITATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.—Section 603(g) (33 U.S.C. 1383(g)) is

amended to read as follows:

‘‘(g) LIMITATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.—The State may provide financial assistance from its water pollution control revolving fund with respect to a project for

construction of a treatment works only if—

‘‘(1) such project is on the State’s priority

list under section 216 of this Act; and

‘‘(2) the recipient of such assistance is a

municipality in any case in which the treatment works is privately owned.’’.

(h) INTEREST RATES.—Section 603 is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(i) INTEREST RATES.—In any case in which

a State makes a loan pursuant to subsection

(d)(1) to a disadvantaged community, the

State may charge a negative interest rate of

not to exceed 2 percent to reduce the unpaid

principal of the loan. The aggregate amount

of all such negative interest rate loans the

State makes in a fiscal year shall not exceed

20 percent of the aggregate amount of all

loans made by the State from its revolving

loan fund in such fiscal year.

‘‘(j) DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY DEFINED.—

As used in this section, the term ‘disadvantaged community’ means the service area of

a publicly owned treatment works with respect to which the average annual residential sewage treatment charges for a user of

the treatment works meet affordability criteria established by the State in which the

treatment works is located (after providing

for public review and comment) in accordance with guidelines to be established by the

Administrator, in cooperation with the

States.’’.

(i) SALE OF TREATMENT WORKS.—Section

603 is further amended by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(k) SALE OF TREATMENT WORKS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any

other provisions of this Act, any State, municipality, intermunicipality, or interstate

agency may transfer by sale to a qualified

private sector entity all or part of a treatment works that is owned by such agency

and for which it received Federal financial

assistance under this Act if the transfer

price will be distributed, as amounts are received, in the following order:

‘‘(A) First reimbursement of the agency of

the unadjusted dollar amount of the costs of

construction of the treatment works or part

thereof plus any transaction and fix-up costs

incurred by the agency with respect to the

transfer less the amount of such Federal financial assistance provided with respect to

such costs.

‘‘(B) If proceeds from the transfer remain

after such reimbursement, repayment of the

Federal Government of the amount of such

Federal financial assistance less the applicable share of accumulated depreciation on

such treatment works (calculated using Internal Revenue Service accelerated depreciation schedule applicable to treatment

works).

‘‘(C) If any proceeds of such transfer remain after such reimbursement and repayment, retention of the remaining proceeds by

such agency.

‘‘(2) RELEASE OF CONDITION.—Any requirement imposed by regulation or policy for a

showing that the treatment works are no

longer needed to serve their original purpose

shall not apply.

‘‘(3) SELECTION OF BUYER.—A State, municipality, intermunicipality, or interstate

agency exercising the authority granted by

this subsection shall select a qualified private sector entity on the basis of total net

cost and other appropriate criteria and shall

utilize such competitive bidding, direct negotiation, or other criteria and procedures as

may be required by State law.

‘‘(l) PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF TREATMENT

WORKS.—

‘‘(1) REGULATORY REVIEW.—The Administrator shall review the law and any regulations, policies, and procedures of the Environmental Protection Agency affecting the

construction, improvement, replacement, operation, maintenance, and transfer of ownership of current and future treatment works

owned by a State, municipality,

intermunicipality, or interstate agency. If

permitted by law, the Administrator shall

modify such regulations, policies, and procedures to eliminate any obstacles to the construction, improvement, replacement, operation, and maintenance of such treatment

works by qualified private sector entities.

‘‘(2) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after

the date of enactment of this subsection, the

Administrator shall submit to Congress a report identifying any provisions of law that

must be changed in order to eliminate any

obstacles referred to in paragraph (1).

‘‘(3) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘qualified private sector entity’ means any nongovernmental individual,

group, association, business, partnership, organization, or privately or publicly held corporation that—

‘‘(A) has sufficient experience and expertise to discharge successfully the responsibilities associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of a treatment

works and to satisfy any guarantees that are

agreed to in connection with a transfer of

treatment works under subsection (k);

‘‘(B) has the ability to assure protection

against insolvency and interruption of services through contractual and financial guarantees; and

‘‘(C) with respect to subsection (k), to the

extent consistent with the North American

Free Trade Agreement and the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—

‘‘(i) is majority-owned and controlled by

citizens of the United States; and

‘‘(ii) does not receive subsidies from a foreign government.’’.

SEC. 604. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 604(a) (33 U.S.C.

1384(a)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(a) FORMULA FOR FISCAL YEARS 1996–

2000.—Sums authorized to be appropriated

pursuant to section 607 for each of fiscal

years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall be

allotted for such year by the Administrator

not later than the 10th day which begins

after the date of the enactment of the Clean

Water Amendments of 1995. Sums authorized

for each such fiscal year shall be allotted in

accordance with the following table:

Percentage of sums

‘‘States: authorized:

Alabama ................................... 1.0110

Alaska ...................................... 0.5411

Arizona ..................................... 0.7464

Arkansas ................................... 0.5914

California .................................. 7.9031

Colorado ................................... 0.7232

Connecticut .............................. 1.3537

Delaware ................................... 0.4438

District of Columbia ................. 0.4438

Florida ...................................... 3.4462

Georgia ..................................... 1.8683

Hawaii ...................................... 0.7002

Idaho ......................................... 0.4438

Illinois ...................................... 4.9976

Indiana ..................................... 2.6631

Iowa .......................................... 1.2236

Kansas ...................................... 0.8690

Kentucky .................................. 1.3570

Louisiana .................................. 1.0060

Maine ........................................ 0.6999

Maryland .................................. 2.1867

Massachusetts .......................... 3.7518

Michigan ................................... 3.8875

Minnesota ................................. 1.6618

Mississippi ................................ 0.8146

Missouri .................................... 2.5063

Montana ................................... 0.4438

Nebraska ................................... 0.4624

Nevada ...................................... 0.4438

New Hampshire ......................... 0.9035

New Jersey ............................... 4.5156

New Mexico ............................... 0.4438

New York .................................. 12.1969

North Carolina .......................... 1.9943

North Dakota ........................... 0.4438

Ohio .......................................... 5.0898

Oklahoma ................................. 0.7304

Oregon ...................................... 1.2399

Pennsylvania ............................ 4.2145
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4727

Rhode Island ............................. 0.6071

South Carolina ......................... 0.9262

South Dakota ........................... 0.4438

Tennessee ................................. 1.4668

Texas ........................................ 4.6458

Utah .......................................... 0.4764

Vermont ................................... 0.4438

Virginia .................................... 2.2615

Washington ............................... 1.9217

West Virginia ............................ 1.4249

Wisconsin .................................. 2.4442

Wyoming ................................... 0.4438

Puerto Rico .............................. 1.1792

Northern Marianas ................... 0.0377

American Samoa ...................... 0.0812

Guam ........................................ 0.0587

Pacific Islands Trust Territory 0.1158

Virgin Islands ........................... 0.0576.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

604(c)(2) is amended by striking ‘‘title II of

this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘this title’’.

SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 607 (33 U.S.C. 1387(a)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (4);

(2) by striking the period at the end of

paragraph (5) and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(6) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1995;

‘‘(7) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;

‘‘(8) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;

‘‘(9) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;

‘‘(10) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and

‘‘(11) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.’’.

SEC. 606. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING

FUNDS.

Title VI (33 U.S.C. 1381–1387) is amended—

(1) in section 607 by inserting after ‘‘title’’

the following: ‘‘(other than section 608)’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 608. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER

POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING

FUNDS.

‘‘(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—The Administrator shall make capitalization grants to

each State for the purpose of establishing a

nonpoint source water pollution control revolving fund for providing assistance—

‘‘(1) to persons for carrying out management practices and measures under the State

management program approved under section 319; and

‘‘(2) to agricultural producers for the development and implementation of the water

quality components of a whole farm or ranch

resource management plan and for implementation of management practices and

measures under such a plan.

A State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving fund shall be separate from

any other State water pollution control revolving fund; except that the chief executive

officer of the State may transfer funds from

one fund to the other fund.

‘‘(b) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THIS TITLE.—Except to the extent

the Administrator, in consultation with the

chief executive officers of the States, determines that a provision of this title is not

consistent with a provision of this section,

the provisions of sections 601 through 606 of

this title shall apply to grants made under

this section in the same manner and to the

same extent as they apply to grants made

under section 601 of this title. Paragraph (5)

of section 602(b) shall apply to all funds in a

State revolving fund established under this

section as a result of capitalization grants

made under this section; except that such

funds shall first be used to assure reasonable

progress toward attainment of the goals of

section 319, as determined by the Governor of

the State. Paragraph (7) of section 603(d)

shall apply to a State revolving fund established under this section, except that the 4-

percent limitation contained in such section

shall not apply to such revolving fund.

‘‘(c) APPORTIONMENT OF FUNDS.—Funds

made available to carry out this section for

any fiscal year shall be allotted among the

States by the Administrator in the same

manner as funds are allotted among the

States under section 319 in such fiscal year.

‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There is authorized to be appropriated to

carry out this section $500,000,000 per fiscal

year for each of fiscal years 1996 through

2000.’’.

TITLE VII—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 701. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

(a) SECTION 118.—Section 118(c)(1)(A) (33

U.S.C. 1268(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking

the last comma.

(b) SECTION 120.—Section 120(d) (33 U.S.C.

1270(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘(1)’’.

(c) SECTION 204.—Section 204(a)(3) (33 U.S.C.

1284(a)(3)) is amended by striking the final

period and inserting a semicolon.

(d) SECTION 205.—Section 205 (33 U.S.C.

1285) is amended—

(1) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ‘‘and

1985’’ and inserting ‘‘1985, and 1986’’;

(2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking

‘‘through 1985’’ and inserting ‘‘through 1986’’;

(3) in subsection (g)(1) by striking the period following ‘‘4 per centum’’; and

(4) in subsection (m)(1)(B) by striking

‘‘this’’ the last place it appears and inserting

‘‘such’’.

(e) SECTION 208.—Section 208 (33 U.S.C. 1288)

is amended—

(1) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ‘‘designed’’ and inserting ‘‘designated’’; and

(2) in subsection (j)(1) by striking ‘‘September 31, 1988’’ and inserting ‘‘September

30, 1988’’.

(f) SECTION 301.—Section 301(j)(1)(A) (33

U.S.C. 1311(j)(1)(A)) is amended by striking

‘‘that’’ the first place it appears and inserting ‘‘than’’.

(g) SECTION 309.—Section 309(d) (33 U.S.C.

1319(d)) is amended by striking the second

comma following ‘‘Act by a State’’.

(h) SECTION 311.—Section 311 (33 U.S.C.

1321) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b) by moving paragraph

(12) (including subparagraphs (A), (B) and

(C)) 2 ems to the right; and

(2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ‘‘The’’

and inserting ‘‘the’’.

(i) SECTION 505.—Section 505(f) (33 U.S.C.

1365(f)) is amended by striking the last

comma.

(j) SECTION 516.—Section 516 (33 U.S.C. 1375)

is amended by redesignating subsection (g)

as subsection (f).

(k) SECTION 518.—Section 518(f) (33 U.S.C.

1377(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘(d)’’ and inserting ‘‘(e)’’.

SEC. 702. JOHN A. BLATNIK NATIONAL FRESH

WATER QUALITY RESEARCH LABORATORY.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The laboratory and research facility established pursuant to section 104(e) of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1254(e)) that is located

in Duluth, Minnesota, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘John A. Blatnik National

Fresh Water Quality Research Laboratory’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law,

map, regulation, document, paper, or other

record of the United States to the laboratory

and research facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘John A. Blatnik National Fresh

Water Quality Research Laboratory’’.

SEC. 703. WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR COLONIAS.

(a) GRANT ASSISTANCE.—The Administrator

may make grants to States along the United

States-Mexico border to provide assistance

for planning, design, and construction of

treatment works to provide wastewater service to the communities along such border

commonly known as ‘‘colonias’’.

(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of

the cost of a project carried out using funds

made available under subsection (a) shall be

50 percent. The non-Federal share of such

cost shall be provided by the State receiving

the grant.

(c) TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘treatment

works’’ has the meaning such term has under

section 212 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There is authorized to be appropriated for

making grants under subsection (a)

$50,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such sums

shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 704. SAVINGS IN MUNICIPAL DRINKING

WATER COSTS.

(a) STUDY.—The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall review, analyze,

and compile information on the annual savings that municipalities realize in the construction, operation, and maintenance of

drinking water facilities as a result of actions taken under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

(b) CONTENTS.—The study conducted under

subsection (a), at a minimum, shall contain

an examination of the following elements:

(1) Savings to municipalities in the construction of drinking water filtration facilities resulting from actions taken under the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

(2) Savings to municipalities in the operation and maintenance of drinking water facilities resulting from actions taken under

such Act.

(3) Savings to municipalities in health expenditures resulting from actions taken

under such Act.

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after

the date of the enactment of this Act, the

Administrator shall transmit to Congress a

report containing the results of the study

conducted under subsection (a).

TITLE VIII—WETLANDS CONSERVATION

AND MANAGEMENT

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Wetlands

and Watershed Management Act of 1995’’.

SEC. 802. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds and declares

the following:

(1) Wetlands perform a number of valuable

functions needed to restore and maintain the

chemical, physical, and biological integrity

of the Nation’s waters, including—

(A) reducing pollutants (including nutrients, sediment, and toxics) from nonpoint

and point sources;

(B) storing, conveying, and purifying flood

and storm waters;

(C) reducing both bank erosion and wave

and storm damage to adjacent lands and

trapping sediment from upland sources;

(D) providing habitat and food sources for

a broad range of commercial and recreational fish, shellfish, and migratory wildlife species (including waterfowl and endangered species); and

(E) providing a broad range of recreational

values for canoeing, boating, birding, and nature study and observation.

(2) Original wetlands in the contiguous

United States have been reduced by an estimated 50 percent and continue to disappear

at a rate of 200,000 to 300,000 acres a year.

Many of these original wetlands have also

been altered or partially degraded, reducing

their ecological value.

(3) Wetlands are highly sensitive to

changes in water regimes and are, therefore,

susceptible to degradation by fills, drainage,
H 4728 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

grading, water extractions, and other activities within their watersheds which affect the

quantity, quality, and flow of surface and

ground waters. Protection and management

of wetlands, therefore, should be integrated

with management of water systems on a watershed basis. A watershed protection and

management perspective is also needed to

understand and reverse the gradual, continued destruction of wetlands that occurs due

to cumulative impacts.

(4) Wetlands constitute an estimated 5 percent of the Nation’s surface area. Because

much of this land is in private ownership

wetlands protection and management strategies must take into consideration private

property rights and the need for economic

development and growth. This can be best

accomplished in the context of a cooperative

and coordinated Federal, State, and local

strategy for data gathering, planning, management, and restoration with an emphasis

on advance planning of wetlands in watershed contexts.

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act

are—

(1) to help create a coordinated national

wetland management effort with efficient

use of scarce Federal, State, and local financial and manpower resources to protect wetland functions and values and reduce natural

hazard losses;

(2) to help reverse the trend of wetland loss

in a fair, efficient, and cost-effective manner;

(3) to reduce inconsistencies and duplication in Federal, State, and local wetland

management efforts and encourage integrated permitting at the Federal, State, and

local levels;

(4) to increase technical assistance, cooperative training, and educational opportunities

for States, local governments, and private

landowners;

(5) to help integrate wetland protection

and management with other water resource

management programs on a watershed basis

such as flood control, storm water management, allocation of water supply, protection

of fish and wildlife, and point and nonpoint

source pollution control;

(6) to increase regionalization of wetland

delineation and management policies within

a framework of national policies through advance planning of wetland areas, programmatic general permits and other approaches and the tailoring of policies to ecosystem and land use needs to reflect significant watershed variance in wetland resources;

(7) to address the cumulative loss of wetland resources;

(8) to increase the certainty and predictability of planning and regulatory policies

for private landowners;

(9) to help achieve no overall net loss and

net gain of the remaining wetland base of

the United States through watershed-based

restoration strategies involving all levels of

government;

(10) to restore and create wetlands in order

to increase the quality and quantity of the

wetland resources and by so doing to restore

and maintain the quality and quantity of the

waters of the United States; and

(11) to provide mechanisms for joint State,

Federal, and local development and testing

of approaches to better protect wetland resources such as mitigation banking.

SEC. 803. STATE, LOCAL, AND LANDOWNER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATIVE TRAINING.

(a) STATE AND LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—Upon request, the Administrator or

the Secretary of the Army, as appropriate,

shall provide technical assistance to State

and local governments in the development

and implementation of State and local government permitting programs under sections

404(e) and 404(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, State wetland conservation

plans under section 805, and regional or local

wetland management plans under section

805.

(b) COOPERATIVE TRAINING.—The Administrator and the Secretary, in cooperation

with the Coordinating Committee established pursuant to section 804, shall conduct

training courses for States and local governments involving wetland delineation, utilization of wetlands in nonpoint pollution control, wetland and stream restoration, wetland planning, wetland evaluation, mitigation banking, and other subjects deemed appropriate by the Administrator or Secretary.

(c) PRIVATE LANDOWNER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Administrator and Secretary

shall, in cooperation with the Coordination

Committee, and appropriate Federal agencies develop and provide to private landowners guidebooks, pamphlets, or other materials and technical assistance to help them

in identifying and evaluating wetlands, developing integrated wetland management

plans for their lands consistent with the

goals of this Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and restoring wetlands.

SEC. 804. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 90 days

after the date of the enactment of this Act,

the Administrator shall establish a Federal,

State, and Local Government Wetlands Coordinating Committee (hereinafter in this

section referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’).

(b) FUNCTIONS.—The Committee shall—

(1) help coordinate Federal, State, and

local wetland planning, regulatory, and restoration programs on an ongoing basis to reduce duplication, resolve potential conflicts,

and efficiently allocate manpower and resources at all levels of government;

(2) provide comments to the Secretary of

the Army or Administrator in adopting regulatory, policy, program, or technical guidance affecting wetland systems;

(3) help develop and field test, national

policies prior to implementation such as

wetland, delineation, classification of wetlands, methods for sequencing wetland mitigation responses, the utilization of mitigation banks;

(4) help develop and carry out joint technical assistance and cooperative training

programs as provided in section 803;

(5) help develop criteria and implementation strategies for facilitating State conservation plans and strategies, local and regional wetland planning, wetland restoration

and creation, and State and local permitting

programs pursuant to section 404(e) or 404(g)

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;

and

(6) help develop a national strategy for the

restoration of wetland ecosystems pursuant

to section 6 of this Act.

(c) MEMBERSHIP.—The Committee shall be

composed of 18 members as follows:

(1) The Administrator or the designee of

the Administrator.

(2) The Secretary or the designee of the

Secretary.

(3) The Director of the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service or the designee of the

Director.

(4) The Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or the designee of the

Chief.

(5) The Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere or the designee of the Under Secretary.

(6) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will represent the National

Governor’s Association.

(7) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will represent the National Association of Counties.

(8) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will represent the National

League of Cities.

(9) One State wetland expert from each of

the 10 regions of the Environmental Protection Agency. Each member to be appointed

under this paragraph shall be jointly appointed by the Governors of the States within the Environmental Protection Agency’s

region. If the Governors from a region cannot agree on such a representative, they will

each submit a nomination to the Administrator and the Administrator will select a

representative from such region.

(d) TERMS.—Each member appointed pursuant to paragraph (6), (7), (8), or (9) of subsection (c) shall be appointed for a term of 2

years.

(e) VACANCIES.—A vacancy in the Committee shall be filled, on or before the 30th day

after the vacancy occurs, in the manner in

which the original appointment was made.

(f) PAY.—Members shall serve without pay,

but may receive travel expenses (including

per diem in lieu of subsistence) in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5,

United States Code.

(g) COCHAIRPERSONS.—The Administrator

and one member appointed pursuant to paragraph (6), (7), (8), or (9) of subsection (c) (selected by such members) shall serve as cochairpersons of the Committee.

(h) QUORUM.—Two-thirds of the members of

the Committee shall constitute a quorum

but a lesser number may hold meetings.

(i) MEETINGS.—The Committee shall hold

its first meeting not later than 120 days after

the date of the enactment of this Act. The

Committee shall meet at least twice each

year thereafter. Meetings will be opened to

the public.

SEC. 805. STATE AND LOCAL WETLAND CONSERVATION PLANS AND STRATEGIES; GRANTS TO FACILITATE THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 404.

(a) STATE WETLAND CONSERVATION PLANS

AND STRATEGIES.—Subject to the requirements of this section, the Administrator

shall make grants to States and tribes to assist in the development and implementation

of wetland conservation plans and strategies.

More specific goals for such conservation

plans and strategies may include:

(1) Inventorying State wetland resources,

identifying individual and cumulative losses,

identifying State and local programs applying to wetland resources, determining gaps

in such programs, and making recommendations for filling those gaps.

(2) Developing and coordinating existing

State, local, and regional programs for wetland management and protection on a watershed basis.

(3) Increasing the consistency of Federal,

State, and local wetland definitions, delineation, and permitting approaches.

(4) Mapping and characterizing wetland resources on a watershed basis.

(5) Identifying sites with wetland restoration or creation potential.

(6) Establishing management strategies for

reducing causes of wetland degradation and

restoring wetlands on a watershed basis.

(7) Assisting regional and local governments prepare watershed plans for areas

with a high percentage of lands classified as

wetlands or otherwise in need of special

management.

(8) Establishing and implementing State or

local permitting programs under section

404(e) or 404(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

(b) REGIONAL AND LOCAL WETLAND PLANNING, REGULATION, AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—Subject to the requirements of this
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4729

section, the Administrator shall make

grants to States which will, in turn, use this

funding to make grants to regional and local

governments to assist them in adopting and

implementing wetland and watershed management programs consistent with goals

stated in section 101 of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act and section 802 of this

Act. Such plans shall be integrated with

(where appropriate) or coordinated with

planning efforts pursuant to section 319 of

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Such programs shall, at a minimum, involve

the inventory of wetland resources and the

adoption of plans and policies to help

achieve the goal of no net loss of wetland resources on a watershed basis. Other goals

may include, but are not limited to:

(1) Integration of wetland planning and

management with broader water resource

and land use planning and management, including flood control, water supply, storm

water management, and control of point and

nonpoint source pollution.

(2) Adoption of measures to increase consistency in Federal, State, and local wetland

definitions, delineation, and permitting approaches.

(3) Establishment of management strategies for restoring wetlands on a watershed

basis.

(c) GRANTS TO FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 404.—Subject to the requirements of this section, the Administrator may make grants to States which assist the Federal Government in the implementation of the section 404 Federal Water

Pollution Control program through State assumption of permitting pursuant to sections

404(g) and 404(h) of such Act through State

permitting through a State programmatic

general permit pursuant to section 404(e) of

such Act or through monitoring and enforcement activities. In order to be eligible to receive a grant under this section a State shall

provide assurances satisfactory to the Administrator that amounts received by the

State in grants under this section will be

used to issue regulatory permits or to enforce regulations consistent with the overall

goals of section 802 and the standards and

procedures of section 404(g) or 404(e) of this

Act.

(d) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—No State may receive more than $500,000 in total grants

under subsections (a), (b), and (c) in any fiscal year and more than $300,000 in grants for

subsection (a), (b), or (c), individually.

(e) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of

the cost of activities carried out using

amounts made available in grants under this

section shall not exceed 75 percent.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There is authorized to be appropriated to

carry out this section $15,000,000 per fiscal

year for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998,

1999, and 2000.

SEC. 806. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE WETLAND

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STRATEGY.

(a) DEVELOPMENT.—Not later than 180 days

after the date of the enactment of this Act,

the Administrator, in cooperation with other

Federal agencies, State, and local governments, and representatives of the private

sector, shall initiate the development of a

National Cooperative Wetland Ecosystem

Restoration Strategy.

(b) GOALS.—The goal of the National Cooperative Wetland Ecosystem Restoration

Strategy shall be to restore damaged and degraded wetland and riparian ecosystems consistent with the goals of the Water Pollution

Control Amendments and the goals of section 802, and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences with regard to

the restoration of aquatic ecosystems.

(c) FUNCTIONS.—The National Cooperative

Wetland Ecosystem Restoration Strategy

shall—

(1) be designed to help coordinate and promote restoration efforts by Federal, State,

regional, and local governments and the private sector, including efforts authorized by

the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection,

and Restoration Act, the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan, the Wetlands

Reserve Program, and the wetland restoration efforts on Federal, State, local, and private lands;

(2) involve the Federal, State, and local

Wetlands Coordination Committee established pursuant to section 804;

(3) inventory and evaluate existing restoration efforts and make suggestions for the establishment of new watershed specific efforts

consistent with existing Federal programs

and State, regional, and local wetland protection and management efforts;

(4) evaluate the role presently being played

by wetland restoration in both regulatory

and nonregulatory contexts and the relative

success of wetland restoration in these contexts;

(5) develop criteria for identifying wetland

restoration sites on a watershed basis, procedures for wetlands restoration, and ecological criteria for wetlands restoration; and

(6) identify regulatory obstacles to wetlands ecosystem restoration and recommend

methods to reduce such obstacles.

SEC. 807. PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED

OR FILL MATERIAL.

(a) PERMIT MONITORING AND TRACKING.—

Section 404(a) (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by

adding at the end thereof the following: ‘‘The

Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Administrator, establish a permit monitoring

and tracking programs on a watershed basis

to monitor the cumulative impact of individual and general permits issued under this

section. This program shall determine the

impact of permitted activities in relationship to the no net loss goal. Results shall be

reported biannually to Congress.’’.

(b) ISSUANCE OF GENERAL PERMITS.—Paragraph (1) of section 404(e) is amended by inserting ‘‘local,’’ before ‘‘State, regional, or

nationwide basis’’ in the first sentence.

(c) REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF GENERAL PERMITS.—Paragraph (2) of section

404(e) is amended by striking the period at

the end and inserting ‘‘or a State or local

government has failed to adequately monitor

and control the individual and cumulative

adverse effects of activities authorized by

State or local programmatic general permits.’’.

(d) PROGRAMMATIC GENERAL PERMITS.—

Section 404(e) is amended by adding at the

end thereof the following new paragraph:

‘‘(3) PROGRAMMATIC GENERAL PERMITS.—

Consistent with the following requirements,

the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for public comment, issue State or

local programmatic general permits for the

purpose of avoiding unnecessary duplication

of regulations by State, regional, and local

regulatory programs:

‘‘(A) The Secretary may issue a programmatic general permit based on a State,

regional, or local government regulatory

program if that general permit includes adequate safeguards to ensure that the State,

regional, or local program will have no more

than minimal cumulative impacts on the environment and will provide at least the same

degree of protection for the environment, including all waters of the United States, and

for Federal interests, as is provided by this

section and by the Federal permitting program pursuant to section 404(a). Such safeguards shall include provisions whereby the

Corps District Engineer and the Regional

Administrators or Directors of the Environmental Protection Agency, the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (where appropriate), shall have an opportunity to review permit applications submitted to the

State, regional, or local regulatory agency

which would have more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the

environment, attempt to resolve any environmental concern or protect any Federal

interest at issue, and, if such concern is not

adequately addressed by the State, local, or

regional agency, require the processing of an

individual Federal permit under this section

for the specific proposed activity. The Secretary shall ensure that the District Engineer will utilize this authority to protect all

Federal interests including, but not limited

to, national security, navigation, flood control, Federal endangered or threatened species, Federal interests under the Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act, special aquatic sites of

national importance, and other interests of

overriding national importance. Any programmatic general permit issued under this

subsection shall be consistent with the

guidelines promulgated to implement subsection (b)(1).

‘‘(B) In addition to the requirements of

subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall not

promulgate any local or regional programmatic general permit based on a local

or regional government’s regulatory program unless the responsible unit of government has also adopted a wetland and watershed management plan and is administering

regulations to implement this plan. The watershed management plan shall include—

‘‘(i) the designation of a local or regional

regulatory agency which shall be responsible

for issuing permits under the plan and for

making reports every 2 years on implementation of the plan and on the losses and gains

in functions and acres of wetland within the

watershed plan area;

‘‘(ii) mapping of—

‘‘(I) the boundary of the plan area;

‘‘(II) all wetlands and waters within the

plan area as well as other areas proposed for

protection under the plan; and

‘‘(III) proposed wetland restoration or creation sites with a description of their intended functions upon completion and the

time required for completion;

‘‘(iii) a description of the regulatory policies and standards applicable to all wetlands

and waters within the plan areas and all activities which may affect these wetlands and

waters that will assure, at a minimum, no

net loss of the functions and acres of wetlands within the plan area; and

‘‘(iv) demonstration that the regulatory

agency has the legal authority and scientific

monitoring capability to carry out the proposed plan including the issuance, monitoring, and enforcement of permits in compliance with the plan.’’.

(e) GRANDFATHER OF EXISTING GENERAL

PERMITS.—Section 404(e) is further amended

by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(4) GRANDFATHER OF EXISTING GENERAL

PERMITS.—General permits in effect on day

before the date of the enactment of the Wetlands and Watershed Management Act of 1995

shall remain in effect until otherwise modified by the Secretary.’’.

(f) DISCHARGES NOT REQUIRING A PERMIT.—

Section 404(f) (33 U.S.C. 1344(f)) is amended

by striking the subsection designation and

paragraph (1) and inserting the following:

‘‘(f) EXEMPTIONS.—

‘‘(1) ACTIVITIES NOT REQUIRING PERMIT.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Activities are exempt

from the requirements of this section and

are not prohibited by or otherwise subject to

regulation under this section or section 301

or 402 of this Act (except effluent standards
H 4730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

or prohibitions under section 307 of this Act)

if such activities—

‘‘(i) result from normal farming,

silviculture, aquaculture, and ranching activities and practices, including but not limited to plowing, seeding, cultivating, haying,

grazing, normal maintenance activities,

minor drainage, burning of vegetation in

connection with such activities, harvesting

for the production of food, fiber, and forest

products, or upland soil and water conservation practices;

‘‘(ii) are for the purpose of maintenance,

including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, levees,

flood control channels or other engineered

flood control facilities, water control structures, water supply reservoirs (where such

maintenance involves periodic water level

drawdowns) which provide water predominantly to public drinking water systems,

groins, riprap, breakwaters, utility distribution and transmission lines, causeways, and

bridge abutments or approaches, and transportation structures;

‘‘(iii) are for the purpose of construction or

maintenance of farm, stock or aquaculture

ponds, wastewater retention facilities (including dikes and berms) that are used by

concentrated animal feeding operations, or

irrigation canals and ditches or the maintenance or reconstruction of drainage ditches

and tile lines;

‘‘(iv) are for the purpose of construction of

temporary sedimentation basins on a construction site, or the construction of any upland dredged material disposal area, which

does not include placement of fill material

into the navigable waters;

‘‘(v) are for the purpose of construction or

maintenance of farm roads or forest roads, in

accordance with best management practices,

to assure that flow and circulation patterns

and chemical and biological characteristics

of the waters are not impaired, that the

reach of the waters is not reduced, and that

any adverse effect on the aquatic environment will be otherwise minimized;

‘‘(vi) are undertaken on farmed wetlands,

except that any change in use of such land

for the purpose of undertaking activities

that are not exempt from regulation under

this subsection shall be subject to the requirements of this section to the extent that

such farmed wetlands are ‘wetlands’ under

this section;

‘‘(vii) are undertaken in incidentally created wetlands, unless such incidentally created wetlands have exhibited wetlands functions and values for more than 5 years in

which case activities undertaken in such

wetlands shall be subject to the requirements of this section; and

‘‘(viii) are for the purpose of preserving and

enhancing aviation safety or are undertaken

in order to prevent an airport hazard.’’.

(g) AREAS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE NAVIGABLE WATERS.—Section 404(f) is further

amended by adding the following:

‘‘(3) AREAS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE NAVIGABLE WATERS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the following shall not be considered

navigable waters:

‘‘(i) Irrigation ditches excavated in uplands.

‘‘(ii) Artificially irrigated areas which

would revert to uplands if the irrigation

ceased.

‘‘(iii) Artificial lakes or ponds created by

excavating or diking uplands to collect and

retain water, and which are used exclusively

for stock watering, irrigation, or rice growing.

‘‘(iv) Artificial reflecting or swimming

pools or other small ornamental bodies of

water created by excavating or diking uplands to retain water for primarily aesthetic

reasons.

‘‘(v) Temporary, water filled depressions

created in uplands incidental to construction

activity.

‘‘(vi) Pits excavated in uplands for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, gravel, aggregates, or minerals, unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets

the definition of waters of the United States.

‘‘(vii) Artificial stormwater detention

areas and artificial sewage treatment areas

which are not modified natural waters.

‘‘(B) DEMONSTRATION REQUIRED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a particular

water body unless the person desiring to discharge dredged or fill material in that water

body is able to demonstrate that the water

body qualifies under subparagraph (A) for exemption from regulation under this section.’’.

SEC. 808. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE

LANDOWNERS, CODIFICATION OF

REGULATIONS AND POLICIES.

Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(u)(1) The Secretary and the Administrator shall in cooperation with the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and National

Marine Fisheries Service provide technical

assistance to private landowners in delineation of wetlands and the planning and management of their wetlands. This assistance

shall include—

‘‘(A) the delineation of wetland boundaries

within 90 days (providing on the ground conditions allow) of a request for such delineation for a project with a proposed individual

permit application under this section and a

total assessed value of less than $15,000; and

‘‘(B) the provision of technical assistance

to owners of wetlands in the preparation of

wetland management plans for their lands to

protect and restore wetlands and meet other

goals of this Act, including control of

nonpoint and point sources of pollution, prevention and reduction of erosion, and protection of estuaries and lakes.

‘‘(2) The Secretary shall prepare, update on

a biannual basis, and make available to the

public for purchase at cost, an indexed publication containing all Federal regulations,

general permits, and regulatory guidance

letters relevant to the permitting of activities in wetland areas pursuant to section

404(a). The Secretary and the Administrator

shall also prepare and distribute brochures

and pamphlets for the public addressing—

‘‘(A) the delineation of wetlands,

‘‘(B) wetland permitting requirements; and

‘‘(C) wetland restoration and other matters

considered relevant.’’.

SEC. 809. DELINEATION.

Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(v) DELINEATION.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The United States Army

Corps of Engineers, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and other

Federal agencies shall use the 1987 Corps of

Engineers Manual for the Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands pursuant to this section until a new manual has been prepared

and formally adopted by the Corps and the

Environmental Protection Agency with

input from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and other relevant agencies and adopted after field testing, hearing, and public comment. Any new

manual shall take into account the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences

panel concerning the delineation of wetlands. The Corps, in cooperation with the

Environmental Protection Agency and the

Department of Agriculture, shall develop

materials and conduct training courses for

consultants, State, and local governments,

and landowners explaining the use of the

Corps 1987 wetland manual in the delineation

of wetland areas. The Corps, in cooperation

with the Environmental Protection Agency

and the Department of Agriculture, may

also, in cooperation with the States, develop

supplemental criteria and procedures for

identification of regional wetland types.

Such criteria and procedures may include

supplemental plant and soil lists and supplementary technical criteria pertaining to

wetland hydrology, soils, and vegetation.

‘‘(2) AGRICULTURAL LANDS.—

‘‘(A) DELINEATION BY SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.—For purposes of this section, wetlands located on agricultural lands and associated nonagricultural lands shall be delineated solely by the Secretary of Agriculture

in accordance with section 1222(j) of the Food

Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3822(j)).

‘‘(B) EXEMPTION OF LANDS EXEMPTED UNDER

FOOD SECURITY ACT.—Any area of agricultural land or any discharge related to the

land determined to be exempt from the requirements of subtitle C of title XII of the

Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et

seq.) shall also be exempt from the requirements of this section for such period of time

as those lands are used as agricultural lands.

‘‘(C) EFFECT OF APPEAL DETERMINATION

PURSUANT TO FOOD SECURITY ACT.—Any area

of agricultural land or any discharge related

to the land determined to be exempt pursuant to an appeal taken pursuant to subtitle

C of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985

(16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) shall be exempt under

this section for such period of time as those

lands are used as agricultural lands.’’.

SEC. 810. FAST TRACK FOR MINOR PERMITS.

Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(w)(1) Not later than 6 months after the

date of enactment of this subsection, the

Secretary shall issue regulations to explore

the review and practice of individual permits

for minor activities. Minor activities include

activities of 1 acre or less in size which also

have minor direct, secondary, or cumulative

impacts.

‘‘(2) Permit applications for minor permits

shall ordinarily be processed within 60 days

of the receipt of completed application.

‘‘(3) The Secretary shall establish fasttrack field teams or other procedures in the

individual offices sufficient to expedite the

processing of the individual permits involving minor activities.’’.

SEC. 811. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION.

Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(x) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.—(1) Each

permit issued under this section that results

in loss of wetland functions or acreage shall

require compensatory mitigation. The preferred sequence of mitigation options is as

set forth in subparagraph (A) and (C). However, the Secretary shall have sufficient

flexibility to approve practical options that

provide the most protection to the resource—

‘‘(A) measures shall first be undertaken by

the permittee to avoid any adverse effects on

wetlands caused by activities authorized by

the permit.

‘‘(B) measures shall be undertaken by the

permittee to minimize any such adverse effects that cannot be avoided;

‘‘(C) measures shall then be undertaken by

the permittee to compensate for adverse impacts on wetland functions, values, and acreage;

‘‘(D) where compensatory mitigation is

used, preference shall be given to in-kind

restoration on the same water body and

within the same local watershed;
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4731

‘‘(E) where on-site and in-kind compensatory mitigation are impossible, impractical, would fail to work in the circumstances, or would not make ecological

sense, off-site and/or out-of-kind compensatory mitigation may be permitted within

the watershed including participation in cooperative mitigation ventures or mitigation

banks as provided in section 404(y).

‘‘(2) The Secretary in consultation with

the Administrator shall ensure that compensable mitigation by a permitee—

‘‘(A) is a specific, enforceable condition of

the permit for which it is required;

‘‘(B) will meet defined success criteria; and

‘‘(C) is monitored to ensure compliance

with the conditions of the permit and to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation

in compensating for the adverse effects for

which it is required.’’.

SEC. 812. COOPERATIVE MITIGATION VENTURES

AND MITIGATION BANKS.

Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(y)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date

of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

and the Administrator shall jointly issue

rules for a system of cooperative mitigation

ventures and wetland banks. Such rules

shall, at the minimum, address the following

topics:

‘‘(A) Mitigation banks and cooperative

ventures may be used on a watershed basis

to compensate for unavoidable wetland

losses which cannot be compensated on-site

due to inadequate hydrologic conditions, excessive sedimentation, water pollution, or

other problems. Mitigation banks and cooperative ventures may also be used to improve

the potential success of compensatory mitigation through the use of larger projects, by

locating projects in areas in more favorable

short-term and long-term hydrology and

proximity to other wetlands and waters, and

by helping to ensure short-term and longterm project protection, monitoring, and

maintenance.

‘‘(B) Parties who may establish mitigation

banks and cooperative mitigation ventures

for use in specific context and for particular

types of wetlands may include government

agencies, nonprofits, and private individuals.

‘‘(C) Surveys and inventories on a watershed basis of potential mitigation sites

throughout a region or State shall ordinarily

be required prior to the establishment of

mitigation banks and cooperative ventures

pursuant to this section.

‘‘(D) Mitigation banks and cooperative

mitigation ventures shall be used in a manner consistent with the sequencing requirements to mitigate unavoidable wetland impacts. Impacts should be mitigated within

the watershed and water body if possible

with on-site mitigation preferable as set

forth in section 404(x).

‘‘(E) The long-term security of ownership

interests of wetlands and uplands on which

projects are conducted shall be insured to

protect the wetlands values associated with

those wetlands and uplands;

‘‘(F) Methods shall be specified to determine debits by evaluating wetland functions,

values, and acreages at the sites of proposed

permits for discharges or alternations pursuant to subsections (a), (c), and (g) and methods to be used to determine credits based

upon functions, values, and acreages at the

times of mitigation banks and cooperative

mitigation ventures.

‘‘(G) Geographic restrictions on the use of

banks and cooperative mitigation ventures

shall be specified. In general, mitigation

banks or cooperative ventures shall be located on the same water body as impacted

wetlands. If this is not possible or practical,

banks or ventures shall be located as near as

possible to impacted projects with preference

given to the same watershed where the impact is occurring.

‘‘(H) Compensation ratios for restoration,

creation, enhancement, and preservation reflecting and overall goal of no net loss of

function and the status of scientific knowledge with regard to compensation for individual wetlands, risks, costs, and other relevant factors shall be specified. A minimum

restoration compensation ratio of 1:1 shall be

required for restoration of lost acreage with

larger compensation ratios for wetland creation, enhancement and preservation.

‘‘(I) Fees to be charged for participation in

a bank or cooperative mitigation venture

shall be based upon the costs of replacing

lost functions and acreage on-site and offsite; the risks of project failure, the costs of

long-term maintenance, monitoring, and

protection, and other relevant factors.

‘‘(J) Responsibilities for long-term monitoring, maintenance, and protection shall be

specified.

‘‘(K) Public review of proposals for mitigation banks and cooperative mitigation ventures through one or more public hearings

shall be provided.

‘‘(2) The Secretary, in consultation with

the Administrator, is authorized to establish

and implement a demonstration program for

creating and implementing mitigation banks

and cooperative ventures and for evaluating

alternative approaches for mitigation banks

and cooperative mitigation ventures as a

means of contributing to the goals established by section 101(a)(8) or section 10 of the

Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 and 403).

The Secretary shall also monitor and evaluate existing banks and cooperative ventures

and establish a number of such banks and cooperative ventures to test and demonstrate:

‘‘(A) The technical feasibility of compensation for lost on-site values through off-site

cooperative mitigation ventures and mitigation banks.

‘‘(B) Techniques for evaluating lost wetland functions and values at sites for which

permits are sought pursuant to section 404(a)

and techniques for determining appropriate

credits and debits at the sites of cooperative

mitigation ventures and mitigation banks.

‘‘(C) The adequacy of alternative institutional arrangements for establishing and administering mitigation banks and cooperative mitigation ventures.

‘‘(D) The appropriate geographical locations of bank or cooperative mitigation ventures in compensation for lost functions and

values.

‘‘(E) Mechanisms for ensuring short-term

and long-term project monitoring and maintenance.

‘‘(F) Techniques and incentives for involving private individuals in establishing and

implementing mitigation banks and cooperative mitigation ventures.

Not later than 3 years after the date of the

enactment of this subsection, the Secretary

shall transmit to Congress a report evaluating mitigation banks and cooperative ventures. The Secretary shall also, within this

time period, prepare educational materials

and conduct training programs with regard

to the use of mitigation banks and cooperative ventures.’’.

SEC. 813. WETLANDS MONITORING AND RESEARCH.

Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(z) The Secretary, in cooperation with the

Administrator, the Secretary of Agriculture,

the Director of the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service, and appropriate State and

local government entities, shall initiate,

with opportunity for public notice and comment, a research program of wetlands and

watershed management. The purposes of the

research program shall include, but not be

limited—

‘‘(1) to study the functions, values and

management needs of altered, artificial, and

managed wetland systems including lands

that were converted to production of commodity crops prior to December 23, 1985, and

report to Congress within 2 years of the date

of the enactment of this subsection;

‘‘(2) to study techniques for managing and

restoring wetlands within a watershed context;

‘‘(3) to study techniques for better coordinating and integrating wetland, floodplain,

stormwater, point and nonpoint source pollution controls, and water supply planning

and plan implementation on a watershed

basis at all levels of government; and

‘‘(4) to establish a national wetland regulatory tracking program on a watershed

basis.

This program shall track the individual and

cumulative impact of permits issued pursuant to section 404(a), 404(e), and 404(h) in

terms of types of permits issued, conditions,

and approvals. The tracking program shall

also include mitigation required in terms of

the amount required, types required, and

compliance.’’.

SEC. 814. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.

Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(aa) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.—

‘‘(1) REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES.—Not later than 1 year after the date

of the enactment of the Wetlands and Watershed Management Act of 1995, the Secretary

shall, after providing notice and opportunity

for public comment, issue regulations establishing procedures pursuant to which—

‘‘(A) a landowner may appeal a determination of regulatory jurisdiction under this

section with respect to a parcel of the landowner’s property;

‘‘(B) a landowner may appeal a wetlands

classification under this section with respect

to a parcel of the landowner’s property;

‘‘(C) any person may appeal a determination that the proposed activity on the landowner’s property is not exempt under subsection (f);

‘‘(D) a landowner may appeal a determination that an activity on the landowner’s

property does not qualify under a general

permit issued under this section;

‘‘(E) an applicant for a permit under this

section may appeal a determination made

pursuant to this section to deny issuance of

the permit or to impose a requirement under

the permit; and

‘‘(F) a landowner or any other person required to restore or otherwise alter a parcel

of property pursuant to an order issued

under this section may appeal such order.

‘‘(2) DEADLINE FOR FILING APPEAL.—An appeal brought pursuant to this subsection

shall be filed not later than 30 days after the

date on which the decision or action on

which the appeal is based occurs.

‘‘(3) DEADLINE FOR DECISION.—An appeal

brought pursuant to this subsection shall be

decided not later than 90 days after the date

on which the appeal is filed.

‘‘(4) PARTICIPATION IN APPEALS PROCESS.—

Any person who participated in the public

comment process concerning a decision or

action that is the subject of an appeal

brought pursuant to this subsection may

participate in such appeal with respect to

those issues raised in the person’s written

public comments.

‘‘(5) DECISIONMAKER.—An appeal brought

pursuant to this subsection shall be heard

and decided by an appropriate and impartial

official of the Federal Government, other
H 4732 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

than the official who made the determination or carried out the action that is the subject of the appeal.

‘‘(6) STAY OF PENALTIES AND MITIGATION.—A

landowner or any other person who has filed

an appeal under this subsection shall not be

required to pay a penalty or perform mitigation or restoration assessed under this section or section 309 until after the appeal has

been decided.’’.

SEC. 815. CRANBERRY PRODUCTION.

Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(bb) CRANBERRY PRODUCTION.—Activities

associated with expansion, improvement, or

modification of existing cranberry production operations shall be deemed in compliance, for purposes of sections 309 and 505,

with section 301, if—

‘‘(1) the activity does not result in the

modification of more than 10 acres of wetlands per operator per year and the modified

wetlands (other than where dikes and other

necessary facilities are placed) remain as

wetlands or other waters of the United

States; or

‘‘(2) the activity is required by any State

or Federal water quality program.’’.

SEC. 816. STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS.

Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(cc) STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS.—

‘‘(1) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 1 year

after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation with

the Administrator, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Director of the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall establish guidelines to aid States and Indian

tribes in establishing classification systems

for the planning, managing, and regulating

of wetlands.

‘‘(2) ESTABLISHMENT.—In accordance with

the guidelines established under paragraph

(1), a State or Indian tribe may establish a

wetlands classification system for lands of

the State or Indian tribe and may submit

such classification system to the Secretary

for approval. Upon approval, the Secretary

shall use such classification system in making permit determinations and establishing

mitigation requirements for lands of the

State or Indian tribe under this section.

‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be

construed to affect a State with an approved

program under subsection (h) or a State with

a wetlands classification system in effect on

the date of the enactment of this subsection.’’.

SEC. 817. DEFINITIONS.

Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(26) The term ‘wetland’ means those areas

that are inundated or saturated by surface

water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under

normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life

in saturated soil conditions.

‘‘(27) The term ‘discharge of dredged or fill

material’ means the act of discharging and

any related act of filling, grading, draining,

dredging, excavation, channelization, flooding, clearing of vegetation, driving of piling

or placement of other obstructions, diversion

of water, or other activities in navigable waters which impair the flow, reach, or circulation of surface water, or which result in a

more than minimal change in the hydrologic

regime, bottom contour, or configuration of

such waters, or in the type, distribution, or

diversity of vegetation in such waters.

‘‘(28) The term ‘mitigation bank’ shall

mean wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement projects undertaken primarily

for the purpose of providing mitigation compensation credits for wetland losses from future activities. Often these activities will be,

as yet, undefined.

‘‘(29) The term ‘cooperative mitigation

ventures’ shall mean wetland restoration,

creation, or enhancement projects undertaken jointly by several parties (such as private, public, and nonprofit parties) with the

primary goal of providing compensation for

wetland losses from existing or specific proposed activities. Some compensation credits

may also be provided for future as yet undefined activities. Most cooperative mitigation

ventures will involve at least one private and

one public cooperating party.

‘‘(30) The term ‘normal farming,

silviculture, aquaculture and ranching activities’ means normal practices identified

as such by the Secretary of Agriculture, in

consultation with the Cooperative Extension

Service for each State and the land grant

university system and agricultural colleges

of the State, taking into account existing

practices and such other practices as may be

identified in consultation with the affected

industry or community.

‘‘(31) The term ‘agricultural land’ means

cropland, pastureland, native pasture, rangeland, an orchard, a vineyard, nonindustrial

forest land, an area that supports a water dependent crop (including cranberries, taro,

watercress, or rice), and any other land used

to produce or support the production of an

annual or perennial crop (including forage or

hay), aquaculture product, nursery product,

or wetland crop or the production of livestock.’’.

TITLE IX—MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 901. OBLIGATIONS AND EXPENDITURES SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS.

No provision or amendments of this Act

shall be construed to make funds available

for obligation or expenditure for any purpose

except to the extent provided in advance in

appropriation Acts.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, let me

begin by expressing my personal appreciation and the appreciation of many of

my colleagues for the cooperation

shown by the chairman of the committee in helping to bring forward this

rule, and the opportunity of those of us

who have some differences with the

committee bill, and giving us an opportunity to express those differences as

well as to offer amendments like the

one at the desk.

I would also like to express my appreciation for the gentleman from New

York [Mr. BOEHLERT] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROEMER],

both of whom have worked many long

hours along with me and my staff in

working to bring forth the amendment

that we are considering at this time.

I think it is noteworthy to mention

that while this is a substitute amendment, that it adopts some 70 to 75 percent of the committee draft, and that

the language of the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] in those

cases remains the same.

There are several however, sections

of the bill that we believe can be improved, and I just would like to talk

about those several sections for just a

minute.

As many of my colleagues know, having heard previous statements that I

and others have made today, those of

us who live in and represent areas of

the country that are densely populated, or that are in coastal areas or

that are in areas such as the Mississippi River Valley and other environmentally sensitive ecosystem type

areas around the country have very serious concerns with at least four sections. One is the section that involves

wetlands. The second is the section

that involves nonpoint sources of pollutions. The third is in the permitting

system, and what the committee mark

does to the permitting process in terms

of eliminating it is very effective. And

the fourth, at least for me and for others I believe, is the issue of ocean

dumping, and I would just like to address those four areas for just a

minute.

With regard to wetlands, it is pretty

obvious that in New Jersey, where we

estimate that 90 percent of our wetlands would be declassified as wetlands

under the language of the committee

bill, this causes a great deal of concern

inasmuch as wetlands play a very vital

environmental role in coastal areas,

and so if I, as I am, were a representative of a coastal area anywhere from

Maine to Florida on the east coast I

would be terribly concerned about the

effect of this bill, or if I were a representative from the Gulf States bordering on the Gulf of Mexico I would be

terribly concerned about the provisions

of bill, and of course if I were from

California or Oregon or Washington

State I would be equally concerned by

the provisions as they relate to wetlands.

Of course we all know as well that

wetlands act as a natural filtering system and act as the very basis of life in

many cases, and so the committee

mark, which does what we think is

wrong things to the concept of wetlands protection, needs to be rewritten,

and our bill does that.

With regard to the nonpoint source

pollution program and the Coastal

Zone Management Act, which in its

very nature creates a partnership between State governments and the Federal Government with regard to this

very important nonpoint issue, was

also done, we think, significant harm

by the committee mark. And we believe, therefore, that changes are necessary.

Those of us who have had problems

with point sources of pollution have

been able to identify such things as

outfalls into our streams and rivers

and bays and oceans. We have been able

to deal with them. They are a relatively simple task to take care of, and

I say relatively simple. It is never easy

nor it is ever simple, but at least you

can identify the source of pollution.

With regard to nonpoint sources, it is

a much more difficult task, and the

CZMA sets up this partnership between

the State and Federal Government in

order to identify and develop programs

in order to deal with nonpoint sources,

and here again we would maintain

what the coastal States association

have endorsed, as a matter of fact
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4733

CZMA language which solves this problem.

With regard to storm water discharge, obviously it is a very big issue

and a problem that creates a great deal

of damage to our coastal environment

as well as to other tributaries around

the country, and here again the permitting process is damaged severely

under the language of the committee

mark. And so we would make significant changes and do in the committee

substitute which we will be voting on a

little bit later today.

Finally with regard to ocean dumping, this has been a tremendous task

which we have done on a bipartisan

basis; the gentleman from New Jersey

[Mr. PALLONE] is here and our former

colleague, Bill Hughes, all worked together to put an end to ocean dumping.

We address in our substitute only that

section of the bill that has to do with

dredge spoil deposit offshore.

So we ask our colleagues to support

our substitute, and I thank the Members for their consideration.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr.

Chairman, I move to strike the last

word.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I represent an area that has a lot of wetlands, and I have been involved with

this issue all of my political career in

the State legislature, and now since I

have been in Congress to some extent,

and I think people ought to read what

is in this bill.

The gentleman says they have 75 percent of what is in the Shuster bill, but

you have to look at what the content is

and realize some of things that have

been left out. First of all, there is no

risk assessment at all in this bill, No.

1.

No. 2, in the wetlands area, you know

in our country we have been trying to

simplify this process. What is driving

people crazy is they have got to go to

all of these agencies and they overrule

each other and they do not talk to each

other and they do not agree on things,

and cause an untold amount of problems for my constituents. What this

bill is going to do if you take it out and

read it, it is going to create a new wetlands coordinating commission that is

going to be appointed by the administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency, which we have been trying to

get out of this process because frankly

they do not belong in the process in the

farm country, and they are going to

create a coordinating committee that

is going to have 18 Federal agencies

trying to coordinate some kind of wetlands policy. And if I could just read

some of the things that this new committee is supposed to do, I think that

folks when they start taking a look at

what is in this bill are going to have

some different ideas.

They are going to help coordinate

Federal, State, local wetland planning,

regulatory restoration programs on an

ongoing basis to reduce duplication, resolve potential conflicts, and efficiently allocate manpower.

But let me tell Members what the

problem is in my county, it is not the

law that is the problem so much, it is

the people that are trying to implement the law.

I have a county, two counties right

next to each other, and in one county

where the people used some common

sense and worked together they resolved all of the wetlands problems

without a single ripple. You go to the

next county where you had some people that were rigid and did not want to

work with each other, and you have the

biggest hornets’ nest and the biggest

mess you have ever seen, and I submit

any change in the law is not going to

solve that kind of problem.

And clearly setting up a coordinating

committee with 18 Federal agencies is

not going to make this situation better. It is going to make it worse.

Last of all, I also heard this story

that the wetlands are so important, a

public treasure, and they are important to all of us in this country and we

agree with that. But there is this point

of view and mostly I think by urban

folks, they somehow or another think

we out in the country ought to pay

that entire burden.

b 1600

Well, I submit that if wetlands are

that important, and I think we agree

that they are, then we all, as a nation,

need to pay for the cost of this, and

that is what we are trying to do with

some of the changes that were in the

private property rights bill, and also

some of the changes that are in 961, by

taking that, recognizing that wetlands

are important and something that we

want to maintain, but spreading that

cost across all of the people in this

country, not just the people upon

which the wetlands happen, their property where the wetlands happen to reside.

Mr. Chairman, last of all, I have been

working on the conservation reserve

program in the Committee on Agriculture. When that program was set up,

wetlands were excluded from the Conservation Reserve program. We created

another program called the wetlands

reserve which was never funded and

does not have public support.

What we need to do, rather than take

this regulatory approach to wetlands,

we need to take and change the Conservation Reserve so the No. 1 priority

to go into the CRP is wetlands, a voluntary program, a 10-year program. We

are going to preserve way more wetlands in that kind of an approach than

we are setting up some kind of a committee with 18 agencies involved and

some kind of bureaucracy. That is the

last thing we need to do.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield

to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to

point out to the gentleman I share

your concerns about building bigger

bureaucracies and establishing committees on top of committees.

The Wetlands Coordinating Committee is something that is endorsed by

the Governors, that would have Federal Representation, State Representation, local representation in order to

look at individual cases to try and determine where we believe this is warranted. If we all agree, as you stated, I

agree with you, that wetlands are important, we have to have some mechanism in which to deal with them. This

is a partnership effort established and

created in cooperation with the States

in order to carry out this coordinating

function.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. PETERSON] has expired.

(At the request of Mr. BOEHLERT and

by unanimous consent, Mr. PETERSON

of Minnesota was allowed to proceed

for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. If I

could just respond to the question, you

know, with all due respect, you ought

to come and see what is going on in

Minnesota. It is the State of Minnesota

that has created the bigger hornet’s

nest than the Federal Government.

From my standpoint, if you see what

has been happening with these State

laws, they are causing more problems

than we are, and as I understand it, it

is the wetlands managers in the States

that support this, not the Governors

and elected officials.

Mr. SAXTON. The National Governors’ Association supports this.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield

to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I would like to

make two points. If it is the State of

Minnesota that is giving you some

problems, I suggest you deal with the

State and not question the Federal

law.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. The

Federal law is a problem, too.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to point out

on delineation, section 809 of the bill. I

want to stress this, delineation by the

Secretary of Agriculture, for purposes

of this section, wetlands located on agricultural land and associated nonagricultural lands shall be delineated

solely by the Secretary of Agriculture.

That is critically important; not by the

Environmental Protection Agency, not

by some commission, solely by the Secretary of Agriculture. We are very sensitive to the needs of the agriculture

community.

I am privileged to represent a district

that has a large agricultural interest.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Just

to answer the question, why do we need

a coordinating committee with all of

these agencies, if we are going to give

the power to the Secretary of Agriculture? I mean, the trouble that I

have had out there is that we get everybody else involved in these permits

but you cannot get an answer half of

the time from these agencies. If we get
H 4734 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

set up some new structure, we have got

all of these agencies involved, and the

EPA is in charge; even if you give it to

the Secretary of Agriculture, I do not

think it is going to work.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. PETERSON] has again expired.

(At the request of Mr. BOEHLERT and

by unanimous consent, Mr. PETERSON

of Minnesota was allowed to proceed

for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me stress once

again on agriculture, solely by the Secretary of Agriculture, not some commission, but the commission that is set

up outside of this to deal with nonagricultural lands is set up to give

guidance to the States. The National

Governors’ Association, we have embraced in our substitute specific language of the National Governors’ Association dealing with the subject of wetlands. We agree with you, we want to

give our Governors, those are the laboratories, we want to give them more

responsibility, more flexibility.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Just

to close this off, I have a letter here

from just about every agriculture

group, soil-water conservation groups

that I know of in my State, they are

opposed to this substitute. They support the chairman’s bill, 961. I would

urge defeat of the Boehlert substitute.

Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman

will yield further, let me point out that

this is a 334-page bill that was just

made available Thursday. The report

was just available yesterday for the

first time. They have not read the report.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan, commonsense,

locally driven bill to provide solutions

to provide clean water to our constituents.

I want to start out by articulating

my great respect for the gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON] and the

gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT].

I think the elections in November of

1994 were about bipartisanship and

common sense and trying to reinvent

Washington, DC, and come up with locally driven solutions, and that is precisely what this substitute does.

When I was a little boy and we used

to go up to Lake Michigan, Lake

Michigan borders my district, the

Third District of Indiana, and we would

try to find a spot in the sand to spread

beach towels where there were not dead

fish and dead seaweed and trash and all

kinds of problems from Lake Michigan

washed upon the shore. It was difficult

to do it. Certainly we did not compete

much with other people trying to go

swimming or catch some sun.

We had huge difficulties with pollution on Lake Michigan. Now it is beautiful. The water is clean. We have festivals and fishing exhibits. We have all

kinds of development. We have boating. We have condos and houses springing up along Lake Michigan is my district.

What we need to do, ladies and gentlemen, is come up with a common

sense bill that does not swing so far to

the left or to the right but comes firmly down in the middle to protect our

clean water, to encourage business, to

encourage a strong economy and to encourage a clean water future for our

children.

I talk about the Great Lakes and

Lake Erie as a great example of this.

Twenty years ago, people used to joke

about lighting Lake Erie on fire or

walking across Lake Erie. Now they

have built a brand new baseball stadium that is the pride of Cleveland

that has a view of Lake Erie that has

brought back the city.

The Clean Water Act has been part of

that. Now, certainly, we can say that

there are a great deal of problems with

the Clean Water Act. They did not use,

they have not used enough common

sense. They have been too prescriptive

in a lot of ways, especially in the wetlands where I hear from my farmers

time in and time out, day after day,

and what we try to do with this legislation, we try to keep about 70 percent of

961 and we try to come up with commonsense solutions on wetlands and

other areas and incorporate that to improve this bill.

I have been on farms in my district

where a farmer says to me, he has

taken a backhoe in his back yard and

accidentally broken some tile, and

then the Federal Government wants to

come along and say, ‘‘This is a wetlands. I am sorry, Harry, this is our

land.’’

Our legislation gives the property

right to the owner. We do want to

make sure that that farmer has the

privilege and the right to protect his

land.

But we also want to attain a balance

of not taking away 60 or 70 percent of

the wetlands in this country.

I would also like to talk a little bit

about the economy and businesses. A

small business owner in my district

who employees 700 people in four different plants was in my office. He said,

‘‘I strongly support the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute. I belong to the

chamber of commerce. I belong to the

host of business organizations, but I

manufacture small boats and employ

700 people. We cannot roll back legislation that protects clean water. We need

a fair compromise here.’’ That is what

this substitute achieves. It does not do

it by achieving Washington standards

on our wetlands solution.

We say that the National Governors’

Association should develop the answer.

They have simplified the permitting

process and expanded the role for State

wetland managers, moving the decision

process directly to the local level. We

have adopted the State solution.

I encourage my colleagues, for the

sake of common sense and bipartisanship, to support this Saxton-BoehlertRoemer substitute.

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the

substitute amendment and in support

of H.R. 961, and make no mistake about

it, this substitute is being presented as

a middle-of-the-road compromise, but

it is much more than that.

Basically, it returns the status quo.

It really retains many of the provisions

in the existing law that have been the

source of most of the objections and

criticisms that we have seen come

against the Clean Water Act.

In the time that I have been in the

House, I think it has become very clear

to me this institution as an institution

resists change. It is reluctant to embrace change, is reluctant to recognize

that times change and that, therefore,

legislation needs to be fashioned to

meet that change. It really is my belief

that some of the opponents of the committee’s bill and the supporters of this

bill fear change, because it represents

change in doing business by removing

highly prescriptive, top-down federalism which is now integral to virtually

all environmental programs that we

have dealt with over the years.

This bill, I think, represents for the

first time in recent memory the Federal Government will cede, this is almost unheard of, will cede some authority in the environmental arena to

State and local government, giving

them greater latitude to provide solutions to vexing pollution problems.

What the opponents of the committee

bill and the proponents of the substitute choose to ignore rather artfully, I would have to say, is H.R. 961

does not turn back the clock on environmental standards. It does, in fact,

lateral some of the responsibility and

sets the stage for implementing locally

designed solutions. And is that not

what really we heard in the election

last year, that people are crying out

for the opportunity to use their own

creativity to come up with solutions to

unique problems? We are not talking

about eroding or cutting back standards. We are saying give localities the

ability to deal creatively with their

own problems.

Environmentalists, the more rigid

environmentalists, embrace the current program because it has worked

and worked rather well these past 23

years. But I think in the face of vastly

changed circumstances which we have

now, they are unwilling to cede to

State and local governments any degree of autonomy as we move to address more complicated and difficult

problems, and they are unwilling to

embrace innovative approaches that

may achieve comparable or better

cleanup standards at significantly

lower costs.

Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that

when the clean water program was first

established, the national deficit was a

mere fraction of its current size, and
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4735

the Federal Government was at that

time handing out huge grants to pay

for up to 80 percent of the construction

costs. Those days are long gone, have

been gone forever. Today the market is

radically different. The chief distinction being the elimination of the

grants, as I have said, and communities

now contemplating construction of

wastewater plants are generally very

small, secondary treatment standards

are high, and the cost of technology

has gone through the roof.

These small communities, in my congressional district, are emblematic of

others around this country. This results in a very serious affordability

problem.

Earlier this year the Congress, I

think, recognized the tough financial

challenges which face our communities

when it passed the unfunded mandates

legislation which I had the honor to

bring to the floor saying we are no

longer going to impose new requirements without providing resources to

pay for them, a very simple proposal,

but one which we, frankly, had difficulty even getting consideration for

in this Congress.

This bill, the committee bill, is consistent with this public law by increasing the Federal contribution to State

revolving funds and giving greater

flexibility to States and localities to

comply with the Clean Water Act, and

I think that, to me, is the most critical

part of this legislation, the fact that it

does provide flexibility for the first

time.

Take a close look at those who support and those who oppose the committee bill. Groups favoring the bill include many associations, as we have

heard, representing State and local

governments. Those opposed are nonprofit associations, environmentally

oriented, nonprofit associations. State

and local governments do not want to

turn back the clock on environmental

cleanup, and I think that is implicit

perhaps in some of the dialogue we

have heard today that somehow the

States and local governments cannot

be trusted, that they are going to insidiously subvert all the efforts made

over the years to clean up, but State

and local governments merely want a

greater voice in devising cost-effective

solutions.

b 1615

Mr. Chairman, I would urge opposition to the substitute amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

CLINGER] has expired.

(At the request of Mr. BOEHLERT and

by unanimous consent, Mr. CLINGER

was allowed to proceed for 2 additional

minutes.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I say

to the gentleman thank you for the

time. Let me complete my statement,

and then I’ll be happy to yield.

I would just stress that we think it is

of interest. I think that for the first

time we are really going to have some

consideration for what are the compliance costs, what does it cost to carry

out the number of the mandates that

we have had in the past, but I think

that the environmental community,

which has never shown too much concern or interest in, frankly, what the

costs that we have imposed on the

communities would be, I think would

still rather straitjacket small communities insisting that they adhere to a

national prescribed program specifically detailing in detail precisely how

each community must meet the requirements without with regard to the

financial consequences borne by the

rate of players, and for that reason I

would again oppose the amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my

colleague points out that the bill will

not turn back the clock. I would point

out that the bill, as reported by the

Committee, would repeal the storm

water section. The bill would repeal

the coastal zone section.

I would also point out that we recognize that there are a number of provisions in existing law that need to be

addressed and some changes need to be

made. That is why the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute has 70 percent

of the language identical to the committee bill, because we do recognize

some changes are in order. But we

want to do it in a commonsense way,

not just throw out everything in the

name of flexibility, and I could not

agree more with the gentleman, that

we do want to give the Governors more

responsibility. That is why our section

on wetlands totally embraces the proposal advanced by the National Governors Association. That is why our

section dealing with coastal zone management totally embraces the language

advanced by the Coastal States Organization which represents 30 States and

30 Governors.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my

support for the substitute offered by

the gentleman from New Jersey.

I congratulate the gentleman from

New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON], the gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT], and the gentleman from Indiana

[Mr. ROEMER] for their work on this

substitute which gives the members of

this House a true choice.

The substitute makes practical and

commonsense changes to the Clean

Water Act while maintaining environmental protection.

H.R. 961 reverses 20 years of environmental progress.

The committee bill simply rolls back

the Clean Water Act with waiver piled

on top of exemption piled on top of

loophole.

H.R. 961 would stop the cleanup that

has taken place for 2 decades. It would

not maintain current national water

standards.

The committee bill has one purpose

and one purpose only—to allow more

pollution in our Nation’s rivers, lakes

and streams.

H.R. 961 weakens the requirements

for industry to treat its discharges.

The bill provides far too many

chances for local governments to discharge sewage that has not received

secondary treatment.

It is waiver after waiver, loophole

after loophole.

On top of that, the bill removes protection for 60 to 80 percent of the Nation’s wetlands simply by ignoring the

scientific evidence and redefining wetlands.

The authors of this bill couldn’t even

wait for the National Academy of

Sciences to finish its study of wetlands

which was released yesterday.

H.R. 961 simply tells us what a wetland is, regardless of the scientific evidence. Next, it will tell us the world is

flat.

H.R. 961 also rejects the advice of the

Coastal States Organization and repeals the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution

Program—the one effective non-point

pollution program we have.

The substitute has none of the weakening provisions of the committee bill.

It does provide needed flexibility in

changes in the State Revolving Loan

Fund Program.

It makes the changes in the Coastal

Nonpoint Program that were requested

by the Coastal States Organization.

It proposes language on wetlands and

watersheds requested by the National

Governors’ Association with additional

changes—changes that were included in

H.R. 961—to help the Nation’s farmers.

This substitute will restore reason

and common sense to this process.

The substitute will make many of

the changes that are needed in the

Clean Water Program.

What it will not do is roll back clean

water standards.

For anyone who wants to continue an

effective Clean Water Program, this

substitute should be your choice.

I urge support of the Boehlert-Roemer-Saxton substitute.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of business,

and industry and farmers in Upstate

New York where I come from, I rise in

the strongest possible opposition to the

Boehlert amendment.

As my colleagues know, a strange

thing happened back in 1974. It was the

year of Watergate.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there was a big

turnover in the House, and a lot of people were elected. They, unfortunately,

were not businessmen. For the most

part they were lawyers. There is nothing bad about lawyers, but most of

them were lawyers, or professors, or

professional politicians or bureaucrats.
H 4736 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

They came in, and they took over this

place, and they proceeded over the next

5 or 6 years to ramrod through legislation, as my colleagues know, creating

the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and vastly expanding the Environmental Protection

Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers,

and they brought the economy in this

country to a standstill.

In upstate New York, Mr. Chairman,

our people have been persecuted by

these regulations. We are the most

overtaxed, overregulated State in the

Nation, and today they are about to

get a little relief. I was sitting in my

office because we do not have a Committee on Rules meeting today, which

normally I spend all day there, and

have to come back at 8 o’clock at night

and work for 4 or 5 hours to get caught

up. But today I was going to get caught

up during the daytime, and I heard a

lot of these people, still here from

maybe that Watergate class of 1974, but

a lot of later ones, too, coming from

New York City, some of them, a lot of

the metropolitan areas. They are talking about the dirty polluters and how

this Boehlert amendment is going to

stick it back to them again. We are not

going to put up with those dirty polluters, they say.

Mr. Chairman, let me just read briefly this letter from these dirty polluters. They are my constituents.

The New York State Corn Growers

Association, some of the most admirable people in America, the Dairy

League Cooperative, New York Farm

Bureau, the New York State Grange;

these are people who have volunteered

their lives for their communities, not

only in military service, but in Little

League and Boy Scouts. These are the

dirty polluters. As my colleagues

know, I could go on and read all of

these names from all of these organizations, but they oppose the Boehlert

amendment because they want change.

They want to be treated like decent

human beings, and they have not been

for a long time now. When Ronald

Reagan came into office, he could not

change things back then because all

the laws were in place. We could not

change these laws because this House

was controlled by the far left. We lost

in 1974, lost a lot of good Democrats,

too. As you know, we had a lot of good

conservative Democrats controlling

committees in those days. Now they

are all gone, and all we had left in control before last November was the far

left of the Democratic Party which

would not allow us to make these

changes. We could not put through risk

assessment and cost-benefit analysis

for regulations. We could not pass a

balanced budget amendment and line

item veto because we could not even

get it on the floor of this House.

Well, we have our chance today to

make vital correction, and that is why

we need to defeat the Boehlert amendment, and we need to pass the committee reported legislation which is supported by all of these people.

Mr. Chairman, I insert for the

RECORD letters in support of the original legislation and against my good

friend’s amendment:

MAY 10, 1995.

Hon. BUD SHUSTER,

Chair, House Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee, Rayburn House Office Building,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Agriculture in the

State of New York is alive and well. We are

a leading producer of many fruits and vegetables, as well as being the nation’s third

leading dairy state. Once concern which

crosses all commodity lines is the fate of the

Clean Water Act. We have watched the debate in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with interest. After

careful review, we, the undersigned representing all facets of production agriculture

and agribusiness in the Empire State, fully

support the provisions of H.R. 961.

This bill embraces a spirit of bipartisan cooperation much like we have seen develop in

New York to address non-point source water

pollution. Voluntary, incentive based programs which are watershed specific will be

successful if given the opportunity. Also included in this bill is an improved wetlands

definition. It assures the farmer gets fair and

prompt wetlands decisions and compensation

when regulatory decisions devalue property.

Thank you for your leadership in bringing

this bill to the floor for a scheduled vote

May 12th. Again, we support H.R. 961 in its

current form and do not support attempts by

any member of congress to make significant

modifications.

Sincerely,

Agway, Inc., Stephen Hoefer, Vice President; NYS Corn Growers, James Czub,

President; Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.,

Clyde Rutherford, President; New York

Farm Bureau, John Lincoln, President;

New York State Grange, William Benson, Master; Empire Farm Credit, Robert Egerton Jr., President and Chief

Executive Officer; Pioneer Farm Credit, William Lipinski, President and

Chief Executive Officer; Farm Credit of

Western New York, Robert Kesler,

President and Chief Executive Officer;

Milk Marketing, Inc., Eastern Region,

Joseph C. Mathis, Assistant General

Manager.

THE AMERICAN FARM

BUREAU FEDERATION,

Washington, DC, May 4, 1994.

Hon. NEIL ABERCROMBIE,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN ABERCROMBIE: The

American Farm Bureau Federation wants to

reiterate our strong support for H.R. 961 as

reported from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This bill strengthens efforts to address our remaining water

quality problems and establishes a much

needed common-sense approach to wetland

regulation.

We are strongly opposed to the BoehlertShays-Saxton substitute and any similar

amendments that would roll back the bipartisan and popularly backed wetland reforms

contained in this bill. Such amendments

would perpetuate the current bureaucratic

and regulatory maze that has burdened agriculture and many other segments of society

for years.

We consider the defeat of these hostile

amendments to H.R. 961 to be key votes of

the highest priority for farmers and ranchers.

We appreciate your support and commitment to the long-sought reforms contained

in this important legislation.

DEAN R. KLECKNER,

President.

MAY 3, 1995.

Hon. BUD SHUSTER,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, House of Representatives,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The undersigned agricultural, agribusiness and soil and water

conservation organizations wish to express

our strong support for H.R. 961, The Clean

Water Amendments of 1995, approved by the

House Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee on April 6, 1995. Our Community

of interests has a direct investment in protecting water quality. Under your able leadership, H.R. 961 was passed with strong bipartisan support, 42–16. We are urging your

colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 961 when

it is considered by the full House beginning

May 10.

This bill strengthens efforts to ensure

clean water and to address remaining water

quality problems by stressing state and local

leadership, as well as voluntary, incentivebased solutions to nonpoint source,

stormwater and watershed planning. The

top-down, command and control methods of

the last twenty-five years do not hold the solutions to our nation’s remaining water

quality problems. We commend Chairman

Shuster and the bipartisan supporters of

H.R. 961 for their leadership and consensus

building process in advancing a more workable and constructive approach to achieving

water quality success. These reforms help

agriculture and rural communities achieve

clean water goals without putting them out

of business.

H.R. 961 is a reasonable and cost-effective

approach to addressing water quality challenges. The bill provides common sense

water quality policies based on a prioritized,

risk-based strategy. It establishes clear goals

for nonpoint source pollution for the first

time and empowers states to establish partnerships with private landowners to address

impaired waters through more flexible and

cost-effective means. The legislation

strengthens the nonpoint source program

and encourages watershed planning through

voluntary incentives, not federal mandates.

The bill also provides new resources to

States for carrying out their Clean Water

Act responsibilities. Major increases in funding for nonpoint source, state revolving

funds, and other programs are necessary

steps in continuing our efforts to improve

water quality.

H.R. 961 also contains positive tools to

help the agricultural community meet its

water quality responsibilities. The bill provides incentives to individuals to implement

site-specific water quality management

plans. This legislation also includes significant wetlands policy reforms that are extremely important to agriculture. Written

into the bill is an improved wetlands definition. The bill gives sole authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to delineate wetlands

on agricultural lands. H.R. 961 assures the

regulated community gets fair and prompt

wetland decisions and compensation for

landowners when regulatory decisions devalue property, consistent with the Housepassed property rights legislation.

Again, we thank you for your strong leadership on this important legislation. H.R. 961

reflects water quality policy principles our

organizations adopted by consensus well over

a year ago. These principles, and the related

provisions found in H.R. 961, will provide

farmers the opportunity they desire to help
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4737

address our nation’s remaining water

quality problems. The attached provides additional points on H.R. 961

from our perspective.

Sincerely,

AgriBank, FCB; Agricultural Retailers

Association; Agway, Inc.; American Association of Nurserymen; American

Crop Protection Association; American

Crystal Sugar Company; American

Farm Bureau Federation; American

Feed Industry Association; American

Sheep Industry Association; American

Soybean Association; Apricot Producers of California; CENEX, Inc.; CF Industries, Inc.; ConAgra, Inc.;

Countrymark Cooperative, Inc.; Egg

Association of America; Equipment

Manufacturers Institute; Farm Credit

Bank of Wichita; Farmland Industries,

Inc.; International Apple Institute;

Maine Potato Growers, Inc.; MBG Marketing; MFA Incorporated; Milk Marketing Inc.; Minnesota Association of

Cooperatives; National Association of

State Departments of Agriculture; National Association of Wheat Growers;

National Barley Growers Association;

National Broiler Council; National

Cattlemen’s Association; National

Corn Growers Association; National

Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Grain and Feed Association; National Grange; National Milk Producers Federation; National Potato Council; National Pork Producers Council;

National Turkey Federation; National

Water Resources Association; Riceland

Foods, Inc.; Southern States Cooperative, Inc.; The Agricultural Council of

California; The Fertilizer Institute;

Tree Top Inc.; USA Rice Federation.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York, my very good

friend.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I want my colleague

to know that I am just as sensitive as

he is to the plight of America’s farmers. That is why, as the chairman of

the northeast ag caucus, I have worked

for 10 years to protect the interests of

the farmers. That is why our bill includes, our substitute, not just BOEHLERT’s, SAXTON and ROEMER, the same

exemptions for agriculture as does the

committee bill. That is why we have

added in committee a $500 million provision per year for nonpoint-source pollution, because our farmers are sick of

sanctimonious sermons. They want

some assistance. They are responsible

stewards of our land but they need

some assistance as they deal with best

management practices and the type of

thing that they need to have to get on

with the job because they are responsible stewards.

Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time,

that is enough. Reclaiming my time,

the gentleman’s heart is in the right

place, his legislation is in the wrong

place. That is why all the dairy farmers and the apple growers oppose the

gentleman’s legislation and support

the position of the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER].

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want

to make the point that, if this is so

good for the farmers, why are the farmers all opposed to it?

Mr. SOLOMON. They are not just opposed, they are vehemently opposed,

and they want this legislation to pass.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

It has already been stated, but let me

make it clear again. This amendment

deletes property rights compensation

from the bill.

I will say it again. It deletes property

rights compensation from the bill, so

that whatever one believe about wetlands management and wetlands regulation, if they believe that people

ought to be compensated when their

property is taken because of a wetlands

regulation, they ought not vote for this

amendment. This deletes it.

Second, it deletes risk assessment

cost-benefit analysis. Many of you

voted for this principle on the House

floor in days gone by.

I say to my colleagues, if you believe

in that principle, why would you support an amendment that deletes it

from wetlands management and wetlands regulation? Little inconsistent, I

would suggest. But let me give you

some other reasons why you ought to

oppose this amendment.

This amendment, unlike the original

bill, literally takes the science academy scientific definition of wetlands

and makes it the regulatory definition.

I say to my colleagues, now, if you read

the academy report, the academy report said this is how we think you

ought to scientifically define wetlands,

but how you ought to regulate them,

which ones you ought to regulate and

how in the public policy, is a political

decision we can’t make. You need a referenced decision. Here is one. Here is

the definition, but then you decide on

policy on how to regulate.

This bill will in fact mandate that

the manuals adopt the scientific definition which, by the way, is the current

kind of definition that is causing the

problem in America today, definitions

that talk about hydrology and vegetation and sometimes have very little to

do with the real functional aspects of

the wetland that is to be regulated.

Third, this bill not only does not

compensate someone when the Government regulates your property away.

This amendment says that you will

mandatorily be required to mitigate in

all cases where permits are granted and

wetland functions are disturbed. In effect this bill mandates that in every

permit given in this regulatory regime

set up under this massive new Federal

coordinating agency, that in every case

the landowner is not only not going to

be compensated for the taking of his

property, he is going to have to pay for

the privilege of being regulated and, in

fact, lose the use of this property in

every case where a permit is granted.

Imagine that. Not only does this

amendment destroy the property rights

provisions that my colleagues, and I,

and 72 Democrats and almost all the

Republicans joined in supporting just

in the last hundred days, but it turns it

on its head and says that:

If you’re granted a permit, not only will we

not compensate you for any loss of value

that may be a part of the limitation under

that permit, but you’re going to have to

compensate the government and the public

at large for the fact that you’ve been granted

a permit.

Now the amendment goes on. It is

even worse. When it defines what is a

fill of a wetlands, this really gets good.

The definition of a fill of a wetland now

includes under this amendment the

cutting of vegetation, cutting the

grass. Cutting the grass on a lot that

they are going to describe as a wetland

is now filling a wetland under this definition.

b 1630

Protecting the vegetation now becomes a part of this wetlands protection program. You think you have

problems with the Corps of Engineers

today? You think you have problems

with the EPA today, who works in cooperation with the environmental

groups who support this amendment,

going so far as to send them information that is confidential and illegally

distributed, as I demonstrated on the

House floor last night? You think you

got problems with an agency out of

control like that? Wait until you see

an agency with the power to say we can

regulate your grass cutting in America. We are going to go that far. That

is the kind of amendment you fellows

want to support on this side. That is

the kind of amendment you want to

support on this side.

Shame on you. If you think you have

problems with regulations today, imagine, envision a situation where the scientists, not policymakers, not the Congress, the scientists say what is a wetland, what is going to get regulated. If

you get a permit, you have to pay the

Government for getting that permit.

You do not get compensated for the

loss of your property. And if you dare

cut your grass without a permit, look

out. That is a filling of a wetland under

this definition.

This amendment creates a whole new

regulatory authority to monitor all decisions, to coordinate not only wetlands regulations, but all flood control,

all water management decisions, on a

State and local and regional basis, and

it creates it under authority that, as I

pointed out to you, destroys property

rights.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. TAUZIN] has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. TAUZIN

was allowed to proceed for 1 additional

minute.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, it destroys property rights provisions,

eliminates risk assessment cost-benefit

analysis, turns it on its head, and

forces you to pay the Government to
H 4738 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

get regulated. What a beautiful amendment. Anybody that votes for this better not go home.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to ask the gentleman, I

agree that scientists and researchers

should not dictate policy for the United States. But if we are going to make

policy, we ought to know what the scientists say what a wetland is.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the scientists in the

study told us what they think a wetland is. Read the report carefully. This

is a reference definition. We are not

telling you to regulate all the wetlands.

Mr. GILCHREST. The scientists recommended we go on a region-by-region

basis. Your bill does not do that.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me complete the

answer, please. The academy said this

is a reference decision, a scientific decision. We are not telling you you

ought to regulate all these wetlands.

Your amendment says regulate all

them if they meet the reference definition criteria. This amendment ought to

be defeated.

Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

her remarks.)

Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I

certainly rise in strong support of the

substitute amendment. I might just

say in comment to that last interchange, I would suggest that we are not

here today to pass a know-nothing

piece of legislation. We should be here

today passing legislation based on the

20 years of experience, more than 20

years of experience, that we have had,

so that we can look at the successes of

the past 20 years and correct the errors

of the past.

I believe that is exactly what the

Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute

does. It takes the best of both worlds.

It does not say we are going to take

two steps backwards instead of two

steps forward. That is exactly why I

am supporting it today. We must strive

to maintain those aspects of the law

that have proved clearly successful

over the past 20 years and apply what

we have learned in 20 years to the

present situation. That is exactly the

merit of this particular legislation.

With or without the dispute about

what the National Academy of

Sciences does or does not do, I think

the best of the National Academy of

Sciences wisdom is incorporated in this

amendment and used to supplement it.

I also want to point out from the

point of view of the State of New Jersey, but I think New Jersey’s experience and concerns are equal in many

other States, I want to point out that

this is a very serious issue in the State

of New Jersey, particularly the State

which is the most densely populated

State in the Nation and is clearly a

coastal State. I think the committee

bill proposes a much narrower definition of wetlands, and consequently

large tracts of valuable wetlands will

lose their protection in the State of

New Jersey.

As has already been documented by

my colleague, the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. SAXTON], upwards of 80 percent of existing wetlands in New Jersey

would face a changed status, and this

would have a very serious detrimental

effect on the quality of life and the

drinking water quality for all of our

citizens. The gentleman has laid that

out for us.

It seems appropriate to me that we

should take the advice of the experience of the last 20 years and apply it.

Second, as the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. SAXTON] also carefully documented in his opening statements, the

committee bill’s language regarding

nonpoint source pollution represents a

dramatic change in existing policy that

a coastal State like New Jersey simply

cannot afford to endure.

These changes would bring significant negative economic impacts not

only to New Jersey, but those negative

impacts would apply to all coastal

States. I suggest that my colleagues

pay close attention to the problems of

the Coastal Zone Management Act that

Mr. SAXTON has already pointed out.

Third, the committee bill section on

dredging is of some great concern to

those of us in New Jersey, as I know it

is to Representatives of other adjoining

States. Although I know that some of

our New Jersey people have been working on adjustments in the committee

print, or the mark, on that subject, it

is my understanding they are grossly

inadequate to the standards that we

want to see maintained in New Jersey.

In conclusion, I simply want to again

endorse strongly this substitute

amendment that we have before us.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the

Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute amendment to H.R. 961, the Clean Water Acts

Amendments of 1995.

Given that it is now more than 20 years

after the original Clean Water Act was written,

we must modify and improve this pivotal environmental law based on our experience and

the documented successes of the period.

Mr. Chairman, this must not be a one step

forward/two steps back exercise.

In updating the Clean Water Act, the Congress should strive to fix shortcomings of the

existing program, without jeopardizing the

progress that the United States has made in

cleaning-up our water supply, at the same

time we strive to maintain those aspects of

this law that have clearly been successful.

And that is what the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer

amendment does.

After reviewing the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee’s version of H.R. 961,

and consulting with the State of New Jersey’s

Department of Environmental Protection

[DEP], I cannot supports its passage, in its

present form.

In several areas, this legislation poses a serious threat to the State of New Jersey and its

own efforts to carefully manage our water supply and environment.

First, the committee bill is proposing a new,

much narrower definition of ‘‘wetlands’’. Consequently, large tracts of valuable wetlands

will lose their protection, and could be vulnerable to development. According to some estimates, upwards of 80 percent of the existing

wetlands in New Jersey would face a change

in status under the committee’s new language.

And this in New Jersey the most densely populated State in the Nation which means that

this would have a negative detrimental effect

on the drinking water quality of our citizens.

On the other hand, the Saxton-BoehlertRoemer alternative uses the definition of wetlands being proposed by the National Academy of Sciences which studied this issue exhaustively, and just released its recommendations to the Congress yesterday.

It seems appropriate to me that, on issues

of considerable controversy and complexity,

such as wetlands policy, the Congress can,

and should, defer to nonpartisan scientific recommendations such as these.

Second, as my colleague, from New Jersey,

Representative SAXTON, has documented the

committee bill’s language regarding nonpoint

source pollution represents a dramatic change

in existing policy that a coastal State like New

Jersey simply cannot afford to endure. The

committee bill, for example, repeals current requirements on States to implement aggressive

programs to contain run-off from farms, landuse or cities. These changes would bring significant negative economic impact.

The Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer alternative

contains language that basically reauthorizes

the current Coastal Zone Management Act,

which has worked well in helping States like

New Jersey address the serious problems associated with run-off. This is of significant economic importance to New Jersey and to all

coastal States.

Third, the committee bill’s section on dredging is of some concern to the State of New

Jersey. I know that some of my colleagues

from New Jersey have been working with the

committee on this portion of the bill, but I understand that our State remains concerned

about how the committee bill’s language would

impact on its dredging program.

Before concluding, I would also note that

while the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute

differs from the committee bill in these specific

respects, it has retained large segments of

H.R. 961. For example, titles I, II, V, VI, Vii of

the alternative are identical to the committee’s

proposal.

In conclusion, I will be supporting the

Saxton-Boehlert alternative and urge all of my

colleagues in the House to join me in working

together to protect our water supply and environment, while providing State and local officials with some much-needed flexibility in

doing so.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I do

not see the gentleman from Louisiana

on the floor, but I did want to just

briefly respond to a little bit of what

the gentleman was saying.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4739

In our substitute on page 130 there

are exemptions on the wetlands and activities that do not require the permits, and in general this section reads:

(A) . . . Activities are exempt from the requirements of this section and are not prohibited or otherwise subject to regulation

under this section . . . if . . . (i) result from

normal farming, silviculture, aquaculture,

and ranching activities and practices, including but not limited to plowing, seeding,

cultivating, haying, grazing, normal maintenance activities, minor drainage, burning of

vegetables in connection with such activities, harvesting for the production of food,

fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and

water conservation practices . . .

We are not trying to say what will

take place when somebody cuts some

grass. We are exempting many of these

things. There are these exemptions on

the permits.

Mrs. ROUKEMA. I know. The scare

tactics do not hold up under close examination.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the

substitute. Of course, I want to commend Mr. SAXTON and the other cosponsors of this substitute. I think it is

important Mr. SAXTON mentioned in

the beginning that this substitute

adopts 75 percent of the draft of the

gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.

SHUSTER.

So those who think that somehow

the substitute is a radical document

that is significantly changing the bill

are wrong. But the substitute does

make four major changes in four major

areas to the substitute that I think are

necessary in order to protect the Nation’s water quality.

With regard to wetlands, if I could go

through the four, with regard to wetlands, it is a significant change for the

better. As was mentioned, the bill itself classifies wetlands and specifically

provides the takings language that has

been looked at in this House before. I

would submit that by doing the classification in the bill, you eliminate a significant amount of the Nation’s wetlands, as well as wetlands in New Jersey, from any kind of supervision or

any kind of regulatory process, and essentially you gut some of the wetlands

protection that exists under the Clean

Water Act.

The substitute by contrast does not

include the classification system, does

not include the takings language, and

actually encourages States to get more

involved in wetlands protection and

taking over Federal regulatory authority.

Some of you know, I think, in our

own State of New Jersey the Federal

Government has actually approved

New Jersey’s wetlands program. This

substitute would encourage that kind

of delegation to the State and in effect

encourages moving away from Federal

regulatory control.

With regard to the nonpoint source

pollution under the Coastal Zone Management Act and storm water discharge, in both cases the existing statute provides for mandatory program

and States are moving in the direction

of providing adequate nonpoint source

pollution programs, also storm water

discharge programs.

This bill that we have before us

today would change the existing law

and move essentially towards a voluntary system. A voluntary system

will not work. Some States will adopt

it and other States will not. We will

not have a consistent program around

the country to protect against

nonpoint source and storm water discharges.

Last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to

talk about the dredging provisions, because they are important. The bill

right now changes the current Clean

Water Act by essentially taking EPA

out of the role of dealing with dredging

of contaminated materials and disposal

of contaminated dredge materials. I

think that is wrong.

Essentially what the committee bill,

or the committee mark does is to say

that the Army Corps can provide and

decide when contaminated dredge materials will be disposed, where they will

be disposed, and also allows the Army

Corps to provide for waivers against

the very criteria that the corps might

establish for disposal of contaminated

dredge material. I think that that is

wrong.

The EPA is our Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA should be involved in deciding whether or not we

are going to have sites for disposal of

contaminated dredge materials and

where those should be and when it

should be permitted and certainly

when those waivers should be granted.

If you look at this substitute, it really makes some significant changes in

these four areas, which are vital and

increasingly more important to preserving our Nation’s water quality, because as we know, the point source pollution increasingly has been dealt

with. Our Clean Water Act has dealt

with point source pollution, and we

have made significant progress on that.

When you talk about wetlands preservation, nonpoint source, storm water

discharge, these are the areas over the

next 5 or 10 years where we need to

make significant progress on trying to

improve the Nation’s water quality. If

we move toward a voluntary system

and get our EPA out of the process, if

we declassify wetlands so that much of

the wetlands of the Nation is no longer

provided or included under any permit

program, we are not going to see the

goals of fishable and swimmable waters

under the Clean Water Act met over

the next decade or the next 20 years.

So I wanted to say how important I

think it is for all of us to support this

substitute. It is a bipartisan substitute, and the sponsors have really

crafted some excellent legislation.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition

this afternoon to this substitute that

has been offered. Basically, I have one

reason for opposing this substitute, and

that is because it only destroys all the

work and effort that I have tried to

bring to this Congress in the area of

using cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment.

I think if we take a minute and look

back and reflect on the last election,

you had the people of this country

making a statement, and that statement that they made was a very clear

statement that they did not want business as usual in the House of Representatives; that they did not want

regulation as usual in the Congress of

the United States or in its agencies.

What they wanted was a change, a different approach.

You know, last year on the floor of

the House of Representatives, and I

served in this House and I will tell you

it was run under a rather oppressive regime, because I tried to bring up costbenefit analysis on the floor and it was

denied, and it was denied in committee

to give cost-benefit analysis and risk

assessment an opportunity, it was denied in the Committee on Rules upstairs to give this an opportunity. We

brought the issue before the House on

February 2, and what happened? The

entire House rebelled because we had

an opportunity to bring up the question of cost-benefit analysis and risk

assessment and applying it to regulations and to the biggest regulatory

agency in the Federal Government, the

Environmental Protection Agency.

b 1645

And this entire House of Representatives, bucking the Vice President of

the United States, bucking the Speaker

of the House, bucking the committee

chairman, bucking the House leadership, came out there and voted down

that rule. That was the beginning of

the change. It was the beginning when

people started to say, Let us make

some common sense out of the way this

Congress and this Government imposes

regulations on its citizens.

This substitute wipes out risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis. So what

are we doing here? What progress have

we made? Are we prepared to set back

the clock on regulatory reform? And

then under the Contract With America,

the Members came out here, bipartisan, and the vote was, what, 1286 to 141.

And if my math is correct, that is a bipartisan vote. They supported the costbenefit analysis provisions and risk assessment provisions that are in this

legislation.

So are we prepared this afternoon

and in this legislation to wipe out all

our progress, to say regulatory reform

that the people have demanded and

this Congress has demanded and the

Members have voted on, is it time to

wipe that out?

So there is only one problem with

this bill. It wipes out everything we

have done. It wipes out regulatory reform. It wipes out cost-benefit analysis.
H 4740 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Let me tell you what else it wipes

out. I want to tell you, the other day I

went to a grocery store and I met a

gentleman. His name, I think, was

Chuck. He was working behind the

counter and I was buying a few items.

And Chuck said, ‘‘You are my Congressman. Mr. MICA, I want to tell you,

you all are doing a good job.’’

I said, ‘‘Do you have any message?

What would you like to see us do?’’

He said, ‘‘Mr. MICA, there is just one

thing I would like to see the Congress

do.’’ He says, ‘‘Use common sense.’’

That is what this legislation proposes, common sense, that we look at

the costs, that we look at the benefit

and we use risk assessment.

This amendment wipes all that out.

It wipes out the hope of that gentleman, hundreds and thousands of

Americans who sent to the polls and

said, there needs to be a change in the

conduct and the way this Government

conducts its business.

So we have an opportunity. We are

not going to throw out regulations.

This bill does not throw out any regulations. It does not destroy the environment. It does not harm the environment. It does not do anything bad.

What it does is says, let us look at

the costs. Let us look at the risks. Let

us look at the benefits. Yes, indeed, my

colleagues, we have had years to look

at this. We have seen every county,

every city, every State has said, let us

make a change. They support the

change that is advocated on a bipartisan basis by our committee.

So we can come out here and we can

vote to set the clock back. We can return to the time of yesterday when we

overregulated, when we put people out

of jobs, when we put people out of business, when we lost our competitiveness

stance, or we can make some progress

and we can pass this legislation as it is

proposed, without accepting this substitute, without going back and without destroying the progress that this

Congress has made, both in the Contract With America and in every successive vote on the question of costbenefit analysis and risk assessment.

There is only one thing wrong with

this amendment and this proposal and

this substitute. In fact, it destroys everything that we stand for as far as

this Congress, everything we voted for,

the 286 Members who supported regulatory reform, the successive votes

that we have had in this Congress and

the will of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this

substitute, to enact the bill without

changes, that we have a bipartisan

agreement, that we have cities, counties, States, local government, associations and a broad base of support for

what we are trying to do. And what we

are trying to do is to do one thing, and

that is what Chuck asked us to do,

bring common sense to this process.

The CHAIRMAN. For the Members’

understanding, this Chair will follow

the precedent that members of the

committee receive priority recognition

and will go in that order.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly must oppose the substitute to H.R. 961 offered

by Mr. SAXTON and Mr. BOEHLERT—two

Members of Congress who are dedicated

and sincere in their efforts and support

for clean water programs.

Many of the provisions in the substitute are laudable and certainly deserve support. It is what is not in the

amendment which is the problem. Unfortunately, many of the provisions of

H.R. 961 which I believe make meaningful and significant reforms to the Clean

Water Act are not included in this substitute.

For example, this substitute does not

contain the stormwater program reforms which are found in section 322 of

H.R. 961.

There is little dispute that the current stormwater permitting program

simply does not work and hasn’t since

the day it was enacted. H.R. 961 corrects this problem by treating

stormwater runoff as runoff—and not

trying to regulate discharges through

cumbersome and confusing permits. Instead, States will have a variety of

tools—including site specific permits if

necessary—which can be used to fashion a program that will be more effective and cover more facilities than is

possible under the current program.

The stormwater provisions in H.R.

961 were developed with the close cooperation and consultation of the

States and cities which are, after all,

responsible for implementing the program. They support this new approach

to stormwater control.

Let me also briefly mention one

other area which has generated a lot of

discussion over the past few weeks—

that is the repeal of section 6217 of the

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization

Amendments and the incorporation of

certain successful elements of that

coastal program into the nonpoint

source program.

Over the past several years, I have

spent many hours listening to various

officials from my State of Wisconsin

expressing their concerns about this

program. In fact, Wisconsin may even

pull out of the program because they

just don’t think it is worth it.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources supports the repeal of

section 6217. The secretary of the department sent a letter to me a few

weeks ago which includes this statement about H.R. 961:

We also support the elimination of the

coastal non-point pollution control program

contained in Section 6217 * * *. With the

provisions proposed to be added to Section

319 to provide for protection of coastal waters, Section 6217 is no longer needed. We

favor having one non-point source management program in Wisconsin that provides for

the achievement of water quality goals in all

the waters of the State, including coastal

areas.

Again, while I applaud the intentions

and sincerity of the sponsors of this

substitute, I do not believe their

amendment is preferable to the overall

approach of H.R. 961, and so I must

urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I thought long and

hard about this bill that we have before

us here today. I have been a member of

the committee with jurisdiction over

this bill for the last 3 years. I have

been a Member of this body. I have

seen up close the difference between

this bill and the one in the last Congress, the 103d Congress. I know there

are a lot of concerns over the issues of

nonpoint source pollution, storm water

management, wetlands and risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses.

I have heard the complaints from

witnesses who have testified in committee hearings. What I am hearing

from people across the country, Mr.

Chairman, from farmers as well as

from business men and women is that

the frustration level has reached a

peak.

I commend the efforts the present

chairman has made, the gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], in

addressing many of these issues and

many of these problems in his Clean

Water Act. I thank him for the good

job he is trying to do in trying to bring

together many diverging points of

view. However, in the final analysis, I

submit that it comes down to one thing

and one thing only in mind. And that

is, does this bill make our water cleaner or not?

On closer examination of this bill,

Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to oppose the bill and to support the substitute. Our Nation’s rivers, lakes and

coastal waters have become cleaner

and more fishable and swimmable since

the enactment of the Clean Water Act

in 1972. That is 23 years of progress toward a better environment for our future, our children’s future.

I have heard time and again from my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle

that we must fight to reduce the budget deficit so that we do not place a financial burden on our children’s future

or, as it has been commonly coined, so

that we do not mortgage our children’s

future. I think it is equally important

to leave a world that is environmentally secure so that we do not give

away our children’s future.

I think that is imperative. It is imperative that we fix the provisions of

this act that have not worked well, but

that does not mean reducing standards

that have made our waters cleaner.

The Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute amendment takes this approach. This substitute is a reasoned

approach, fixing the Clean Water Act.

It addresses the wetlands issue without

putting real wetlands at risk. It is silent on the issue of risk assessment,

cost-benefit analysis, contrary to what

some of my colleagues would have you

believe.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4741

It allows more input at the State and

local level regarding decisions on development of wetlands. The substitute

provides more flexibility for States

under the Coastal Zone Management

Act. The substitute would not take

away standards needed to keep our

fisheries and oyster beds in good

health, and it reduces the loopholes

and exemptions that allow the release

of pollutants into our waterways.

There would be a 10-year moratorium

on the implementation of any new

storm water requirements on smaller

communities and light industry, and it

provides the much-needed funds to

farmers and others who are working

hard to control nonpoint source pollution.

Mr. Chairman, in light of all the circumstances surrounding this substitute, I simply wanted to urge a vote

for this moderate and what I believe to

be a well-reasoned approach, safeguarding our Nation’s waterways. A vote for

the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute

to H.R. 961 is a vote for safeguarding

the clean water of our children, the

children who deserve a clean future.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. TUCKER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to

commend the gentleman on his very

thoughtful and fine statement and we

appreciate very much the gentleman’s

support.

I would just say to the gentleman

that he has correctly pointed out, just

as we owe our children a legacy in

terms of the finances and the way we

spend our money today and the way we

borrow our money today, we certainly

owe our children a legacy in terms of

the world and the physical condition

that we leave it. I appreciate very

much the support of the gentleman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the

alternative. I want to make some comments, first, about wetlands. We cannot preserve clean water. We cannot

have fish, we cannot preserve waterfowl and we cannot limit flooding unless we have wetlands. I know the controversy about which wetlands to regulate and which wetlands not to regulate. But if the bill goes through the

way it is, we will not have any wetlands to regulate.

b 1700

Mr. Chairman, there are serious flaws

in the lack of science, or the complete

absence of science, in the evaluation on

how to delineate a wetland. People

have been talking about the loss of

value to people’s property. If we will

look at this in a broad sense, the vast

majority of people in the United States

will have their property value increased as a result of a carefully crafted, well-managed wetlands program. I

do not know whose property value

would be diminished if we continue to

have wetlands.

If Members will look at this map,

this is the State of Maryland up here,

and this is the Chesapeake Bay. The

value of wetlands to the Chesapeake

Bay and its watershed in this region

that we see on the map is in the billions of dollars. What the wetlands do,

they filter out pollution, they limit

flooding, they provide habitat for waterfowl, they do a whole host of things

that increase the value of people’s

property in the region of the Chesapeake Bay.

I want Members to look at something. I am going to turn the map upside down. This, as we notice, is the

Chesapeake Bay. Here we are in Washington, DC, and this is the Potomac

River. We have a lot of development

around Washington, DC, and there is

much limited development in these

other areas, which means they soak up

the nutrients, the toxins, the silt that

the rain normally washes into the

water. We can see we do not have that

protection around Washington, DC.

If we look down here in Richmond,

VA, nothing against these great communities, if we look in the vicinity of

Richmond, VA, we also see the lack of

protection, because of the lack of wetlands, and we see the silt going into

the water.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to turn the

map upside down. I want Members to

imagine that this is a root that goes up

to the trunk of a tree. When we have a

root in the ground, the root absorbs nutrients. It absorbs anything that is in

the ground, whether it is water, whether it is water inundated with nutrients,

a whole variety of things.

If there is a tree in a wetland, this

tree is going to absorb those nutrients

before they go anywhere else, and preserve the quality of water where the

tree happens to stand, and it could be a

forested wetland, or it could be a wetland. If this is a tree, these nutrients

that you see pouring into the Chesapeake Bay would not pour into the

Chesapeake Bay. This diminishes, right

now, because they are not being absorbed, the value of the Chesapeake

Bay, and reduces its productivity.

One other comment I want to make

about the bill. That is the pure lack of

science that is in the delineation criteria for what is a wetland. Right now

in the bill, in order for an area to be

considered a wetland, it has to be saturated at the surface, that means water

ponded on the surface for 21 consecutive days during the growing season,

and it has to have hydric soil, and it

has to have the wettest of obligate

vegetation. That is like a cattail.

In this picture, this area is wet for 21

consecutive days during the growing

season, it has hydric soil, but it does

not have the third criteria which meets

the provisions of the bill to be a wetland, obligate plant species. If that is

not a wetland, even if that is wet for 40

days during the growing season, if it

does not have that third criteria, it is

not a wetland.

There is one other comment that I

think is worth mentioning. This is a

pond in Nebraska. This pond in Nebraska, and I will show it to the other

side, in case they cannot see it there,

this is a pond in Nebraska. What it

does, it offers habitat for migrating

waterfowl. This is not always wet for 21

consecutive days during the growing

season, or has obligate wetland species.

It has hydric soil. It could be, unfortunately, wet for 20 days during the growing season, 20 days right after the

growing season, and even if it had the

obligate wetland species, still would

not be classified as a wetland.

When we are traveling long distances

if we are going on a trip with the family, you have to stop some places. My

kids like McDonald’s and I like diners,

but we generally have to stop to

consume a little refreshment. If we lose

these wetlands, we lose an awful lot of

value to property, we lose a lot of value

to this Nation.

The CHAIRMAN. the time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. GILCHREST]

has expired.

(At the request of Mr. SHUSTER and

by unanimous consent, Mr. GILCHREST

was allowed to proceed for 2 additional

minutes.)

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I

would ask the gentleman, is it true

that under our bill, Maryland and Nebraska, the two examples the gentleman used, would be totally free to

designate the two examples he gives as

a wetland and regulate them as a wetland.

Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my

time, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the States go by that.

Since wetlands are regulated as waters

of the United States, and they come

under the Federal jurisdiction, the wetland delineation criteria is also used by

the State.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I

would respond to my friend that the

law is very clear, and the technical

staff tells me that in these examples,

the State of Maryland or the State of

New Jersey could regulate that land as

a wetland under State regulations.

Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my

time, Mr. Chairman, even if that is

true——

Mr. SHUSTER. It is.

Mr. GILCHREST. As the greatest legislative body in the world, which is the

U.S. Congress, I think we should use

the best scientific evidence available to

determine the delineation criteria for a

wetland, which is not the case in this

bill now, and once we know the science,

which is available to use now, we can

make the policy. However, I think we

are making policy in the absence of information.

Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will

yield further, I would say to my friend
H 4742 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

what may well be good for Maryland,

what Maryland under this bill is totally free to do, may not be good for

Arizona or Utah. That is the very reason we say let the States make these

decisions. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

think the States should have the information that the National Academy of

Sciences has to offer to us as Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. The time for the

gentleman from Maryland [Mr.

GILCHREST ] has expired.

(At the request of Mr. SAXTON and by

unanimous consent, Mr. GILCHREST was

allowed to proceed for 1 additional

minute.)

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to make one other comment

on the compensation criteria, which

people say is absent in this bill. We already passed a law to compensate landowners for wetlands and for the Endangered Species Act, so putting it into

the Clean Water Act I think is totally

unnecessary.

I do want to make a comment about

compensation and the Fifth Amendment property rights. If your property

is taken away for the public good, you

are to be compensated. Everybody endorses that. However, if your property

is, in my judgment, reasonably regulated to prevent pollution of your

neighbor’s property or to prevent public harm, compensation in this area is

a whole other different story. Should

we compensate people to prevent them

from polluting? I do not think we

should.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ROEMER. I just want to clarify

the position of many people who support the substitute, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, on risk assessment, if the

President signs the legislation, and the

Senate passes that, I voted for this legislation that would apply to this bill,

as the same with takings. Therefore,

just because we do not put every new

thing in there——

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from Maryland [Mr.

GILCHREST] has expired.

(At the request of Mr. ROEMER and by

unanimous consent, Mr. GILCHREST was

allowed to proceed for 1 additional

minute.)

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, it is

the strong position of many people who

support this substitute that we support

such ideas as cost-benefit analysis, risk

assessments, and the takings. I was one

of the 72 Democrats who voted for that

legislation. I hope if those two pieces of

legislation pass this body, that we

apply both pieces of legislation to this

bill and to this substitute, if it passes.

However, to hear other people argue

on the floor of the House of Representatives that we have to attach this stuff

to every single bill that comes through

here would make the case, illogical as

it might be, that we have to put the

Balanced Budget amendment on every

single piece of legislation that goes

through here. That is simply not true.

Many of us support those ideas and

those reforms. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I urge a

vote on the Saxton substitute.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong

support for the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute. This better, safer alternative represents a moderate, commonsense and bi-partisan—quite frankly,

an above party—approach to cleaning

up our rivers, lakes and beaches without turning our back on the health and

safety of Americans—and it insures

that my constituents in San Diego will

not have to spend billions to build an

unnecessary sewage plant.

Fortunately from a purely parochial

viewpoint both H.R. 961 and this safer

alternative provide regulatory relief

for San Diego and recognizes that our

current sewage treatment system adequately protects our ocean. Let me repeat, this means that both bills would

remove the requirement that would

force San Diego to waste billions of

dollars to modify our sewage treatment

system.

But with Dan Diego assured of regulatory relief and the savings of billions

of dollars, we must also be sure that

our drinking water is protected, and

that we can fish and swim in San

Diego’s rivers, lakes and beaches.

Unfortunately, H.R. 961 will radically

change the Nations’ laws that protect

our beaches and drinking water.

H.R. 961 would increase the dangers

of pesticides and chemical contamination of our drinking water—imposing

higher costs to clean up our drinking

water or forcing all of us to buy bottled

water. It would let large agribusiness

and industrial polluters off the hook

from preventing the contamination of

our drinking water—and it would pass

those costs along to all San Diegans.

That right, we consumers will pay

more to protect a few special interests.

San Diego gets its drinking water

from the Colorado River. Many smaller

cities from four States dump their

treated sewage into the Colorado

River, and before this water gets to

San Diego, it must go through one of

the largest agricultural areas in the

country. Unlike the safer alternative.

H.R. 961 would allow these cities and

large agribusiness corporations to flood

chemicals and other pollutants—at

will—into our drinking water supply.

H.R. 961 also threatens our economy

and our health. It includes the repeal

of a section of the Coastal Zone Management Act—which will eliminate

current protections for our beaches.

How can we attract tourism if visitors

cannot swim in our beaches? San

Diego’s beaches are already closed to

often. Is this really the time to get rid

of the very protections that help to

keep the beaches safe for our families?

The safer alternative would not repeal the Coastal Zone Management Act

program that protects our beaches. In

fact, the substitute has adopted the

language drafted by the Coastal States

Organization, which represents the

Governors of our Nation’s coastal

States, and continues to protect our

beaches—for our children’s health and

for our economic health.

There are three critical questions

that on behalf of San Diegans, I must

ask about these bills: First, will we

have clean water to drink? second, will

we have a clean beach to swim at? and,

third, will we get relief from the multibillion dollar secondary treatment

boondoggle?

With the safer alternative the answers are: Yes to safe drinking water,

yes to clean beaches, and yes to relief

from higher sewage taxes.

Without the safer alternative the answers are no, no, and yes.

San Diego will get the regulatory relief it needs in either bill. But I cannot

in good conscience support H.R. 961—a

bill that purports to help San Diego on

the one hand, but destroys the safety of

our drinking water and beaches on the

other.

San Diegans are asking three important questions. Let’s not get one out of

three right. Support the BoehlertSaxton-Roemer substitute ‘‘Safer Alternative’’ and answer ‘‘yes’’ to all

three.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, first it

was school lunches, student loans, and

Medicare. Now the Republican leadership has trained its sights on clean

water.

As cochair of the Long Island Sound

Caucus, I rise to support the SaxtonBoehlert-Roemer substitute. Unlike

H.R. 961’s sweeping, 326-page rollback

of one our most effective environmental laws, the substitute recognizes

that the battle for clean water has not

yet been won.

Unlike H.R. 961, this proposal will

not be a boon for polluters, and penalize anyone who bathes, swims, fishes,

boats, or recreates in lakes, rivers, and

oceans. Unlike H.R. 961, this substitute

recognizes that if you allow polluters

upstream to discharge more pollutions

into the water—as H.R. 961 does—it’s

the people downstream who will ultimately get saddled with the bill to

clean up the pollution.

As my constituents who live near Long Island Sound and the Hudson River know, all is

not well with our rivers and bays. More than

half of New York’s rivers and 85 percent of its

estuaries are closed to activities such as fishing and swimming at some time during the

year. According to the most recent statistics

available, New York’s ocean beaches were

closed completely on 93 occasions and more
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4743

than 700 advisories were issued against swimming. More than 400 fishing advisories were

issued to protect the public from ingesting

contaminated fish.

In New York and Connecticut, business,

labor, and environmental groups have set

aside old disagreements and joined together

in developing—with the aid of the EPA—a

plan to clean up Long Island Sound. None of

this would have been possible without the underpinning of the Clean Water Act, and now is

certainly not the time to pull the rug out from

under their feet. If H.R. 961 is enacted, it will

only cause more delay and more expense to

move forward with environmental clean-up in

my region.

The vast majority of New York’s water quality problems are caused by nonpoint pollution—from sources other than factory or sewage discharges. And yet H.R. 961 repeals the

only Federal program that can reduce

nonpoint pollution. In fact, two-thirds of coastal

States have invested millions of dollars over

the past 4 years crafting runoff control programs that are nearly ready for approval under

the auspices of the Clean Water Act. In keeping with the wishes of the coastal States themselves, the substitute preserves this important

program.

The substitute also removes some of H.R.

961’s more egregious rollbacks of environmental protection.

Across the Nation, swimming and fishing

are not available to millions of Americans because of pollution that runs into waterways

every time it rains. In fact, more than one-third

of all our Nation’s water quality impairment is

the result of stormwater discharge. Yet, H.R.

961 repeals the entire EPA stormwater permitting system, thereby ending all monitoring and

enforceable requirements for the 342 cities

and 134,000 industrial facilities that currently

have stormwater discharge permits. Thankfully, the substitute preserves the act’s

stormwater permitting program, while providing

a 10-year moratorium on any new requirements for cities under 100,000 or small industries.

The substitute also repeals 961’s disastrous

wetlands classification system—adopting the

National Governors Association’s reasonable

wetlands proposal instead.

Now is not the time to relax our efforts to

ensure clean water. Estuaries like Long Island

Sound—a $6 billion-a-year resource for the

entire region’s fishing, boating, and recreation

industries—are at stake. I urge my colleagues

to support the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute. Let’s not turn back the clock.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from California [Mr.

FILNER] has expired.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent that the gentleman

may have an additional 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman

can seek her own time in due course.

There are Members of the committee

who have not had an opportunity to

speak.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent to proceed for an

additional 2 minutes.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am

constrained to object. There are Members of the committee who have not

had a chance to speak yet.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is

correct. The Chair traditionally recognizes 1- or 2-minute extensions of time,

with unanimous consent.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentlewoman

from new York?

There was no objection.

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, debate here in the

House of Representatives lends itself to

some interesting concepts. I must say

to my dear friend, the gentleman from

Maryland [Mr. GILCHREST], that I have

never quite thought of the Chesapeake

Bay as a tree. However, now I am getting that concept into my head, and I

want to respond simply by saying that

I think the answer of the chairman of

the committee was an appropriate one.

H.R. 961 is a good bill, and it will be

a good law for the whole country. If individual States want to exact a higher

standard, in accordance with the process that are available to them from

State to State to State, they are at liberty to adopt that.

However, I rise in very strong opposition to the substitute.

b 1715

For some reason proponents are billing this measure as 75 percent H.R. 961,

as though that percentage justifies the

substitute. Come on. The substitute

guts the bill, and there is a big difference between the bill and the substitute.

The substitute fails to address any of

the major themes of H.R. 961 dealing

with regulatory reform, unfunded mandates relief, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, protection regarding private property takings, allowing States

to demonstrate their ability in finding

solutions to water quality issues, and

wetlands policy. Instead, the substitute

retains the current top-down, the ‘‘bureaucracy knows best’’ approach to

solving the country’s remaining water

quality problems.

The Clean Water Amendments of 1995

provide for voluntary incentive-based

programs in local, State, and Federal

partnership to advance clean water

goals with nonpoint source pollution.

The substitute does not.

It also gives State and local officials

the flexibility to manage and control

stormwater like other forms of runoff,

which helps reduce the high cost of unfunded mandates. The substitute does

not.

Finally, it requires the Environmental Protection Agency to subject

its mandates and regulations to risk

assessment and cost-benefit analysis,

and the substitute does not.

For the first time in a long time, we

are successfully working together at

all levels of government to meet our

water quality needs. We do not need

straitjackets to have clean drinking

water, nor should we allow the Federal

bureaucracy who knows the least about

forming or operating a small business

to deem what is a wetland from their

Washington offices.

Through its increased flexibility, the

Clean Water Amendments of 1995 benefits citizens, farmers, businesses, consumers, local and State governments,

and the taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, these last-minute attempts to derail and weaken this

strong bipartisan effort, whether they

are in the form of amendments or socalled substitutes, should be voted

down. Such efforts, in my view, are a

breach of faith with the changes the

American people demand. They renege

on the need for smart regulation, good

science, cost-effective risk reduction,

and common sense.

The Washington bureaucracy and the

professional environmental elitists

have been ramming these edicts down

the throat of the American taxpayer

for far too long. It is time for citizens

to have a say in the process. I am delighted that in this bill we have provided for that forum, for a citizen

voice. Vote for the Clean Water

Amendments of 1995 and against the

Boehlert-Roemer substitute.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was

given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I

rise in support of the Boehlert substitute.

The proposed clean water amendments, H.R. 961, amount in my mind to

nothing less than environmental sacrilege. The underlying principle behind

the bill seems to be pollute now and

leave a debased environment for our

children. They take us back 20 years to

an environmental stone age.

H.R. 961 would have a severe and negative impact on New Jersey and the

13th Congressional District in particular. The EPA 1992 toxic inventory

shows release of toxic material into

New Jersey surface water of more than

400,000 pounds. The current law would

be modified by H.R. 961 to allow for

downgrading water quality standards

where they result in disproportionate

costs over benefits.

This is unfair to the more than 90

percent of major industrial facilities

and municipal facilities that are in

compliance with the Clean Water Act

in New Jersey. It rewards those who

have resisted investing in pollution

cleanup measures and punishes those

who were responsible corporate citizens.

The State of New Jersey has a thriving tourism industry doing over $10 billion in business annually. The State
H 4744 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

has engaged in aggressive fish consumption and beachwater quality monitoring. Under H.R. 961, EPA is now directed to issue guidance instead of regulation with regard to fish consumption advisories and monitoring

beachwater quality.

Nonpoint source pollution is responsible for roughly half of the remaining

pollution in the country. H.R. 961

modifies current law to clarify that

voluntary or incentive-based approaches are allowable in lieu of regulatory programs. It also repeals sections of the Coastal Zone Management

Act which requires coastal States to

develop nonpoint source control programs. This would hit New Jersey’s

coastal tourism industries and port activities very hard, since they are at the

receiving end of newly degraded waters.

Simply put, H.R. 961 sets the clock

back more than 20 years.

The bill pushes back deadlines, requires waivers, creates huge new exemptions and mandates major changes

in the core of the program, the water

quality standards, and permit conditions.

This is a piece of legislation that has

been the most successful pollution

cleanup program in existence.

However, H.R. 961 does also the following: It waives industrial

pretreatment of waste; delays dates for

meeting deadlines if Federal funding

falls short of the authorized levels; severely limits EPA’s ability to control

dangerous toxic substances; removes

thousands of acres of wetlands from

Federal protection, which could lead to

more flooding, lower fish catches and

poorer water quality.

We have talked about the Coastal

Zone Management Act. It also eliminates the ban on building sewage treatment plants in flood plains and wetlands and thereby encourages sewage

overflow; and it puts it on a deadline

for the control of agricultural runoff,

to the detriment of downstream users.

There are provisions in this bill that

no one is quite sure what is meant. The

antibacksliding provisions, which are

supposed to ensure that permit changes

do not result in different kinds of

water pollution, are virtually, in my

mind, incomprehensible. The provision

for trading point source pollution credits between air and water may not be a

bad idea, but it is completely unclear

how it is supposed to work or how it

will affect downstream users.

That was before the markup. Now it

is worse.

There is a wholesale exemption for

livestock feeder operations, no matter

how large. It is a total exemption for

an entire industry to dump animal

waste into lagoons, retention ponds,

wetlands, and other waters of the United States without a permit. This is the

exact source of the deadly

cryptosporidium contamination which

killed so many people in Wisconsin.

Current law lists 5 nonconventional

pollutants for which a discharger may

seek a modification of the best available standards of treatment. This bill

goes from 5,000 to 70,000 different listings.

There are terms which go beyond

vague. Pollution credit trading, statistical compliance, and innovative technologies are frequent additions to provide flexibility which are in reality

techno-babble for loopholes.

This bill is a great leap backward in

the control of water pollution. It is

government by anecdote. If a special

interest group wanted a small change

in the law, it was generally granted at

the expense of the environment. The

result is a bill which has numerous

contradictory provisions and repeals

many longstanding commitments to

water quality.

It is not the type of legacy we want

to bequeath to our children, the next

generation, as we approach a new century.

I urge support of the substitute and

defeat of the legislation.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of

H.R. 961 and oppose the Boehlert substitute. Everyone here today supports

clean water, and H.R. 961 works to keep

our water clean.

Chairman SHUSTER has done yeoman’s work in bringing together all

sides in a compromise fashion, and has

earned overwhelming bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats

in committee with an overwhelming 46

to 16 vote when this legislation passed

the committee.

It has also earned bipartisan support

from State and local officials. Let me

list them once again. This is a list of

some of the public sector groups that

have endorsed H.R. 961:

The National Governors Association,

a bipartisan group; the National

League of Cities, a bipartisan group Association of State and Interstate Water

Pollution Control Administrators, a bipartisan group; American Public Works

Association, a bipartisan group; Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, a bipartisan group; Association of

Metropolitan Water Agencies, a bipartisan group.

In fact, I have with me a letter that

the President of the Association of

State and Interstate Water Pollution

Control Administrators sent to the

committee, highlighting the many

major improvements the States have

repeatedly asked for and requested. Finally they were included in H.R. 961.

I would like to quickly list those 12

items that the committee has agreed

to help State and locals by including.

In fact, the letter says that while the

States have repeatedly requested from

Congress and that by working together

they believe that considerable strides

have been made to more efficiently and

effectively deliver environmental results.

With its new comprehensive approaches,

and I am quoting this letter,

to non-point source, watershed and

stormwater management, H.R. 961 sets forth

a framework that better protects this Nation’s waterways.

They have listed below provisions

which are consistent with the goals of

States and this association has asked

for in a bipartisan fashion. According

to the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, H.R. 961 clearly anticipates

and enhanced State management role

relative to clean water program implementation.

H.R. 961 maintains a firm commitment to the Clean Water Act’s goals,

with more flexibility at State and local

levels to determine how they can be

best achieved.

The letter also says that H.R. 961 establishes a national program to bring

nonpoint source pollution under control, which provides a comprehensive

rather than site-specific demonstration

program, an unambiguous goal to meet

water quality standards within a specified deadline, increased program funding to assist States with expanded implementation activities.

The fourth point they make in their

letter says that H.R. 961 enables States

to focus scarce resources on priority

problems by providing 10-year permits,

control strategies that consider the

relative contributions of both point

and nonpoint sources, the incorporation and active promotion of pollution

prevention, and continued State certification authority under section 401

over hydropower facilities.

The letter also points out that H.R.

961 establishes a comprehensive framework to address stormwater runoff

that goes beyond the limited number of

sources covered by current law and addresses the multitude of stormwater

problems, sets an unambiguous goal to

comply with water quality standards

within a specified deadline, and gives

State flexibility to tailor solutions to

local circumstances.

H.R. 961, according to this letter, encourages States to take the watershed

approach to problem solving and consolidate planning and reporting requirements. H.R. 961 also, according to

the letter, increases authorized funding

for State implementation under section 106 in a State revolving loan fund.

H.R. 961 also streamlines SRF requirements to assure the construction

of more projects at less cost. H.R. 961

addresses the special needs of small

and hardship communities, and H.R.

961 codifies a consensus agreement of

the States, the cities, and the U.S.

EPA on combined sewer overflows.

H.R. 961 clarifies that as

coregulators, States’ consultations

with U.S. EPA are not subject to the

Federal Advisory Committee Act. Last,

this letter points out that H.R. 961 requires Federal facilities to comply

with the law to the same extent as

other dischargers.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4745

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 961 is a product

of discussions with local and State officials, those who are responsible for administering and living with the Clean

Water Act. For the first time, we have

legislation——

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WELLER]

has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. WELLER

was allowed to proceed for an additional 30 seconds.)

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, this

legislation is a bipartisan effort. H.R.

961 passed the committee with a vote of

46 to 16, clearly overwhelming bipartisan support.

I urge Members of the House to support the committee, vote for H.R. 961,

and reject the substitute.

b 1730

Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROEMER].

Mr. ROEMER. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say

there are many Governors and State

legislators in favor of this substitute.

The National Governors’ Association

wrote, ‘‘We believe the provisions on

wetlands in H.R. 961 are inconsistent

with the Governors’ wetlands policy in

several important respects.’’

The National Conference of State

Legislators, ‘‘We could not support the

bill unless a number of important revisions are made.’’

Finally, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental

Control on coastal nonpoint programs,

‘‘Significantly changing this portion at

this time would not only waste taxpayer money, but would send the

wrong message.’’

I think that is just some quotes from

a number of States’ legislators that

support the substitute. And I thank the

gentleman.

Mr. WISE. Reclaiming my time, Mr.

Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute. It is not all I would want it to

be, but then none of this legislation is,

to be honest with you, and somewhere

between this bill and the present law

that we are operating under is the perfect solution.

But let me just make a couple of

notes. I come from an industrial area,

and so I do not look with total alarm

at some of the changes that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] and committee have brought,

and in fact I think there is a need for

some flexibility dealing with the emissions requirements, because I point out

that many of our industries have made

significant investment and have complied with cleanup requirements, and

often what we are finding is in meeting

the final 10 percent of cleanup that you

have is that it can be far more expensive then the previous 90 percent, and

that some flexibility should be allowed.

The current Clean Water Act has reduced large amounts of point source

pollution. Now we must look at how we

can make sure that we continue that

effort. While having done a lot of good,

the remaining problems become more

specialized, they become harder to fix

with rigid one-size-fits-all solutions.

The point source provisions of H.R. 961

do attempt to tap some of that creativity.

I have some concern, Mr. Chairman,

about the current system of commandand-control regulation, and I think

probably in some cases they have gone

about as far as they can in making

major gains for the environment.

For instance, Mr. Chairman, I look at

the H.R. 961 section 301, subsection (q),

which for instance permits the Administrator to authorize States to modify

or permit requirements if pollution

prevention pressures or practices will

result in greater overall reduction than

would otherwise be achievable under

the existing command-and-control regime. This would seem to make sense.

Pollution trading, which there are provisions of that in the existing Clean

Air Act, also I think is something that

should be looked at. The President’s

own reinventing environmental regulation initiative clause on the effluent

trading program similar to this one is

a cost-effective approach for reducing

water pollution. So I think we should

not be afraid of some flexibility.

But the reason I am supporting this

substitute, Mr. Chairman, is about

other areas as well, wetlands for instance. I hold a candle to no one being

frustrated by wetlands bureaucrats.

They make honest and responsible

landowners be in fear of cattails that

might suddenly spring up, but at some

time I believe Congress should make

decisions based on science. It should

look at the fact it chartered to study

by the National Science Academy a few

years ago designed to help shed some

light on this subject, and we have the

results of that study, and yet we are

racing ahead with the legislation.

I too believe that you ought to eliminate most of the agencies that are involved in wetlands disputes, it ought

not to be some kind of lottery that you

go through: Did you satisfy Fish and

Wildlife, did you satisfy Interior, did

you satisfy this, and just when you

think you have gotten to the end of the

obstacle course, whoops, up pops another agency.

But by the same token, I am not sure

we ought to be putting into legislation

the kind of scientific standards or

hoped to be scientific standards that

are here.

I so I have great concern about that.

And I also have concern about attaching the risk assessment provisions to

this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, there is a reason that

many of the people in this Chamber

today are drinking bottled water out of

the offices. There is a reason that bottled water has become one of fastestgrowing industries in the country.

There is a reason when I go to the grocery store I am now seeing whole

shelves of bottled water. For some reason, I do not know whether I was ignorant or not, I used to turn the tap on

and now worry. Now I worry. So it

seems to me that this Congress ought

to be taking a little more time being a

little more reflective before it passes

the law of the forest, and for that reason I support the substitute, and would

urge my colleagues to do the same.

(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given

permission to speak out of order for 1

minute.)

TRIBUTE TO DUKE CUNNINGHAM, FIRST ACE OF

THE VIETNAM WAR

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to inform the body that at

precisely this moment, 5:35, 23 years

ago today, our colleague, Congressman

‘‘DUKE’’ CUNNINGHAM became the first

ace of the Vietnam war, was attacked

by 22 MiG’s, shot down 3 MiG’s then

was shot down himself, and as he was

ejected and was about to be captured, a

Marine helicopter swooped in, rescued

him. And so on this anniversary of that

momentous occasion I think we all

want to join in saluting the first ace of

the Vietnam war, our colleague, Congressman ‘‘DUKE’’ CUNNINGHAM.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to

this substitute amendment, and let me

begin by saying that I have the highest

respect for the distinguished gentleman offering this amendment, and I

admire their commitment to clean

water. But having said that, I believe

there are at least two fundamental

flaws to the substitute amendment.

First, as it stands, H.R. 961 provides

individuals flexibilities for individual

States to implement storm water programs, watershed management programs, and provides commonsense relief to small and rural communities.

The substitute does not include crucial regulatory reform provisions that

this House has already overwhelmingly

approved in principle, the ideas of risk

assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and

ending unfunded Federal mandates.

Under the substitute, it will be harder for States to regulate smarter in

order to provide more pollution prevention at a far less cost.

Second, I must oppose the substitute

amendment because it does not take

critical steps towards fairness that are

in H.R. 961. No subject arouses more

passionate opposition in my district

than the excesses of the Federal wetlands programs administered under the

Clean Water Act.

H.R. 961 includes commonsense classification and delineation criteria for

wetlands that reflect the genuine differences in quality and utility of wetlands.

I would just like to tell a little bit

about the State of Iowa. In Iowa we

have 25 percent of the grade A farmland in the world, not just in the United States, but in the world. And if the

requirements that are in this substitute amendment were in place in
H 4746 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

1993 when we had the floods in the Midwest, that grade A farmland could be

determined to be a permanent wetland.

It is not enough today that farmers

have to fight weather problems and

fight the markets, but now they have a

threat from the Government itself

coming in and taking over their land

and telling them how they can use

their land. And you talk about property values. What more would reduce

the value of agricultural crop land

than to determine that to be a permanent wetland?

Also, much of the land that I am referring to has been in families like my

own for well over 100 years. They have

had to put some tile in, much of it was

hand dug by our ancestors, 80, 90 years

ago, and today because of these requirements you can no longer improve

or repair those tile lines, because again

of the bureaucrats.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

want to make it absolutely clear that

the alternative permits repair of tiles

on agricultural land. Our alternative

does permit that.

Mr. LATHAM. Reclaiming my time,

but you also talk about delineation of

what is a wetland, and today under this

substitute those wetlands can be defined as a permanent wetland, any pothole out there that a duck would not

land in under this substitute can be

classified as a wetland.

I really resent the idea too that

somehow farmers are not conservationists, are not environmentalists. I tell

you on our land, on our farm, we are

the ones who have to make a living off

of that land. We are the ones who are

raising families who drink that water.

And anyone who has the idea that a

farmer is not concerned about the quality of life and the preservation of that

land and also seeing to it that that

water is purified is simply wrong and

has no idea of what agriculture is

about today or about what a family

farm is about. And once again, people

who think we are out there trying to

pollute the environment simply do not

understand reality.

Earlier someone tried to blame what

happened in Milwaukee on a farmer.

And the fact of the matter is, and it

has been shown that that was wildlife

that put that bacteria in the river, and

if anyone thinks that a new Federal

mandate or regulation is going to control wildlife out here again they certainly do not understand what is outside of the Beltway here in Washington.

This debate, folks, is about Washington regulators against the farm families, the small business people, and the

local governments in America. H.R. 961

reflects the interests of the farm families and the small business people and

the local governments, and the substitute represents the idea of the regulators, and I ask Members to vote no

on the substitute and support H.R. 961.

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of

the substitute bill being offered by my

colleagues, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. ROEMER,

and Mr. BOEHLERT. During the lengthy

committee markup of H.R. 961, I listened closely to my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle as they delivered

thoughtful opinions on every aspect of

this complex legislation. In the end, I

voted not to report H.R. 961 out of committee.

Mr. Chairman, my vote against H.R.

961 is not a vote against clean water. In

fact, it is very much the opposite. My

vote against H.R. 961 is a vote for clean

water, for good health, and for an adequate level of environmental protection. I believe the Saxton-RoemerBoehlert substitute is a sensible solution that can provide us with all of

those things.

In my State of South Carolina, many

programs under the current act are administered by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental

Control—DHEC.

On yesterday, I was contacted by

DHEC and they expressed to me they

would rather have no change than the

damaging changes found in H.R. 961.

Now when the agency that was created

to protect the health and environment

of the people oppose a bill, that should

cause us all to wonder about the ramifications of it.

The comments made by DHEC are

not unfounded. Let me tell you why.

Throughout the debate on clean

water in both this Congress and the

last, we have heard what some call

tales about people who catch their

evening meals in the streams behind

their homes, or our of the rivers that

run through their communities. Let me

assure you that these are not just fish

tales.

Mr. Chairman, this is a reality, especially in rural districts such as the one

I proudly serve in South Carolina. Over

48 States have issued over 1,300 fish

advisories for recreational and subsistence anglers. As of 1994 in South Carolina, there were 18 fish advisories in effect. That is up from only three in 1992.

Do the math anyway you like, but the

sum adds up to there is more that

needs to be done.

The provisions in the substitute bill

would keep these waters clean and

allow these people to keep fishing in

the waters, and their children to keep

playing in the waters without the hazards they could encounter if H.R. 961

were to be put in place. Among other

harmful changes, H.R. 961 would allow

water quality standards to be relaxed

for up to 70,000 pollutants.

I don’t know about you, Mr. Chairman, but I feel that is 70,000 more pollutants than the people of the Sixth

Congressional District of South Carolina need to be exposed to.

I imagine if I asked for a show of

hands of those Members who have visited the South Carolina coast, there

would be quite a few.

Our State is one of 35 that belong to

the Coastal States Organization. This

is yet another reason to support this

substitute because it contains provisions developed by the Coastal States

Organization that are intended to protect these fragile coastal areas from

runoff pollution.

The coastal lands need special provisions. The Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert

substitute would give these special protections as developed by the Coastal

States Organization, and allow for continued responsible use of our coastal

areas.

Mr. Chairman, it is no doubt that

people all across the country know the

value of clean water. In a recent

Times-Mirror poll, 76 percent of Americans said they felt we should do more,

not less to protect our Nation’s waters.

However, no one knows the value of

clean water as much as the residents of

rural communities across America.

There is a term we like to use today—

‘‘Environmental Justice.’’

I don’t care what you call it, but the

concept remains the same. People living in small, mostly rural and poorer

communities across America consistently suffer from more health problems

due to environmental negligence. It is

for those people that I rise today to

support the Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert

substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a

few words about the markup of H.R. 961

in the Transportation of Infrastructure

Committee. I want my chairman, Mr.

SHUSTER, to know that even though we

ultimately came down on different

sides on H.R. 961, I congratulate him on

the job he did in presiding over the

markup, and I appreciate the sincerity

of his views.

And I want my ranking member, Mr.

MINETA, to know how much I appreciate his leadership and commitment

on this critical issue.

Mr. Chairman, in the South we tend

to tell stories to make a point, or use

cliches to describe things. In keeping

with that tradition, I would like to

share two old adages we should all

heed. One is ‘‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix

it,’’ and the other is ‘‘if you mess it up,

clean it up.’’ Mr. Chairman, this is the

underlying message behind the substitute legislation being offered today,

and I encourage all of my colleagues to

joint with me in supporting clean

water with a ‘‘yes’’ vote on the SaxtonRoemer-Boehlert substitute.

b 1745

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute and commend my

colleagues for their fine work on this

bill.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4747

As a strong supporter or regulatory

reform, I was proud to vote for the regulatory reform proposals contained in

the Contract With America.

And I rise today in the strong belief

that indiscriminant regulation will sap

our economic strength, our competitiveness and our future.

I believe that this substitute is consistent with regulatory reform.

First, most of the provisions of the

substitute reflect the provisions in the

chairman’s bill. But, the substitute

recognizes the importance of controlling stormwater runoff.

At the same time, the substitute provides States with flexibility in dealing

with this problem. States would be able

to target runoff control programs

where they are needed most. And

States would be given greater authority to use incentive-based programs

and planning and management.

Similarly, the substitute would not

overburden our small businesses and

small municipalities with onerous regulations. They would fall under a 10-

year moratorium on the implementation of new requirements under the

stormwater management program.

Mr. Chairman, I represent a district

that is surrounded on three sides by

coastal waters. In our coastal areas in

New Jersey, our businesses, indeed our

economy, relies on having a clean

coastal environment.

The family-owned hotels and motels

in my district have approximately 3

months in the summer to earn their

living for the year. If the beaches are

closed because of pollution, those businesses are hurt and may not survive.

Mr. Chairman, commercial fishing is

a $55 billion industry nationwide—and

lets face it, people are not going to eat

fish that they believe were caught in

polluted waters.

In my district, nonpoint source pollution and storm water were major

sources of ocean pollution. Actions

taken at the State level have sharply

reduced pollution in our ocean and

bays. It is a testament to the commitment New Jersey has made, as a State,

to protecting our coastal environment.

But we need a Federal standard. Our

coastal waters do not recognize State

boundaries. If New Jersey makes a

commitment to prevent pollution from

nonpoint sources and storm water runoff, that could be negated if another

State does not.

Mr. Chairman, the substitute is a

good bill.

Again, I commend my colleagues on a

fine substitute and urge members on

both sides of the aisle to support the

Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. I commend the

authors. I urge that the amendment be

adopted. And I hope that in so doing,

we will improve the bill.

I would inform my colleagues that

the Clean Water Act is not only the

most successful but it is the oldest of

our major environmental statutes, and

it was not passed by a bunch of leftwing kooks. It was passed overwhelmingly by bipartisan majorities on both

sides of the aisle, and it came out of

the Committee on Public Works overwhelmingly.

There is good reason for everything

that is in the current law, and the wonderful fact is that it works.

What would the bill that is now before us do? First of all, in the State of

Michigan, it would eliminate wetlands

protection for some of our 5,583,000

acres of wetlands. Altogether, it would

risk the potential loss of 3,629,000 acres.

The current law is a good law, but it

does not do all that it should. In recent

times, better than 10,000 beaches have

been shut because of pollution of coastal waters, and better than one-third of

our shellfish beds are at risk.

Now, what does the bill do here?

First of all, it does not really protect

wetlands as it should. As I mentioned,

it puts Michigan wetlands and Michigan migratory waterfowl populations

at risk. Indeed, I would warn my colleagues that this bill puts migratory

waterfowl and migratory birds and migratory bird hunting at risk. I speak as

a member of the Migratory Bird Commission which works to try and save

the lands for these species.

The bill would go further than that.

The bill would repeal the Coastal Zone

Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.

It would remove 60 percent of our Nation’s wetlands from any protection,

and allow total destruction of possibly

as high as 80 percent. It would weaken

the standards governing industrial pollution and discharges into lakes, rivers, and harbors. It would threaten the

Great Lakes fishery, which is worth

better than $4 billion a year. It would

hamper efforts to control nonpoint

source pollution, the source of over 50

percent of water quality impairment in

the United States, and it would create,

interestingly enough, an extraordinarily unworkable bureaucracy

which would supposedly address the

question of wetlands protection within

the Corps of Engineers, and cost the

American people millions of dollars a

year.

The amendment is a responsible

piece of legislation. It accepts about 70

percent of the legislation written in

the committee. It would make possible

continued progress, albeit at a somewhat slower rate than we have seen,

because of the programs which we are

now addressing which have been, I repeat, enormously successful in terms of

preserving natural resources and protecting the clean water and protecting

the health of the American people.

Tourism is a great industry in this

country, and it is one of the most important we have. I know of no one who

will go to see dirty water. They go to

see places where the water is clean,

where the fishing is good, where the

swimming is safe, and where one may

eat the fish that they catch. They do

not go to Gowanus Canal or to places

which are fabled with their filth.

Legislation which we have before us

would roll back in a startling fashion

better than 40 years of progress which

we have made in cleaning up the waters of the Nation. It would not help

the polluters particularly. It would

simply allow them to evade their responsibilities. It would not help the

American people. It would simply inflict upon them continued destruction

of their most precious and important

natural resource, the water of this

country.

The legislation which this country

wants, if you ask the people, and better

than 70 percent of them will say so if

inquired of, is legislation which protects the waters, which protects the

environment, which protects the

health of the American people.

I would urge that the amendment

sponsored by my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON],

the gentleman from New York [Mr.

BOEHLERT], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROEMER] be adopted. I would

urge that my colleagues reject the bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to make reference to some

comments made by a colleague and

member of the committee, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. LATHAM], earlier, particularly as they apply to agriculture. I want everyone to know we

are very sensitive to the needs of agriculture. Our alternative specifically

provides exemptions for the repair and

construction of tiles.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL] has expired.

(At the request of Mr. BOEHLERT and

by unanimous consent, Mr. DINGELL

was allowed to proceed for 2 additional

minutes.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the

exemptions specifically allow repair

and construction of tiles. We also have

in our substitute the same exemptions

for agriculture as are contained in H.R.

961.

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman says

all this talk about how your substitute

is going to hurt agriculture; it cannot,

because it is the same language they

have in the bill?

Mr. BOEHLERT. He was genuinely

concerned about that. The concern was

heartfelt.

Mr. DINGELL. I do not care whether

it is heartfelt or not, I want to know if

it is factual. I gather you are telling

me some of the concerns expressed are

not factual.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Some of the concerns expressed here have not been factual.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
H 4748 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman mentioned beach closures. I just want to

say what the gentleman spoke of in

terms of the Coastal Zone Management

Act and the provisions that have to do

with nonpoint source pollution and the

benefits provided for wetlands go a

long way to prevent beach closures.

In 1987 and 1988, I lived through those

beach closures along with the Northeast coast, and I can say, I think

uncategorically, that by repealing the

laws which the committee bill proposes

to repeal, that we are bound to repeat

summers like those summers when we

had those beach closures, because we

are eliminating the protections that we

have since put in place that have

worked very, very well, and so I thank

the gentleman for pointing out those

very, very important aspects of this

substitute.

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes, but I want to rise in

strong support for H.R. 961 and urge

that it be passed without major modification.

I would like to commend my outstanding chairman, the gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], of

the Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee, for his outstanding and

yeoman work that he has done in regard to this legislation. It is outstanding legislation, and it deserves the support of all of the Members of this body.

H.R. 961, as reported out of our committee, will reduce Federal power and

will give us cleaner water. It gives control of water resource management to

those who have the biggest stake in

maintaining these resources, while

taking control from bureaucrats here

in Washington.

Even the Administrator of the EPA,

Carol Browner, has said, ‘‘We must

allow for flexibility, innovation and

common sense as States and communities look for ways to achieve the

standards.’’ That is what the committee-approved bill does, Mr. Chairman.

It restores common sense to our clean

water regulation.

I have great respect for all of the authors of this substitute amendment.

They are all good friends of mine. But

I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that the

amendment in the nature of a substitute would eliminate the flexibility

that is needed and that Ms. Browner

called for, in that it seeks to retain

Federal command and control in pursuit of clean water.

A one-size-fits-all approach to clean

water regulation is no longer sound, if

it ever was. The EPA bureaucrats and

Army Corps of Engineers officials are

simply not capable of making qualified, correct decisions for every State

legislature, every city manager, every

farmer, every land owner, every business owner in the Nation.

H.R. 961, as reported, lifts that responsibility from them and gives it

back to the people and their representatives at the local level.

I do not need to repeat, Mr. Chairman, and would not have time to do so

anyway, all the horror stories about

EPA and Army Corps of Engineers regulations under our clean water laws at

this time, one stupid, expensive, unfair

decision after another.

A few years ago one of the officials of

the National Association of Home

Builders told me that if our wetlands

laws were strictly enforced, that it

would close up over 60 percent of the

developable land in this country. It

would make the dream of home ownership just go out of sight from an economic standpoint for most young couples in this country.

It has been mentioned before, but I

think it bears repeating, that support

for moving forward with H.R. 961 has

come from a wide range of groups, including the National Governors’ Association, the National League of Cities,

the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the Association of State and Interstate Water

Pollution Control Administrators.

b 1800

The water pollution control administrators are people who work full time

in this area, and I can assure my colleagues they would not support this

legislation were it not good clean

water legislation. This bill is also supported by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the American

Public Works Association, the Clean

Water Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the U.S. Chamber

of Commerce, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses among

many, many others.

H.R. 961 was reported out of our committee by a strong bipartisan vote of 42

to 16. This bill deserves bipartisan support now. It will return common sense

to our signatory efforts in regard to

clean water. It will return flexibility.

It will do away with many of the unfair

bureaucratic burdensome decisions

that have come out in recent years.

Most importantly of all, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to emphasize

this, if H.R. 961 passes as is, it will be

the toughest clean water law in the

world. This bill passing as is will be the

toughest clean water bill in the world.

It just does not go to some of the extremes that some people would have us

do, some of the ridiculous extremes

that some people would have us go.

So let us vote for the toughest clean

water law in the world. Let us vote for

Chairman SHUSTER’s bill, H.R. 961. I

urge its passage.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong

support of this substitute measure authored by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON], the gentleman from

Indiana [Mr. ROEMER], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT]. It is not a perfect fix of H.R.

961’s problems, but it offers a rational

middle ground that preserves the

rights of H.R. 961 while turning back

H.R. 961’s most damaging proposals,

and it is interesting to note that many

of my colleagues served in State legislatures before coming here, and I would

like to point out that in a letter that I

received from the National Conference

of State Legislators they indicate that

unless H.R. 961 is significantly amended during the floor consideration, the

NCSL urges them to vote against this

bill, and they point out that the problems with the bill that is before us that

are addressed by this amendment is

that the bill in print limits State discretion to impose effluent limits which

are different than Federal limits. It

also reduces State authority to update

and strengthen controls on toxic and

other discharges by providing that effluent limitations only be reviewed

every 10 years.

So not only myself and others are

urging our colleagues to support this,

but the State legislatures are as well.

The substitute amendment restores

vital protections for wetlands, but

makes commonsense exemptions for

agriculture, flood control and other important activities. These provisions are

based on wetlands language offered by

the National Governors Association

and increase the States’ role in wetland’s protection.

The substitute amendment replaces

the repeal of the Coastal Zone Management Act non-point source program included in H.R. 961 with amendments to

improve the program proposed by

Coastal States Organizations. Any legislator representing a coastal State

knows the significance of having the

ability to control non-point source run

off because it runs into the ocean. Our

local economies are based on the fact

that people make livings off that

ocean, both for recreation and primarily for commercial fishing, and if

that environment is not safe, and

sound, and clean, then we are going to

destroy the very economic base of

many of our coastal regions.

Mr. Chairman, I think this bill in its

drafted form goes a long way to doing

that, so that is why I support the

Saxton proposal, because it is a reasonable alternative, it is going to help protect clean water, and we need to do

that because we are just borrowing

time from future generations, and we

need to turn over the world in a better

shape than which it is in now. So I urge

my colleagues to support this substitute.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF

STATE LEGISLATURES,

Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.

Re H.R. 961, Clean Water Act Amendments of

1995.

Hon. SAM FARR,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE FARR: On behalf of

the National Conference of State Legislatures, I am writing to express concerns about

H.R. 961 as reported by committee. Unless

H.R. 961 is significantly amended during
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4749

floor consideration, NCSL urges you to

vote against the bill.

In partnership with the federal government, states have worked diligently for more

than two decades to achieve the Clean Water

Act’s goals of restoring and maintaining our

nation’s waters. The Clean Water Act serves

as a baseline for state programs, while giving

states flexibility to go beyond federal minimum requirements. Many of the problems

facing our nation’s water bodies are interstate in character and cannot be addressed

by any state acting alone. Over the past two

decades states have come to rely upon the

state-federal partnership that is the cornerstone of our system of public health protection.

While NCSL applauds H.R. 961’s proposed

increases in SRF funding, efforts to provide

states with greater flexibility, and other provisions that directly benefit state and local

government, we are concerned with other aspects of the bill. For instance, if enacted in

its present form, H.R. 961 would permit increased degradation of our nation’s waters

and allow for delay in achieving the Clean

Water Act’s goals. We urge you to seriously

consider any amendments which aim to

strike a proper balance between increased

state authority and preservation of minimum federal standards.

One of our specific concerns with H.R. 961

is that it would reverse our nation’s goal of

eliminating the net loss of both wetlands

acreage and wetlands habitat values. Wetlands are an integral component of both the

environmental and economic health of our

nation. They provide important economic

and recreational benefits such as hunting,

fishing, natural flood control, recharge zones

for groundwater aquifers, reduced shoreline

erosion and water purification through filtration of sediments and toxic pollutants

from runoff. Given the direct and indirect

economic benefits that are derived from wetlands, we are concerned by provisions in H.R.

961 that would encourage and increase development activities in wetlands.

In addition to the above, NCSL is also concerned with other provisions of H.R. 961. For

instance, as reported by committee, H.R. 961

would: Limit state discretion to impose effluent limits which are different than federal

limits; reduce state authority to update and

strengthen controls on toxic and other discharges by providing that effluent limitations can only be reviewed every ten years;

relax effluent pretreatment standards for

waste waters destined for Publicly Owned

Treatment Works (POTW’s); and waive compliance time deadlines for any year in which

actual funding levels fall short of authorized

levels.

While NCSL supports many of the bill’s

provisions that would directly benefit states

and their political subdivisions, we nonetheless do have concerns with other aspects of

the bill. It is our sincere hope that floor

amendments during consideration of the bill

will succeed in addressing and resolving our

concerns.

Thank you for the opportunity to share

these thoughts with you.

Sincerely,

JANE CAMPBELL,

President, NCSL, Assistant Minority Leader,

Ohio House of Representatives.

Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the

Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute to

H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995. This substitute is a sensible, reform measure which fixes

many of the problems associated with

Clean Water Act regulations, without

sacrificing essential protections, particularly in the areas of wetlands policy and coastal zone management.

Long Islanders have always had a

special appreciation for the delicate

nature of our Nation’s waters and the

need to protect them for our economic

health, as well as for future generations. My constituents carry on this

tradition of concern. Long Island is,

after all, an island. My district on the

south shore has over 35 miles of coastal

shoreline. Long Island’s coastal waters

are a premier source of recreation and

the backbone of an essential tourism

industry, which relies on our vast

stretch of sandy beaches. In addition,

they house thousands of acres of shellfish beds, and support both commercial

and sport fishing.

Because of this reliance on our coastal waters, both wetlands protection

and coastal zone management are essential to both the economic health

and quality of life on Long Island. Wetlands are a natural filtering system

which help protect the health of our

fish population as well as help filter

pollutants from seeping into our

groundwater. Yet H.R. 961 would remove over 60 percent of our Nation’s

wetlands from any level of protection.

The Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute addresses the concerns of private landowners by putting in place a

proposal developed and supported by

the National Governor’s Association

which simplifies and expedites the wetlands permitting process by expanding

the role of State wetlands managers in

the permitting process. This will help

encourage decisions about wetlands

management to be made on the local

level, without paving the way for widespread wetlands destruction.

H.R. 961 would also repeal section

6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments [CZARA], which

is the only enforceable program developed by Congress to deal with nonpoint

source pollution of coastal waters. Consequently, this bill would expect an already weak nonpoint source pollution

program, section 319, to somehow attend to the special problems associated

with coastal pollution. This pollution

has resulted in the closure of 200,000

acres of New York City and Long Island shellfish beds. It has severely impacted both commercial and recreational fishing on Long Island. I

clearly remember recent summers

when medical waste, including used syringes, washed up on shore and forced

the closure of certain Long Island

beaches on hot summer days. In fact,

more than 10,000 beaches nationwide

were closed to bathing over the past 5

years due to pollution. My district cannot afford this kind of loss. The coastal

State governors have spent years working on sensible State-managed programs to this threat to coastal waters.

Working with CZARA, the coastal

States have finally come up with solutions that they feel will work best for

their States. The Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute acknowledges this effort by adopting the reforms proposed

by the 29 States of the Coastal States

Organization for implementing

CZARA.

Like many other coastal areas

around the country, Long Island is dependent upon its waters to support its

economy as well as its quality of life.

By including provisions developed by

the National Governor’s Association

and Coastal States Organization, the

Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute,

gives each State the flexibility to develop the best programs to protect its

water, while maintaining critical Federal support. I urge my colleagues to

support this substitute.

Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Saxton-Boehlert substitute

to H.R. 961.

Let us face it, colleagues. The Clean

Water Act has made great strides in

improving the quality of water sources

and aquatic habitats across our Nation.

However, unintended consequences of

the provisions of the act as well as advances in environmental science and

technology over the past 20 years have

necessitated a revision of this law. H.R.

961, as passed by the Transportation

Committee, brings a 1970’s law into the

1990’s and the 21st century.

With wastewater treatment needs of

communities across the United States

projected to cost over $120 billion during the next 20 years, it is essential

that innovative financing and treatment methods be utilized. States need

to be provided flexibility in the implementation of clean water programs in

order to best address the particular

water resource needs and conditions of

their communities. Cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment and the use of

sound science need to be included in a

national clean water program to ensure

that regulations do not burden the

States, localities, and individual land

owners.

Finally, commonsense reforms of the

current section 404 wetlands permitting process are needed to relieve private landowners of the current regulatory maze and to protect their rights

as guaranteed by the Constitution of

the United States. Under the current

Clean Water Act, landowners have been

prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for removing trash, adding fill

dirt, repairing a levee, installing a tennis court, plowing land, and planting

crops without a section 404 permit.

A great deal of time and effort has

been invested by Chairman SHUSTER

and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to ensure that these

issues are all addressed in H.R. 961 and

that all perspectives on clean water issues have been taken into consideration. At the same time, H.R. 961 facilitates the continued improvement in
H 4750 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

the quality of our Nation’s water resources. This bill has had resounding

bi-partisan support throughout the

committee process, having passed the

subcommittee by a vote of 19 to 5 and

the full committee by a vote of 42 to 16.

I commend Chairman SHUSTER for his

commitment to reforming the Clean

Water Act to be a more effective and

efficient national policy without compromising America’s water quality,

and for his dedication to seeing that

this legislation comes to the floor during this Congress.

The Saxton-Boehlert substitute

would gut the provisions of H.R. 961

which bring the Clean Water Act into

the 21st century. The Saxton-Boehlert

substitute does little to change the inflexible Federal Stormwater and nonpoint source regulations that are

breaking the financial backs of small

and rural communities across the Nation. The substitute does not adequately relieve the States, localities

and landowners from onerous regulations and loss of private property

rights. I strongly urge my colleagues

to vote ‘‘no’’ on the substitute.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. ZELIFF. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the

gentleman said this would gut the provisions of the bill that bring us into

the 21st century. It would be helpful to

us if the gentleman elucidates those

particular provisions because we are all

anxious to go into the 21st century.

Mr. ZELIFF. I agree, and, although

we have an honest disagreement, I

think that the Contract With America

and all that we were trying to do in

terms of giving back some of the power

to the States to make decisions

classifying what a wetlands is and a

wetland is not makes all the sense in

the world, and so that kind of common

sense brings us into the 21st century.

Regulations and laws that cost all of us

in taking precious rights away from us

as individuals, putting those regulations back with the States and all

those things make a lot of good common sense and hopefully go——

Mr. BOEHLERT. Wetlands provision

we have adopted the language advanced

by the National Governors Association

because, like the gentleman, we agree

that the Governors are in the best position to deal with these very sensitive

issues.

Mr. ZELIFF. The Governors do not

support the gentleman’s amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. The Governors support title VIII to the bill as——

Mr. ZELIFF. Support the gentleman’s position.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the

Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute

amendment. It is far preferable to the

underlying bill that has been brought

to the floor.

Let me comment for a moment, if I

might, about the efforts we have made

in Maryland in regard to the Chesapeake Bay. This is an effort that has

been undertaken now for over 15 years

in which the people of Maryland have

made a tremendous sacrifice in order

to reclaim the quality of the water of

the Chesapeake Bay. This has not just

been an effort by the people of Maryland. It has been a cooperative effort

between the people of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the Nation’s Capital. It has been an effort between the

private sector and the Government

working together in order to deal with

some very serious pollution problems

within the Bay. It has been a model

program.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen this

partnership has worked through some

very tough changes in the manner in

which we deal with water quality, including land use management, and fishing restrictions and other policies that

we have undertaken in order to deal

with the Chesapeake Bay, and it has

been successful. The underlying bill

would be a major step backward on the

quality of the Chesapeake Bay.

Let me mention 3 significant differences between the underlying bill

and the substitute that is before us.

First, as it relates to the wetlands protection, the surge of nutrients into the

Bay acts as a strangling of the oxygen

that is important for the fish life, for

the waterfowl, for oysters, crabs, and I

could go on.

b 1815

The quality of what we know on the

Chesapeake Bay, whether it is for commercial or recreational purposes, is

contingent upon us being able to control the level of nutrient in the Bay.

That is why under the Bay Agreement

we have a commitment to reduce the

levels of nutrients by 40 percent by the

year 2000.

The wetlands operate as a filtering

system to remove nutrients and sediment from the Bay. Between 1982 and

1989, in the States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, we lost 37,000

acres of wetlands. That is equivalent to

the size of the District of Columbia.

The substitute uses the standards

helped developed by the National Governors’ Association in order to put sensible restrictions on wetlands to protect wetlands. The underlying bill

would literally allow the destruction of

thousands, tens of thousands of acres

of wetlands in our region and around

the Nation.

A second reason why the substitute is

far preferable is the pollution from

storm water systems. We have a lot of

old urban sewage systems in our State.

During heavy storms, pollution, raw

sewage, will just literally flow into the

tributaries that lead into the Chesapeake Bay. The substitute that is before us offers some hope that we can

deal with this issue. The underlying

bill does nothing at all to protect us

from the problems of storm water pollution.

Let me mention a third issue why the

substitute is far preferable than the

underlying bill, and that is the coastal

zone non-pointed source runoff controls. Again, we are dealing with the

nutrient level that I mentioned before.

The underlying bill will allow the nutrients to continue, which act as a suffocation to the oxygen necessary for

aquatic life. The substitute provides

protection in this area, again allowing

us to deal with the unacceptable level

of nutrients that are flowing into the

Chesapeake Bay and other waters.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is

this: We have invested an awful lot in

cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay in this

region. We have put a lot of time, effort, and resources, both governmental

and private sector. We have a choice in

a few moments whether we are going to

move forward in partnership with our

States and with our local governments

and with the private sector to help

clean up the Chesapeake Bay, or

whether we are going to move backwards.

The Federal Government has been a

partner in this effort, a very proud

partner in this effort, in helping the region deal with the Chesapeake Bay,

which has been a model of a multi-jurisdictional body of water in dealing

with pollution. It has acted as a model.

I hope the Congress, I hope my colleagues, will continue that fine tradition. Vote for the substitute, vote

against the underlying bill. Let us continue that partnership and allow the

people of our region to continue their

efforts to reclaim one of the most important assets that we have, the Chesapeake Bay.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from Maryland [Mr. CARDIN]

has expired.

(At the request of Mr. SAXTON and by

unanimous consent, Mr. CARDIN was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to ask

the gentleman, the nutrification process that you speak of in bodies of waters such as the Chesapeake Bay where

nutrients create a situation where

aquatic life cannot exist, at least in a

healthy way, comes from in most cases

the non-point source pollution issue

that we are addressing in the substitute. The educational process, to enlist the help of the army of people necessary to change our forms of behavior,

is absolutely necessary, as included in

this bill.

I bring this up because the Chesapeake Bay is the great example of a

great body of water that everybody is

in love with and that everybody would

like to help to nurture back to a good

state of health, if only we had programs to help people understand how

to do that.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4751

I grew up in northeastern Pennsylvania on the south branch of the

Tunkhannock Creek, which nobody has

heard of. But it feeds into the east

branch of the Susquehanna River,

which is of course the source of fresh

water for the Bay, and that is where

the nutrients come from. My father a

few years ago adopted the south branch

of the Tunkhannock Creek and went

about trying to eliminate the nutrients

coming from that area.

Throughout Pennsylvania, those

kinds of programs are necessary in

order to help bring the Bay back to an

appropriate level of healthfulness.

So I thank the gentleman for his

comments.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for

his comments. He is absolutely correct.

The nutrients are acting as a suffocation to aquatic life. Non-point pollution is the cause. Education is important. The substitute moves us in that

direction to control the issues. The underlying bill would prevent the actions.

I appreciate the comments made by the

gentleman on this.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to

the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, this is a ‘‘while I’’

speech. While I share the concern and

admire the leadership of Messrs. BOEHLERT and SHAYS and formerly Mr.

SAXTON, I must rise in opposition to

this amendment.

Let the record show that I am for a

clean Chesapeake Bay. Let the record

show I hope the gentleman from New

Jersey is able to swim as long as he

wants in the Susquehanna, or whatever. But I must say that agriculture

has a stake in this. I think there has

been debate here, and as chairman of

the House Committee on Agriculture, I

feel compelled to inform Members that

most of those interested in agriculture

are very concerned about this substitute.

Now, you are going to say ‘‘Who is

that,’’ and I am going to tell you. The

Agricultural Retailers, American Association of Nurserymen, American Crop

Protection Association, American

Farm Bureau, American Feed Industry,

American Sheep Industry, American

Soybean Association, CF Industries,

Inc., Agriculture Association, Farmland Industries, the dairymen, and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. They are extremely important as you work on the

environment. You have got to work

with the state departments of agriculture as well as the state departments of environmental protection.

We have the wheat growers, the

cattlemen, the corn growers, the cotton council. I can go on and on and on.

But basically all of agriculture says

while they understand the concern and

the apprehension of those who have offered this substitute, that we need this

bill. We need the other bill.

Now, why? Let me also add, if you

are from rural and small town America, the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the many outfits here that rates Members of Congress. Some Members of Congress that

are about, wake up in the offices, wake

up here. The NFIB rating, two times,

one on the substitute and one on final

passage. They are opposed to the substitute; they are for the final passage.

Why would the NFIB and agriculture

indicate their opposition to the substitute? Well, the substitute allows the

1987 Core Delineation Manual to be

used for making wetlands determinations. That is the manual that has

caused all the problems. That has been

the problem.

This bill sets out a better determination, a much better definition. This

1987 manual would let the regulators

decide wetland hydrology by looking at

watermarks on trees, even though

there is no water on the land. A parcel

of land could be damp a foot below the

surface and still meet their requirement. That has been part of the problem. We do require 21 consecutive days

where a wetland would be wet. I think

that makes a little sense. If more than

50 percent of the vegetation on the land

is made up of plants that also thrive in

other areas, well, there you are, that

requirement of qualification is met.

This bill, the chairman’s bill, the bill

that we also support on the House

Committee on Agriculture, requires

some water-loving wetland plant to be

present. I think that makes common

sense.

I will tell you, I know the gentleman

from New York, [Mr. BOEHLERT] and

the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr.

DINGELL] and I have the utmost respect

for him, has said it does not harm agriculture. I know the gentleman has

made a very honest effort in that regard. But the chairman’s bill allows

State and local cooperation to restore

a wetland ecosystem.

You know what? We have debated

this and debated this. No one here

knows exactly what an ecosystem is, a

wetlands ecosystem, and that is the

problem. Because when these matters

end up in a Federal District Court, the

judge then turns to the EPA and the

Fish and Wildlife Service to tell him

what a wetlands ecosystem is, and we

are right back to the regulator and we

are right back to the problem that has

caused all of the problem in regards to

farm country.

We have heard a lot about the Chesapeake and the Susquehanna. We have

got a river in Kansas, one of the few

rivers in Kansas. It is called the Arkansas. There is a community there called

Great Bend, Kansas. And we heard a lot

about nutrients and the different

standards.

That community is now going to

spend $12 million for a new waterworks

system. You know why? There is too

much chlorine in the water. It could

endanger an endangered species fish

called the shiner in the local river. One

basic problem, there is no water in the

river and there is no fish. Now, other

than that, it makes a great deal of

common sense.

That is an extreme example, but that

is the kind of thing we are facing in agriculture. Low spots in the field where,

as I said before, no self-respecting duck

would ever land.

I urge you, if you come from rural

and small town America, if you care

about the NFIB rating, and if you serve

on the Committee on Agriculture, vote

against this substitute and support the

bill.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MINGE TO THE

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

OFFERED BY MR. SAXTON

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an

amendment to the amendment in the

nature of a substitute.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.

ENSIGN). The gentleman reserves a

point of order on the amendment.

The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MINGE to the

amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. SAXTON: ‘‘Page 130, after line 5,

add the following: ‘(5) Agricultural Permit

Authority.—The Secretary of Agriculture is

authorized to issue permits in accordance

with this section for any activity resulting

from normal farming, silviculture, aquaculture, and ranching activities and practices carried out on agricultural lands or for

any activity incidental thereto carried out

on agricultural lands if the agricultural land

is not subject to sections 1221–1223 of the

Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821–

3823). Any activity allowed by the Secretary

of Agriculture under sections 1221–1223 of the

Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821–3823)

shall be deemed permitted under this section

and no individual request for or granting of

a permit shall be required.’’’

‘‘Page 146, after line 7, add the following:

‘(z) Mitigation of Agricultural Lands.—Any

mitigation approved by the Secretary of Agriculture for agricultural lands shall be accepted by the Secretary as mitigation under

this section.’’’

Mr. MINGE (during the reading). Mr.

Chairman, I ask unanimous consent

that the amendment be considered as

read and printed in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Minnesota?

There was no objection.

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would

like to briefly discuss the reason for

this amendment. The problem that we

face in rural areas with wetland delineation and permitting under section 404

is largely a problem that results from

several Government agencies trying to

make decisions about the same land.

We have the Army Corps of Engineers,

the Environmental Protection Agency,

the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

and the Fish and Wildlife Service all

focusing on what ought to be done. The

farmers and others in the rural area

have found that this vast array of

agencies at the State, Federal, and
H 4752 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

local level has resulted in delays of

years, frustration, expense, and despair.

What is important I believe is that

we clearly recognize here in Congress

that although we have committees and

we have jurisdiction and are concerned

that we maintain clear lines of authority, that out there in the field, in the

real world, it is terribly important, individuals, that we at the Federal level

speak with one voice.

The purpose of my amendment is to

make it possible for farmers and rural

America to ask for an opinion on

whether or not their situation requires

a permit, whether or not mitigation

that is acceptable to one Federal agency is acceptable to another, and have a

straight answer from one Federal officer.

I submit that part of the credibility

that we as Members of Congress and

the Federal Government face is that we

have been unable to put things together so that our agencies do in fact

work with one voice, and we have onestop shopping.

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I request that this body approve this

amendment and improve the way that

we deal with people in rural America.

This is not an amendment that goes to

the merits of the legislation in terms

of policy decisions, over what should

and should not be a wetland. Instead, it

goes to the procedure by which people

deal with our Federal agencies. I request that this amendment be passed.

b 1830

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of

order. As I understand, the amendment

will be accepted by the author of the

substitute, and we may have problems

with this, but we can fight that battle

within the context of the whole substitute.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman

from New Jersey.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the authors of the substitute,

we do accept the amendment. We believe that it goes to the best interests

of the farmers that the gentleman from

Kansas was speaking so eloquently

about just a few minutes ago. We commend the gentleman for his foresight

in bringing this matter to our attention.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to compliment the gentleman, too, because we are vitally

concerned with the interests of agriculture. The gentleman has evidenced a

sensitivity to that, and we are glad to

accept that proposal.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman

from Indiana.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would

just say, as one of the authors of the

substitute as well, that we feel that we

want to do everything we can to work

closely with agriculture. We feel this

improves the bill for farmers, for conservation, and for the convenience of

farmers as one-stop shopping. And we

are happy to accept the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.

ENSIGN). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

Minnesota [Mr. MINGE] to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON].

The amendment to the amendment in

the nature of a substitute was agreed

to.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.

Chairman, I move to strike the last

word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support

of the Saxton-Boehlert substitute to

the Clean Water Act. I have serious

concerns about the impact of certain

provisions of H.R. 961 on my State of

Connecticut.

First, the Shuster bill repeals the

coastal water protection program established by the Coastal Zone Management Act, which recognizes the unique

water pollution issues facing coastal

States and requires these States to

take special steps to control nonpoint

source pollution.

Connecticut has been a leader in this

area, developing an innovative and successful program. Scaling back the Federal program would have serious negative consequences for my State’s

shores because no matter how committed Connecticut is to coastal quality,

negligence by neighbor states could

pollute our shores and our waterways.

Nonetheless, the significant changes in

the Coastal Zone Management Act are

long overdue and to address these problems with the current program, the

Saxton-Boehlert substitute adopts the

recommendations made by the coastal

State Governors, to preserve the benefits of the Coastal Zone Management

Act but gives States greater flexibility

to delineate the scope of their managed

areas, expand the time frame for implementation of reforms and allow States

to select and prioritize the projects

they believe will address their

nonpoint source pollution problems.

Given the facts that in the past 5

years over 10,000 beaches in the United

States have been closed because of

coastal water pollution and that over

one-third of all shellfish beds are

closed or threatened by water pollution, including 32 in Connecticut, we

must focus greater attention, not less,

on the problems of water pollution in

our coastal zones.

This is both an economic and an environmental imperative. The pollution

threatening our coasts stems mainly

from nonpoint sources, storm water

runoff from urban, suburban, commercial and industrial areas now accounts

for 30 percent of water quality impairment. The current Clean Water Act

mandates a program to control polluted storm water from municipal industrial sources and has already been

phased into effect in most of the largest cities and industries.

Even though 342 cities and 134,000 industrial sources already have their permit and abatement programs in place,

the problem of controlling storm water

runoff has proven to be quite complicated. EPA has placed a 6-year moratorium on any new requirements on

smaller cities or smaller industries

while it works out the problems the

programs have encountered in regard

to small cities and small businesses.

The substitute adopts the EPA moratorium as law and extends it for 10

years. This is the right approach, because it maintains the pressure on

States to deal with these issues while

at the same time relieving States of

taking irrational steps in regard to

small towns and small industries.

Another provision with serious potential implications for Connecticut is

the wastewater treatment standards,

specifically secondary treatment waivers. The current Clean Water Act establishes secondary treatment as a

minimum standard for municipal sewage treatment plants, governing how

clean wastewater must be before it is

discharged into rivers, oceans and

other bodies of water. All municipally

owned sewage treatment plants were

required to provide secondary treatment by 1988 and all municipal facilities in Connecticut have already attained at least secondary treatment capability and some have gone beyond

that standard.

Despite the fact that this requirement has been in effect for almost 7

years, the underlying bill seeks to exempt towns of less than 10,000 people

from secondary treatment requirements.

Along the Connecticut River, which

cuts through the heart of all of New

England, this exemption would create

havoc. Most of the towns in New England are smaller than 10,000 people. A

town of 10,000 people gives off a million

gallons of sewage a day.

Like most other States, Connecticut

still has a long way to go in achieving

its clean water goals. More than a

third of the assessed rivers and estuaries cannot sustain fishing, permit

swimming or maintain aquatic life

year round. Exempting the majority of

our towns as a majority of less than

10,000 people from secondary treatment

requirements will not continue the

progress we have made at great expense.

Finally, I am pleased to support the

wetlands provisions of the SaxtonBoehlert substitute. This title adopts

the recommendations of the National

Governors Association with input from

State wetlands managers.

I would remind Members that both in

the wetlands section and in the coastal
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4753

management section the Boehlert substitute simply adopts the recommendations of the State Governors for the reforms that their people say are needed

in these programs.

I am troubled by title VIII of H.R. 961

for several reasons. The bill establishes

a new entitlement for property owners

whose property value is diminished by

20 percent. We have discussed this at

great length. I will not repeat that discussion.

Secondly, the bill would require the

Army Corps of Engineers to classify all

wetlands into three categories with

only the top category being fully protected.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The

time of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. JOHNSON] has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.

Chairman, this would have a harsh effect on Connecticut where at least 60

percent of the wetlands would be declassified. Though I support the concept of classifying wetlands, this bill

sets out criteria for classification not

based on sound science, according to

the newly released National Academy

of Sciences wetlands report.

Further, the costs associated with

classifying every wetland in the Nation

would be staggering. A far less extensive plan to map all flood plain areas,

which in Connecticut we have accomplished, wound up taking 10 years in

the nation and cost a billion dollars.

In contrast, the substitute’s wetlands

provisions allow the Army Corps greater flexibility in wetlands delineation

and encourage states to adopt their

own permitting program independent

of federal control. It encourages wetlands classification based on science

with exceptions only for certain functioning wetlands and certain agricultural lands.

State and individuals have had difficulty applying current wetlands laws

in recent years, but I am confident

that the proposal put together by the

States themselves and incorporated in

the Saxton-Boehlert substitute addresses these problems effectively.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The

time of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. JOHNSON] has again expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.

Chairman, faced with serious water

quality problems a generation ago, the

state of Connecticut passed its only

Clean Water Act, and this is why I

wanted the 30 additional seconds. We

passed the first one.

The Federal law is modeled on our

act. And since its passage, we have become the Nation’s leader in the production of oysters because we have so

cleaned up our offshore waters. With

that, I ask Members’ support of the

Boehlert amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the

substitute offered by the gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON], the

gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT], the gentleman from Indiana

[Mr. ROEMER], as amended by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MINGE].

This substitute amendment is a reasonable alternative to H.R. 961, and I urge

all of my colleagues to support it.

The substitute lessens the devastating impact of H.R. 961 by including the

recommendation of the National Governors Association for protecting wetlands.

In addition, it incorporates a proposal for addressing coastal nonpoint

pollution developed by the Coastal

States Organization. The substitute,

unlike H.R. 961, will not roll back toxicity standards that are working, and

it will not provide a laundry list of exemptions for various industries to release new pollutants at will.

Mr. Chairman, of special concern to

my state of California and to all coastal States, and I might add my native

State of Maryland, home of the great

Chesapeake Bay, is a provision which

repeals the only existing program for

reducing agricultural and urban runoff.

This type of runoff is an especially significant contributor to coastal pollution and results in the closing of beaches, declining coastal fisheries, threats

to drinking water and the shutting

down of the shellfish beds. We are all

concerned about the enforcement of

regulations over the wetlands. We have

heard this over and over, and I think it

deserves attention. But, Mr. Chairman,

this legislation goes too far because it

affects millions of acres of wetlands by

allowing these natural areas to be developed and polluted.

This would jeopardize over 75 percent

of our fish and shellfish, which depend

on marshes and other wetland environment.

Wetlands are an integral component

of both the environmental and economic health of our Nation. They provide important recreational benefits,

natural flood control, reduce shoreline

erosion and water purification through

filtration of sediments and toxic pollutants from runoff. The provisions of

H.R. 961 would cause irreparable damage to these sensitive lands.

Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act

is a tremendously complex piece of legislation dealing with national issues of

critical importance. Unlike previous

reauthorizations, however, H.R. 961

fails to make progress toward a cleaner

environment.

Mr. Chairman, the substitute offered

by our colleagues is reasonable and

sensible, when compared to H.R. 961.

Virtually every provision of H.R. 961 is

harmful to both people and the environment and would degrade rivers,

streams, estuaries, wetlands, and

coastal zones throughout the country,

including the sources of drinking water

for two-thirds of all Americans.

Our Nation will never have a clean

bill of health in any respect without

clean water. I urge my colleagues to

support the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer

substitute and to vote ‘‘no’’ on H.R.

961.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I

inquire of the Chair, with the gentleman from Indiana, if we might explore limiting debate time to perhaps

an additional period of time. May I ask

the gentleman, how many additional

speakers he believes he may have.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, we

have one additional speaker.

Mr. SAXTON. I believe on our side we

have three or four, possibly three additional speakers.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I think

there is one speaker in support of the

substitute and one in opposition to the

substitute on this side.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent that we limit additional debate time to 30 minutes, to be

divided equally between the proponents

and the opponents of the substitute.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is

there objection to the request of the

gentleman from New Jersey?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Reserving the right

to object, Mr. Chairman, I think that

works contrary to the interests of the

authors of the amendment because

there are four of us who wish to speak

as advocates, so those four should each

receive 5 minutes. I think there are

two opposed. That would be four and

two. So there would be seven more

speakers, 5 minutes apiece.

Mr. SHUSTER. There are four opposed. Four are in favor, four opposed.

That is 40 minutes.

Mr. SAXTON. If we could limit debate to 45 minutes, that would take

care of the situation.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent that we limit further debate to 45 minutes, to be equally

divided between the opponents and proponents.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is

there objection to the request of the

gentleman from New Jersey?

Mr. BORSKI. Reserving the right to

object, Mr. Chairman, could we just

limit it to seven speakers, 5 minutes

each?

b 1845

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I amend

my unanimous-consent request.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will

yield, I understand he has 4 in favor

and we have 4 opposed, so that is 8.

Mr. SAXTON. I amend my unanimous consent request to that effect.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.

ENSIGN). The pending unanimous consent request is to limit debate on the

Saxton amendment and amendments

thereto to 45 minutes, controlled by
H 4754 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

SAXTON] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. SHUSTER], and they will

yield debate as they see fit.

Is there objection to the request of

the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5

minutes to the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. ZIMMER].

Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, we have had considerable discussion on this floor about the

role of science in the consideration of

this legislation, and legislation in general. Surely I would agree that we, as

Members of Congress, have the responsibility to write the laws, but we also

have a responsibility to take into account the facts of nature that scientists can describe for us. In that regard, there is an anecdote that may

shed some light on this issue.

As we know, Mr. Chairman, from our

high school geometry classes, the ratio

between the diameter of a circle and

the circumference of a circle is known

as pi, and is equal to roughly 3.14159. It

is a long decimal number that is hard

to remember, so in 1897 the legislature

of the State of Indiana decided that

they would make life easier for high

school students by passing a law that

the value of pi would be 3.0 exactly.

Mr. Chairman, the legislators of the

State of Indiana had it wrong, because

regardless of what any legislature or

Congress says the value of pi is, it will

remain and will always be 3.14159.

There is a parallel here to the legislative definition of wetlands. Wetlands

are defined by what they do in nature.

They are not defined by any arbitrary

formula written in legislation. Wetlands are useful. Wetlands control

flooding. Wetlands provide wildlife

habitat. Wetlands provide water purification and aquifer recharge.

If lands are covered with water for

any period of time, and they perform

those functions, they are wetlands, regardless of what the committee says,

regardless of what this Congress says.

We should recognize that, and we

should protect the value of the wetlands because of what they do.

Mr. Chairman, in my State of New

Jersey, the arbitrary legislative definition of wetlands proposed by this bill

will devastate wetlands protection.

That is why I support the Saxton substitute. According to the New Jersey

Governor’s office, under the provisions

of H.R. 961, 90 percent of New Jersey’s

remaining wetlands will no longer

qualify as federally protected. Most of

the State’s remaining wetlands are invaluable to flood control, but they do

not meet the test that is set forth in

the legislation that they have to be

wet in the growing season for at least

21 consecutive days. This is a hard blow

to a State that has lost 50 percent of

its wetlands to development over the

last 25 years.

Michigan and New Jersey are unique

in that they are the only two States in

the Union that have assumed wetlands

delineation authority from the Federal

Government under a provision of the

1987 act. While it is true that H.R. 961

places no restrictions on a State’s ability to run its own stricter wetlands

program, because of the State’s assumption of the Federal program, there

is no separate State-run program in

New Jersey. New Jersey’s laws and regulations are all based on and refer to

definitions and legislative language in

the current section, 404. Therefore, by

changing section 404, we are limiting

the ability of the State of New Jersey

to protect its own wetlands in the manner that its own legislators have chosen to do.

To retain the current level of protection, the State legislature must pass a

new set of wetlands laws without section 404 references, and promulgate

new regulations with the normal

lengthy notice and comment process.

This will put the few remaining wetlands in my State of New Jersey at

considerable risk.

According to Congressional Quarterly, wetlands save this country $31

billion a year as a result of flood mitigation. New Jersey rightly does not

want to expose the communities along

the Raritan River, the Passaic River,

the Delaware River, to the enormous

damage of flooding that has occurred

in recent decades and in recent years in

our State. However, that would be the

effect of this legislation, unless it is

amended by the Saxton substitute.

In addition, CBO scored H.R. 1330, the

bill on which the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], based title VIII of this legislation, to cost $10 to $15 billion to protect only type A wetlands. Congressional Quarterly estimates that the

American taxpayers could shell out up

to $45 billion if the Army Corps of Engineers does not permit development of

all the wetlands covered by H.R. 961.

Because the corps has a budget of only

$4 to $6 billion, this poses an obvious

problem. I urge my colleagues to vote

for the Saxton amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr.

CUNNINGHAM].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. First of all, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to thank the

chairman for the earlier recognition.

At this time I would have been swimming out of the mouth of the Red River

over North Vietnam, and I want to tell

the Members, it was not a river of pollution that you would want to swim in,

or your children to swim in.

Would a Clean Water Act help clean

up that river? Absolutely. Would the

current Clean Water Act of today be

supported by members? I think with

clearer definitions. however, the last

gentleman from New Jersey, according

to him, a mud puddle that would replenish the aquifer would be considered

a wetland. That is the lunacy of the

bill. That is why, exactly why we are

fighting.

There is probably not a Member in

here that would not support the current Clean Water Act. There is not a

Member that would not support the bill

offered by the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. SAXTON]. The clean water

and clean air and endangered species,

and yes, even the EPA, the organization, would be supported, but they have

gone too far. There have been extreme

cases.

However, there are honest attempts,

and I appreciate, first of all, the dialogue. I do not think there has been a

lot of mudslinging on either side of the

issue. We have been talking about the

issues, and they have been honest. I

think they have been honest attempts

to achieve elemental environmental security.

However, we have in this body fundamentalists, fundamentalist leftists,

that have violated the interests and

used the well-meaning legislation to

the extremes. I am not talking about

the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROEMER] or the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON] but there is an element in this organization that are extremist, and they have used these bills,

aforementioned, as weapons against

people.

Why are we even having a substitute,

or a bill in the first place? To me it is

not the Clean Water Act, it is to come

somewhere within logic of what reasonable men and women would have us to

save the environment. However, that

has not been the case. That is why I

think both the substitute and the bill

is to try and bring us somewhere back

to the center.

If we take a look, I had 3 Russian

generals come into my office a few

months ago. I asked one of them what

was the most treasured right that they

had gained since they had their freedom. They said ‘‘Congressman, it is the

right to own property.’’

The problem is, for every item that I

read here, there are going to be items

on the other side that are violated. I

recognize that. However, for example,

in private property rights, I personally

believe it is wrong from environmentalists, often extreme groups, to go

in and take on somebody’s property,

devalue that property, and then say

that is fair market value. That is

wrong. However, that has existed.

I think that is why these laws and

why these substitutes and bills have

been changed, they are trying to

change the current act, because there

have been those violations.

Mr. Chairman, I look at Mexico. We

discussed here once about a boy that

was lost for three days, and the helicopter could not land because he went

into a wilderness area. Fish and Game

would not allow the helicopter to land.

That is ludicrous. That is stupid. However, those kinds of things are allowed

to exist.

In California, we had homes where

the people had asked if they could disk

around there homes because of the fire.

We have a lot of fires and earthquakes
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4755

in California. They said ‘‘Can we disk

around them?’’ They said ‘‘No, because

it is an endangered species area.’’ We

lost 34 homes. The people that went

ahead and did it and violated the law

saved their homes. That is wrong, Mr.

Chairman.

For each of those issues that I could

talk about, about the violations, we

look at the Colorado slag, we look at

the pollution in the Great Lakes. Talk

about the Chesapeake Bay, look how

the Great Lakes have been cleaned up.

There are advantages to the current

Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and

endangered species. However, something has to bring the legislation to

where logical decisions can be made,

not by regulators. Government officials

run amok, whether it is an RTC or

whether it is an environmental group,

they run amok. We have to change

that.

California, the No. 1 economic product in California is agriculture. Yet,

agriculture in the past, pesticides go

into the lakes and into the rivers and

into our oceans, where the gentleman

from California [Mr. FILNER] is from.

Down there in the district, we need to

clear that up. It is not so much our

outfall in sewage, it is the Tijuana raw

sewage that is coming out of Mexico

that is polluting our beaches. We need

to attend to that.

I think there is an honest attempt

for the Members in favor of the substitute and the Members in favor of the

bill to resolve not the Clean Air Act,

but to resolve logical decisions. That

has not existed in the past.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5

minutes to the gentlewoman from

Maryland [Mrs. MORELLA].

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding time

to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong

support of the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer

substitute and in opposition to H.R. 961

as reported. Members know I feel

strongly, because I waited all afternoon to speak.

Mr. Chairman, among all of our environmental protection efforts, the Clean

Water Act stands as a shining success

story and as an international model.

In the twenty years of this program,

the quality of our rivers, streams, and

coastal waters has dramatically improved. The percentage of waters failing to meet swimming safety criteria

has fallen. Ohio’s Cuyahoga River,

which once attracted firemen, now attracts fishermen. And our own Chesapeake Bay is making tough, halting

steps on the long road to recovery.

Protection of wetlands is crucial

both to the protection of our wildlife

and the maintenance of our water quality. Wetlands are vital biological filters, removing sediments and pollutants that would otherwise suffocate

our waters. Over half of the nation’s

wetlands have disappeared since the

time of Columbus. Recognizing the importance of this resource, President

Bush pledged ‘‘no net loss of wetlands’’

during his administration.

Sadly, we are falling short of even

this modest and reasonable goal. During the 1980’s, despite the scientific recognition of the value of wetlands, our

own Chesapeake Bay lost wetlands at

the rate of 8 acres a day. No resource

can long endure such depredation.

The Chesapeake Bay remains in a

precarious state. Our oyster and shad

fisheries are virtually gone; blue crab,

the region’s premier catch, has fallen

into precipitous decline.

We have made great progress in other

areas: point-source discharges of phosphorus to the Bay have fallen off by 70

percent and we are beginning to make

strides controlling nitrogen contamination.

Those positive strides are directly attributable to the Nation’s aggressive

Clean Water Program. Much more

needs to be done, particularly in the

control of agricultural and municipal

runoff. I am disappointed that H.R. 961

would allow decades of delay before we

seriously address these problems.

Furthermore, the redefinition of wetlands under the Committee bill will remove vast areas from the scope of legal

protections. I stood here on the floor

two months ago as we debated risk assessment, and one principle we all

agreed on was the need for the best

possible science in formulating our environmental strategies.

We now have a situation where, at

the expressed request of Congress, the

National Academy has performed an

exhaustive scientific analysis of the

wetlands issue. Their conclusions are

antithetical to those in H.R. 961. Are

we in Congress, committed to good

science, to ignore the verdict of the nation’s foremost scientific advisory

body?

H.R. 961 would divide currently protected wetlands into three categories.

Wetlands at the lower end would effectively lose protection. I am reminded

with a hint of irony of those famous

words of Julius Caesar: ‘‘Gaul is divided in three parts.’’ Division of the

province into three sections was the

prelude to subjugation.

H.R. 961 would undermine the health

of the Bay, and, in the process, undermine the health and economic wellbeing of the residents of this region. I

opposed private property takings legislation before; I will oppose it now

where it applied to the preservation of

wetlands.

There have been costs for this

progress, but the benefits have been

immeasurable. It would be unfortunate

indeed if this Congress were to succumb to the whim of the moment and

undercut this crown jewel of our nation’s environmental efforts. I urge defeat of H.R. 961 and passage of the bipartisan substitute.

b 1900

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. HAYWORTH].

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding

me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I would commend to

the attention of my colleagues words

from the Mesa Tribune in March of this

year. Mark Flatten and Chris Coppola

write the article. ‘‘In Arizona, sewage

must be treated to drinking quality

standards before discharged so that it

won’t harm phantom fish in a dry

river.’’

The passage points up the challenge

we face, the absurdity of regulation

run amuck. For that reason, I stand in

opposition to the amendment and in

strong support of H.R. 961.

I have good friends who sponsor this

amendment. I have no doubt to the nobility and the aim and the intent of the

amendment. Here is my problem, colleagues. It seems to me that though

the amendment is born of a noble impulse, it assumes the worst about duly

elected representatives at the State

level.

In other words, the assumption is

that our friends in the State legislatures, that our friends in local and

county government cannot move effectively to solve problems on their own.

Indeed, the overwhelming sentiment

and the underlying philosophy of the

first 100 days of this new Congress was

this concept: That those on the front

lines can best fight the battles.

I am pleased to hear of the strides

here on the East Coast. I am pleased to

hear of the improvements, and indeed

no one in this body, I believe, disputes

the notion of the need a quarter century ago to stop and take stock of pollution and move toward meaningful

conservation. But the problem comes,

as I see it, in making the Federal Government always the instrument, and

indeed making the unelected the final

arbiters of what measures should be

taken.

With that, I oppose the amendment,

and I stand in strong support of H.R.

961.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the

gentleman points out some legitimate

concerns, reading from that Arizona

publication. I wish to point out that in

title III, section 301, entitled ‘‘Arid

Areas,’’ we address the legitimate concern you have. So the substitute does

address that legitimate concern.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5

minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. CASTLE].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding me the

time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the

Boehlert substitute here today. I would

like to say why because I have a great

deal of respect for the sponsor of the

bill itself.
H 4756 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Having worked in this area for 20

years in the State of Delaware, I have

seen that of all the pieces of environmental legislation which I think have

actually worked, that the Clean Water

Act probably stands at the top. I believe that the substitute does more to

support that original piece of legislation, but correcting or remedying some

of the problems which existed, than

does the actual bill before us.

I believe that the substitute deals

with the problems of wetlands, it gives

more control to the States, but it does

not give up the wetlands which are a

valuable source of nutrients, as we

know. I believe that it preserves the

Coastal Zone Management Act, which

is extremely important.

We have the Delaware River and Bay

in my State, and I cannot tell you how

important that is to the environment

of our State. The revolving loan fund is

extremely important for infrastructure

as far as water is concerned. The financial and technical needs of the farmers

are something else that sometimes we

overlook. That is a very dramatic problem that they are dealing with, and

they are right on the edge of the water

in many instances.

The stormwater program, which

would be repealed by H.R. 961, is of

vital importance. We have had to close

our oceans, I have had to actually close

down swimming in Rehoboth Beach,

DE, because of stormwater runoff, and

the same thing is true of non-point

source pollution. It is the exact same

thing. We get to the point where we actually have to close swimming and

take other measures because of pollution caused by non-point source pollution. It does not have what I consider

to be an onerous takings provision.

For all of those reasons, but mostly

because ultimately when you are managing these kinds of programs and trying to create clean water in your jurisdiction, you have to take all these different aspects and you have to add

them all up.

In the aggregate, eventually you

begin to clean your water and you get

rid of the burning rivers and you get

rid of where the fish could not live.

Eventually you get to the point where

waters are swimmable, and you get to

the point where our children can enjoy

it for some period of time into their futures.

For all those reasons, I do support

the bipartisan substitute. I would encourage all of us to do it.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT]

is going to be our last speaker. If I

may, Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield

whatever time the gentleman from

Delaware [Mr. CASTLE] did not use, in

addition to the 5 minutes, to the gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON] has 16

minutes remaining.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, does

the gentleman not have two more

speakers?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Pennsylvania has 191⁄2 minutes.

The gentleman may divide that as he

wishes with his speakers.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have

two more speakers.

The CHAIRMAN. But the gentleman

has 191⁄2 minutes left under the agreement.

Mr. SHUSTER. I would ask the Chair

to recalculate. I do not think that is

quite accurate.

The CHAIRMAN. To the gentleman

from Pennsylvania, I would say, if he

has two more speakers remaining,

under the agreement, as I understand

it, each speaker has 5 minutes.

Mr. SHUSTER. So we have 5 minutes

apiece. That is 10 minutes on our side.

The CHAIRMAN. If that is what the

gentleman from Pennsylvania is asking

for, that is fine.

The gentleman from New Jersey is

requesting that the gentleman from

New York close; is that correct? The

gentleman has no more speakers?

Mr. SHUSTER. He would close on

their side. I have the right to close, but

he would have 5 minutes plus whatever

minutes are left over, a total of 8 minutes.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if I

might, let me put this in the form of a

parliamentary inquiry.

My understanding, then, is that on

our side we have a total of 10 minutes.

I am going to next yield 5 minutes to

the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.

HAYES]. Then the gentleman from New

York [Mr. BOEHLERT] will be recognized

for his 5 minutes, plus the 3 that has

been yielded, so he will have 8 minutes

to close on his side. Then I will close

the debate for 5 minutes. That is my

understanding of the parliamentary

situation. Is that accurate?

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

agreement made earlier, the gentleman

still has 191⁄2 minutes remaining. After

his second speaker, he may yield back

the balance of his time if he wishes.

Mr. SHUSTER. I would say, then, Mr.

Chairman, that I think our agreement

is that we will both yield back our

time, so we will take a total of 10 minutes and the gentleman from New York

[Mr. BOEHLERT] will take a total of 8

minutes, so there will be a total of 18

minutes used.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent that we could reclaim some of the time that was yielded back. We have the gentleman from

New York [Mr. BOEHLERT] who wants

to close. However, we have the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.

SPRATT], and I would ask if we could

give 2 minutes to the gentleman from

South Carolina [Mr. SPRATT].

Mr. SHUSTER. I do not object to the

3 minutes, Mr. Chairman, but our

agreement is that we will have 10 minutes left and the other side will have 5

plus 3, or 8 minutes left.

Mr. ROEMER. Eight minutes is fine.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,

so ordered.

There was no objection.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES].

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, this has

been a wonderful debate. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. TAUZIN]

and I have particularly enjoyed it because it was so informative for us to

have an opportunity to learn what we

learned today.

Starting early this afternoon, we

learned that the bill that he and I had

been working on for over 10 years, even

though we sent over 900 copies of what

was then H.R. 1330 to every environmental organization, every Member of

Congress and everyone else when it was

first filed in 1987, his property rights

bill that was filed in the mid-1980’s

that has been discussed in just about

every forum possible was in fact done

in the dead of night, in seclusion,

rushed without hearings.

He and I have attended between us 32

hearings on this subject in the time he

and I have been in Congress and yet

that is rushed through.

So what are we told to do? We are

told by certain elements of leadership

to vote against that product because it

was not aired to the fullest degree. So

what are we supposed to vote for?

Well, we have one speaker after another saying ‘‘Well, it’s obvious, you

vote for the substitute,’’ that was released at a press conference two days

ago that is 250 pages long, that has

never had one hearing on one section,

that has no idea by whom it was written, did not participate in a committee

or subcommittee process, and that is

open and above board.

The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.

TAUZIN] and I, and we are referred to on

occasion as sneaky, but this elevates

the term to a whole new level. And

then we are told an even more extraordinary thing.

We are told, ‘‘Well, wait for the

science. Wait for the science.’’ We have

had 16 different scientific studies in the

last decade. We waited for the study

that is not before us and has been mentioned on several occasions 19 months

after its due date.

The results of that study, by the way,

absolutely no one has mentioned clearly. After 3 years and over $1 million, a

group of eminent scientists, paid by

the EPA, concluded that the 1987 manual written by the EPA was the thing

to do. I am shocked at the conclusion.

What is incredible to me is it took 3

years to figure out who was footing the

bill so you better do what they told

you in the first place, and that to me is

the biggest, biggest element of surprise.

But even more so, I am told that we

should examine this study, even

though it says do what you did in 1987

that did not work, caused everyone in

America to complain about it, and required that you are on the floor here
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4757

today amending it, even though that is

the conclusion they have, we should

take time to study the document because it was not released until 6 p.m.

on Tuesday, for some people.

For others, it was released days earlier in order to allow those people who

agreed with the study that said 1987

was the right thing to do after the cost

of $1 million, to give them additional

opportunity to prepare to place it in

legislation in the above-board and open

process.

My copy of it says ‘‘Advance Copy

Not To Be Released Till 6 p.m. on Tuesday.’’

That does not sound scientific, does

it? Unless of course we include the field

of political science in which I got my

degree.

The next extraordinary thing that I

consider before us is the most unusual

dissertation of all, and that is on individual rights. ‘‘We do not need to

change the law. The law is working

well.’’

I have heard some unusual examples

of it. I heard about a stadium in Cleveland as a success story, even though

the adjoining property houses a museum that a former Congressman from

Cleveland had to get a waiver placed

into a piece of legislation before my

committee because it had been declared navigable. The successful stadium is in the jurisdictional waters of

the United States unless your Congressman had enough influence to get

it out.

I think the rest of America that does

not have that individual influence to

effect a piece of legislation ought to

get the same break the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] is trying

to give everybody.

I heard another example about State

regulators in South Carolina saying we

are for the substitute. Understand,

South Carolina is the same State

where Mr. Lucas had to go all the way

to the U.S. Supreme Court to get his

rights finally preserved by the court.

You know what they said? They said,

‘‘Mr. Lucas, South Carolina is wrong,

their State regulators are wrong, their

zone management is wrong, you were

cheated, and we’re going to give you

over $1 million.’’

b 1915

You know what the State did to pay

the judgment? Since they got the property, they sold it to someone to build a

house, which is what Lucas wanted to

do in the first place. So when they

needed the money they did precisely

what they told him not to do.

And I am supposed to be told this is

the system that works? I am suppose to

support a bipartisan substitute?

We had a committee vote in which

half of the Democrats, overwhelming

majority of Republicans voted for the

bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER]. If that is not bipartisan I do not know what is. So I am

going to support the bipartisan measure and oppose the substitute, which

remains to be seen where the chips

may fall in bipartisanship.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield

the remainder of our time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT].

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield to my colleague, the gentleman

from South Carolina [Mr. SPRATT].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding. I would

like to rise in support of the SaxtonBoehlert-Roemer substitute. I support

amending section 404 of the Clean

Water Act. The district I represent is

largely rural, and farmers in my district have real concerns about the way

in which agricultural wetlands have

been regulated, and I understand that

because I own a farm myself and it has

about 200 or 300 acres of bottom lands

on it. I understand farmers’ concerns

about being overridden by the Corps of

Engineers.

At the same time, in my State in

particular, the gentleman who was just

in the well referred to the State of

South Carolina. We adopted a

Beachfront Management Act to control

the development of our beachfront. We

have a Coastal Zone Management Act

because we recognize the benefits of

wetlands to one of the largest industries in our State, the tourism industry, a large and growing part of our

economy, and our environment will

benefit and what wetlands yield for

water quality helps tourism, home

owners, and farmers alike.

Title VIII, section 8 contains the language that is essentially the same as

that the gentleman who just spoke offered in H.R. 1330 in the last Congress.

I did not cosponsor it then. I do not cosponsor it now. I do not support it now

because I think a national classification system as mandated in the bill is

not workable. It mandates a national

system for classifying it. The Corps is

instructed to classify the land of any

property owner who requests it and is

required to get it done in 10 years’

time. Not one single organization or

person that I have heard has explained

how the Corps, already overburdened,

will be able to classify every single

wetland in 10 years. Nor have I heard

why all of a sudden property owners

want to welcome the Corps of Engineers onto their land to decide whether

or not it contains wetlands.

Mr. Chairman, the Saxton-BoehlertRoemer substitute is a good piece of

work. It is reform without going too

far. I wholeheartedly support it and

urge others to do likewise. I thank the

gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

thank my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, now we come to the

moment of decision. The vote on our

amendment presents this House with a

clear, stark question: Are we truly for

reform of the Clean Water Act, or is

the word reform simply an alias to

mask the evisceration of our Nation’s

most successful environmental statute?

That is the choice. If what Members

want is to retreat on the Clean Water

Act, support H.R. 961 as reported. However, if what they want is true reform

of the Clean Water Act, this substitute

provides it.

Let me give some of the details that

highlight the difference between reform and repeal.

Let us look at the wetlands provisions. Are there problems with the wetlands provisions of current law? Of

course there are. My district has wetlands, including agricultural wetlands.

I know there are problems. How would

H.R. 961 propose to deal with these

problems? By allowing the wholesale

elimination of wetlands, wetlands that

purify our waters, and prevent flooding.

Is that a remedy?

And on what basis does H.R. 961 allow

the destruction of these wetlands? Certainly not on a scientific basis. The National Academy of Sciences’ distinguished panel on this issue has stated

that the definitions in H.R. 961 have no

scientific basis, and with all due respect to my distinguished colleague

from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES] let me

point out that these eminent scientists

are not paid by the Environmental Protection Agency. There services are on a

voluntary basis the Environmental

Protection Agency only pays the National Academy of Sciences for printing and distribution of the report.

The wetlands provisions of H.R. 961

would not reform current law. They

would reform the surface of the Earth

by allowing the destruction of precious

wetlands.

Our substitute on the other hand propose true reform. Where do our wetlands reform provisions come from?

From the National Governors’ Association, not exactly a bunch of treehuggers. We give the States more control over the regulation of there own

wetlands, local control, not Federal

control. We take a sensible, middleground approach, State control to

allow more sensible regulation without

threatening essential wetland protection.

Another example of real reform in

our bill, control of coastal zone

nonpoint source pollution. H.R. 961

would simply repeal the current program of protection. On what basis?

None, really. You do not have to be a

scientist to understand the problem

runoff causes in coastal areas. All you

have to be is someone who has not been

able to go to a beach on a hot summer

day because the beach was closed because of pollution; 10,000 beaches in

America last year. Eliminating the

coastal zone program is not reform. It

would allow toxic substances to reform

our Nation’s beaches.

But are there problems with current

law? Of course there are. Our substitute would take care of those problems with real reform.
H 4758 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Where did our proposal come from?

From the Coastal States Organization,

which represents 30 Governors of coastal States. Again not a bunch of environmental radicals. Here again we

allow more State control to eliminate

red tape while maintaining environmental protection.

And what about stormwater runoff?

Same situation. H.R. 961 would just

pretend that stormwater does not

cause pollution, despite all of the scientific evidence to the contrary. Are

there problems with current

stormwater law? Of course there are.

We offer real reform. We create an exemption for cities with populations

under 100,000 and for light industry.

Regulations of these entities may not

be worth the cost of compliance, and

we recognize it. But we do not allow

larger cities and major industries to

just return to using our Nation’s lakes

and rivers as sewers.

What about point source pollution?

We cannot ignore this. More than 40

percent of the Nation’s waters are still

impaired, so in this case we do retain

the provisions of current law.

And what about the many other

areas H.R. 961 would affect? In those

areas 70 percent of the bill, our alternative, 70 percent of that bill retains

the language of H.R. 961. There are

many areas of agreement.

Where H.R. 961 offers real reform, we

adopt its provision. Where H.R. 961

raises the banner of reform to mask environmental degradation, we substitute

real reform for sleight of hand.

I urge all of my colleagues to support

the bipartisan Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert amendment. It would accomplish

exactly what the public is seeking. Our

substitute will prevent environmental

damage while lessening the burden of

regulation.

Our amendment substitutes pragmatism for ideology. Our amendment

substitutes reform of regulation for its

repeal. Our amendment substitutes

hope for the future, not the abandonment of future generations.

I urge passage of the bipartisan substitute alternative.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. WAMP].

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

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, in both my committees, I have heard from the EPA and specifically from EPA Administrator Carol Browner

that they need our help in using sound scientific research to make policy decisions.

Many of the complaints I have heard about the

EPA over the years is that there seems to be,

to put it mildly, a poor match between their decisionmaking and their research. Now I’m not

seeking to rake EPA over the coals one more

time here, but to offer positive steps to solve

the problem. Many of my colleagues agree

that it is time to put our money where their

mouth is. I offered an amendment in subcommittee, later revised in the full committee

and again in consultation with Science Committee chairman Bob Walker’s input in the

Shuster en-bloc amendment here today, to

make sure that in these tight budget times we

do not lose sight of the fact that water quality

research remains a vital function of how the

federal government can participate in making

our environment better.

But more importantly, my amendment has

the intent not to fund the continued ‘‘paperpushing research’’ of Washington bureaucrats,

but to invest in cooperative efforts of localities

and small municipalities, counties, and cities

to find solutions to their clean water challenges. Specifically, asking EPA to use nonprofit and private organizations with expertise

in water quality research, combined with the

technical assistance necessary to get that information into the hands of rural and small

town water authorities, will give us an independent body of information to make more

sound decisions and achieve cleaner water.

I’d like to include in the RECORD a letter I

have received from one such independent organization, stating the need for funding such

research.

WATER ENVIRONMENT

RESEARCH FOUNDATION,

Alexandria, VA, March 29, 1995.

Mr. BOB CASTRO,

Legislative Assistant, Office of Congressman

Zack Wamp, Washington, DC.

DEAR BOB: Thanks for the news that Congressman Wamp is supportive of legislation

supportive of water quality research. We believe that increased funding on the national

level is critical to ensure:

1. Science base for environmental decisionmaking. Wastewater utilities are concerned

with ‘‘unfounded mandates’’. They believe

that improving water quality is not a mandate, but a responsibility. Water quality professionals seek assurance, through sound

science, that public money spent on water

quality improvement programs achieve the

desired results.

2. Simply stated, the technology of today

is based upon the research of the past. The

promise of the future is based upon the research of today.

3. The research needs focus is changing. In

the past water quality concerns focused on

fishable/swimmable waters and the technical

issues of volume of wastewater, suspended

solids, organics, and pathogens. The new

focus is on health impacts, risk, watersheds,

conservation, and others. New technologies

are needed to focus on nutrients, toxics, residuals, air, reuse, and prevention.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide

additional input. If there is any additional

information required, please don’t hesitate

to contact me.

Sincerely,

GLENN REINHARDT,

Executive Director.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, our friends are trying

to represent that this substitute is 70

percent of the committee bill. That

simply is not true. The substitute guts

the committee bill which passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis in

committee.

They are trying to portray this substitute as having widespread support.

Does the National Governors’ Association support it? No. Does the National

League of Cities support it? No. Do the

State water pollution control officials

support it? No. Does the Conference of

Mayors support it? No. Do the agricultural groups support it? No. Does the

NFIB support it? Not only do they not

support it, they list this vote as a key

vote as they measure our performance

in the Congress. In writing, as we have

demonstrated earlier here today, all of

these organizations support the committee bill.

In fact, the nonpoint source, the substitute really does damage to what we

do in the committee bill. The committee bill requires the States to develop

comprehensive nonpoint source management plans. If the States do not develop the programs, the bill requires

the EPA to do it.

As far as coastal management is concerned, we do not eliminate coastal

management. We fold it into a unified

nonpoint source program. So we eliminate the duplicative regulation of

nonpoint sources of pollution.

The Boehlert substitute actually will

continue this duplicative regulation on

behalf of the coastal zone management

officials, the bureaucrats who of course

want to keep their separate offices and

their separate funding.

On stormwater, one of the most glaring omissions in the Boehlert substitute is the failure to address the existing stormwater permitting program.

On unfunded mandates, during the

debate on unfunded mandates cited

most often were the greatest burdens

on local government from the Clean

Water Act, and indeed, the Boehlert

substitute does not include any flexibility with regard to the unfunded

mandates.

On risk assessment and cost-benefit

analysis, get this, the Boehlert substitute incredibly completely wiped

out any risk-assessment or benefit-cost

requirement for Clean Water Act regulations. And on wetlands, this is absolutely extraordinary too. The Boehlert

substitute not only does not streamline

or reform the 404 program, but it actually adds new regulatory requirements

into the existing law, so if you like the

wetlands provisions that your people

are living under today, you will love

what they are going to have to live

with under the Boehlert substitute.

And yes, we heard from our friends in

New Jersey about the loss of wetlands.

I would say to my good friends in New

Jersey or any other State, your State

can pass whatever wetlands regulations

they want to pass. If you want tougher

wetlands regulations, pass them for

your State. Just do not impose your

view of life on the other 49 States.

Overall, this substitute guts the bill.

If the election in November was about

anything, it was about returning back

to the States the decision-making

process on so many of the regulations

that, indeed, we must live under.

So I would urge my colleagues to

support the bipartisan bill that passed

the committee overwhelmingly, that

passed the subcommittee 19 to 5, passed

the full committee 42 to 19. Overwhelming bipartisan support.

If this substitute is adopted, we will

be gutting reform of clean water, and

we will have to go home and tell our
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4759

people, tell our farmers, tell our homeowners, tell our small business people

we are sorry, we have not really reformed those problems that you have

come and told us about. You are going

to have to live with the same old EPA,

Washington-knows-best mentality.

So I urge Members to defeat this substitute and support the bill, which is

true, balanced environmental reform.

Mr. HOYER. I rise today in support of the

Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute. This substitute is a reasonable and commonsense reform of the Clean Water Act.

Clearly, the present Clean Water Act needs

to be reformed. As the reauthorization debate

began there were several different approaches

to how to best protect our Nation’s lakes,

streams, estuaries, and coastal waters.

This substitute will provide relief to farmers,

industry, and individual landowners from costly

and time-consuming mandates. It will also,

however, continue many of the programs and

provisions which have made the Clean Water

Act one of our Nation’s most effective environmental statutes.

The Chesapeake Bay, much of which borders my district, is the largest and most productive estuary in North America. Maryland,

Virginia, and Pennsylvania experienced firsthand the bay’s low point in the mid-1970’s.

The habitat, especially the blue crab population, water quality, and the overall economy

of the Bay were at an all time low.

Mr. Chairman, thanks to the Clean Water

Act, the Bay and its industries made a remarkable comeback. The Chesapeake Bay Program, in conjunction with the Clean Water Act

requirements, led the Bay’s restoration.

Today, watermen in my district in southern

Maryland, earn a living on the Chesapeake

Bay. Previously, we have been up to the task

of restoring the Bay and protecting their livelihood, and today their families are relying on

us to continue our efforts.

I am pleased that the substitute provides

funding for this successful partnership between State, local, and Federal Governments.

The substitute also continues the Coastal

Zone Management Program which was initiated to implement coastal nonpoint pollution

and control programs.

Nonpoint source pollution today provides us

with our greatest environmental challenge, as

it is the most difficult to detect and control.

Over 10,000 beaches were closed in the

last 5 years due to pollution. Sixteen counties,

in my home State of Maryland, make up the

coastal zone, well over 65 percent of the

State.

This substitute recognizes that our Nation’s

$400 billion a year travel and tourism industry

and $55 billion a year fishing industry are directly reliant upon our coasts and continues

our commitment to the Coastal Zone Program.

One of the more controversial aspects of

clean water reauthorization has been wetlands

reform. Clearly, the Federal Government must

continue its commitment and environmental

obligations to protect our Nations wetlands.

At the same time, however, wetlands policies have resulted in substantial burdens on

our Nations farmers, industry, and individual

landowners.

The substitute simplifies and expedites the

wetlands permitting process by implementing

a plan submitted by the National Governor’s

Association.

The NGA approached Congressman BOEHLERT in March with their proposal, as they

deemed the provisions on wetlands contained

in H.R. 961 to be inconsistent with the recommendations of the Nation’s Governors.

This proposal will give more authority on

wetlands management to the States where action can be more accurate, appropriate, and

prompt. It will also make many needed administrative and regulatory changes in the way the

system is run.

Mr. Chairman, most Members of this body

agree that there are administrative and regulatory problems with the Clean Water Act.

However, the same percentage of Members

would also agree about its importance and environmental successes.

This substitute will continue to provide environmental safeguards and promote programs

to continue pollution cleanup and prevention

well into the 21st century, while also providing

regulatory relief to farmers, landowners, and

industry.

I urge support for the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute and support smart, environmentally sound, commonsense reform to the

Clean Water Act.

Mr. Chairman, I insert the following correspondence for the RECORD: NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION,

March 28, 1995.

Hon. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources

and Environment, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We have been greatly

encouraged by your willingness, as well as

that of Rep. Shuster and others in the bipartisan group, to include states in the development of H.R. 961. We support the intent of

that bill to provide substantially greater

flexibility to states and local governments in

our efforts to protect water quality. We support the Water Resources and Environment

Subcommittee in its efforts to expeditiously

move this comprehensive legislation reforming the Clean Water Act.

We have not yet completed our review of

all provisions of the bill. However, as you

know, the provisions on wetlands are not

consistent with the recommendations of the

nation’s Governors. We raised concerns over

this issue in our March 22 letter to Rep. Shuster (copy attached). In response to your request, we enclose an alternative approach to

wetlands reform developed by the Association of State Wetland Managers, based on

NGA policy recommendations. This proposal

reflects the state perspective on wetlands

management and we urge your consideration

of this proposal as a substitute for the wetlands provisions of H.R. 961.

We look forward to working with you in

advancing this important legislation, and

will be in touch shortly concerning other issues.

Sincerely,

Governor MIKE LOWRY,

Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.

Gov. TERRY E. BRANSTAD,

Vice Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong

opposition to H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act

Amendments of 1995, and in support of the

Saxton-Boehlert substitute to the bill.

Maintaining a strong Clean Water Act is essential for Connecticut and the Nation. Unfortunately, H.R. 961 does not build on the success the Clean Water Act has had over the

past 23 years. Instead, it rolls back standards,

loosens regulations and weakens protections.

Under H.R. 961, 60 to 80 percent of our Nation’s wetlands would be either removed from

any level of protection or destroyed. Industrial

pollution standards would be significantly

weakened, allowing discharge of industrial

waste into lakes, rivers, and harbors. The entire coastal zone nonpoint source pollution

control program would be repealed, and the

Federal Government would be saddled with

payments of more than $15 billion as a result

of illogical and unfair takings provisions.

While it is important the Clean Water Act is

reauthorized, it must not be at the environmental cost that would result from passage of

H.R. 961. The Saxton-Boehlert substitute is a

sensible alternative that makes necessary

modifications without repealing or rolling back

important protections that have contributed to

the Clean Water Act’s enormous success.

Specifically, the substitute makes improvements over H.R. 961 in four important areas:

wetlands protection, storm water management,

coastal water pollution, and nonpoint source

pollution.

The Saxton-Boehlert substitute recognizes

that there have been problems with the wetlands permitting process. But unlike title VIII of

H.R. 961, the substitute streamlines the permitting process without leaving millions of

acres of wetlands unprotected. It utilizes recommendations made by the National Governors Association to simplify and expedite the

wetlands permitting process without establishing a bureaucratic classification system.

Wetlands serve as a breeding ground for

fish, are critical habitat for wildlife and are necessary for most migratory birds. They are critical to Connecticut, where they also serve to

filter out nutrients and toxics that would otherwise end up in Long Island Sound. The sound

is already suffering from nitrogen overload that

has resulted in hypoxia—low levels of dissolved oxygen which cause significant, adverse ecological effects in the bottom water

habitats of the sound. Local, State, and Federal Government resources are being spent to

reduce nitrogen levels in the sound, and it

doesn’t make sense to counter these efforts

by removing wetlands from protection.

H.R. 961 would repeal the entire stormwater

program in the Clean Water Act. This is unnecessary and harmful to health and safety.

Stormwater is one of our most significant

water pollution programs, but H.R. 961 would

allow it to be freely discharged into our waters.

H.R. 961 would also repeal the coastal pollution control program. Over the past 5 years

more than 10,000 beaches in the United

States have been closed because of coastal

water pollution. Over one-third of all shellfish

beds in the United States are closed or threatened by water pollution. Connecticut is a world

leader in oyster production, and this industry is

dependent on clean water for prosperity. Repealing the coastal pollution program is harmful for Connecticut economically and environmentally.

The majority of coastal water quality impairment is the result of nonpoint sources of pollution, another major contributor to problems in

Long Island Sound. In fact, nonpoint source

pollution impairs more water bodies nationwide than any other pollution source, resulting

in beach closings and declining fisheries. It

threatens drinking water quality and impacts

millions of coastal residents. Yet H.R. 961

loosens regulations for nonpoint source pollution. While the legislation authorizes funds for
H 4760 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

polluted runoff programs, it doesn’t require accountability for the moneys it provides.

Clean water is essential to the economy,

health, and livelihood of everyone, not only in

my State of Connecticut, but in the entire

country. We have made solid progress in

clean water protection since enactment of the

act in 1972. As we look for improvements to

the act and solutions to the challenges that lie

ahead, we must be both ambitious and

thoughtful. We must seek rational policies that

make sense. The Saxton-Boehlert substitute,

not H.R. 961, achieves that goal.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge

my colleagues to support the substitute to

H.R. 961 offered by Representatives SAXTON,

BOEHLERT, and ROEMER. This substitute will

vastly improve what is now a flawed bill.

Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act is one

of our most effective environmental laws. It

has significantly improved the quality of our

Nation’s rivers, streams and lakes over the

past 25 years.

While the law has been extremely successful, there are significant problems with the

Clean Water Act as well. Like many of our environmental laws, there have been instances

of regulatory overkill under the act. That’s why

the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute incorporates 70 percent of H.R. 961’s provisions.

But the remainder of H.R. 961’s provisions go

too far.

H.R. 961 removes over 60 percent of our

Nation’s remaining wetlands from any level of

protection. The destruction of these wetlands

would increase flooding, decrease the supply

of fresh water and lead to a decline in the fishing and tourism industries, all of which are

concerns to my district.

The bill also includes takings provisions

which would require the Federal Government

to compensate a landowner when a portion of

his or her property is devalued by 20 percent

because of wetlands regulations. This provision could cost the Federal Government billions of dollars. As a fiscal conservative, I cannot support H.R. 961 in its current form because of this provision alone.

H.R. 961 would also repeal the entire coastal zone nonpoint source pollution program.

When more than 10,000 beaches in the United States have been closed over the past 5

years because of coastal water pollution, it

simply does not make sense to weaken efforts

to limit nonpoint source pollution affecting

these areas.

The Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute is a

reasonable approach to reauthorizing the

Clean Water Act. It includes a proposal developed and endorsed by the National Governor’s Association for protecting wetlands.

This is a middle-ground approach which gives

the States a greater say and more flexibility in

protecting wetlands.

It also incorporates a proposal for addressing coastal nonpoint pollution developed by

the Coastal States Organization. At a time

when we are returning power to the States,

we should respect the views of the 30 Governors representing the Coastal States Organization with regard to coastal zone protection.

I urge my colleagues to support the substitute. It is strong, sensible, environmentally

sound and affordable.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. SAXTON].

The question was taken; and the

Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 184, noes 242,

not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 312]

AYES—184

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baesler

Baldacci

Barrett (WI)

Bass

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Berman

Bilbray

Boehlert

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Castle

Clay

Clayton

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Coyne

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Doyle

Durbin

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fawell

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Ford

Fox

Frank (MA)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gephardt

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gilman

Goss

Green

Greenwood

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Hamilton

Hastings (FL)

Hinchey

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Jefferson

Johnson (CT)

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E. B.

Kanjorski

Kelly

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Kleczka

Klink

Klug

Kolbe

Lantos

Lazio

Levin

Lewis (GA)

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martini

Mascara

Matsui

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Meyers

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Minge

Mink

Moran

Morella

Murtha

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Pelosi

Pomeroy

Porter

Rahall

Ramstad

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Rivers

Roemer

Ros-Lehtinen

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sanford

Sawyer

Saxton

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Serrano

Shaw

Shays

Skaggs

Slaughter

Smith (NJ)

Spratt

Stark

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Thompson

Thornton

Thurman

Torkildsen

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Tucker

Upton

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Walsh

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Weldon (PA)

Williams

Wise

Wolf

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

Zimmer

NOES—242

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barcia

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bateman

Bereuter

Bevill

Bilirakis

Bishop

Bliley

Blute

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Brewster

Browder

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Chabot

Chambliss

Chapman

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clement

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Costello

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

Davis

de la Garza

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Edwards

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fazio

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Forbes

Fowler

Franks (CT)

Frisa

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gillmor

Gonzalez

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon

Graham

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Hefner

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hilliard

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Holden

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Johnson, Sam

Johnston

Jones

Kaptur

Kasich

Kim

King

Kingston

Knollenberg

LaFalce

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lightfoot

Lincoln

Linder

Lipinski

Livingston

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Martinez

McCarthy

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Metcalf

Mica

Miller (FL)

Mineta

Molinari

Mollohan

Montgomery

Moorhead

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Ortiz

Orton

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Payne (VA)

Peterson (MN)

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Portman

Poshard

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Regula

Richardson

Riggs

Roberts

Rohrabacher

Rose

Roth

Royce

Salmon

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shuster

Sisisky

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Traficant

Volkmer

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wilson

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

NOT VOTING—8

Bunning

Collins (IL)

Fattah

Harman

Lewis (KY)

Moakley

Peterson (FL)

Rogers

b 1948

Mr. MCINTOSH and Mr. BISHOP

changed their vote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. BILBRAY changed his vote from

‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment, in the nature of a

substitute, as amended, was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further

amendments to section 1?

The Clerk will designate section 2.

The text of section 2 is as follows:

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

In this Act, the term ‘‘Administrator’’ means

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any

amendments to section 2?

The Clerk will designate section 3.

The text of section 3 is as follows:
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4761

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.

Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal

of, a section or other provision, the reference

shall be considered to be made to a section or

other provision of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251–1387).

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will now

designate title I.

The text of title I is as follows:

TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELATED

PROGRAMS

SEC. 101. NATIONAL GOALS AND POLICIES.

(a) NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION; STATE

STRATEGIES.—Section 101(a) (33 U.S.C. 1251(a))

is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

(6);

(2) in paragraph (7)—

(A) by inserting ‘‘, including public and private sector programs using economic incentives,’’ after ‘‘programs’’;

(B) by inserting ‘‘, including stormwater,’’

after ‘‘nonpoint sources of pollution’’ the first

place it appears; and

(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(8) it is the national policy to support State

efforts undertaken in consultation with tribal

and local governments to identify, prioritize,

and implement water pollution prevention and

control strategies;’’.

(b) ROLE OF STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.—Section 101(a) is further amended

by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(9) it is the national policy to recognize, support, and enhance the role of State, tribal, and

local governments in carrying out the provisions

of this Act;’’.

(c) RECLAMATION AND REUSE.—

(1) RECLAMATION.—Section 101(a)(4) is amended by inserting after ‘‘works’’ the following:

‘‘and to reclaim waste water from municipal and

industrial sources’’.

(2) BENEFICIAL REUSE.—Section 101(a) is further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(10) it is the national policy that beneficial

reuse of waste water effluent and biosolids be

encouraged to the fullest extent possible; and’’.

(d) WATER USE EFFICIENCY.—Section 101(a) is

further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(11) it is the national policy that water use

efficiency be encouraged to the fullest extent

possible.’’.

(e) NET BENEFITS.—Section 101 is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(h) NET BENEFITS.—It is the national policy

that the development and implementation of

water quality protection programs pursuant to

this Act—

‘‘(1) be based on scientifically objective and

unbiased information concerning the nature

and magnitude of risk; and

‘‘(2) maximize net benefits to society in order

to promote sound regulatory decisions and promote the rational and coherent allocation of society’s limited resources.’’.

SEC. 102. RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION.

(a) NATIONAL PROGRAMS.—Section 104(a) (33

U.S.C. 1254(a)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

(5);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(7) in cooperation with appropriate Federal,

State, and local agencies, conduct, promote, and

encourage to the maximum extent feasible, in

watersheds that may be significantly affected by

nonpoint sources of pollution, monitoring and

measurement of water quality by means and

methods that will help to identify the relative

contributions of particular nonpoint sources.’’.

(b) GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.—Section

104(b)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ‘‘local governments,’’ after ‘‘interstate

agencies,’’.

(c) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR RURAL AND

SMALL TREATMENT WORKS.—Section 104(b) (33

U.S.C. 1254(b)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

(6);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new

paragraphs:

‘‘(8) make grants to nonprofit organizations to

provide technical assistance and training to

rural and small publicly owned treatment works

to enable such treatment works to achieve and

maintain compliance with the requirements of

this Act; and

‘‘(9) disseminate information to rural, small,

and disadvantaged communities with respect to

the planning, design, construction, and operation of treatment works.’’.

(d) WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITIES.—Section 104(q) (33 U.S.C.

1254(q)) is amended by adding at the end the

following:

‘‘(5) SMALL IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITIES.—

‘‘(A) GRANTS.—The Administrator may make

grants to States to provide assistance for planning, design, and construction of publicly

owned treatment works to provide wastewater

services to rural communities of 3,000 or less

that are not currently served by any sewage collection or water treatment system and are severely economically disadvantaged, as determined by the Administrator.

‘‘(B) AUTHORIZATION.—There is authorized to

be appropriated to carry out this paragraph

$50,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years 1996

through 2000.’’.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 104(u) (33 U.S.C. 1254(u)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘(6)’’; and

(2) by inserting before the period at the end

the following: ‘‘; and (7) not to exceed

$50,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal

years 1996 through 2000 for carrying out the

provisions of subsections (b)(3), (b)(8), and

(b)(9), except that not less than 20 percent of the

sums appropriated pursuant to this clause shall

be available for carrying out the provisions of

subsections (b)(8) and (b)(9)’’.

SEC. 103. STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

Section 106(a) (33 U.S.C. 1256(a)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘$75,000,000’’;

(2) by inserting after ‘‘1990’’ the following: ‘‘,

such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal

years 1991 through 1995, and $150,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through

2000’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘States

or interstate agencies receiving grants under

this section may use such funds to finance, with

other States or interstate agencies, studies and

projects on interstate issues relating to such programs.’’.

SEC. 104. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

Section 107 (33 U.S.C. 1257) is amended to read

as follows:

‘‘SEC. 107. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

‘‘(a) ACIDIC AND OTHER TOXIC MINE DRAINAGE.—The Administrator shall establish a program to demonstrate the efficacy of measures for

abatement of the causes and treatment of the effects of acidic and other toxic mine drainage

within qualified hydrologic units affected by

past coal mining practices for the purpose of restoring the biological integrity of waters within

such units.

‘‘(b) GRANTS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any State or Indian tribe

may apply to the Administrator for a grant for

any project which provides for abatement of the

causes or treatment of the effects of acidic or

other toxic mine drainage within a qualified hydrologic unit affected by past coal mining practices.

‘‘(2) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.—An application submitted to the Administrator under this

section shall include each of the following:

‘‘(A) An identification of the qualified hydrologic unit.

‘‘(B) A description of the extent to which

acidic or other toxic mine drainage is affecting

the water quality and biological resources within the hydrologic unit.

‘‘(C) An identification of the sources of acidic

or other toxic mine drainage within the hydrologic unit.

‘‘(D) An identification of the project and the

measures proposed to be undertaken to abate

the causes or treat the effects of acidic or other

toxic mine drainage within the hydrologic unit.

‘‘(E) The cost of undertaking the proposed

abatement or treatment measures.

‘‘(c) FEDERAL SHARE.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the

cost of a project receiving grant assistance

under this section shall be 50 percent.

‘‘(2) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—Contributions of lands, easements, and

rights-of-way shall be credited toward the nonFederal share of the cost of a project under this

section but not in an amount exceeding 25 percent of the total project cost.

‘‘(3) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The nonFederal interest shall bear 100 percent of the

cost of operation and maintenance of a project

under this section.

‘‘(d) PROHIBITED PROJECTS.—No acidic or

other toxic mine drainage abatement or treatment project may receive assistance under this

section if the project would adversely affect the

free-flowing characteristics of any river segment

within a qualified hydrologic unit.

‘‘(e) APPLICATIONS FROM FEDERAL ENTITIES.—

Any Federal entity may apply to the Administrator for a grant under this section for the purposes of an acidic or toxic mine drainage abatement or treatment project within a qualified hydrologic unit located on lands and waters under

the administrative jurisdiction of such entity.

‘‘(f) APPROVAL.—The Administrator shall approve an application submitted pursuant to subsection (b) or (e) after determining that the application meets the requirements of this section.

‘‘(g) QUALIFIED HYDROLOGIC UNIT DEFINED.—

For purposes of this section, the term ‘qualified

hydrologic unit’ means a hydrologic unit—

‘‘(1) in which the water quality has been significantly affected by acidic or other toxic mine

drainage from past coal mining practices in a

manner which adversely impacts biological resources; and

‘‘(2) which contains lands and waters eligible

for assistance under title IV of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977.’’.

SEC. 105. WATER SANITATION IN RURAL AND NATIVE ALASKA VILLAGES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 113 (33 U.S.C. 1263)

is amended by striking the section heading and

designation and subsections (a) through (f) and

inserting the following:

‘‘SEC. 113. ALASKA VILLAGE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.

‘‘(a) GRANTS.—The Administrator is authorized to make grants—

‘‘(1) for the development and construction of

facilities which provide sanitation services for

rural and Native Alaska villages;

‘‘(2) for training, technical assistance, and

educational programs relating to operation and

maintenance for sanitation services in rural and

Native Alaska villages; and

‘‘(3) for reasonable costs of administering and

managing grants made and programs and

projects carried out under this section; except

that not to exceed 4 percent of the amount of

any grant made under this section may be made

for such costs.
H 4762 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

‘‘(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—A grant under this section shall be 50 percent of the cost of the program or project being carried out with such

grant.

‘‘(c) SPECIAL RULE.—The Administrator shall

award grants under this section for project construction following the rules specified in subpart

H of part 1942 of title 7 of the Code of Federal

Regulations.

‘‘(d) GRANTS TO STATE FOR BENEFIT OF VILLAGES.—Grants under this section may be made

to the State for the benefit of rural Alaska villages and Alaska Native villages.

‘‘(e) COORDINATION.—In carrying out activities under this subsection, the Administrator is

directed to coordinate efforts between the State

of Alaska, the Secretary of Housing and Urban

Development, the Secretary of Health and

Human Services, the Secretary of the Interior,

the Secretary of Agriculture, and the recipients

of grants.

‘‘(f) FUNDING.—There is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning

after September 30, 1995, to carry out this section.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 113(g)

is amended by inserting after ‘‘(g)’’ the following: ‘‘DEFINITIONS.—’’.

SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

FOR CHESAPEAKE PROGRAM.

Section 117(d) (33 U.S.C. 1267(d)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘such sums

as may be necessary for fiscal years 1991

through 1995, and $3,000,000 per fiscal year for

each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000’’ after

‘‘1990,’’; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘such sums

as may be necessary for fiscal years 1991

through 1995, and $18,000,000 per fiscal year for

each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000’’ after

‘‘1990,’’.

SEC. 107. GREAT LAKES MANAGEMENT.

(a) GREAT LAKES RESEARCH COUNCIL.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 118 (33 U.S.C. 1268)

is amended—

(A) in subsection (a)(3)—

(i) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting

the following:

‘‘(E) ‘Council’ means the Great Lakes Research Council established by subsection

(d)(1);’’;

(ii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (I);

(iii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(iv) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(K) ‘Great Lakes research’ means the application of scientific or engineering expertise to

explain, understand, and predict a physical,

chemical, biological, or socioeconomic process,

or the interaction of 1 or more of the processes,

in the Great Lakes ecosystem.’’;

(B) by striking subsection (d) and inserting

the following:

‘‘(d) GREAT LAKES RESEARCH COUNCIL.—

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL.—There is established a Great Lakes Research Council.

‘‘(2) DUTIES OF COUNCIL.—The Council—

‘‘(A) shall advise and promote the coordination of Federal Great Lakes research activities

to avoid unnecessary duplication and ensure

greater effectiveness in achieving protection of

the Great Lakes ecosystem through the goals of

the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;

‘‘(B) not later than 1 year after the date of

the enactment of this subparagraph and biennially thereafter and after providing opportunity

for public review and comment, shall prepare

and provide to interested parties a document

that includes—

‘‘(i) an assessment of the Great Lakes research

activities needed to fulfill the goals of the Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement;

‘‘(ii) an assessment of Federal expertise and

capabilities in the activities needed to fulfill the

goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, including an inventory of Federal Great

Lakes research programs, projects, facilities,

and personnel; and

‘‘(iii) recommendations for long-term and

short-term priorities for Federal Great Lakes research, based on a comparison of the assessments conducted under clauses (i) and (ii);

‘‘(C) shall identify topics for and participate

in meetings, workshops, symposia, and conferences on Great Lakes research issues;

‘‘(D) shall make recommendations for the uniform collection of data for enhancing Great

Lakes research and management protocols relating to the Great Lakes ecosystem;

‘‘(E) shall advise and cooperate in—

‘‘(i) improving the compatible integration of

multimedia data concerning the Great Lakes

ecosystem; and

‘‘(ii) any effort to establish a comprehensive

multimedia data base for the Great Lakes ecosystem; and

‘‘(F) shall ensure that the results, findings,

and information regarding Great Lakes research

programs conducted or sponsored by the Federal

Government are disseminated in a timely manner, and in useful forms, to interested persons,

using to the maximum extent practicable mechanisms in existence on the date of the dissemination, such as the Great Lakes Research Inventory prepared by the International Joint Commission.

‘‘(3) MEMBERSHIP.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Council shall consist

of 1 research manager with extensive knowledge

of, and scientific expertise and experience in,

the Great Lakes ecosystem from each of the following agencies and instrumentalities:

‘‘(i) The Agency.

‘‘(ii) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration.

‘‘(iii) The National Biological Service.

‘‘(iv) The United States Fish and Wildlife

Service.

‘‘(v) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that expends $1,000,000 or more for a fiscal

year on Great Lakes research.

‘‘(vi) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that a majority of the Council membership

determines should be represented on the Council.

‘‘(B) NONVOTING MEMBERS.—At the request of

a majority of the Council membership, any person who is a representative of a Federal agency

or instrumentality not described in subparagraph (A) or any person who is not a Federal

employee may serve as a nonvoting member of

the Council.

‘‘(4) CHAIRPERSON.—The chairperson of the

Council shall be a member of the Council from

an agency specified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of

paragraph (3)(A) who is elected by a majority

vote of the members of the Council. The chairperson shall serve as chairperson for a period of

2 years. A member of the Council may not serve

as chairperson for more than 2 consecutive

terms.

‘‘(5) EXPENSES.—While performing official duties as a member of the Council, a member shall

be allowed travel or transportation expenses

under section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.

‘‘(6) INTERAGENCY COOPERATION.—The head of

each Federal agency or instrumentality that is

represented on the Council—

‘‘(A) shall cooperate with the Council in implementing the recommendations developed

under paragraph (2);

‘‘(B) on written request of the chairperson of

the Council, may make available, on a reimbursable basis or otherwise, such personnel, services,

or facilities as may be necessary to assist the

Council in carrying out the duties of the Council under this section; and

‘‘(C) on written request of the chairperson,

shall furnish data or information necessary to

carry out the duties of the Council under this

section.

‘‘(7) INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.—The

Council shall cooperate, to the maximum extent

practicable, with the research coordination efforts of the Council of Great Lakes Research

Managers of the International Joint Commission.

‘‘(8) REIMBURSEMENT FOR REQUESTED ACTIVITIES.—Each Federal agency or instrumentality

represented on the Council may reimburse another Federal agency or instrumentality or a

non-Federal entity for costs associated with activities authorized under this subsection that

are carried out by the other agency, instrumentality, or entity at the request of the Council.

‘‘(9) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.—The

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)

shall not apply to the Council.

‘‘(10) EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.—Nothing in this

subsection affects the authority of any Federal

agency or instrumentality, under any law, to

undertake Great Lakes research activities.’’;

(C) in subsection (e)—

(i) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘the Program

Office and the Research Office shall prepare a

joint research plan’’ and inserting ‘‘the Program

Office, in consultation with the Council, shall

prepare a research plan’’; and

(ii) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ‘‘the Research Office, the Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry, and Great Lakes States’’

and inserting ‘‘the Council, the Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and

Great Lakes States,’’; and

(D) in subsection (h)—

(i) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

(1);

(ii) by striking ‘‘; and’’ at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting a period; and

(iii) by striking paragraph (3).

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The second

sentence of section 403(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16

U.S.C. 1447b(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘Great

Lakes Research Office authorized under’’ and

inserting ‘‘Great Lakes Research Council established by’’.

(b) CONSISTENCY OF PROGRAMS WITH FEDERAL

GUIDANCE.—Section 118(c)(2)(C) (33 U.S.C.

1268(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at the end

the following: ‘‘For purposes of this section, a

State’s standards, policies, and procedures shall

be considered consistent with such guidance if

the standards, policies, and procedures are

based on scientifically defensible judgments and

policy choices made by the State after consideration of the guidance and provide an overall

level of protection comparable to that provided

by the guidance, taking into account the specific circumstances of the State’s waters.’’.

(c) REAUTHORIZATION OF ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS PROGRAM.—Section 118(c)(7) is amended by adding

at the end the following:

‘‘(D) REAUTHORIZATION OF ASSESSMENT AND

REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS PROGRAM.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, acting

through the Program Office, in consultation

and cooperation with the Assistant Secretary of

the Army having responsibility for civil works,

shall conduct at least 3 pilot projects involving

promising technologies and practices to remedy

contaminated sediments (including at least 1

full-scale demonstration of a remediation technology) at sites in the Great Lakes System, as

the Administrator determines appropriate.

‘‘(ii) SELECTION OF SITES.—In selecting sites

for the pilot projects, the Administrator shall

give priority consideration to—

‘‘(I) the Ashtabula River in Ohio;

‘‘(II) the Buffalo River in New York;

‘‘(III) Duluth and Superior Harbor in Minnesota;

‘‘(IV) the Fox River in Wisconsin;

‘‘(V) the Grand Calumet River in Indiana;

and

‘‘(VI) Saginaw Bay in Michigan.

‘‘(iii) DEADLINES.—In carrying out this subparagraph, the Administrator shall—

‘‘(I) not later than 18 months after the date of

the enactment of this subparagraph, identify at
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4763

least 3 sites and the technologies and practices

to be demonstrated at the sites (including at

least 1 full-scale demonstration of a remediation

technology); and

‘‘(II) not later than 5 years after such date of

enactment, complete at least 3 pilot projects (including at least 1 full-scale demonstration of a

remediation technology).

‘‘(iv) ADDITIONAL PROJECTS.—The Administrator, acting through the Program Office, in

consultation and cooperation with the Assistant

Secretary of the Army having responsibility for

civil works, may conduct additional pilot- and

full-scale pilot projects involving promising

technologies and practices at sites in the Great

Lakes System other than the sites selected under

clause (i).

‘‘(v) EXECUTION OF PROJECTS.—The Administrator may cooperate with the Assistant Secretary of the Army having responsibility for civil

works to plan, engineer, design, and execute

pilot projects under this subparagraph.

‘‘(vi) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Administrator may accept non-Federal contributions to carry out pilot projects under this subparagraph.

‘‘(vii) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry

out this subparagraph $3,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.

‘‘(E) TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, acting

through the Program Office, may provide technical information and assistance involving technologies and practices for remediation of contaminated sediments to persons that request the

information or assistance.

‘‘(ii) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PRIORITIES.—In

providing technical assistance under this subparagraph, the Administrator, acting through

the Program Office, shall give special priority to

requests for integrated assessments of, and recommendations regarding, remediation technologies and practices for contaminated sediments at Great Lakes areas of concern.

‘‘(iii) COORDINATION WITH OTHER DEMONSTRATIONS.—The Administrator shall—

‘‘(I) coordinate technology demonstrations

conducted under this subparagraph with other

federally assisted demonstrations of contaminated sediment remediation technologies; and

‘‘(II) share information from the demonstrations conducted under this subparagraph with

the other demonstrations.

‘‘(iv) OTHER SEDIMENT REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES.—Nothing in this subparagraph limits the

authority of the Administrator to carry out sediment remediation activities under other laws.

‘‘(v) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry

out this subparagraph $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.’’.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

(1) RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT.—Section

118(e)(3)(B) (33 U.S.C. 1268(e)(3)(B)) is amended

by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘, such sums as may be necessary for

fiscal year 1995, and $4,000,000 per fiscal year

for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998’’.

(2) GREAT LAKES PROGRAMS.—Section 118(h)

(33 U.S.C. 1268(h)) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘$25,000,000’’;

and

(B) by inserting before the period at the end

of the first sentence the following: ‘‘, such sums

as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992

through 1995, and $17,500,000 per fiscal year for

each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000’’.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any

amendments to title I?

The Clerk will designate title II.

The text of title II is as follows:

TITLE II—CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

SEC. 201. USES OF FUNDS.

(a) NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM.—Section

201(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1281(g)(1)) is amended by

striking the period at the end of the first sentence and all that follows through the period at

the end of the last sentence and inserting the

following: ‘‘and for any purpose for which a

grant may be made under sections 319(h) and

319(i) of this Act (including any innovative and

alternative approaches for the control of

nonpoint sources of pollution).’’.

(b) RETROACTIVE ELIGIBILITY.—Section

201(g)(1) is further amended by adding at the

end the following: ‘‘The Administrator, with the

concurrence of the States, shall develop procedures to facilitate and expedite the retroactive

eligibility and provision of grant funding for facilities already under construction.’’.

SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION OF CLOSEOUT OF

CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM.

Section 205(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1285(g)(1)) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘The Administrator may negotiate an annual

budget with a State for the purpose of administering the closeout of the State’s construction

grants program under this title. Sums made

available for administering such closeout shall

be subtracted from amounts remaining available

for obligation under the State’s construction

grant program under this title.’’.

SEC. 203. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.

Section 211(a) (33 U.S.C. 1291(a)) is amended—

(1) in clause (1) by striking ‘‘an existing collection system’’ and inserting ‘‘a collection system existing on the date of the enactment of the

Clean Water Amendments of 1995’’; and

(2) in clause (2)—

(A) by striking ‘‘an existing community’’ and

inserting ‘‘a community existing on such date of

enactment’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘sufficient existing’’ and inserting ‘‘sufficient capacity existing on such

date of enactment’’.

SEC. 204. TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.

(a) INCLUSION OF OTHER LANDS.—Section

212(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1292(2)(A)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘any works, including site’’;

(2) by striking ‘‘is used for ultimate’’ and inserting ‘‘will be used for ultimate’’; and

(3) by inserting before the period at the end

the following: ‘‘and acquisition of other lands,

and interests in lands, which are necessary for

construction’’.

(b) POLICY ON COST EFFECTIVENESS.—Section

218(a) (33 U.S.C. 1298(a)) is amended by striking

‘‘combination of devices and systems’’ and all

that follows through ‘‘from such treatment;’’

and inserting ‘‘treatment works;’’.

SEC. 205. VALUE ENGINEERING REVIEW.

Section 218(c) (33 U.S.C. 1298(c)) is amended

by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting

‘‘$25,000,000’’.

SEC. 206. GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT.

(a) COASTAL LOCALITIES.—The Administrator

shall make grants under title II of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act to appropriate instrumentalities for the purpose of construction

of treatment works (including combined sewer

overflow facilities) to serve coastal localities. No

less than $10,000,000 of the amount of such

grants shall be used for water infrastructure improvements in New Orleans, no less than

$3,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall be

used for water infrastructure improvements in

Bristol County, Massachusetts, and no less than

1⁄3 of the amount of such grants shall be used to

assist localities that meet both of the following

criteria:

(1) NEED.—A locality that has over

$2,000,000,000 in category I treatment needs documented and accepted in the Environmental

Protection Agency’s 1992 Needs Survey database

as of February 4, 1993.

(2) HARDSHIP.—A locality that has wastewater

user charges, for residential use of 7,000 gallons

per month based on Ernst & Young National

Water and Wastewater 1992 Rate Survey, greater than 0.65 percent of 1989 median household

income for the metropolitan statistical area in

which such locality is located as measured by

the Bureau of the Census.

(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—Notwithstanding section

202(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act, the Federal share of grants under subsection (a) shall be 80 percent of the cost of construction, and the non-Federal share shall be 20

percent of the cost of construction.

(c) SMALL COMMUNITIES.—The Administrator

shall make grants to States for the purpose of

providing assistance for the construction of

treatment works to serve small communities as

defined by the State; except that the term ‘‘small

communities’’ may not include any locality with

a population greater than 75,000. Funds made

available to carry out this subsection shall be

allotted by the Administrator to the States in accordance with the allotment formula contained

in section 604(a) of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There is authorized to be appropriated for making grants under this section $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain available

until expended and shall be equally divided between subsections (a) and (c) of this section.

Such authorization of appropriation shall take

effect only if the total amount appropriated for

fiscal year 1996 to carry out title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is at least

$3,000,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any

amendments to title II?

The Clerk will designate title III.

The text of title III is as follows:

TITLE III—STANDARDS AND

ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.

(a) COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES.—Section 301(b)

(33 U.S.C. 1311(b)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ‘‘not later

than July 1, 1977,’’;

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘not later than 3 years after the date

such limitations are established;’’; and

(3) by striking ‘‘, and in no case later than

March 31, 1989’’ each place it appears.

(b) MODIFICATIONS FOR NONCONVENTIONAL

POLLUTANTS.—

(1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—Section 301(g)(1) (33

U.S.C. 1311(g)(1)) is amended by striking

‘‘(when determined by the Administrator to be a

pollutant covered by subsection (b)(2)(F)) and

any other pollutant which the Administrator

lists under paragraph (4) of this subsection’’

and inserting ‘‘and any other pollutant covered

by subsection (b)(2)(F)’’.

(2) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LISTING

AND REMOVAL OF POLLUTANTS.—Section 301(g)

(33 U.S.C. 1311(g)) is further amended by striking paragraphs (4) and (5).

(c) COAL REMINING.—Section 301(p)(2) (33

U.S.C. 1311(p)(2)) is amended by inserting before

the period at the end the following: ‘‘; except

where monitoring demonstrates that the receiving waters do not meet such water quality

standards prior to commencement of remining

and where the applicant submits a plan which

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator or the State, as the case may be, that

identified measures will be utilized to improve

the existing water quality of the receiving waters’’.

(d) PREEXISTING COAL REMINING OPERATIONS.—Section 301(p) (33 U.S.C. 1311) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(5) PREEXISTING COAL REMINING OPERATIONS.—Any operator of a coal mining operation who conducted remining at a site on

which coal mining originally was conducted before the effective date of the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 shall be

deemed to be in compliance with sections 301,

302, 306, 307, and 402 of this Act if—
H 4764 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

‘‘(A) such operator commenced remining at

such operation prior to the adoption of this subsection in a State program approved under section 402 and performed such remining under a

permit pursuant to such Act; and

‘‘(B) the post-mining discharges from such operation do not add pollutants to the waters of

the United States in excess of those pollutants

discharged from the remined area before the

coal remining operation began.’’.

SEC. 302. POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES.

(a) INNOVATIVE PRODUCTION PROCESSES.—

Subsection (k) of section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311(k))

is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(k) INNOVATIVE PRODUCTION PROCESSES,

TECHNOLOGIES, AND METHODS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any point

source subject to a permit under section 402, the

Administrator, with the consent of the State in

which the point source is located, or the State in

consultation with the Administrator, in the case

of a State with an approved program under section 402, may, at the request of the permittee

and after public notice and opportunity for comment, extend the deadline for the point source to

comply with any limitation established pursuant

to subsection (b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), or (b)(2)(E)

and make other appropriate modifications to the

conditions of the point source permit, for the

purpose of encouraging the development and

use of an innovative pollution prevention technology (including an innovative production

process change, innovative pollution control

technology, or innovative recycling method)

that has the potential to—

‘‘(A) achieve an effluent reduction which is

greater than that required by the limitation otherwise applicable;

‘‘(B) meet the applicable effluent limitation to

water while achieving a reduction of total emissions to other media which is greater than that

required by the otherwise applicable emissions

limitations for the other media;

‘‘(C) meet the applicable effluent limitation to

water while achieving a reduction in energy

consumption; or

‘‘(D) achieve the required reduction with the

potential for significantly lower costs than the

systems determined by the Administrator to be

economically achievable.

‘‘(2) DURATION OF EXTENSIONS.—The extension of the compliance deadlines under paragraph (1) shall not extend beyond the period

necessary for the owner of the point source to

install and use the innovative process, technology, or method in full-scale production operations, but in no case shall the compliance extensions extend beyond 3 years from the date for

compliance with the otherwise applicable limitations.

‘‘(3) CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE.—In determining the amount of any civil or administrative

penalty pursuant to section 309(d) or 309(g) for

any violations of a section 402 permit during the

extension period referred to in paragraph (1)

that are caused by the unexpected failure of an

innovative process, technology, or method, a

court or the Administrator, as appropriate, shall

reduce or eliminate the penalty for such violation if the permittee has made good-faith efforts

both to implement the innovation and to comply

with any interim limitations.

‘‘(4) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the

date of the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall review, analyze, and compile

in a report information on innovative and alternative technologies which are available for preventing and reducing pollution of navigable waters, submit such report to Congress, and publish in the Federal Register a summary of such

report and a notice of the availability of such

report. The Administrator shall annually update the report prepared under this paragraph,

submit the updated report to Congress, and publish in the Federal Register a summary of the

updated report and a notice of its availability.’’.

(b) POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended—

(1) in subsection (l) by striking ‘‘subsection

(n)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (n), (q), and

(r)’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(q) POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of this Act, the Administrator (with

the concurrence of the State) or a State with an

approved program under section 402, after public notice and an opportunity for comment, may

issue a permit under section 402 which modifies

the requirements of subsection (b) of this section

or section 306 and makes appropriate modifications to the conditions of the permit, or may

modify the requirements of section 307, if the

Administrator or State determines that pollution

prevention measures or practices (including recycling, source reduction, and other measures to

reduce discharges or other releases of pollutants

to the environment beyond those otherwise required by law) together with such modifications

will achieve an overall reduction in emissions to

the environment (including emissions to water

and air and disposal of solid wastes) from the

facility at which the permitted discharge is located that is greater than would otherwise be

achievable if the source complied with the requirements of subsection (b) or section 306 or 307

and will result in an overall net benefit to the

environment.

‘‘(2) TERM OF MODIFICATION.—A modification

made pursuant to paragraph (1) shall extend for

the term of the permit or, in the case of modifications under section 307(b), for up to 10 years,

and may be extended further if the Administrator or State determines at the expiration of

the initial modifications that such modifications

will continue to enable the source to achieve

greater emissions reduction than would otherwise be attainable.

‘‘(3) NONEXTENSION OF MODIFICATION.—Upon

expiration of a modification that is not extended

further under paragraph (2), the source shall

have a reasonable period of time, not to exceed

2 years, to come into compliance with otherwise

applicable requirements of this Act.

‘‘(4) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the

date of the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report on

the implementation of this subsection and the

emissions reductions achieved as a result of

modifications made pursuant to this subsection.’’.

(c) POLLUTION REDUCTION AGREEMENTS.—Section 301 is further amended by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(r) POLLUTION REDUCTION AGREEMENTS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of this Act, the Administrator (with

the concurrence of the State) or a State with an

approved program under section 402, after public notice and an opportunity for comment, may

issue a permit under section 402 which modifies

the requirements of subsection (b) of this section

or section 306 and makes appropriate modifications to the conditions of the permit, or may

modify the requirements of section 307, if the

Administrator or State determines that the

owner or operator of the source of the discharge

has entered into a binding contractual agreement with any other source of discharge in the

same watershed to implement pollution reduction controls or measures beyond those otherwise required by law and that the agreement is

being implemented through modifications of a

permit issued under section 402 to the other

source, by modifications of the requirements of

section 307 applicable to the other source, or by

nonpoint source control practices and measures

under section 319 applicable to the other source.

The Administrator or State may modify otherwise applicable requirements pursuant to this

section whenever the Administrator or State determines that such pollution reduction control

or measures will result collectively in an overall

reduction in discharges to the watershed that is

greater than would otherwise be achievable if

the parties to the pollution reduction agreement

each complied with applicable requirements of

subsection (b), section 306 or 307 resulting in a

net benefit to the watershed.

‘‘(2) NOTIFICATION TO AFFECTED STATES.—Before issuing or modifying a permit under this

subsection allowing discharges into a watershed

that is within the jurisdiction of 2 or more

States, the Administrator or State shall provide

written notice of the proposed permit to all

States with jurisdiction over the watershed. The

Administrator or State shall not issue or modify

such permit unless all States with jurisdiction

over the watershed have approved such permit

or unless such States do not disapprove such

permit within 90 days of receiving such written

notice.

‘‘(3) TERM OF MODIFICATION.—Modifications

made pursuant to this subsection shall extend

for the term of the modified permits or, in the

case of modifications under section 307, for up

to 10 years, and may be extended further if the

Administrator or State determines, at the expiration of the initial modifications, that such modifications will continue to enable the sources

trading credits to achieve greater reduction in

discharges to the watershed collectively than

would otherwise be attainable.

‘‘(4) NONEXTENSION OF MODIFICATION.—Upon

expiration of a modification that is not extended

further under paragraph (3), the source shall

have a reasonable period of time, not to exceed

2 years, to come into compliance with otherwise

applicable requirements of this Act.

‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize the Administrator or a State,

as appropriate, to compel trading among sources

or to impose nonpoint source control practices

without the consent of the nonpoint source discharger.

‘‘(6) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the

date of the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit a report to Congress on

the implementation of paragraph (1) and the

discharge reductions achieved as a result of

modifications made pursuant to paragraph

(1).’’.

(d) ANTIBACKSLIDING.—Section 402(o)(2) (33

U.S.C. 1342(o)(2)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (D)—

(A) by inserting ‘‘301(q), 301(r),’’ after

‘‘301(n),’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘or’’ the last place it appears;

(2) in subparagraph (E) by striking the period

at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

(3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the

following:

‘‘(F) the permittee is taking pollution prevention or water conservation measures that

produce a net environmental benefit, including,

but not limited to, measures that result in the

substitution of one pollutant for another pollutant; increase the concentration of a pollutant

while decreasing the discharge flow; or increase

the discharge of a pollutant or pollutants from

one or more outfalls at a permittee’s facility,

when accompanied by offsetting decreases in the

discharge of a pollutant or pollutants from other

outfalls at the permittee’s facility.’’.

(e) ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW.—Section 303(d)

(33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) is amended by adding at the

end the following:

‘‘(5) ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW.—The Administrator may not require a State, in implementing the antidegradation policy established under

this section, to conduct an antidegradation review in the case of—

‘‘(A) increases in a discharge which are authorized under section 301(g), 301(k), 301(q),

301(r), or 301(t);

‘‘(B) increases in the concentration of a pollutant in a discharge caused by a reduction in

wastewater flow;

‘‘(C) increases in the discharge of a pollutant

or pollutants from one or more outfalls at a permittee’s facility, when accompanied by offsetting decreases in the discharge of a pollutant or

pollutants from other outfalls at the permittee’s

facility;
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4765

‘‘(D) reissuance of a permit where there is no

increase in existing effluent limitations and, if a

new effluent limitation is being added to the

permit, where the new limitation is for a pollutant that is newly found in an existing discharge

due solely to improved monitoring methods; or

‘‘(E) a new or increased discharge which is

temporary or short-term or which the State determines represents an insignificant increased

pollutant loading.’’.

(f) INNOVATIVE PRETREATMENT PRODUCTION

PROCESSES.—Subsection (e) of section 307 (33

U.S.C. 1317(e)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(e) INNOVATIVE PRETREATMENT PRODUCTION

PROCESSES, TECHNOLOGIES, AND METHODS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any facility

that proposes to comply with the national categorical pretreatment standards developed

under subsection (b) by applying an innovative

pollution prevention technology (including an

innovative production process change, innovative pollution control technology, or innovative

recycling method) that meets the requirements of

section 301(k), the Administrator or the State, in

consultation with the Administrator, in the case

of a State which has a pretreatment program

approved by the Administrator, upon application of the facility and with the concurrence of

the treatment works into which the facility introduces pollutants, may extend the deadlines

for compliance with the applicable national categorical pretreatment standards established

under this section and make other appropriate

modifications to the facility’s pretreatment requirements if the Administrator or the State, in

consultation with the Administrator, in the case

of a State which has a pretreatment program

approved by the Administrator determines

that—

‘‘(A) the treatment works will require the

owner of the source to conduct such tests and

monitoring during the period of the modification

as are necessary to ensure that the modification

does not cause or contribute to a violation by

the treatment works under section 402 or a violation of section 405;

‘‘(B) the treatment works will require the

owner of the source to report on progress at prescribed milestones during the period of modification to ensure that attainment of the pollution

reduction goals and conditions set forth in this

section is being achieved; and

‘‘(C) the proposed extensions or modifications

will not cause or contribute to any violation of

a permit granted to the treatment works under

section 402, any violation of section 405, or a

pass through of pollutants such that water

quality standards are exceeded in the body of

water into which the treatment works discharges.

‘‘(2) INTERIM LIMITATIONS.—A modification

granted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include

interim standards that shall apply during the

temporary period of the modification and shall

be the more stringent of—

‘‘(A) those necessary to ensure that the discharge will not interfere with the operation of

the treatment works;

‘‘(B) those necessary to ensure that the discharge will not pass through pollutants at a

level that will cause water quality standards to

be exceeded in the navigable waters into which

the treatment works discharges;

‘‘(C) the limits established in the previously

applicable control mechanism, in those cases in

which the limit from which a modification is

being sought is more stringent than the limit established in a previous control mechanism applicable to such source.

‘‘(3) DURATION OF EXTENSIONS AND MODIFICATIONS.—The extension of the compliance deadlines and the modified pretreatment requirements established pursuant to paragraph (1)

shall not extend beyond the period necessary for

the owner to install and use the innovative

process, technology, or method in full-scale production operation, but in no case shall the compliance extensions and modified requirements

extend beyond 3 years from the date for compliance with the otherwise applicable standards.

‘‘(4) CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE.—In determining the amount of any civil or administrative

penalty pursuant to section 309(d) or 309(g) for

any pretreatment violations, or violations by a

publicly owned treatment works, caused by the

unexpected failure of an innovative process,

technology, or method, a court or the Administrator, as appropriate, shall reduce, or eliminate, the penalty amount for such violations

provided the facility made good-faith efforts

both to implement the innovation and to comply

with the interim standards and, in the case of a

publicly owned treatment works, good-faith efforts were made to implement the pretreatment

program.’’.

SEC. 303. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

(a) NO REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP.—Section

303(b) (33 U.S.C. 1313(b)) is amended by adding

at the end the following:

‘‘(3) NO REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP.—No water

quality standard shall be established under this

subsection where there is no reasonable relationship between the costs and anticipated benefits of attaining such standard.’’.

(b) REVISION OF STATE STANDARDS.—

(1) REVIEW OF REVISIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.—Section 303(c)(1) is amended by striking ‘‘three’’ and all that follows through ‘‘1972’’

and inserting the following: ‘‘5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the

Clean Water Amendments of 1995 and, for criteria that are revised by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(a), on or before the 180th

day after the date of such revision by the Administrator’’.

(2) FACTORS.—Section 303(c) (33 U.S.C.

1313(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (2)(A)

and inserting the following:

‘‘(2) STATE ADOPTION OF WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—

‘‘(i) SUBMISSION TO ADMINISTRATOR.—Whenever the State revises or adopts a new water

quality standard, such standard shall be submitted to the Administrator.

‘‘(ii) DESIGNATED USES AND WATER QUALITY

CRITERIA.—The revised or new standard shall

consist of the designated uses of the navigable

waters involved and the water quality criteria

for such waters based upon such uses.

‘‘(iii) PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH.—The

revised or new standard shall protect human

health and the environment and enhance water

quality.

‘‘(iv) DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS.—In developing revised or new standards, the State may

consider information reasonably available on

the likely social, economic, energy use, and environmental cost associated with attaining such

standards in relation to the benefits to be attained. The State may provide a description of

the considerations used in the establishment of

the standards.

‘‘(v) RECORD OF STATE’S REVIEW.—The record

of a State’s review under paragraph (1) of an

existing standard or adoption of a new standard

that includes water quality criteria issued or revised by the Administrator after the date of the

enactment of this sentence shall contain available estimates of costs of compliance with the

water quality criteria published by the Administrator under section 304(a)(12) and any comments received by the State on such estimate.

‘‘(vi) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit or delay the use of any guidance

of the Administrator interpreting water quality

criteria to allow the use of a dissolved metals

concentration measurement or similar adjustment in determining compliance with a water

quality standard or establishing effluent limitations.’’.

(c) REVISION OF DESIGNATED USES.—Section

303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(C) REVISION OF DESIGNATED USES.—

‘‘(i) REGULATIONS.—After consultation with

State officials and not later than 1 year after

the date of the enactment of this subparagraph,

the Administrator shall propose, and not later

than 2 years after such date of enactment shall

issue, a revision to the Administrator’s regulations regarding designation of uses of waters by

States.

‘‘(ii) WATERS NOT ATTAINING DESIGNATED

USES.—For navigable waters not attaining designated uses, the Administrator shall identify

conditions that make attainment of the designated use infeasible and shall allow a State to

modify the designated use if the State determines that such condition or conditions are

present with respect to a particular receiving

water, or if the State determines that the costs

of achieving the designated use are not justified

by the benefits.

‘‘(iii) WATERS ATTAINING DESIGNATED USES.—

For navigable waters attaining the designated

use applicable to such waters for all pollutants,

the Administrator shall allow a State to modify

the designated use only if the State determines

that continued maintenance of the water quality necessary to support the designated use will

result in significant social or economic dislocations substantially out of proportion to the benefits to be achieved from maintenance of the

designated use.

‘‘(iv) MODIFICATION OF POINT SOURCE LIMITS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of

this Act, water quality based limits applicable to

point sources may be modified as appropriate to

conform to any modified designated use under

this section.’’.

SEC. 304. USE OF BIOLOGICAL MONITORING.

(a) LABORATORY BIOLOGICAL MONITORING

CRITERIA.—Subparagraph (B) of section

303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘CRITERIA FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS.—’’ after ‘‘(B)’’;

(2) by moving such subparagraph 4 ems to the

right;

(3) by inserting after the third sentence the

following: ‘‘Criteria for whole effluent toxicity

based on laboratory biological monitoring or assessment methods shall employ an aquatic species indigenous, or representative of indigenous,

and relevant to the type of waters covered by

such criteria and shall take into account the accepted analytical variability associated with

such methods in defining an exceedance of such

criteria.’’.

(b) PERMIT PROCEDURES.—Section 402 is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(q) BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROCEDURES.—

‘‘(1) RESPONDING TO EXCEEDANCES.—If a permit issued under this section contains terms,

conditions, or limitations requiring biological

monitoring or whole effluent toxicity testing designed to meet criteria for whole effluent toxicity based on laboratory biological monitoring

or assessment methods described in section

303(c)(2)(B), the permit shall establish procedures for responding to an exceedance of such

criteria that includes analysis, identification,

reduction, or, where feasible, elimination of any

effluent toxicity. The failure of a biological

monitoring test or whole effluent toxicity test

shall not result in a finding of a violation under

this Act, unless it is demonstrated that the permittee has failed to comply with such procedures.

‘‘(2) DISCONTINUANCE OF USE.—The permit

shall allow the permittee to discontinue such

procedures—

‘‘(A) if the permittee is an entity, other than

a publicly owned treatment works, if the permittee demonstrates through a field bio-assessment

study that a balanced and healthy population

of aquatic species indigenous, or representative

of indigenous, and relevant to the type of waters exists in the waters that are affected by the

discharge, and if the applicable water quality

standards are met for such waters; or
H 4766 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

‘‘(B) if the permittee is a publicly owned treatment works, the source or cause of such toxicity

cannot, after thorough investigation, be identified.’’.

(c) INFORMATION ON WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.—Section 304(a)(8) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(8)) is

amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘, after’’ and all that follows

through ‘‘1987,’’; and

(2) by inserting after ‘‘publish’’ the following:

‘‘, consistent with section 303(c)(2)(B) of this

Act,’’.

SEC. 305. ARID AREAS.

(a) CONSTRUCTED WATER CONVEYANCES.—Section 303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended

by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(D) STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTED WATER

CONVEYANCES.—

‘‘(i) RELEVANT FACTORS.—If a State exercises

jurisdiction over constructed water conveyances

in establishing standards under this section, the

State may consider the following:

‘‘(I) The existing and planned uses of water

transported in a conveyance system.

‘‘(II) Any water quality impacts resulting

from any return flow from a constructed water

conveyance to navigable waters and the need to

protect downstream users.

‘‘(III) Management practices necessary to

maintain the conveyance system.

‘‘(IV) State or regional water resources management and water conservation plans.

‘‘(V) The authorized purpose for the constructed conveyance.

‘‘(ii) RELEVANT USES.—If a State adopts or reviews water quality standards for constructed

water conveyances, it shall not be required to

establish recreation, aquatic life, or fish consumption uses for such systems if the uses are

not existing or reasonably foreseeable or such

uses impede the authorized uses of the conveyance system.’’.

(b) CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE FOR EPHEMERAL

AND EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT STREAMS.—Section

304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by adding

at the end the following:

‘‘(9) CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE FOR EPHEMERAL

AND EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT STREAMS.—

‘‘(A) DEVELOPMENT.—Not later than 2 years

after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, and after providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator

shall develop and publish—

‘‘(i) criteria for ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams; and

‘‘(ii) guidance to the States on development

and adoption of water quality standards applicable to such streams.

‘‘(B) FACTORS.—The criteria and guidance developed under subparagraph (A) shall take into

account the limited ability of ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams to support aquatic life

and certain designated uses, shall include consideration of the role the discharge may play in

maintaining the flow or level of such waters,

and shall promote the beneficial use of reclaimed water pursuant to section 101(a)(10).’’.

(c) FACTORS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY

ADMINISTRATOR.—Section 303(c)(4) is amended

by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In revising

or adopting any new standard for ephemeral or

effluent-dependent streams under this paragraph, the Administrator shall consider the factors referred to in section 304(a)(9)(B).’’.

(d) DEFINITIONS.—Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362)

is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(21) The term ‘effluent-dependent stream’

means a stream or a segment thereof—

‘‘(A) with respect to which the flow (based on

the annual average expected flow, determined

by calculating the average mode over a 10-year

period) is primarily attributable to the discharge

of treated wastewater;

‘‘(B) that, in the absence of a discharge of

treated wastewater and other primary anthropogenic surface or subsurface flows, would be an

ephemeral stream; or

‘‘(C) that is an effluent-dependent stream

under applicable State water quality standards.

‘‘(22) The term ‘ephemeral stream’ means a

stream or segments thereof that flows periodically in response to precipitation, snowmelt, or

runoff.

‘‘(23) The term ‘constructed water conveyance’ means a manmade water transport system

constructed for the purpose of transporting

water in a waterway that is not and never was

a natural perennial waterway.’’.

SEC. 306. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS.

Section 303(d)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(C)) is

amended to read as follows:

‘‘(C) TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS.—

‘‘(i) STATE DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE

PROGRESS.—Each State shall establish, to the

extent and according to a schedule the State determines is necessary to achieve reasonable

progress toward the attainment or maintenance

of water quality standards, for the waters identified in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection,

and in accordance with the priority ranking,

the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under

section 304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation.

‘‘(ii) PHASED TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS.—

Total maximum daily loads may reflect load reductions the State expects will be realized over

time resulting from anticipated implementation

of best management practices, storm water controls, or other nonpoint or point source controls;

so long as by December 31, 2015, such loads are

established at levels necessary to implement the

applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety.

‘‘(iii) CONSIDERATIONS.—In establishing each

load, the State shall consider the availability of

scientifically valid data and information, the

projected reductions achievable by control measures or practices for all sources or categories of

sources, and the relative cost-effectiveness of implementing such control measures or practices

for such sources.’’.

SEC. 307. REVISION OF CRITERIA, STANDARDS,

AND LIMITATIONS.

(a) REVISION OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.—

(1) FACTORS.—Section 304(a)(1) (33 U.S.C.

1314(a)(1)) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘and (C)’’ and inserting

‘‘(C)’’; and

(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘(D) on the organisms

that are likely to be present in various

ecosystems; (E) on the bioavailability of pollutants under various natural and man induced

conditions; (F) on the magnitude, duration, and

frequency of exposure reasonably required to induce the adverse effects of concern; and (G) on

the bioaccumulation threat presented under various natural conditions.’’.

(2) CERTIFICATION.—Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C.

1314(a)) is amended by adding at the end the

following:

‘‘(10) CERTIFICATION.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 5 years

after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, and at least once every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator shall publish a written

certification that the criteria for water quality

developed under paragraph (1) reflect the latest

and best scientific knowledge.

‘‘(B) UPDATING OF EXISTING CRITERIA.—Not

later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall

publish a schedule for updating, by not later

than 5 years after the date of the enactment of

this paragraph, the criteria for water quality

developed under paragraph (1) before the date

of the enactment of this subsection.

‘‘(C) DEADLINE FOR REVISION OF CERTAIN CRITERIA.—Not later than 1 year after the date of

the enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall revise and publish criteria under

paragraph (1) for ammonia, chronic whole effluent toxicity, and metals as necessary to allow

the Administrator to make the certification

under subparagraph (A).’’.

(b) CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CONTAMINANTS.—Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(11) CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN CONTAMINANTS.—In developing and revising criteria for

water quality criteria under paragraph (1), the

Administrator shall consider addressing, at a

minimum, each contaminant regulated pursuant

to section 1412 of the Public Health Service Act

(42 U.S.C. 300g–1).’’.

(c) COST ESTIMATE.—Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C.

1314(a)) is further amended by adding at the

end the following:

‘‘(12) COST ESTIMATE.—Whenever the Administrator issues or revises a criteria for water

quality under paragraph (1), the Administrator,

after consultation with Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, shall develop

and publish an estimate of the costs that would

likely be incurred if sources were required to

comply with the criteria and an analysis to support the estimate. Such analysis shall meet the

requirements relevant to the estimation of costs

published in guidance issued under section

324(b).’’.

(d) REVISION OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.—

(1) ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL

REVISION.—Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is

amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1)

by striking ‘‘and, at least annually thereafter,’’

and inserting ‘‘and thereafter shall’’.

(2) SPECIAL RULE.—Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C.

1314(b)) is amended by striking the period at the

end of the first sentence and inserting the following: ‘‘; except that guidelines issued under

paragraph (1)(A) addressing pollutants identified pursuant to subsection (a)(4) shall not be

revised after February 15, 1995, to be more stringent unless such revised guidelines meet the requirements of paragraph (4)(A).’’.

(e) SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW OF GUIDELINES.—

Section 304(m)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1314(m)(1)) is

amended to read as follows:

‘‘(1) PUBLICATION.—Not later than 3 years

after the date of the enactment of the Clean

Water Amendments of 1995, the Administrator

shall publish in the Federal Register a plan

which shall—

‘‘(A) identify categories of sources discharging

pollutants for which guidelines under subsection (b)(2) of this section and section 306

have not been previously published;

‘‘(B) establish a schedule for determining

whether such discharge presents a significant

risk to human health and the environment and

whether such risk is sufficient, when compared

to other sources of pollutants in navigable waters, to warrant regulation by the Administrator; and

‘‘(C) establish a schedule for issuance of effluent guidelines for those categories identified

pursuant to subparagraph (B).’’.

(f) REVISION OF PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS.—Section 304(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1314(g)(1))

is amended by striking ‘‘and review at least annually thereafter and, if appropriate, revise’’

and insert ‘‘and thereafter revise, as appropriate,’’.

(g) CENTRAL TREATMENT FACILITY EXEMPTION.—Section 304 (33 U.S.C. 1314) is amended

by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(n) CENTRAL TREATMENT FACILITY EXEMPTION.—The exemption from effluent guidelines

for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point

Source Category set forth in section 420.01(b) of

title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, for the facilities listed in such section shall remain in effect for any facility that met the requirements of

such section on or before July 26, 1982, until the

Administrator develops alternative effluent

guidelines for the facility.’’.

SEC. 308. INFORMATION AND GUIDELINES.

Section 304(i)(2)(D) (33 U.S.C. 1314(i)(2)(D)) is

amended by striking ‘‘any person’’ and all that

follows through the period at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘any person (other than a
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4767

retiree or an employee or official of a city, county, or local governmental agency) who receives

a significant portion of his or her income during

the period of service on the board or body directly or indirectly from permit holders or applicants for a permit).’’.

SEC. 309. SECONDARY TREATMENT.

(a) COASTAL DISCHARGES.—Section 304(d) (33

U.S.C. 1314(d)) is amended by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(5) COASTAL DISCHARGES.—For purposes of

this subsection, any municipal wastewater

treatment facility shall be deemed the equivalent

of a secondary treatment facility if each of the

following requirements is met:

‘‘(A) The facility employs chemically enhanced primary treatment.

‘‘(B) The facility, on the date of the enactment of this paragraph, discharges through an

ocean outfall into an open marine environment

greater than 4 miles offshore into a depth greater than 300 feet.

‘‘(C) The facility’s discharge is in compliance

with all local and State water quality standards

for the receiving waters.

‘‘(D) The facility’s discharge will be subject to

an ocean monitoring program acceptable to relevant Federal and State regulatory agencies.’’.

(b) MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT

REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311)

is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(s) MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT

REQUIREMENTS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, with

the concurrence of the State, shall issue a 10-

year permit under section 402 which modifies the

requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section with respect to the discharge of any pollutant from a publicly owned treatment works into

marine waters which are at least 150 feet deep

through an ocean outfall which discharges at

least 1 mile offshore, if the applicant demonstrates that—

‘‘(A) there is an applicable ocean plan and the

facility’s discharge is in compliance with all

local and State water quality standards for the

receiving waters;

‘‘(B) the facility’s discharge will be subject to

an ocean monitoring program determined to be

acceptable by relevant Federal and State regulatory agencies;

‘‘(C) the applicant has an Agency approved

pretreatment plan in place; and

‘‘(D) the applicant, at the time such modification becomes effective, will be discharging effluent which has received at least chemically enhanced primary treatment and achieves a

monthly average of 75 percent removal of suspended solids.

‘‘(2) DISCHARGE OF ANY POLLUTANT INTO MARINE WATERS DEFINED.—For purposes of this

subsection, the term ‘discharge of any pollutant

into marine waters’ means a discharge into deep

waters of the territorial sea or the waters of the

contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine waters

where there is strong tidal movement.

‘‘(3) DEADLINE.—On or before the 90th day

after the date of submittal of an application for

a modification under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall issue to the applicant a modified

permit under section 402 or a written determination that the application does not meet the terms

and conditions of this subsection.

‘‘(4) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO RESPOND.—If the

Administrator does not respond to an application for a modification under paragraph (1) on

or before the 90th day referred to in paragraph

(3), the application shall be deemed approved

and the modification sought by the applicant

shall be in effect for the succeeding 10-year period.’’.

(2) EXTENSION OF APPLICATION DEADLINE.—

Section 301(j) (33 U.S.C. 1311(j)) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(6) EXTENSION OF APPLICATION DEADLINE.—

In the 365-day period beginning on the date of

the enactment of this paragraph, municipalities

may apply for a modification pursuant to subsection (s) of the requirements of subsection

(b)(1)(B) of this section.’’.

(c) MODIFICATIONS FOR SMALL SYSTEM TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.—Section 301 (33 U.S.C.

1311) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(t) MODIFICATIONS FOR SMALL SYSTEM

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.—The Administrator,

with the concurrence of the State, or a State

with an approved program under section 402

may issue a permit under section 402 which

modifies the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B)

of this section with respect to the discharge of

any pollutant from a publicly owned treatment

works serving a community of 20,000 people or

fewer if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that—

‘‘(1) the effluent from such facility originates

primarily from domestic users; and

‘‘(2) such facility utilizes a properly constructed and operated alternative treatment system (including recirculating sand filter systems,

constructed wetlands, and oxidation lagoons)

which is equivalent to secondary treatment or

will provide in the receiving waters and watershed an adequate level of protection to human

health and the environment and contribute to

the attainment of water quality standards.’’.

(d) PUERTO RICO.—Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311)

is further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(u) PUERTO RICO.—

‘‘(1) STUDY BY GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO

RICO.—Not later than 3 months after the date of

the enactment of this section, the Government of

Puerto Rico may, after consultation with the

Administrator, initiate a study of the marine environment of Anasco Bay off the coast of the

Mayaguez region of Puerto Rico to determine

the feasibility of constructing a deepwater

outfall for the publicly owned treatment works

located at Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Such study

shall recommend one or more technically feasible locations for the deepwater outfall based

on the effects of such outfall on the marine environment.

‘‘(2) APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION.—Notwithstanding subsection (j)(1)(A), not later than

18 months after the date of the enactment of this

section, an application may be submitted for a

modification pursuant to subsection (h) of the

requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section by the owner of the publicly owned treatment works at Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, for a

deepwater outfall at a location recommended in

the study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).

‘‘(3) INITIAL DETERMINATION.—On or before

the 90th day after the date of submittal of an

application for modification under paragraph

(2), the Administrator shall issue to the applicant a draft initial determination regarding the

modification of the existing permit.

‘‘(4) FINAL DETERMINATION.—On or before the

270th day after the date of submittal of an application for modification under paragraph (2),

the Administrator shall issue a final determination regarding such modification.

‘‘(5) EFFECTIVENESS.—If a modification is

granted pursuant to an application submitted

under this subsection, such modification shall

be effective only if the new deepwater outfall is

operational within 5 years after the date of the

enactment of this subsection. In all other aspects, such modification shall be effective for

the period applicable to all modifications granted under subsection (h).’’.

SEC. 310. TOXIC POLLUTANTS.

(a) TOXIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS.—Section 307(a)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1317(a)(2)) is

amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘(2) Each’’ and inserting the

following:

‘‘(2) TOXIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each’’;

(2) by moving paragraph (2) 2 ems to the right;

(3) by indenting subparagraph (A), as so designated, and moving the remaining text of such

subparagraph 2 ems further to the right; and

(4) in subparagraph (A), as so designated, by

striking the third sentence; and

(5) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(B) FACTORS.—The published effluent standard (or prohibition) shall take into account—

‘‘(i) the pollutant’s persistence, toxicity,

degradability, and bioaccumulation potential;

‘‘(ii) the magnitude and risk of exposure to

the pollutant, including risks to affected organisms and the importance of such organisms;

‘‘(iii) the relative contribution of point source

discharges of the pollutant to the overall risk

from the pollutant;

‘‘(iv) the availability of, costs associated with,

and risk posed by substitute chemicals or processes or the availability of treatment processes

or control technology;

‘‘(v) the beneficial and adverse social and economic effects of the effluent standard, including

the impact on energy resources;

‘‘(vi) the extent to which effective control is

being or may be achieved in an expeditious manner under other regulatory authorities;

‘‘(vii) the impact on national security interests; and

‘‘(viii) such other factors as the Administrator

considers appropriate.’’.

(b) BEACH WATER QUALITY MONITORING.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 304 is further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(o) BEACH WATER QUALITY MONITORING.—

After consultation with appropriate Federal,

State, and local agencies and after providing

notice and opportunity for public comment, the

Administrator shall develop and issue, not later

than 18 months after the date of the enactment

of this Act, guidance that States may use in

monitoring water quality at beaches and issuing

health advisories with respect to beaches, including testing protocols, recommendations on

frequency of testing and monitoring, recommendations on pollutants for which monitoring and testing should be conducted, and recommendations on when health advisories should

be issued. Such guidance shall be based on the

best available scientific information and be sufficient to protect public health and safety in the

case of any reasonably expected exposure to pollutants as a result of swimming or bathing.’’.

(2) REPORTS.—Section 516(a) (33 U.S.C.

1375(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘and (9)’’ and

inserting ‘‘(9) the monitoring conducted by

States on the water quality of beaches and the

issuance of health advisories with respect to

beaches, and (10)’’.

(c) FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES.—Any fish

consumption advisories issued by the Administrator shall be based upon the protocols, methodology, and findings of the Food and Drug Administration.

SEC. 311. LOCAL PRETREATMENT AUTHORITY.

Section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317) is amended by

adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(f) LOCAL PRETREATMENT AUTHORITY.—

‘‘(1) DEMONSTRATION.—If, to carry out the

purposes identified in paragraph (2), a publicly

owned treatment works with an approved

pretreatment program demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator, or a State with an

approved program under section 402, that—

‘‘(A) such publicly owned treatment works is

in compliance, and is likely to remain in compliance, with its permit under section 402, including applicable effluent limitations and narrative

standards;

‘‘(B) such publicly owned treatment works is

in compliance, and is likely to remain in compliance, with applicable air emission limitations;

‘‘(C) biosolids produced by such publicly

owned treatment works meet beneficial use requirements under section 405; and

‘‘(D) such publicly owned treatment works is

likely to continue to meet all applicable State requirements;
H 4768 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

the approved pretreatment program shall be

modified to allow the publicly owned treatment

works to apply local limits in lieu of categorical

pretreatment standards promulgated under this

section.

‘‘(2) PURPOSES.—The publicly owned treatment works may make the demonstration to the

Administrator or the State, as the case may be,

to apply local limits in lieu of categorical

pretreatment standards, as the treatment works

deems necessary, for the purposes of—

‘‘(A) reducing the administrative burden associated with the designation of an ‘industrial

user’ as a ‘categorical industrial user’; or

‘‘(B) eliminating additional redundant or unnecessary treatment by industrial users which

has little or no environmental benefit.

‘‘(3) LIMITATIONS.—

‘‘(A) SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE.—The publicly owned treatment works may not apply

local limits in lieu of categorical pretreatment

standards to any industrial user which is in significant noncompliance (as defined by the Administrator) with its approved pretreatment program.

‘‘(B) PROCEDURES.—A demonstration to the

Administrator or the State under paragraph (1)

must be made under the procedures for

pretreatment program modification provided

under this section and section 402.

‘‘(4) ANNUAL REVIEW.—

‘‘(A) DEMONSTRATION RELATING TO ABILITY TO

MEET CRITERIA.—As part of the annual

pretreatment report of the publicly owned treatment works to the Administrator or State, the

treatment works shall demonstrate that application of local limits in lieu of categorical

pretreatment standards has not resulted in the

inability of the treatment works to meet the criteria of paragraph (1).

‘‘(B) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—If the Administrator or State determines that application

of local limits in lieu of categorical pretreatment

standards has resulted in the inability of the

treatment works to meet the criteria of paragraph (1), the authority of a publicly owned

treatment works under this section shall be terminated and any affected industrial user shall

have a reasonable period of time to be determined by the Administrator or State, but not to

exceed 2 years, to come into compliance with

any otherwise applicable requirements of this

Act.’’.

SEC. 312. COMPLIANCE WITH MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES.

Section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317) is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘(g) COMPLIANCE WITH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.—

‘‘(1) SPECIAL RULE.—The Administrator or a

State with a permit program approved under

section 402 may allow any person that introduces silver into a publicly owned treatment

works to comply with a code of management

practices with respect to the introduction of silver into the treatment works for a period not to

exceed 5 years beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection in lieu of complying

with any pretreatment requirement (including

any local limit) based on an effluent limitation

for the treatment works derived from a water

quality standard for silver—

‘‘(A) if the treatment works has accepted the

code of management practices;

‘‘(B) if the code of management practices

meets the requirements of paragraph (2); and

‘‘(C) if the facility is—

‘‘(i) part of a class of facilities for which the

code of management practices has been approved by the Administrator or the State;

‘‘(ii) in compliance with a mass limitation or

concentration level for silver attainable with the

application of the best available technology economically achievable for such facilities, as established by the Administrator after a review of

the treatment and management practices of such

class of facilities; and

‘‘(iii) implementing the code of management

practices.

‘‘(2) CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.—A

code of management practices meets the requirements of this paragraph if the code of management practices—

‘‘(A) is developed and adopted by representatives of industry and publicly owned treatment

works of major urban areas;

‘‘(B) is approved by the Administrator or the

State, as the case may be;

‘‘(C) reflects acceptable industry practices to

minimize the amount of silver introduced into

publicly owned treatment works or otherwise

entering the environment from the class of facilities for which the code of management practices is approved; and

‘‘(D) addresses, at a minimum—

‘‘(i) the use of the best available technology

economically achievable, based on a review of

the current state of such technology for such

class of facilities and of the effluent guidelines

for such facilities;

‘‘(ii) water conservation measures available to

reduce the total quantity of discharge from such

facilities to publicly owned treatment works;

‘‘(iii) opportunities to recover silver (and other

pollutants) from the waste stream prior to introduction into a publicly owned treatment works;

and

‘‘(iv) operating and maintenance practices to

minimize the amount of silver introduced into

publicly owned treatment works and to assure

consistent performance of the management practices and treatment technology specified under

this paragraph.

‘‘(3) INTERIM EXTENSION FOR POTWS RECEIVING

SILVER.—In any case in which the Administrator or a State with a permit program approved under section 402 allows under paragraph (1) a person to comply with a code of

management practices for a period of not to exceed 5 years in lieu of complying with a

pretreatment requirement (including a local

limit) for silver, the Administrator or State, as

applicable, shall modify the permit conditions

and effluent limitations for any affected publicly owned treatment works to defer for such

period compliance with any effluent limitation

derived from a water quality standard for silver

beyond that required by section 301(b)(2), notwithstanding the provisions of section 303(d)(4)

and 402(o), if the Administrator or the State, as

applicable, finds that—

‘‘(A) the quality of any affected waters and

the operation of the treatment works will be

adequately protected during such period by implementation of the code of management practices and the use of best technology economically achievable by persons introducing silver

into the treatment works;

‘‘(B) the introduction of pollutants into such

treatment works is in compliance with paragraphs (1) and (2); and

‘‘(C) a program of enforcement by such treatment works and the State ensures such compliance.’’.

SEC. 313. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT.

(a) ADJUSTMENT OF PENALTIES.—Section 309

(33 U.S.C. 1319) is amended by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(h) ADJUSTMENT OF MONETARY PENALTIES

FOR INFLATION.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 4 years after

the date of the enactment of this subsection,

and at least once every 4 years thereafter, the

Administrator shall adjust each monetary penalty provided by this section in accordance with

paragraph (2) and publish such adjustment in

the Federal Register.

‘‘(2) METHOD.—An adjustment to be made

pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be determined

by increasing or decreasing the maximum monetary penalty or the range of maximum monetary

penalties, as appropriate, by multiplying the

cost-of-living adjustment and the amount of

such penalty.

‘‘(3) COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT DEFINED.—

In this subsection, the term ‘cost-of-living’ adjustment means the percentage (if any) for each

monetary penalty by which—

‘‘(A) the Consumer Price Index for the month

of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment; is greater or less than

‘‘(B) the Consumer Price Index for—

‘‘(i) with respect to the first adjustment under

this subsection, the month of June of the calendar year preceding the date of the enactment

of this subsection; and

‘‘(ii) with respect to each subsequent adjustment under this subsection, the month of June

of the calendar year in which the amount of

such monetary penalty was last adjusted under

this subsection.

‘‘(4) ROUNDING.—In making adjustments

under this subsection, the Administrator may

round the dollar amount of a penalty, as appropriate.

‘‘(5) APPLICABILITY.—Any increase or decrease to a monetary penalty resulting from this

subsection shall apply only to violations which

occur after the date any such increase takes effect.’’.

(b) JOINING STATES AS PARTIES IN ACTIONS INVOLVING MUNICIPALITIES.—Section 309(e) (33

U.S.C. 1319(e)) is amended by striking ‘‘shall be

joined as a party. Such State’’ and inserting

‘‘may be joined as a party. Any State so joined

as a party’’.

SEC. 314. RESPONSE PLANS FOR DISCHARGES OF

OIL OR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of section

311(j)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)) shall not apply with

respect to—

(1) a municipal or industrial treatment works

at which no greater than a de minimis quantity

of oil or hazardous substances is stored; or

(2) a facility that stores process water mixed

with a de minimis quantity of oil.

(b) REGULATIONS.—The President shall issue

regulations clarifying the meaning of the term

‘‘de minimis quantity of oil or hazardous substances’’ as used in this section.

SEC. 315. MARINE SANITATION DEVICES.

Section 312(c)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1322(c)(1)(A)) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this sentence, and at least once every

5 years thereafter, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of the Department

in which the Coast Guard is operating and after

providing notice and opportunity for public

comment, shall review such standards and regulations to take into account improvements in

technology relating to marine sanitation devices

and based on such review shall make such revisions to such standards and regulations as may

be necessary.’’.

SEC. 316. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

(a) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.—

Section 313(a) (33 U.S.C. 1323(a)) is amended by

striking all preceding subsection (b) and inserting the following:

‘‘SEC. 313. FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION CONTROL.

‘‘(a) APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL, STATE,

INTERSTATE, AND LOCAL LAWS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each department, agency,

or instrumentality of the executive, legislative,

and judicial branches of the Federal Government—

‘‘(A) having jurisdiction over any property or

facility, or

‘‘(B) engaged in any activity resulting, or

which may result, in the discharge or runoff of

pollutants,

and each officer, agent, or employee thereof in

the performance of his official duties, shall be

subject to, and comply with, all Federal, State,

interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water pollution in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity, including

the payment of reasonable service charges.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4769

‘‘(2) TYPES OF ACTIONS COVERED.—Paragraph

(1) shall apply—

‘‘(A) to any requirement whether substantive

or procedural (including any recordkeeping or

reporting requirement, any requirement respecting permits, and any other requirement),

‘‘(B) to the exercise of any Federal, State, or

local administrative authority, and

‘‘(C) to any process and sanction, whether enforced in Federal, State, or local courts or in

any other manner.

‘‘(3) PENALTIES AND FINES.—The Federal,

State, interstate, and local substantive and procedural requirements, administrative authority,

and process and sanctions referred to in paragraph (1) include all administrative orders and

all civil and administrative penalties and fines,

regardless of whether such penalties or fines are

punitive or coercive in nature or are imposed for

isolated, intermittent, or continuing violations.

‘‘(4) SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.—

‘‘(A) WAIVER.—The United States hereby expressly waives any immunity otherwise applicable to the United States with respect to any requirement, administrative authority, and process and sanctions referred to in paragraph (1)

(including any injunctive relief, any administrative order, any civil or administrative penalty or

fine referred to in paragraph (3), or any reasonable service charge).

‘‘(B) PROCESSING FEES.—The reasonable service charges referred to in this paragraph include

fees or charges assessed in connection with the

processing and issuance of permits, renewal of

permits, amendments to permits, review of plans,

studies, and other documents, and inspection

and monitoring of facilities, as well as any other

nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed in

connection with a Federal, State, interstate, or

local water pollution regulatory program.

‘‘(5) EXEMPTIONS.—

‘‘(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.—The

President may exempt any effluent source of

any department, agency, or instrumentality in

the executive branch from compliance with any

requirement to which paragraph (1) applies if

the President determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United States to do so; except that no exemption may be granted from the

requirements of section 306 or 307 of this Act.

‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—No exemptions shall be

granted under subparagraph (A) due to lack of

appropriation unless the President shall have

specifically requested such appropriation as a

part of the budgetary process and the Congress

shall have failed to make available such requested appropriation.

‘‘(C) TIME PERIOD.—Any exemption under

subparagraph (A) shall be for a period not in

excess of 1 year, but additional exemptions may

be granted for periods of not to exceed 1 year

upon the President’s making a new determination.

‘‘(D) MILITARY PROPERTY.—In addition to

any exemption of a particular effluent source,

the President may, if the President determines it

to be in the paramount interest of the United

States to do so, issue regulations exempting from

compliance with the requirements of this section

any weaponry, equipment, aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or other classes or categories of property,

and access to such property, which are owned

or operated by the Armed Forces of the United

States (including the Coast Guard) or by the

National Guard of any State and which are

uniquely military in nature. The President shall

reconsider the need for such regulations at 3-

year intervals.

‘‘(E) REPORTS.—The President shall report

each January to the Congress all exemptions

from the requirements of this section granted

during the preceding calendar year, together

with the President’s reason for granting such

exemption.

‘‘(6) VENUE.—Nothing in this section shall be

construed to prevent any department, agency,

or instrumentality of the Federal Government,

or any officer, agent, or employee thereof in the

performance of official duties, from removing to

the appropriate Federal district court any proceeding to which the department, agency, or instrumentality or officer, agent, or employee

thereof is subject pursuant to this section, and

any such proceeding may be removed in accordance with chapter 89 of title 28, United States

Code.

‘‘(7) PERSONAL LIABILITY OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.—No agent, employee, or officer of the United States shall be personally liable for any civil

penalty under any Federal, State, interstate, or

local water pollution law with respect to any

act or omission within the scope of the official

duties of the agent, employee, or officer.

‘‘(8) CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.—An agent, employee, or officer of the United States shall be

subject to any criminal sanction (including any

fine or imprisonment) under any Federal or

State water pollution law, but no department,

agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government shall be subject to any such sanction.’’.

(b) FUNDS COLLECTED BY A STATE.—Section

313 (33 U.S.C. 1323) is further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON STATE USE OF FUNDS.—

Unless a State law in effect on the date of the

enactment of this subsection or a State constitution requires the funds to be used in a different

manner, all funds collected by a State from the

Federal Government in penalties and fines imposed for the violation of a substantive or procedural requirement referred to in subsection (a)

shall be used by a State only for projects designed to improve or protect the environment or

to defray the costs of environmental protection

or enforcement.’’.

(c) ENFORCEMENT.—Section 313 is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(d) FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT.—

‘‘(1) ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT BY EPA.—

The Administrator may commence an administrative enforcement action against any department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government pursuant to the enforcement

authorities contained in this Act.

‘‘(2) PROCEDURE.—The Administrator shall

initiate an administrative enforcement action

against a department, agency, or instrumentality under this subsection in the same manner

and under the same circumstances as an action

would be initiated against any other person

under this Act. The amount of any administrative penalty imposed under this subsection shall

be determined in accordance with section 309(d)

of this Act.

‘‘(3) VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT.—Any voluntary

resolution or settlement of an action under this

subsection shall be set forth in an administrative consent order.

‘‘(4) CONFERRAL WITH EPA.—No administrative

order issued to a department, agency, or instrumentality under this section shall become final

until such department, agency, or instrumentality has had the opportunity to confer with the

Administrator.’’.

(d) LIMITATION ON ACTIONS AND RIGHT OF

INTERVENTION.—Section 313 is further amended

by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(e) LIMITATION ON ACTIONS AND RIGHT OF

INTERVENTION.—Any violation with respect to

which the Administrator has commenced and is

diligently prosecuting an action under this subsection, or for which the Administrator has issued a final order and the violator has either

paid a penalty or fine assessed under this subsection or is subject to an enforceable schedule

of corrective actions, shall not be the subject of

an action under section 505 of this Act. In any

action under this subsection, any citizen may

intervene as a matter of right.’’.

(e) DEFINITION OF PERSON.—Section 502(5) (33

U.S.C. 1362(5)) is amended by inserting before

the period at the end the following: ‘‘and includes any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States’’.

(f) DEFINITION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS.—

Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(24) The term ‘radioactive materials’ includes

source materials, special nuclear materials, and

byproduct materials (as such terms are defined

under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954) which are

used, produced, or managed at facilities not licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission;

except that such term does not include any material which is discharged from a vessel covered

by Executive Order 12344 (42 U.S.C. 7158 note;

relating to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program).’’.

(g) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 313(b)

(33 U.S.C. 1323(b)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘(b)(1)’’ and inserting the following:

‘‘(b) WASTEWATER FACILITIES.—

‘‘(1) COOPERATION FOR USE OF WASTEWATER

CONTROL SYSTEMS.—’’;

(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘LIMITATION

ON CONSTRUCTION.—’’ before ‘‘Construction’’;

and

(3) by moving paragraphs (1) and (2) 2 ems to

the right.

(h) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made

by this section shall take effect on the date of

the enactment of this Act and shall only apply

to violations occurring after such date of enactment.

SEC. 317. CLEAN LAKES.

(a) PRIORITY LAKES.—Section 314(d)(2) (33

U.S.C. 1324(d)(2)) is amended by inserting

‘‘Paris Twin Lakes, Illinois; Otsego Lake, New

York; Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania;’’ after

‘‘Minnesota;’’.

(b) FUNDING.—Section 314 (33 U.S.C. 1324) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry

out this section $10,000,000 per fiscal year for

each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.’’.

SEC. 318. COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES.

Section 316(b) (33 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended—

(1) by inserting after ‘‘(b)’’ the following:

‘‘STANDARD FOR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES.—’’;

(2) by inserting before ‘‘Any’’ the following:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—’’;

(3) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated

by paragraph (2) of this section, and moving

such paragraph 2 ems to the right; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(2) NEW POINT SOURCE CONSIDERATIONS.—In

establishing a standard referred to in paragraph

(1) for cooling water intake structures located at

new point sources, the Administrator shall consider, at a minimum, the following:

‘‘(A) The relative technological, engineering,

and economic feasibility of possible technologies

or techniques for minimizing any such adverse

environmental impacts.

‘‘(B) The relative technological, engineering,

and economic feasibility of possible site locations, intake structure designs, and cooling

water flow techniques.

‘‘(C) The relative environmental, social, and

economic costs and benefits of possible technologies, techniques, site locations, intake structure designs, and cooling water flow techniques.

‘‘(D) The projected useful life of the new point

source.

‘‘(3) EXISTING POINT SOURCES.—For existing

point sources, the Administrator may require the

use of best technology available in the case of

existing cooling water intake structures if the

Administrator determines such structures are

having or could have a significant adverse impact on the aquatic environment. In establishing a standard referred to in paragraph (1) for

such existing point sources, the Administrator

shall consider, at a minimum, the following:

‘‘(A) The relative technological, engineering,

and economic feasibility of reasonably available

retrofit technologies or techniques for minimizing any such adverse environmental impacts.
H 4770 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

‘‘(B) Other mitigation measures for offsetting

the anticipated adverse environmental impacts

resulting from the withdrawal of cooling water.

‘‘(C) Relative environmental, social, and economic costs and benefits of possible retrofit technologies, techniques, and mitigation measures.

‘‘(D) The projected remaining useful life of the

existing point source.

‘‘(4) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the following definitions apply:

‘‘(A) NEW POINT SOURCE.—The term ‘new

point source’ means any point source the construction of which will commence after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing a

standard for intake structures that will be applicable to such source if such standard is promulgated in accordance with paragraph (2).

‘‘(B) EXISTING POINT SOURCE.—The term ‘existing point source’ means any point source that

is not a new point source.’’.

SEC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

(a) STATE ASSESSMENT REPORT.—

(1) CONTENTS.—Section 319(a)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C.

1329(a)(1)(C)) is amended by striking ‘‘best management practices and’’.

(2) INFORMATION USED IN PREPARATION.—Section 319(a)(2) is amended—

(A) by inserting ‘‘, reviewing, and revising’’

after ‘‘developing’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘section’’ the first place it appears and inserting ‘‘subsection’’.

(3) REVIEW AND REVISION.—Section 319(a) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(3) REVIEW AND REVISION.—Not later than 18

months after the date of the enactment of the

Clean Water Amendments of 1995, and every 5

years thereafter, the State shall review, revise,

and submit to the Administrator the report required by this subsection.’’.

(b) STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.—

(1) TERM OF PROGRAM.—Section 319(b)(1) is

amended by striking ‘‘four’’ and inserting ‘‘5’’.

(2) CONTENTS.—Section 319(b)(2) is amended—

(A) in subparagraph (A)—

(i) by striking ‘‘best’’;

(ii) by striking ‘‘paragraph (1)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(1)(B)’’; and

(iii) by inserting ‘‘and measure’’ after ‘‘practice’’;

(B) in subparagraph (B)—

(i) by striking ‘‘nonregulatory or regulatory

programs for enforcement,’’ and inserting ‘‘one

or more of the following: voluntary programs,

incentive-based programs, regulatory programs,

enforceable policies and mechanisms, State management programs approved under section 306 of

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,’’;

and

(ii) by striking ‘‘achieve implementation’’ and

all that follows before the period and inserting

‘‘manage categories, subcategories, or particular

nonpoint sources to the degree necessary to provide for reasonable further progress toward the

goal of attaining water quality standards within

15 years of approval of the State program for

those waters identified under subsection

(a)(1)(A)’’;

(C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:

‘‘(C) A schedule containing interim goals and

milestones for making reasonable progress toward the attainment of standards, which may

be demonstrated by one or any combination of

the following: improvements in water quality

(including biological indicators), documented

implementation of voluntary nonpoint source

control practices and measures, and adoption of

enforceable policies and mechanisms.’’;

(D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ‘‘A certification of’’ and inserting ‘‘After the date of

the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments

of 1995, a certification by’’; and

(E) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(G) A description of the monitoring or other

assessment which will be carried out under the

program for the purposes of monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the program, including the attainment of interim goals and milestones.

‘‘(H) An identification of activities on Federal

lands in the State that are inconsistent with the

State management program.

‘‘(I) An identification of goals and milestones

for progress in attaining water quality standards, including a projected date for attaining

such standards as expeditiously as practicable

but not later than 15 years after the date of approval of the State program for each of the waters listed pursuant to subsection (a).’’.

(3) UTILIZATION OF LOCAL AND PRIVATE EXPERTS.—Section 319(b)(3) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘,

including academic institutions, private industry experts, and other individual experts in

water resource conservation and planning’’.

(4) NEW TECHNOLOGIES; USE OF RESOURCES;

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS.—Section 319(b) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(5) RECOGNITION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES.—In

developing and implementing a management

program under this subsection, a State may recognize and utilize new practices, technologies,

processes, products, and other alternatives.

‘‘(6) EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE USE OF RESOURCES.—In developing and implementing a

management program under this subsection, a

State may recognize and provide for a methodology which takes into account situations in

which management measures used to control one

pollutant have an adverse impact with respect

to another pollutant. The methodology should

encourage the balanced combination of measures which best address the various impairments

on the watershed or site.

‘‘(7) RECOGNITION OF AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS.—Any agricultural producer who has

voluntarily developed and is implementing an

approved whole farm or ranch natural resources

management plan shall be considered to be in

compliance with the requirements of a State program developed under this section—

‘‘(A) if such plan has been developed under a

program subject to a memorandum of agreement

between the Chief of the Natural Resources

Conservation Service and the Governor, or their

respective designees; and

‘‘(B) if such memorandum of agreement specifies—

‘‘(i) the scope and content of the Natural Resources Conservation Service program (not an

individual farm or ranch plan) in the State or

regions of the State;

‘‘(ii) the terms of approval, implementation,

and duration of a voluntary farm or ranch plan

for agricultural producers;

‘‘(iii) the responsibilities for assessing implementation of voluntary whole farm and ranch

natural resource management plans; and

‘‘(iv) the duration of such memorandum of

agreement.

At a minimum, such memorandum of agreement

shall be reviewed and may be revised every 5

years, as part of the State review of its management program under this section.’’.

(c) SUBMISSION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—

Paragraph (2) of section 319(c) is amended to

read as follows:

‘‘(2) TIME PERIOD FOR SUBMISSION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—Each management program

shall be submitted to the Administrator within

30 months of the issuance by the Administrator

of the final guidance under subsection (o) and

every 5 years thereafter. Each program submission after the initial submission following the

date of the enactment of the Clean Water

Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward the

goal of attaining water quality standards within

15 years of approval of the State program, including documentation of the degree to which

the State has achieved the interim goals and

milestones contained in the previous program

submission. Such demonstration shall take into

account the adequacy of Federal funding under

this section.’’.

(d) APPROVAL AND DISAPPROVAL OF REPORTS

AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—

(1) DEADLINE.—Section 319(d)(1) is amended

by inserting ‘‘or revised report’’ after ‘‘any report’’.

(2) DISAPPROVAL.—Section 319(d)(2) is amended—

(A) in subparagraph (B) by inserting before

the semicolon the following: ‘‘; except that such

program or portion shall not be disapproved

solely because the program or portion does not

include enforceable policies or mechanisms’’;

(B) in subparagraph (D) by striking ‘‘are not

adequate’’ and all that follows before the semicolon and inserting the following: ‘‘will not result in reasonable further progress toward the

attainment of applicable water quality standards under section 303 as expeditiously as possible but not later than 15 years after approval

of the State program’’; and

(C) in the text following subparagraph (D)—

(i) by striking ‘‘3 months’’ and inserting ‘‘6

months’’; and

(ii) by inserting ‘‘or portion thereof’’ before

‘‘within three months of receipt’’.

(3) FAILURE TO SUBMIT REPORT.—Section

319(d)(3) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘the report’’ and inserting ‘‘a

report or revised report’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘30 months’’ and inserting ‘‘18

months’’; and

(C) by striking ‘‘of the enactment of this section’’ and inserting ‘‘on which such report is required to be submitted under subsection (a)’’.

(4) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.—Section 319(d) is amended by adding

at the end the following:

‘‘(4) FAILURE OF STATE TO SUBMIT PROGRAM.—

‘‘(A) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.—If a State fails to submit a management program or revised management program

under subsection (b) or the Administrator disapproves such management program, the Administrator shall prepare and implement a management program for controlling pollution added

from nonpoint sources to the navigable waters

within the State and improving the quality of

such waters in accordance with subsection (b).

‘‘(B) NOTICE AND HEARING.—If the Administrator intends to disapprove a program submitted by a State, the Administrator shall first notify the Governor of the State in writing of the

modifications necessary to meet the requirements of this section. The Administrator shall

provide adequate public notice and an opportunity for a public hearing for all interested

parties.

‘‘(C) STATE REVISION OF ITS PROGRAM.—If,

after taking into account the level of funding

actually provided as compared with the level

authorized under subsection (j), the Administrator determines that a State has failed to demonstrate reasonable further progress toward the

attainment of water quality standards as required, the State shall revise its program within

12 months of that determination in a manner

sufficient to achieve attainment of applicable

water quality standards by the deadline established by this Act. If a State fails to make such

a program revision or the Administrator disapproves such a revision, the Administrator

shall prepare and implement a nonpoint source

management program for the State.’’.

(e) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—Section 319(f) is

amended by inserting ‘‘and implementing’’ after

‘‘developing’’.

(f) GRANT PROGRAM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 319(h)(1) is amended—

(A) by amending the paragraph heading to

read as follows: ‘‘GRANTS FOR PREPARATION AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORTS AND MANAGEMENT

PROGRAMS.—’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘for which a report submitted

under subsection (a) and a management program submitted under subsection (b) is approved

under this section’’;

(C) by striking ‘‘the Administrator shall make

grants’’ and inserting ‘‘the Administrator may

make grants under this subsection’’;
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4771

(D) by striking ‘‘under this subsection to such

State’’ and inserting ‘‘to such State’’;

(E) by striking ‘‘implementing such management program’’ and inserting ‘‘preparing a report under subsection (a) and in preparing and

implementing a management program under

subsection (b)’’;

(F) by inserting after the first sentence the

following: ‘‘Grants for implementation of such

management program may be made only after

such report and management program are approved under this section.’’; and

(G) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The

Administrator is authorized to provide funds to

a State if necessary to implement an approved

portion of a State program or, with the approval

of the Governor of the State, to implement a

component of a federally established program.

The Administrator may continue to make grants

to any State with an program approved on the

day before the date of the enactment of the

Clean Water Amendments of 1995 until the Administrator withdraws the approval of such program or the State fails to submit a revision of

such program in accordance with subsection

(c)(2).’’.

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—Section 319(h)(3) is

amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘management program implemented’’ and inserting ‘‘report prepared and

management program prepared and implemented’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘60 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘75

percent’’;

(C) by striking ‘‘implementing such management program’’ and inserting ‘‘preparing such

report and preparing and implementing such

management program’’; and

(D) by inserting ‘‘of program implementation’’

after ‘‘non-Federal share’’.

(3) LIMITATION ON GRANT AMOUNTS.—Section

319(h)(4) is amended—

(A) by inserting before the first sentence the

following: ‘‘The Administrator shall establish,

after consulting with the States, maximum and

minimum grants for any fiscal year to promote

equity between States and effective nonpoint

source management.’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The

minimum percentage of funds allocated to each

State shall be 0.5 percent of the amount appropriated.’’.

(4) ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS.—Paragraph

(5) of section 319(h) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(5) ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS.—Grants

under this section shall be allocated to States

with approved programs in a fair and equitable

manner and be based upon rules and regulations promulgated by the Administrator which

shall take into account the extent and nature of

the nonpoint sources of pollution in each State

and other relevant factors.’’.

(5) USE OF FUNDS.—Paragraph (7) of section

319(h) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(7) USE OF FUNDS.—A State may use grants

made available to the State pursuant to this section for activities relating to nonpoint source

water pollution control, including—

‘‘(A) providing financial assistance with respect to those activities whose principal purpose

is protecting and improving water quality;

‘‘(B) assistance related to the cost of preparing or implementing the State management program;

‘‘(C) providing incentive grants to individuals

to implement a site-specific water quality plan

in amounts not to exceed 75 percent of the cost

of the project from all Federal sources;

‘‘(D) land acquisition or conservation easements consistent with a site-specific water quality plan; and

‘‘(E) restoring and maintaining the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of urban and

rural waters and watersheds (including restoration and maintenance of water quality, a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish,

and wildlife, aquatic and riparian vegetation,

and recreational activities in and on the water)

and protecting designated uses, including fishing, swimming, and drinking water supply.’’.

(6) COMPLIANCE WITH STATE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM.—Paragraph (8) of section 319(h) is

amended to read as follows:

‘‘(8) COMPLIANCE WITH STATE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM.—In any fiscal year for which the Administrator determines that a State has not

made satisfactory progress in the preceding fiscal year in meeting the schedule specified for

such State under subsection (b)(2)(C), the Administrator is authorized to withhold grants

pursuant to this section in whole or in part to

the State after adequate written notice is provided to the Governor of the State.’’.

(7) ALLOTMENT STUDY.—Section 319(h) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(13) ALLOTMENT STUDY.—

‘‘(A) STUDY.—The Administrator, in consultation with the States, shall conduct a study of

whether the allocation of funds under paragraph (5) appropriately reflects the needs and

costs of nonpoint source control measures for

different nonpoint source categories and

subcategories and of options for better reflecting

such needs and costs in the allotment of funds.

‘‘(B) REPORT.—Not later than 5 years after

the date of the enactment of the Clean Water

Amendments of 1995, the Administrator shall

transmit to Congress a report on the results of

the study conducted under this subsection, together with recommendations.’’.

(g) GRANTS FOR PROTECTING GROUND WATER

QUALITY.—Section 319(i)(3) is amended by striking ‘‘$150,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$500,000’’.

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 319(j) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘$130,000,000’’;

(2) by inserting after ‘‘1991’’ the following: ‘‘,

such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years

1992 through 1995, $100,000,000 for fiscal year

1996, $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1997,

$200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $250,000,000 for

fiscal year 1999, and $300,000,000 for fiscal year

2000’’; and

(3) by striking ‘‘$7,500,000’’ and inserting

‘‘$25,000,000’’.

(i) CONSISTENCY OF OTHER PROGRAMS AND

PROJECTS WITH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—Section 319(k) (33 U.S.C. 1329(k)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘allow States to review’’ and

inserting ‘‘require coordination with States in’’;

(2) by inserting before the period at the end

the following: ‘‘and the State watershed management program’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Federal agencies that own or manage land, or issue

licenses for activities that cause nonpoint source

pollution from such land, shall coordinate their

nonpoint source control measures with the State

nonpoint source management program and the

State watershed management program. A Federal agency and the Governor of an affected

State shall enter into a memorandum of understanding to carry out the purposes of this paragraph. Such a memorandum of understanding

shall not relieve the Federal agency of the agency’s obligation to comply with its own mandates.’’.

(j) REPORTS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.—

(1) BIENNIAL REPORTS.—Section 319(m)(1) is

amended—

(A) in the paragraph heading by striking

‘‘ANNUAL’’ and inserting ‘‘BIENNIAL’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘1988, and each January 1’’

and inserting ‘‘1995, and biennially’’.

(2) CONTENTS.—Section 319(m)(2) is amended—

(A) by striking the paragraph heading and all

that follows before ‘‘at a minimum’’ and inserting ‘‘CONTENTS.—Each report submitted under

paragraph (1),’’;

(B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘best

management practices’’ and inserting ‘‘measures’’; and

(C) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘best

management practices’’ and inserting ‘‘the

measures provided by States under subsection

(b)’’.

(k) SET ASIDE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL.—Section 319(n) is amended by striking

‘‘less’’ and inserting ‘‘more’’.

(l) GUIDANCE ON MODEL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MEASURES.—Section 319 is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(o) GUIDANCE ON MODEL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MEASURES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall

publish guidance to identify model management

practices and measures which may be undertaken, at the discretion of the State or appropriate entity, under a management program established pursuant to this section.

‘‘(2) CONSULTATION; PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT.—The Administrator shall develop the

model management practices and measures

under paragraph (1) in consultation with the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other appropriate Federal and State departments and agencies, and academic institutions, private industry experts, and other individual experts in water conservation and planning, and after providing notice and opportunity for public comment.

‘‘(3) PUBLICATION.—The Administrator shall

publish proposed guidance under this subsection

not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection and shall publish

final guidance under this subsection not later

than 18 months after such date of enactment.

The Administrator shall periodically review and

revise the final guidance at least once every 3

years after its publication.

‘‘(4) MODEL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND

MEASURES DEFINED.—For the purposes of this

subsection, the term ‘model management practices and measures’ means economically achievable measures for the control of the addition of

pollutants from nonpoint sources of pollution

which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the application of

the best available nonpoint pollution control

practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria,

operating methods, or other alternatives. The

Administrator may distinguish among classes,

types, and sizes within any category of

nonpoint sources.’’.

(m) INADEQUATE FUNDING.—Section 319 is further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(p) INADEQUATE FUNDING.—For each fiscal

year beginning after the date of the enactment

of this subsection for which the total of amounts

appropriated to carry out this section are less

than the total of amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to subsection (j), the deadline for compliance with any requirement of this

section, including any deadline relating to assessment reports or State program implementation or monitoring efforts, shall be postponed by

1 year, unless the Administrator and the State

jointly certify that the amounts appropriated

are sufficient to meet the requirements of this

section.’’.

(n) COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL

PROGRAMS.—

(1) REPEAL.—Section 6217 of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.

1455b) is repealed.

(2) INCLUSION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS IN NONPOINT PROGRAM.—Section 319 is

amended—

(A) in subsection (a)(1)—

(i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C);

(ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting ‘‘(including State

management programs approved under section

306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of

1972); and’’; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(E) identifies critical areas, giving consideration to the variety of natural, commercial, recreational, ecological, industrial, and aesthetic

resources of immediate and potential value to

the present and future of the Nation’s waters in

the Coastal Zone.’’;
H 4772 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

(B) in subsection (a)(2) by inserting ‘‘any

management program of the State approved

under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,’’ after ‘‘314,’’;

(C) in subsection (b)(2) by adding after subparagraph (I), as added by subsection (b) of this

section, the following:

‘‘(J) For coastal areas, the identification of,

and continuing process for identifying, land

uses which individually or cumulatively may

cause or contribute significantly to degradation

of—

‘‘(i) those coastal waters where there is a failure to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or protected designated uses, as

determined by the State pursuant to the State’s

water quality planning processes or watershed

planning efforts; and

‘‘(ii) those coastal waters that are threatened

by reasonably foreseeable increases in pollution

loadings.’’; and

(D) in subsection (c)(1) by inserting ‘‘or coastal zone management agencies’’ after ‘‘planning

agencies’’.

(o) AGRICULTURAL INPUTS.—Section 319 is further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(q) AGRICULTURAL INPUTS.—For the purposes

of this Act, any land application of livestock

manure shall not be considered a point source

and shall be subject to enforcement only under

this section.’’.

(p) PURPOSE.—Section 319 (33 U.S.C. 1329) is

further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(r) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is

to assist States in addressing nonpoint sources

of pollution where necessary to achieve the

goals and requirements of this Act. It is recognized that State nonpoint source programs need

to be built upon a foundation that voluntary

initiatives represent the approach most likely to

succeed in achieving the objectives of this Act.’’.

SEC. 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

(a) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section

320(a)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended

to read as follows:

‘‘(B) PRIORITY CONSIDERATION.—The Administrator shall give priority consideration under

this section to Long Island Sound, New York

and Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts (including Cape Cod

Bay and Boston Harbor); Puget Sound, Washington; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York

and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and

New Jersey; Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware;

Albemarle Sound, North Carolina; Sarasota

Bay, Florida; San Francisco Bay, California;

Santa Monica Bay, California; Galveston Bay,

Texas; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon, Florida;

Charlotte Harbor, Florida; Barnegat Bay, New

Jersey; and Peconic Bay, New York.’’.

(b) GRANTS.—Section 320(g)(2) (33 U.S.C.

1330(g)(2)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and implementation monitoring’’ after ‘‘development’’.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 320(i) (33 U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by

striking ‘‘1987’’ and all that follows through

‘‘1991’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘1987

through 1991, such sums as may be necessary for

fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and $19,000,000

per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996

through 2000’’.

SEC. 321. STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311–

1330) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 321. STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

PROGRAMS.

‘‘(a) STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.—

‘‘(1) SUBMISSION OF PROGRAM TO ADMINISTRATOR.—A State, at any time, may submit a

watershed management program to the Administrator for approval.

‘‘(2) APPROVAL.—If the Administrator does

not disapprove a State watershed management

program within 180 days of its submittal or 240

days of a request for a public hearing pursuant

to paragraph (3) with respect to the program,

whichever is later, such program shall be

deemed approved for the purposes of this section. The Administrator shall approve the program if the program includes, at a minimum, the

following elements:

‘‘(A) The identification of the State agency

with primary responsibility for overseeing and

approving watershed management plans in general.

‘‘(B) The description of any responsible entities (including any appropriate State agency or

substate agency) to be utilized in implementing

the program and a description of their responsibilities.

‘‘(C) A description of the scope of the program. In establishing the scope of the program,

the State may address one or more watersheds,

or pollutants, concurrently or sequentially. The

scope of the State program may expand over

time with respect to the watersheds, pollutants,

and factors to be addressed under the program.

In developing the State program, the State shall

take into account all regional and local government watershed management programs that are

consistent with the proposed State program and

shall consult with the regional and local governments that developed such programs. The

State shall consider recommendations from units

of general purpose government, special purpose

districts, local water suppliers, and appropriate

water management agencies in the development

and scope of the program.

‘‘(D) Provisions for carrying out an analysis,

consistent with the established scope of the program, of the problems within each watershed

covered under the program.

‘‘(E) An identification of watershed management units for which management plans will be

developed, taking into consideration those waters where water quality is threatened or impaired or otherwise in need of special protection. A watershed management unit identified

under the program may include waters and associated land areas in more than 1 State if the

Governors of the States affected jointly designate the watershed management unit and may

include waters and associated lands managed or

owned by the Federal Government.

‘‘(F) A description of the activities required of

responsible entities (as specified under subsection (e)(1)) and a description of the watershed plan approval process of the State.

‘‘(G) Documentation of the public participation in development of the program and description of the procedures that will be used for public participation in the development and implementation of watershed plans.

‘‘(H) The identification of goals that will be

pursued in each watershed, including attainment of State water quality standards (including site-specific water quality standards) and

the goals and objectives of this Act.

‘‘(I) An exclusion from the program of federally approved activities with respect to linear

utility facilities, such as natural gas pipelines if

such facilities extend to multiple watersheds

and result in temporary or de minimis impacts.

‘‘(J) A description of the process for consideration of and achieving consistency with the

purposes of sections 319 and 322.

‘‘(3) DISAPPROVAL PROCESS.—If the Administrator intends to disapprove a program of a

State submitted under this subsection, the Administrator shall by a written notification advise the State of the intent to disapprove and

the reasons for disapproval. If, within 30 days

of receipt of such notice, a State so requests, the

Administrator shall conduct a public hearing in

the State on the intent to disapprove and the

reasons for such disapproval. A State may resubmit a revised program that addresses the reasons contained in the notification. If a State requests a public hearing, the Administrator shall

conduct the hearing in that State and issue a

final determination within 240 days of receipt of

the State watershed management program submittal.

‘‘(4) MODIFICATION OF PROGRAM.—Each State

with a watershed management program that has

been approved by the Administrator under this

section may, at any time, modify the watershed

management program. Any such modification

shall be submitted to the Administrator and

shall remain in effect unless and until the Administrator determines that the modified program no longer meets the requirements of this

section. In such event, the provisions of paragraph (3) shall apply.

‘‘(5) STATUS REPORTS.—Each State with a watershed management program that has been approved by the Administrator pursuant to this

subsection shall, not later than 1 year after the

date of approval, and annually thereafter, submit to the Administrator an annual watershed

program summary status report that includes

descriptions of any modifications to the program. The status report shall include a listing of

requests made for watershed plan development

and a listing of plans prepared and submitted

by local or regional entities and the actions

taken by the State on such plans including the

reasons for those actions. In consultation and

coordination with the Administrator, a State

may use the report to satisfy, in full or in part,

any reporting requirements under sections 106,

303(d), 305(b), 314, 319, 320, 322, and 604(b).

‘‘(b) WATERSHED AREA IN 2 OR MORE

STATES.—If a watershed management unit is

designated to include land areas in more than 1

State, the Governors of States having jurisdiction over any lands within the watershed management unit shall jointly determine the responsible entity or entities.

‘‘(c) ELIGIBLE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND

PLANNING ACTIVITIES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to activities eligible to receive assistance under other sections

of this Act as of the date of the enactment of

this subsection, the following watershed management activities conducted by or on behalf of

the States pursuant to a watershed management

program that is approved by the Administrator

under this section shall be considered to be eligible to receive assistance under sections 106,

205(j), 319(h), 320, and 604(b):

‘‘(A) Characterizing the waters and land uses.

‘‘(B) Identifying and evaluating problems

within the watershed.

‘‘(C) Selecting short-term and long-term goals

for watershed management.

‘‘(D) Developing and implementing water

quality standards, including site-specific water

quality standards.

‘‘(E) Developing and implementing measures

and practices to meet identified goals.

‘‘(F) Identifying and coordinating projects

and activities necessary to restore or maintain

water quality or other related environmental objectives within the watershed.

‘‘(G) Identifying the appropriate institutional

arrangements to carry out a watershed management plan that has been approved or adopted by

the State under this section.

‘‘(H) Updating the plan.

‘‘(I) Conducting training and public participation activities.

‘‘(J) Research to study benefits of existing watershed program plans and particular aspects of

the plans.

‘‘(K) Implementing any other activity considered appropriate by the Administrator or the

Governor of a State with an approved program.

‘‘(2) FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.—In selecting

watershed management activities to receive assistance pursuant to paragraph (1), the following factors shall be considered:

‘‘(A) Whether or not the applicant has demonstrated success in addressing water quality

problems with broadbased regional support, including public and private sources.

‘‘(B) Whether the activity will promote watershed problem prioritization.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4773

‘‘(C) Whether or not the applicant can demonstrate an ability to use Federal resources to

leverage non-Federal public and private monetary and in-kind support from voluntary contributions, including matching and cost sharing

incentives.

‘‘(D) Whether or not the applicant proposes to

use existing public and private programs to facilitate water quality improvement with the assistance to be provided pursuant to paragraph

(1).

‘‘(E) Whether or not such assistance will be

used to promote voluntary activities, including

private wetlands restoration, mitigation banking, and pollution prevention to achieve water

quality standards.

‘‘(F) Whether or not such assistance will be

used to market mechanisms to enhance existing

programs.

‘‘(d) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—Each State shall

establish procedures to encourage the public to

participate in its program and in developing and

implementing comprehensive watershed management plans under this section. A State watershed management program shall include a process for public involvement in watershed management, to the maximum extent practicable, including the formation and participation of public advisory groups during State watershed program development. States must provide adequate

public notice and an opportunity to comment on

the State watershed program prior to submittal

of the program to the Administrator for approval.

‘‘(e) APPROVED OR STATE-ADOPTED PLANS.—

‘‘(1) REQUIREMENTS.—A State with a watershed management program that has been approved by the Administrator under this section

may approve or adopt a watershed management

plan if the plan satisfies the following conditions:

‘‘(A) If the watershed includes waters that are

not meeting water quality standards at the time

of submission, the plan—

‘‘(i) identifies the objectives of the plan, including, at a minimum, State water quality

standards (including site-specific water quality

standards) and goals and objectives under this

Act;

‘‘(ii) identifies pollutants, sources, activities,

and any other factors causing the impairment of

the waters;

‘‘(iii) identifies cost effective actions that are

necessary to achieve the objectives of the plan,

including reduction of pollutants to achieve any

allocated load reductions consistent with the requirements of section 303(d), and the priority for

implementing the actions;

‘‘(iv) contains an implementation schedule

with milestones and the identification of persons

responsible for implementing the actions;

‘‘(v) demonstrates that water quality standards and other goals and objectives of this Act

will be attained as expeditiously as practicable

but not later than any applicable deadline

under this Act;

‘‘(vi) contains documentation of the public

participation in the development of the plan

and a description of the public participation

process that will be used during the plan implementation;

‘‘(vii) specifies a process to monitor and evaluate progress toward meeting of the goals of the

plan; and

‘‘(viii) specifies a process to revise the plan as

necessary.

‘‘(B) For waters in the watershed attaining

water quality standards at the time of submission (including threatened waters), the plan

identifies the projects and activities necessary to

maintain water quality standards and attain or

maintain other goals after the date of approval

or adoption of the plan.

‘‘(2) TERMS OF APPROVED OR ADOPTED PLAN.—

Each plan that is approved or adopted by a

State under this subsection shall be effective for

a period of not more than 10 years and include

a planning and implementation schedule with

milestones within that period. A revised and updated plan may be approved or adopted by the

State prior to the expiration of the period specified in the plan pursuant to the same conditions

and requirements that apply to an initial plan

for a watershed approved under this subsection.

‘‘(f) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 1 year after

the date of the enactment of this section, the

Administrator, after consultation with the

States and other interested parties, shall issue

guidance on provisions that States may consider

for inclusion in watershed management programs and State-approved or State-adopted watershed management plans under this section.

‘‘(g) POLLUTANT TRANSFER OPPORTUNITIES.—

‘‘(1) POLLUTANT TRANSFER PILOT PROJECTS.—

Under an approved watershed management program, any discharger or source may apply to a

State for approval to offset the impact of its discharge or release of a pollutant by entering into

arrangements, including the payment of funds,

for the implementation of controls or measures

by another discharger or source through a pollution reduction credits trading program established as part of the watershed management

plan. The State may approve such a request if

appropriate safeguards are included to ensure

compliance with technology based controls and

to protect the quality of receiving waters.

‘‘(2) INCENTIVE GRANTS.—The Administrator

shall allocate sums made available by appropriations to carry out pollution reduction credits

trading programs in selected watersheds

throughout the country.

‘‘(3) REPORT.—Not later than 36 months after

the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report

on the results of the program conducted under

this subsection.’’.

(b) INCENTIVES FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.—

(1) POINT SOURCE PERMITS.—Section 402 (33

U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding at the

end the following:

‘‘(r) WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of this Act, a permit may be issued

under this section with a limitation that does

not meet applicable water quality standards if—

‘‘(A) the receiving water is in a watershed

with a watershed management plan that has

been approved pursuant to section 321;

‘‘(B) the plan includes assurances that water

quality standards will be met within the watershed by a specified date; and

‘‘(C) the point source does not have a history

of significant noncompliance with its effluent

limitations under a permit issued under this section, as determined by the Administrator or a

State with authority to issue permits under this

section.

‘‘(2) SYNCHRONIZED PERMIT TERMS.—Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1)(B), the term of a permit issued under this section may be extended

for an additional period if the discharge is located in a watershed management unit for

which a watershed management plan will be developed pursuant to section 321. Permits extended under this paragraph shall be synchronized with the approval of the watershed

management plan of a State adopted pursuant

to section 321.’’.

(2) MULTIPURPOSE GRANTS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator may provide assistance to a State with a watershed

management program that has been approved by

the Administrator under section 321 in the form

of a multipurpose grant that would provide for

single application, work plan and review,

matching, oversight, and end-of-year closeout

requirements for grant funding under sections

104(b)(3), 104(g), 106, 314(b), 319, 320, and 604(b)

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

(B) TERMS.—The Administrator may attach

terms that shall apply for more than 1 year to

grants made pursuant to this paragraph. A

State that receives a grant under this paragraph

may focus activities funded under the provisions

referred to in subparagraph (A) on a priority

basis in a manner consistent with watershed

management plans approved by the State under

section 321(e) of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act.

(3) PLANNING.—Section 604(b) (33 U.S.C.

1384(b)) is amended by adding at the end the

following: ‘‘In any fiscal year in which a State

is implementing a State watershed management

program approved under section 321, the State

may reserve up to an additional 2 percent of the

sums allotted to the State for such fiscal year

for development of watershed management plans

under such program or $200,000, whichever is

greater, if 50 percent of the amount reserved

under this sentence will be made available to

local entities.’’.

SEC. 322. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

(a) STATE PROGRAMS.—Title III (33 U.S.C.

1311 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the

end the following new section:

‘‘SEC. 322. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is

to assist States in the development and implementation of stormwater control programs in an

expeditious and cost effective manner so as to

enable the goals and requirements of this Act to

be met in each State no later than 15 years after

the date of approval of the stormwater management program of the State. It is recognized that

State stormwater management programs need to

be built on a foundation that voluntary pollution prevention initiatives represent an approach most likely to succeed in achieving the

objectives of this Act.

‘‘(b) STATE ASSESSMENT REPORTS.—

‘‘(1) CONTENTS.—After notice and opportunity

for public comment, the Governor of each State,

consistent with or as part of the assessment required by section 319, shall prepare and submit

to the Administrator for approval, a report

which—

‘‘(A) identifies those navigable waters within

the State which, without additional action to

control pollution from stormwater discharges,

cannot reasonably be expected to attain or

maintain applicable water quality standards or

the goals and requirements of this Act;

‘‘(B) identifies those categories and

subcategories of stormwater discharges that add

significant pollution to each portion of the navigable waters identified under subparagraph (A)

in amounts which contribute to such portion not

meeting such water quality standards or such

goals and requirements;

‘‘(C) describes the process, including intergovernmental coordination and public participation, for identifying measures to control pollution from each category and subcategory of

stormwater discharges identified in subparagraph (B) and to reduce, to the maximum extent

practicable, the level of pollution resulting from

such discharges; and

‘‘(D) identifies and describes State, local, and

as may be appropriate, industrial programs for

controlling pollution added from stormwater discharges to, and improving the quality of, each

such portion of the navigable waters.

‘‘(2) INFORMATION USED IN PREPARATION.—In

developing, reviewing, and revising the report

required by this subsection, the State—

‘‘(A) may rely upon information developed

pursuant to sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b),

314, 319, 320, and 321 and subsection (h) of this

section, information developed from the group

stormwater permit application process in effect

under section 402(p) of this Act on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, and

such other information as the State determines

is appropriate; and

‘‘(B) may utilize appropriate elements of the

waste treatment management plans developed

pursuant to sections 208(b) and 303, to the extent such elements are consistent with and fulfill the requirements of this section.
H 4774 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

‘‘(3) REVIEW AND REVISION.—Not later than 18

months after the date of the enactment of the

Clean Water Amendments of 1995, and every 5

years thereafter, the State shall review, revise,

and submit to the Administrator the report required by this subsection.

‘‘(c) STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In substantial consultation

with local governments and after notice and opportunity for public comment, the Governor of

each State for the State or in combination with

the Governors of adjacent States shall prepare

and submit to the Administrator for approval a

stormwater management program based on

available information which the State proposes

to implement in the first 5 fiscal years beginning

after the date of submission of such management program for controlling pollution added

from stormwater discharges to the navigable waters within the boundaries of the State and improving the quality of such waters.

‘‘(2) SPECIFIC CONTENTS.—Each management

program proposed for implementation under this

subsection shall include the following:

‘‘(A) IDENTIFICATION OF MODEL MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES AND MEASURES.—Identification of the

model management practices and measures

which will be undertaken to reduce pollutant

loadings resulting from each category or subcategory of stormwater discharges designated

under subsection (b)(1)(B), taking into account

the impact of the practice and measure on

ground water quality.

‘‘(B) IDENTIFICATION OF PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES.—Identification of programs and resources necessary (including, as appropriate,

nonregulatory programs or regulatory programs,

enforceable policies and mechanisms, technical

assistance, financial assistance, education,

training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects) to manage categories or

subcategories of stormwater discharges to the

degree necessary to provide for reasonable further progress toward the goal of attainment of

water quality standards which contain the

stormwater criteria established under subsection

(i) for designated uses of receiving waters identified under subsection (b)(1)(A) taking into consideration specific watershed conditions, by not

later than the last day of the 15-year period beginning on the date of approval of the State

program.

‘‘(C) PROGRAM FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL,

OIL, GAS, AND MINING DISCHARGES.—A program

for categories or subcategories of industrial,

commercial, oil, gas, and mining stormwater discharges identified under subsection (b)(1)(B) for

the implementation of management practices,

measures, and programs identified under subparagraphs (A) and (B). The program shall include each of the following:

‘‘(i) VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES.—Voluntary

stormwater pollution prevention activities for

categories and subcategories of such stormwater

discharges that are not contaminated by contact

with material handling equipment or activities,

heavy industrial machinery, raw materials, intermediate products, finished products, byproducts, or waste products at the site of the industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining activity.

Such discharges may have incidental contact

with buildings or motor vehicles.

‘‘(ii) ENFORCEABLE PLANS.—Enforceable

stormwater pollution prevention plans meeting

the requirements of subsection (d) for those categories and subcategories of such stormwater

discharges that are not described in clause (i).

‘‘(iii) GENERAL PERMITS.—General permits for

categories and subcategories of such stormwater

discharges if the State finds, based on available

information and after providing notice and an

opportunity for comment, that reasonable further progress toward achieving water quality

standards in receiving waters identified by the

State by the date referred to in subparagraph

(B) cannot be made despite implementation of

voluntary activities under clause (i) or prevention plans under clause (ii) due to the presence

of a pollutant or pollutants identified by the

State. A facility in a category or subcategory

identified by the State shall not be subject to a

general permit under this clause if the facility

demonstrates that stormwater discharges from

the facility are not contributing to a violation of

a water quality standard established for designated uses of the receiving waters and are not

significantly contributing the pollutant or pollutants identified by the State with respect to

the receiving waters under this clause.

‘‘(iv) SITE-SPECIFIC PERMITS.—Site-specific

permits for categories or subcategories of such

stormwater discharges or individual facilities in

such categories or subcategories if the State

finds, based on available information and after

providing notice and an opportunity for comment, that reasonable further progress toward

achieving water quality standards in receiving

waters identified by the State by the date referred to in subparagraph (B) cannot be made

despite implementation of voluntary activities

under clause (i) or prevention plans under

clause (ii) and general permits under clause (iii)

due to the presence of a pollutant or pollutants

identified by the State. A facility in a category

or subcategory identified by the State shall not

be subject to a site-specific permit under this

clause if the facility demonstrates that

stormwater discharges from the facility are not

contributing to a violation of a water quality

standard established for designated uses of the

receiving waters and are not significantly contributing the pollutant or pollutants identified

by the State with respect to the receiving waters

under this clause.

‘‘(v) EXEMPTION OF SMALL BUSINESSES.—An

exemption for small businesses identified under

subsection (b)(1)(B) from clause (iii), relating to

general permits, and clause (iv), relating to sitespecific permits, unless the State finds that,

without the imposition of such permits, such

discharges will have a significant adverse effect

on water quality.

‘‘(D) PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES.—

A program for municipal stormwater discharges

identified under subsection (b)(1)(B) to reduce

pollutant loadings from categories and

subcategories of municipal stormwater discharges.

‘‘(E) PROGRAM FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.—A program for categories and

subcategories of stormwater discharges from

construction activities identified under subsection (b)(1)(B) for implementation of management practices, measures, and programs identified under subparagraphs (A) and (B). In developing the program, the State shall consider current State and local requirements, focus on pollution prevention through the use of model management practices and measures, and take into

account the land area disturbed by the construction activities. The State may require effluent limits or other numerical standards to control pollutants in stormwater discharges from

construction activities only if the State finds,

after providing notice and an opportunity for

comment, that such standards are necessary to

achieve water quality standards by the date referred to in subparagraph (B).

‘‘(F) BAD ACTOR PROVISIONS.—Provisions for

taking any actions deemed necessary by the

State to meet the goals and requirements of this

section with respect to dischargers which the

State identifies, after notice and opportunity for

hearing—

‘‘(i) as having a history of stormwater noncompliance under this Act, State law, or the regulations issued thereunder or the terms and conditions of permits, orders, or administrative actions issued pursuant thereto; or

‘‘(ii) as posing an imminent threat to human

health and the environment.

‘‘(G) SCHEDULE.—A schedule containing interim goals and milestones for making reasonable progress toward the attainment of standards as set forth in subparagraph (B) established for the designated uses of receiving waters, taking into account specific watershed conditions, which may be demonstrated by one or

any combination of improvements in water quality (including biological indicators), documented

implementation of voluntary stormwater discharge control measures, or adoption of enforceable stormwater discharge control measures.

‘‘(H) CERTIFICATION OF ADEQUATE AUTHORITY.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—A certification by the Attorney General of the State or States (or the chief

attorney of any State water pollution control

agency that has authority under State law to

make such certification) that the laws of the

State or States, as the case may be, provide adequate authority to implement such management

program or, if there is not such adequate authority, a list of such additional authorities as

will be necessary to implement such management program.

‘‘(ii) COMMITMENT.—A schedule for seeking,

and a commitment by the State or States to seek,

such additional authorities as expeditiously as

practicable.

‘‘(I) IDENTIFICATION OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL

ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.—An identification of

Federal financial assistance programs and Federal development projects for which the State

will review individual assistance applications or

development projects for their effect on water

quality pursuant to the procedures set forth in

Executive Order 12372 as in effect on September

17, 1983, to determine whether such assistance

applications or development projects would be

consistent with the program prepared under this

subsection; for the purposes of this subparagraph, identification shall not be limited to the

assistance programs or development projects

subject to Executive Order 12372 but may include any programs listed in the most recent

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which

may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the State’s stormwater management program.

‘‘(J) MONITORING.—A description of the monitoring of navigable waters or other assessment

which will be carried out under the program for

the purposes of monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the program, including the attainment of interim goals and milestones.

‘‘(K) IDENTIFICATION OF CERTAIN INCONSISTENT FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.—An identification of

activities on Federal lands in the State that are

inconsistent with the State management program.

‘‘(L) IDENTIFICATION OF GOALS AND MILESTONES.—An identification of goals and milestones for progress in attaining water quality

standards, including a projected date for attaining such standards as expeditiously as practicable but not later than 15 years after the date

of approval of the State program for each of the

waters listed pursuant to subsection (b).

‘‘(3) UTILIZATION OF LOCAL AND PRIVATE EXPERTS.—In developing and implementing a management program under this subsection, a State

shall, to the maximum extent practicable, involve local public and private agencies and organizations which have expertise in stormwater

management.

‘‘(4) DEVELOPMENT ON WATERSHED BASIS.—A

State shall, to the maximum extent practicable,

develop and implement a stormwater management program under this subsection on a watershed-by-watershed basis within such State.

‘‘(5) REGULATIONS DEFINING SMALL BUSINESSES.—The Administrator shall propose, not

later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this section, and issue, not later than 1

year after the date of such enactment, regulations to define small businesses for purposes of

this section.

‘‘(d) STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION

PLANS.—

‘‘(1) IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE.—Each

stormwater pollution prevention plan required

under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall be implemented not later than 180 days after the date of

its development and shall be annually updated.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4775

‘‘(2) PLAN CONTENTS.—Each stormwater pollution prevention plan required under subsection

(c)(2)(C)(ii) shall include the following components:

‘‘(A) Establishment and appointment of a

stormwater pollution prevention team.

‘‘(B) Description of potential pollutant

sources.

‘‘(C) An annual site inspection evaluation.

‘‘(D) An annual visual stormwater discharge

inspection.

‘‘(E) Measures and controls for reducing

stormwater pollution, including, at a minimum,

model management practices and measures that

are flexible, technologically feasible, and economically practicable. For purposes of this

paragraph, the term ‘model management practices and measures’ means preventive maintenance, good housekeeping, spill prevention and

response, employee training, and sediment and

erosion control.

‘‘(F) Prevention of illegal discharges of

nonstormwater through stormwater outfalls.

‘‘(3) CERTIFICATION.—Each facility subject to

subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall certify to the State

that it has implemented a stormwater pollution

prevention plan or a State or local equivalent

and that the plan is intended to reduce possible

pollutants in the facility’s stormwater discharges. The certification must be signed by a

responsible officer of the facility and must be affixed to the plan subject to review by the appropriate State program authority. If a facility

makes such a certification, such facility shall

not be subject to permit or permit application requirements, mandatory model management practices and measures, analytical monitoring, effluent limitations or other numerical standards or

guidelines under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii).

‘‘(4) PLAN ADEQUACY.—The State stormwater

management program shall set forth the basis

upon which the adequacy of a plan prepared by

a facility subject to subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) will

be determined. In making such determination,

the State shall consider benefits to the environment, physical requirements, technological feasibility and economic costs, human health or

safety, and nature of the activity at the facility

or site.

‘‘(e) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.—

‘‘(1) COOPERATION REQUIREMENT.—Any report

required by subsection (b) and any management

program and report required by subsection (c)

shall be developed in cooperation with local,

substate, regional, and interstate entities which

are responsible for implementing stormwater

management programs.

‘‘(2) TIME PERIOD FOR SUBMISSION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—Each management program

shall be submitted to the Administrator within

30 months of the issuance by the Administrator

of the final guidance under subsection (l) and

every 5 years thereafter. Each program submission after the initial submission following the

date of the enactment of the Clean Water

Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward the

goal of attaining water quality standards as set

forth in subsection (c)(2) established for designated uses of receiving waters taking into account specific watershed conditions by not later

than the date referred to in subsection (b)(2)(B),

including a documentation of the degree to

which the State has achieved the interim goals

and milestones contained in the previous program submission. Such demonstration shall take

into account the adequacy of Federal funding

under this section.

‘‘(3) TRANSITION.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Permits, including group

and general permits, issued pursuant to section

402(p), as in effect on the day before the date of

the enactment of this section, shall remain in effect until the effective date of a State

stormwater management program under this section. Stormwater dischargers shall continue to

implement any stormwater management practices and measures required under such permits

until such practices and measures are modified

pursuant to this subparagraph or pursuant to a

State stormwater management program. Prior to

the effective date of a State stormwater management program, stormwater dischargers may submit for approval proposed revised stormwater

management practices and measures to the

State, in the case of a State with an approved

program under section 402, or the Administrator.

Upon notice of approval by the State or the Administrator, the stormwater discharger shall implement the revised stormwater management

practices and measures which, for discharges

subject to subsection (c)(2)(C)(i), (c)(2)(D),

(c)(2)(E), or (c)(2)(F), may be voluntary pollution prevention activities. A stormwater discharger operating under a permit continued in

effect under this subparagraph shall not be subject to citizens suits under section 505.

‘‘(B) NEW FACILITIES.—A new nonmunicipal

source of stormwater discharge subject to a

group or general permit continued in effect

under subparagraph (A) shall notify the State

or the Administrator, as appropriate, of the

source’s intent to be covered by and shall continue to comply with such permit. Until the effective date of a State stormwater management

program under this section, the State may impose enforceable stormwater management measures and practices on a new nonmunicipal

source of stormwater discharge not subject to

such a permit if the State finds that the

stormwater discharge is likely to pose an imminent threat to human health and the environment or to pose significant impairment of water

quality standards.

‘‘(C) SPECIAL RULE.—Industrial facilities included in a Part 1 group stormwater permit application approved by the Administrator pursuant to section 122.26(c)(2) of title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of

the enactment of this section, may, in lieu of

continued operation under existing permits, certify to the State or the Administrator, as appropriate, that such facilities are implementing a

stormwater pollution prevention plan consistent

with subsection (d). Upon such certification, the

facility will no longer be subject to such permit.

‘‘(D) PRE-1987 PERMITS.—Notwithstanding the

repeal of section 402(p) by the Clean Water

Amendments Act of 1995 or any other amendment made to section 402 on or before the date

of the enactment of such Act, a discharge with

respect to which a permit has been issued under

section 402 before February 4, 1987, shall not be

subject to the provisions of this section.

‘‘(E) ANTIBACKSLIDING.—Section 402(o) shall

not apply to any activity carried out in accordance with this paragraph.

‘‘(f) APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF REPORTS

OR MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—

‘‘(1) DEADLINE.—Subject to paragraph (2), not

later than 180 days after the date of submission

to the Administrator of any report or revised report or management program under this section,

the Administrator shall either approve or disapprove such report or management program, as

the case may be. The Administrator may approve a portion of a management program under

this subsection. If the Administrator does not

disapprove a report, management program, or

portion of a management program in such 180-

day period, such report, management program,

or portion shall be deemed approved for purposes of this section.

‘‘(2) PROCEDURE FOR DISAPPROVAL.—If, after

notice and opportunity for public comment and

consultation with appropriate Federal and State

agencies and other interested persons, the Administrator determines that—

‘‘(A) the proposed management program or

any portion thereof does not meet the requirements of subsection (b) of this section or is not

likely to satisfy, in whole or in part, the goals

and requirements of this Act;

‘‘(B) adequate authority does not exist, or

adequate resources are not available, to implement such program or portion; or

‘‘(C) the practices and measures proposed in

such program or portion will not result in reasonable progress toward the goal of attainment

of applicable water quality standards as set

forth in subsection (c)(2) established for designated uses of receiving waters taking into consideration specific watershed conditions as expeditiously as possible but not later than 15 years

after approval of a State stormwater management program under this section;

the Administrator shall within 6 months of the

receipt of the proposed program notify the State

of any revisions or modifications necessary to

obtain approval. The State shall have an additional 6 months to submit its revised management program, and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove such revised program within

3 months of receipt.

‘‘(3) FAILURE OF STATE TO SUBMIT REPORT.—If

a Governor of a State does not submit a report

or revised report required by subsection (b) within the period specified by subsection (e)(2), the

Administrator shall, within 18 months after the

date on which such report is required to be submitted under subsection (b), prepare a report for

such State which makes the identifications required by paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) of subsection (b). Upon completion of the requirement

of the preceding sentence and after notice and

opportunity for a comment, the Administrator

shall report to Congress of the actions of the Administrator under this section.

‘‘(4) FAILURE OF STATE TO SUBMIT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.—

‘‘(A) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT BY ADMINISTRATOR.—Subject to paragraph (5), if a State

fails to submit a management program or revised

management program under subsection (c) or

the Administrator does not approve such management program, the Administrator shall prepare and implement a management program for

controlling pollution added from stormwater discharges to the navigable waters within the State

and improving the quality of such waters in accordance with subsection (c).

‘‘(B) NOTICE AND HEARING.—If the Administrator intends to disapprove a program submitted by a State the Administrator shall first notify the Governor of the State, in writing, of the

modifications necessary to meet the requirements of this section. The Administrator shall

provide adequate public notice and an opportunity for a public hearing for all interested

parties.

‘‘(C) STATE REVISION OF ITS PROGRAM.—If,

after taking into account the level of funding

actually provided as compared with the level

authorized, the Administrator determines that a

State has failed to demonstrate reasonable further progress toward the attainment of water

quality standards as required, the State shall revise its program within 12 months of that determination in a manner sufficient to achieve attainment of applicable water quality standards

by the deadline established by this section. If a

State fails to make such a program revision or

the Administrator does not approve such a revision, the Administrator shall prepare and implement a stormwater management program for the

State.

‘‘(5) LOCAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—If a State fails to submit a

management program under subsection (c) or

the Administrator does not approve such a management program, a local public agency or organization which has expertise in, and authority

to, control water pollution resulting from

nonpoint sources in any area of such State

which the Administrator determines is of sufficient geographic size may, with approval of

such State, request the Administrator to provide,

and the Administrator shall provide, technical

assistance to such agency or organization in developing for such area a management program

which is described in subsection (c) and can be

approved pursuant to this subsection. After development of such management program, such
H 4776 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

agency or organization shall submit such management program to the Administrator for approval.

‘‘(g) INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.—

‘‘(1) CONVENING OF CONFERENCE; NOTIFICATION; PURPOSE.—

‘‘(A) CONVENING OF CONFERENCE.—If any portion of the navigable waters in any State which

is implementing a management program approved under this section is not meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals and requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in

part, of pollution from stormwater in another

State, such State may petition the Administrator

to convene, and the Administrator shall convene, a management conference of all States

which contribute significant pollution resulting

from stormwater to such portion.

‘‘(B) NOTIFICATION.—If, on the basis of information available, the Administrator determines

that a State is not meeting applicable water

quality standards or the goals and requirements

of this Act as a result, in whole or in part, of

significant pollution from stormwater in another

State, the Administrator shall notify such

States.

‘‘(C) TIME LIMIT.—The Administrator may

convene a management conference under this

paragraph not later than 180 days after giving

such notification under subparagraph (B),

whether or not the State which is not meeting

such standards requests such conference.

‘‘(D) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the conference shall be to develop an agreement among

the States to reduce the level of pollution resulting from stormwater in the portion of the navigable waters and to improve the water quality of

such portion.

‘‘(E) PROTECTION OF WATER RIGHTS.—Nothing

in the agreement shall supersede or abrogate

rights to quantities of water which have been

established by interstate water compacts, Supreme Court decrees, or State water laws.

‘‘(F) LIMITATIONS.—This subsection shall not

apply to any pollution which is subject to the

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The

requirement that the Administrator convene a

management conference shall not be subject to

the provisions of section 505 of this Act.

‘‘(2) STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENT.—To the extent that the States reach

agreement through such conference, the management programs of the States which are parties to such agreements and which contribute

significant pollution to the navigable waters or

portions thereof not meeting applicable water

quality standards or goals and requirements of

this Act will be revised to reflect such agreement. Such management programs shall be consistent with Federal and State law.

‘‘(h) GRANTS FOR STORMWATER RESEARCH.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—To determine the most costeffective and technologically feasible means of

improving the quality of the navigable waters

and to develop the criteria required pursuant to

subsection (i) of this Act, the Administrator

shall establish an initiative through which the

Administrator shall fund State and local demonstration programs and research to—

‘‘(A) identify adverse impacts of stormwater

discharges on receiving waters;

‘‘(B) identify the pollutants in stormwater

which cause impact; and

‘‘(C) test innovative approaches to address the

impacts of source controls and model management practices and measures for runoff from

municipal storm sewers.

Persons conducting demonstration programs

and research funded under this subsection shall

also take into account the physical nature of

episodic stormwater flows, the varying pollutants in stormwater, the actual risk the flows

pose to the designated beneficial uses, and the

ability of natural ecosystems to accept temporary stormwater events.

‘‘(2) AWARD OF FUNDS.—The Administrator

shall award the demonstration and research

program funds taking into account regional and

population variations.

‘‘(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry

out this subsection $20,000,000 per fiscal year for

fiscal years 1996 through 2000. Such sums shall

remain available until expended.

‘‘(4) INADEQUATE FUNDING.—For each fiscal

year beginning after the date of the enactment

of this subsection for which the total amounts

appropriated to carry out this subsection are

less than the total amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this subsection, any

deadlines established under subsection (c)(2)(L)

for compliance with water quality standards

shall be postponed by 1 year.

‘‘(i) DEVELOPMENT OF STORMWATER CRITERIA.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—To reflect the episodic

character of stormwater which results in significant variances in the volume, hydraulics, hydrology, and pollutant load associated with

stormwater discharges, the Administrator shall

establish, as an element of the water quality

standards established for the designated uses of

the navigable waters, stormwater criteria which

protect the navigable waters from impairment of

the designated beneficial uses caused by

stormwater discharges. The criteria shall be

technologically and financially feasible and

may include performance standards, guidelines,

guidance, and model management practices and

measures and treatment requirements, as appropriate, and as identified in subsection (h)(1).

‘‘(2) INFORMATION TO BE USED IN DEVELOPMENT.—The stormwater discharge criteria to be

established under this subsection—

‘‘(A) shall be developed from—

‘‘(i) the findings and conclusions of the demonstration programs and research conducted

under subsection (h);

‘‘(ii) the findings and conclusions of the research and monitoring activities of stormwater

dischargers performed in compliance with permit

requirements of this Act; and

‘‘(iii) other relevant information, including information submitted to the Administrator under

the industrial group permit application process

in effect under section 402 of this Act on the day

before the date of the enactment of this section;

‘‘(B) shall be developed in consultation with

persons with expertise in the management of

stormwater (including officials of State and

local government, industrial and commercial

stormwater dischargers, and public interest

groups); and

‘‘(C) shall be established as an element of the

water quality standards that are developed and

implemented under this Act by not later than

December 31, 2008.

‘‘(j) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.—The Administrator shall collect and make available,

through publications and other appropriate

means, information pertaining to model management practices and measures and implementation methods, including, but not limited to—

‘‘(1) information concerning the costs and relative efficiencies of model management practices

and measures for reducing pollution from

stormwater discharges; and

‘‘(2) available data concerning the relationship between water quality and implementation

of various management practices to control pollution from stormwater discharges.

‘‘(k) REPORTS OF ADMINISTRATOR.—

‘‘(1) BIENNIAL REPORTS.—Not later than January 1, 1996, and biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House

of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, a report for the preceding fiscal year on the activities and programs implemented under this section and the progress made in reducing pollution in the navigable waters resulting from

stormwater discharges and improving the quality of such waters.

‘‘(2) CONTENTS.—Each report submitted under

paragraph (1), at a minimum shall—

‘‘(A) describe the management programs being

implemented by the States by types of affected

navigable waters, categories and subcategories

of stormwater discharges, and types of measures

being implemented;

‘‘(B) describe the experiences of the States in

adhering to schedules and implementing the

measures under subsection (c);

‘‘(C) describe the amount and purpose of

grants awarded pursuant to subsection (h);

‘‘(D) identify, to the extent that information is

available, the progress made in reducing pollutant loads and improving water quality in the

navigable waters;

‘‘(E) indicate what further actions need to be

taken to attain and maintain in those navigable

waters (i) applicable water quality standards,

and (ii) the goals and requirements of this Act;

‘‘(F) include recommendations of the Administrator concerning future programs (including

enforcement programs) for controlling pollution

from stormwater; and

‘‘(G) identify the activities and programs of

departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of

the United States that are inconsistent with the

stormwater management programs implemented

by the States under this section and recommended modifications so that such activities

and programs are consistent with and assist the

States in implementation of such management

programs.

‘‘(l) GUIDANCE ON MODEL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MEASURES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and

local departments and agencies, and after providing notice and opportunity for public comment, shall publish guidance to identify model

management practices and measures which may

be undertaken, at the discretion of the State or

appropriate entity, under a management program established pursuant to this section. In

preparing such guidance, the Administrator

shall consider integration of a stormwater management program of a State with, and the relationship of such program to, the nonpoint

source management program of the State under

section 319.

‘‘(2) PUBLICATION.—The Administrator shall

publish proposed guidance under this subsection

not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection and shall publish

final guidance under this subsection not later

than 18 months after such date of enactment.

The Administrator shall periodically review and

revise the final guidance upon adequate notice

and opportunity for public comment at least

once every 3 years after its publication.

‘‘(3) MODEL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND

MEASURES DEFINED.—For the purposes of this

subsection, the term ‘‘model management practices and measures’’ means economically achievable measures for the control of pollutants from

stormwater discharges which reflect the most

cost-effective degree of pollutant reduction

achievable through the application of the best

available practices, technologies, processes,

siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives.

‘‘(m) ENFORCEMENT WITH RESPECT TO

STORMWATER DISCHARGERS VIOLATING STATE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—Stormwater dischargers that do not comply with State management program requirements under subsection (c)

are subject to applicable enforcement actions

under sections 309 and 505 of this Act.

‘‘(n) ENTRY AND INSPECTION.—In order to

carry out the objectives of this section, an authorized representative of a State, upon presentation of his or her credentials, shall have a

right of entry to, upon, or through any property

at which a stormwater discharge or records required to be maintained under the State

stormwater management program are located.

‘‘(o) LIMITATION ON DISCHARGES REGULATED

UNDER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.—

Stormwater discharges regulated under section

321 in a manner consistent with this section

shall not be subject to this section.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4777

‘‘(p) MINERAL EXPLORATION AND MINING

SITES.—

‘‘(1) EXPLORATION SITES.—For purposes of

subsection (c)(2)(F), stormwater discharges from

construction activities shall include stormwater

discharges from mineral exploration activities;

except that, for exploration at abandoned mined

lands, the stormwater program under subsection

(c)(2)(F) shall be limited to the control of pollutants added to stormwater by contact with areas

disturbed by the exploration activity.

‘‘(2) MINING SITES.—Stormwater discharges at

ore mining and dressing sites shall be subject to

this section. If any such discharge is commingled with mine drainage or process wastewater

from mining operations, such discharge shall be

treated as a discharge from a point source for

purposes of this Act.

‘‘(3) ABANDONED MINED LANDS.—Stormwater

discharges from abandoned mined lands shall be

subject to section 319; except that if the State,

after notice and an opportunity for comment,

finds that regulation of such stormwater discharges under this section is necessary to make

reasonable further progress toward achieving

water quality standards by the date referred to

in subsection (c)(2)(B), such discharges shall be

subject to this section.

‘‘(4) SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT SITES.—Notwithstanding paragraph

(3), stormwater discharges from abandoned

mined lands site which are subject to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201–1328) shall be subject to section 319.

‘‘(5) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this subsection, the following definitions apply:

‘‘(A) ABANDONED MINED LANDS.—The term

‘abandoned mined lands’ means lands which

were used for mineral activities and abandoned

or left in an inadequate reclamation status and

for which there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under State or Federal laws.

‘‘(B) PROCESS WASTE WATER.—The term ‘process waste water’ means any water other than

stormwater which comes into contact with any

raw material, intermediate product, finished

product, byproduct, or waste product as part of

any mineral beneficiation processes employed at

the site.

‘‘(C) MINE DRAINAGE.—The term ‘mine drainage’ means any water drained, pumped, or siphoned from underground mine workings or

mine pits, but such term shall not include

stormwater runoff from tailings dams, dikes,

overburden, waste rock piles, haul roads, access

roads, and ancillary facility areas.’’.

(b) REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON PERMIT REQUIREMENT.—Section 402(l) (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)) is

repealed.

(c) REPEAL OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL

STORMWATER DISCHARGES PROGRAM.—Section

402(p) (33 U.S.C. 1342(p)) is repealed.

(d) DEFINITIONS.—Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362)

is amended—

(1) by adding at the end of paragraph (14) the

following: ‘‘The term does not include a

stormwater discharge.’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(25) The term ‘stormwater’ means runoff

from rain, snow melt, or any other precipitation-generated surface runoff.

‘‘(26) The term ‘stormwater discharge’ means

a discharge from any conveyance which is used

for the collecting and conveying of stormwater

to navigable waters and which is associated

with a municipal storm sewer system or industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining activities or

construction activities.’’.

SEC. 323. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DISCLOSURE

REQUIREMENTS.

Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311–1330) is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 323. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DISCLOSURE

REQUIREMENTS.

‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—The Administrator or

the Secretary of the Army (hereinafter in this

section referred to as the ‘Secretary’), as appropriate, shall develop and publish a risk assessment before issuing—

‘‘(1) any standard, effluent limitation, water

quality criterion, water quality based requirement, or other regulatory requirement under

this Act (other than a permit or a purely procedural requirement); or

‘‘(2) any guidance under this Act which, if issued as a regulatory requirement, would result

in an annual increase in cost of $25,000,000 or

more.

‘‘(b) CONTENTS OF RISK ASSESSMENTS.—A risk

assessment developed under subsection (a), at a

minimum, shall—

‘‘(1) identify and use all relevant and readily

obtainable data and information of sufficient

quality, including data and information submitted to the Agency in a timely fashion;

‘‘(2) identify and discuss significant assumptions, inferences, or models used in the risk assessment;

‘‘(3) measure the sensitivity of the results to

the significant assumptions, inferences, or models that the risk assessment relies upon;

‘‘(4) with respect to significant assumptions,

inferences, or models that the results are sensitive to, identify and discuss—

‘‘(A) credible alternatives and the basis for the

rejection of such alternatives;

‘‘(B) the scientific or policy basis for the selection of such assumptions, inferences, or models;

and

‘‘(C) the extent to which any such assumptions, inferences, or models have been validated

or conflict with empirical data;

‘‘(5) to the maximum extent practical, provide

a description of the risk, including, at minimum,

best estimates or other unbiased representation

of the most plausible level of risk and a description of the specific populations or natural resources subject to the assessment;

‘‘(6) to the maximum extent practical, provide

a quantitative estimate of the uncertainty inherent in the risk assessment; and

‘‘(7) compare the nature and extent of the risk

identified in the risk assessment to other risks to

human health and the environment.

‘‘(c) RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE.—Not later

than 180 days after the date of the enactment of

this section, and after providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, shall

issue, and thereafter revise, as appropriate,

guidance for conducting risk assessments under

subsection (a).

‘‘(d) MARGIN OF SAFETY.—When establishing

a margin of safety for use in developing a regulatory requirement described in subsection (a)(1)

or guidance described in subsection (a)(2), the

Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate,

shall provide, as part of the risk assessment

under subsection (a), an explicit and, to the extent practical, quantitative description of the

margin of safety relative to an unbiased estimate of the risk being addressed.

‘‘(e) DISCRETIONARY EXEMPTIONS.—The Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate,

may exempt from the requirements of this section any risk assessment prepared in support of

a regulatory requirement described in subsection

(a)(1) which is likely to result in annual increase in cost of less than $25,000,000. Such exemptions may be made for specific risk assessments or classes of risk assessments.

‘‘(f) GENERAL RULE ON APPLICABILITY.—The

requirements of this section shall apply to any

regulatory requirement described in subsection

(a)(1) or guidance described in subsection (a)(2)

that is issued after the last day of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of

this section.

‘‘(g) SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS AND

GUIDANCE.—

‘‘(1) APPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENTS.—In

addition to the regulatory requirements and

guidance referred to in subsection (f), the requirements of this section shall apply to—

‘‘(A) any standard, effluent limitation, water

quality criterion, water quality based requirement, or other regulatory requirement issued

under this Act during the period described in

paragraph (2) which is likely to result in an annual increase in cost of $100,000,000 or more;

and

‘‘(B) any guidance issued under this Act during the period described in paragraph (2) which,

if issued as a regulatory requirement, would be

likely to result in annual increase in cost of

$100,000,000 or more.

‘‘(2) COVERED PERIOD.—The period described

in this paragraph is the period beginning on

February 15, 1995, and ending on the last day of

the 1-year period beginning on the date of the

enactment of this Act.

‘‘(3) REVIEW.—Any regulatory requirement described in paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) which was issued

before the date of the enactment of this section

shall be reviewed and, with respect to each such

requirement or guidance, the Administrator or

the Secretary, as appropriate, shall based on

such review—

‘‘(A) certify that the requirement or guidance

meets the requirements of this section without

revision; or

‘‘(B) reissue the requirement or guidance,

after providing notice and opportunity for public comment, with such revisions as may be necessary for compliance with the requirements of

this section.

‘‘(4) DEADLINE.—Any regulatory requirement

described in paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) for which the Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate,

does not issue a certification or revisions under

paragraph (3) on or before the last day of the

18-month period beginning on the date of the

enactment of this section shall cease to be effective after such last day until the date on which

such certification or revisions are issued.’’.

SEC. 324. BENEFIT AND COST CRITERION.

Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311–1330) is further

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 324. BENEFIT AND COST CRITERION.

‘‘(a) DECISION CRITERION.—

‘‘(1) CERTIFICATION.—The Administrator or

the Secretary of the Army (hereinafter in this

section referred to as the ‘Secretary’), as appropriate, shall not issue—

‘‘(A) any standard, effluent limitation, or

other regulatory requirement under this Act; or

‘‘(B) any guidance under this Act which, if issued as a regulatory requirement, would result

in an annual increase in cost of $25,000,000 or

more,

unless the Administrator or the Secretary certifies that the requirement or guidance maximizes net benefits to society. Such certification

shall be based on an analysis meeting the requirements of subsection (b).

‘‘(2) EFFECT OF CRITERION.—Notwithstanding

any other provision of this Act, the decision criterion of paragraph (1) shall supplement and, to

the extent there is a conflict, supersede the decision criteria otherwise applicable under this

Act; except that the resulting regulatory requirement or guidance shall be economically

achievable.

‘‘(3) SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no regulation or guidance subject to this subsection shall

be issued by the Administrator or the Secretary

unless the requirement of paragraph (1) is met

and the certification is supported by substantial

evidence.

‘‘(b) BENEFIT AND COST ANALYSIS GUIDANCE.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days

after the date of the enactment of this section,

and after providing notice and opportunity for

public comment, the Administrator, in concurrence with the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, shall issue,

and thereafter revise, as appropriate, guidance

for conducting benefit and cost analyses in support of making certifications required by subsection (a).
H 4778 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

‘‘(2) CONTENTS.—Guidance issued under paragraph (1), at a minimum, shall—

‘‘(A) require the identification of available

policy alternatives, including the alternative of

not regulating and any alternatives proposed

during periods for public comment;

‘‘(B) provide methods for estimating the incremental benefits and costs associated with plausible alternatives, including the use of quantitative and qualitative measures;

‘‘(C) require an estimate of the nature and extent of the incremental risk avoided by the

standard, effluent limitation, or other regulatory requirement, including a statement that

places in context the nature and magnitude of

the estimated risk reduction; and

‘‘(D) require an estimate of the total social,

environmental, and economic costs of implementing the standard, effluent limitation, or

other regulatory requirement.

‘‘(c) EXEMPTIONS.—The following shall not be

subject to the requirements of this section:

‘‘(1) The issuance of a permit.

‘‘(2) The implementation of any purely procedural requirement.

‘‘(3) Water quality criteria established under

section 304.

‘‘(4) Water quality based standards established under section 303.

‘‘(d) DISCRETIONARY EXEMPTIONS.—The Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate,

may exempt from this section any regulatory requirement that is likely to result in an annual

increase in costs of less than $25,000,000. Such

exemptions may be made for specific regulatory

requirements or classes of regulatory requirements.

‘‘(e) GENERAL RULE ON APPLICABILITY.—The

requirements of this section shall apply to any

regulatory requirement described in subsection

(a)(1)(A) or guidance described in subsection

(a)(1)(B) that is issued after the last day of the

1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this section.

‘‘(f) SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS AND

GUIDANCE.—

‘‘(1) APPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENTS.—In

addition to the regulatory requirements and

guidance referred to in subsection (e), this section shall apply to—

‘‘(A) any standard, effluent limitation, or

other regulatory requirement issued under this

Act during the period described in paragraph (2)

which is likely to result in an annual increase

in cost of $100,000,000 or more; and

‘‘(B) any guidance issued under this Act during the period described in paragraph (2) which,

if issued as a regulatory requirement, would be

likely to result in annual increase in cost of

$100,000,000 or more.

‘‘(2) COVERED PERIOD.—The period described

in this paragraph is the period beginning on

February 15, 1995, and ending on the last day of

the 1-year period beginning on the date of the

enactment of this Act.

‘‘(3) REVIEW.—Any regulatory requirement described in paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) which was issued

before the date of the enactment of this section

shall be reviewed and, with respect to each such

requirement or guidance, the Administrator or

the Secretary, as appropriate, shall based on

such review—

‘‘(A) certify that the requirement or guidance

meets the requirements of this section without

revision; or

‘‘(B) reissue the requirement or guidance,

after providing notice and opportunity for public comment, with such revisions as may be necessary for compliance with the requirements of

this section.

‘‘(4) DEADLINE.—Any regulatory requirement

described in paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) for which the Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate,

does not issue a certification or revisions under

paragraph (3) on or before the last day of the

18-month period beginning on the date of the

enactment of this section shall cease to be effective after such last day until the date on which

such certification or revisions are issued.

‘‘(g) STUDY.—Not later than 5 years after the

date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation with the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, shall publish an analysis regarding the precision and accuracy of benefit and

cost estimates prepared under this section. Such

study, at a minimum, shall—

‘‘(1) compare estimates of the benefits and

costs prepared under this section to actual costs

and benefits achieved after implementation of

regulations or other requirements;

‘‘(2) examine and assess alternative analytic

methods for conducting benefit and cost analysis, including health-health analysis; and

‘‘(3) make recommendations for the improvement of benefit and cost analyses conducted

under this section.’’.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MINETA

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I offer

an amendment.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have

a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will

state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SHUSTER. Is this title I or III?

Mr. CHAIRMAN. We are on title III.

Mr. SHUSTER. Title III?

The CHAIRMAN. Title III, and the

gentleman from California has been

recognized for an amendment to title

III.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we

cannot find a copy of the gentleman’s

amendment.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, this has

been printed in the RECORD. We will be

more than happy to present one.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman.

Mr. MINETA. I had understood that

the committee had copies of the

amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MINETA:

Page 32, strike line 19 and all that follows

through line 6 on page 33.

Page 33, line 7, strike ‘‘(c)’’ and insert

‘‘(b)’’.

Page 33, strike line 16 and all that follows

through line 10 on page 34.

Pages 34 through 47, strike section 302 of

the bill.

Redesignate subsequent sections of title III

of the bill accordingly. Conform the table of

contents of the bill accordingly.

Page 47, strike line 20 and all that follows

through line 8 on page 48 and insert the following:

SEC. 303. REVISION OF STATE WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS.

Section 303(c)(1) is amended by striking

Conform the table of contents of the bill

accordingly.

Page 48, strike line 16 and all that follows

through line 10 on page 52.

Page 64, strike lines 4 through 14.

Pages 73 through 80, strike sections 311 and

312 of the bill.

Redesignate subsequent sections of title III

of the bill accordingly. Conform the table of

contents of the bill accordingly.

Pages 93 through 95, strike section 318 of

the bill.

Redesignate subsequent sections of title III

of the bill accordingly. Conform the table of

contents of the bill accordingly.

Page 130, line 2, after the period insert

closing quotation marks and a period.

Page 130, strike lines 3 through 25.

Page 131, strike lines 5 through 22 and insert the following:

‘‘(r) SYNCHRONIZED PERMIT TERMS.—

Notwith-* * *

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, my

amendment is an effort to salvage the

heart of the Clean Water Act. It would

do so by striking the provisions in title

III that roll back standards for industrial dischargers.

We have all heard repeatedly that the

Clean Water Act is the most successful

Federal environmental law. The widely

acknowledged successes of the Act are

attributable to its control of pollutant

discharges from so-called point

sources. Point sources are industry and

sewage treatment works discharging

their polluted wastewater into our Nation’s lakes, rivers and streams, and

the ocean.

Ironically, it is precisely the part of

the act that is responsible for its success that H.R. 961 would dismantle. In

the name of increased flexibility, loophole by loophole the bill would eliminate fundamental protections of the

Act that have resulted in the significant gains we have seen over the past

20 years.

Ideally, any amendments to the

Clean Water Act would improve water

quality, since 40 percent of our Nation’s waters still do not meet statedesignated water quality standards.

Under that standard, these waivers

clearly should be stricken.

However, even under a far lower

standard for judging whether the bill’s

industrial waiver provisions should be

stricken, the waivers must go. That

lower standard is simple: will the waiver provision increase pollution and degrade water quality below today’s

level? If so, it should be stricken. That

is what my amendment would do.

If a waiver provision will allow us to

hold on to the progress that our municipalities, industries and citizens

have worked so hard to achieve, then it

might be acceptable. Unfortunately,

when measured against this minimal

standard, the bill’s industrial waiver

provisions fail miserably.

Here are a few of the many examples

of the illogical, and environmentally

and financially destructive, consequences of the bill’s many industrial

waivers:

A factory could obtain a permit that

allows it to significantly increase the

toxic pollutants it discharges into a

river nearby a residential area, if the

owner of a factory 100 miles away

agrees to reduce its emissions into the

air.

An industry that discharges its polluted wasterwater into a municipal

sewage treatment plant could reduce

the level of treatment prior to discharge, even if the municipal treatment plant regularly has combined

sewer overflows that cause untreated
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4779

waste, including industrial waste, to

flow into resident’s basements, the

streets and waterbodies.

Dischargers of nearly 70,000 chemicals could flood EPA with requests for

waivers from the current baseline

standard for certain toxic and

nonconventional pollutants. These include most of the pollutants referred to

as dioxins.

It has been argued that the waivers

will not cause a setback in water quality because waivers are not available

unless authorized by a State or EPA.

This supposed safeguard is in most instances an illusion.

In some instances the waiver is automatic, without State or EPA approval.

In others, the bill requires EPA or a

State to grant a waiver if certain conditions are met, and those conditions

frequently do not focus upon water

quality. The bill essentially creates entitlements to waivers, and then if the

State or Federal agencies deny the

waivers, the polluter can challenge the

denial in court, further straining limited State and Federal resources, and

making this program more like

Superfund.

The bill’s industrial waivers create

new standards that are vague, unclear,

and, in come instances, patently impossible to implement. These waivers

would dramatically increase burdens

on States responsible for implementing

them, cause delays in permitting, and

increase the amount and complexity of

litigation.

The waivers would cause uncertainty

for industry, by eliminating the bill’s

uniform standards and introducing in

their place multiple ambiguous waivers. They would create competition between communities for industry and

jobs, resulting in reduced standards for

water. They would create an unlevel

playing field, where the preferences

given certain industrial dischargers

will result in competitive disadvantages to those who did not obtain waivers. And, the waivers will especially

harm those who live downstream, as

most of us do, from industrial dischargers that may receive waivers from the

Clean Water Act’s treatment requirements.

My amendment would not increase

regulatory requirements or financial

burdens. It would simply mean that industry could not do less than it is already doing. My amendment is about

holding on to the benefits of one of the

Congress’ and this Great Nation’s true

success stories. It is about not losing

the achievements of the past 20 years.

And, it is about improving the quality

of the water that our children and our

childrens’ children will inherit. A vote

for increasing industrial water pollution through waivers would be unconscionable. I urge you to support my

amendment.

b 1600

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise

in strong opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is

simply a grab bag of deletions of both

the reform and flexibility provisions in

the bill. It deletes the provisions of

flexibility on the nonconventional pollution. It guts the pollution provision

opportunities. It deletes the

pretreatment flexibility. And, perhaps

most importantly, it fundamentally

mischaracterizes the waiver provisions

in this bill.

My good friend from California says

that these waivers should be eliminated because they give industry and

others the opportunity to in effect get

entitlements to waivers. That simply is

not the case. No waiver can be granted

unless the States water authority officials and the EPA approve the waiver.

Now, are the State water quality officials going to approve a waiver that

harms the environment? Is the EPA

going to approve a waiver that harms

the environment?

Of course not. These waivers, when

requested, must meet water quality

standards, and they must get the written approval of the water quality officials in the States or the EPA.

So this simply is an attempt to gut

the legislation we have before us. The

very groups, and I will not take a lot of

the committee’s time to go through

this in detail. We covered this in the

previous debate. The very same groups

from the National Governors’ Association on down, who opposed the previous

amendment, oppose this legislation.

So I would urge my colleagues to

vote this down so we can get on with

the consideration of this bill.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my

strong support for the amendment offered by the gentleman from California

[Mr. MINETA], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure.

This amendment would strike the

many loopholes and waivers that are

sprinkled throughout the title of this

bill. This title replaces the strong national standards that have made the

Clean Water Act a success with national loopholes. The gentleman from

California has found nine specific provisions that roll back the Clean Water

Act.

Does anybody really know the impact of these changes? Has anyone examined their long-range implications?

The Environmental Protection Agency called the waivers and exemptions

in the bill a wholesale repeal and replacement of the fundamental provisions in the Clean Water Act. Strong

and predictable national standards

have been at the heart of the success of

the Clean Water Act during the past 2

decades. These standards should not be

chopped up by this combination of

waivers and loopholes that some secret

industry task force had on its wish list.

The Clean Water Act has meant improved water quality across the Nation

for every citizen in this country. For 20

years, we have been working to make

our bath waters cleaner, and in many

cases there have been much success. I

urge my colleagues not to turn their

back on the success of the past 20

years.

A vote for this amendment is a vote

to maintain the strong Clean Water

Act that we currently have. I urge

Members to vote for the Mineta

amendment and vote against a weakening of the Clean Water Act.

Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. H.R. 961, as

drafted, represents a frontal attack on

one of our country’s most successful

environmental laws. We have spent two

decades diligently cleaning up our Nation’s streams and rivers and lakes,

and it is inconceivable to me that anyone would now advocate back pedaling

on the great progress we have made.

In the Portland metropolitan area,

which I represent, clean water consistently ranks as the top environmental

concern of area residents. So important

is clean water to Oregonians that they

have agreed to spend more than $750

million to prevent Portland’s combined

sewer overflow from dumping raw sewage into nearby waterways.

Oregonians remember very well the

days when the Willamette River which

flows through Portland was one of the

most polluted rivers in the country.

The waters of the Willamette were so

choked with pollution that when live

fish were put in a basket and lowered

into the river to check water quality,

it took only a minute and a half for the

fish to die.

Obviously, at the same time it was

unsafe for people to swim in the river,

along with the fish. Now, this river,

Mr. Chairman, was a disgrace. But

thanks to the Clean Water Act, the

Willamette River is now safe to swim

in and salmon once again are present

in increasing numbers.

Oregonians do not want to go back to

the days of polluted waters, and neither do the American people. Americans do not want to see raw sewage

floating in the surf when they visit the

beaches. Americans do not want to

worry about their children getting sick

from swimming in a neighborhood

stream. Americans do not want to

think that the fish they catch in their

favorite fishing hole might be too toxic

to eat. And Americans do not want to

turn back the clock to polluted rivers

that actually caught fire. When they

would go to the sink to get a drink of

water, Americans do not want to choke

on what comes out of the top.

What Americans people do want is a

strong Clean Water Act, and I urge my

colleagues to vote ‘‘yes’’ on the Mineta

amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong

objection to the Mineta amendment. The pollution prevention provisions of H.R. 961 are not

a loophole. Instead, this bill would allow a facility to engage in multimedia offsets within a

facility, or to trade between facilities, if it could
H 4780 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

demonstrate to EPA or the State that the result would produce an overall net benefit to

the environment.

A chemical plant in my district, Union Carbide, identified a multimedia pollution prevention project as an alternative to a rigid Clean

Water Act technology-based numerical effluent

limitation for certain non-toxic pollutants. Instead of a costly expansion of end-of-pipe

treatment that would just shift waste from the

water to a landfill, this innovative solution

would have recovered 40 thousand pounds of

product each day, reduced land disposal of

sludge by 3,000 pounds a day, cut air emissions and saved energy. The only problem is

that while pilot studies showed that the rigid

Clean Water Act numerical limit could be met

under most weather conditions, it could not

guarantee that it would meet the standard 100

percent of the time. Pilot studies show that

temperatures below 50 degrees F during the

months of January and February would decrease the treatment efficiency. A conservative

estimate, based on the unlikely prospect of 2

months of Southern Louisiana temperatures

below 50 degrees, would still result in the

treatment system meeting the standard a minimum of 84 percent of the time. Variance from

the standard would be between 15 and 25

parts per million (ppm) for total suspended solids. The variance could be made up by executing a trading agreement with another

source under section 302(c) of H.R. 961. A

few cold days in Louisiana might cause the

limit to be exceeded by an environmentally insignificant amount.

The plant could not take the risk of going

forward with the project without the certainty of

meeting the standard. Ironically, it would have

cost more in initial capital expense than conventional end-of-pipe treatment, but the company was willing to do it because it made

more environmental sense, and would have

paid for itself over time. The plant was also

willing to pay a farmer up-river to reduce his

non-point discharge of TSS into the river. A

greater reduction could have been achieved

more cheaply. But because there was no flexibility available in the foreseeable future, this

innovative solution has been shelved. Everybody loses. Especially the environment!

This bill, unlike the current law, will promote

and reward innovation rather than stifle it. It’s

about time we started writing laws that unleashed creativity rather than shackled our industry to an outdated system of one size fits

all regulations.

Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good

friend, Mr. MINETA.

In particular, I rise in opposition to that part

of his amendment which deletes the remaining

provisions of the bill, which we adopted in

committee without opposition.

In 1987, all over the coal mining States of

this country, we had sites that had previously

been mined. They were sitting there with recoverable coal left at the site needing to be

remined. The coal could be extracted and the

area brought up to the standards of mine reclamation laws in this country.

The problem was that the coal industry

would not go in and remine those previously

mined lands because operators did not feel

certain that preexisting discharges of poor

water quality could be totally eliminated. And

they were unwilling to be held liable for a

pollutional discharge already existing on the

site.

So this Congress said in 1987, OK, we

know these sites exist. We know they need to

be reclaimed. And if the Government has to

pay for the reclamation it will be expensive to

the taxpayers.

So in order to make it economically feasible

for the coal companies to go in, remine what

remaining coal they could get from the site

and reclaim the land by bringing it up to

present reclamation standards, the Congress

in the 1987 Clean Water Act provided that a

reminer only had to insure that his or her operation did not cause discharges to be worse

than what was found at the site, and in fact,

under the provisions of the 1987 act, every effort is to be made to improve the quality of the

discharged water.

So the effect of this 1987 provision in the

Clean Water Act is that we got not only the remaining coal on previously remined sites, we

reclaimed previously mined sites that would

not have been reclaimed, and in most cases

improved the water quality discharges from

those sites. But in no instance did we make

the water quality discharge worse than it had

previously been before the remining took

place.

So what’s the problem? The problem is that

certain remining operations initiated prior to

the 1987 amendments were not afforded this

relief. While these pre-1987 operations may, in

fact, meet the criteria set forth in the 1987

amendments, they are not in compliance with

the Clean Water Act simply because they

were initiated prior to the amendments. This

bill simply provides this class of remining operations be accorded the same treatment as

those initiated after the 1987 act.

The remaining provisions of this bill are just

and appropriate and should be adopted and

this amendment should be defeated.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. MINETA].

The question was taken; and the

Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 166, noes 260,

not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 313]

AYES—166

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baesler

Baldacci

Barcia

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Berman

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Clay

Clayton

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (MI)

Condit

Conyers

Coyne

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Durbin

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fazio

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Forbes

Ford

Fox

Frank (MA)

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gephardt

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gonzalez

Green

Hall (OH)

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hefner

Hinchey

Holden

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Jefferson

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Kleczka

Klink

Lantos

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lincoln

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martinez

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Meyers

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Moran

Morella

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Pelosi

Peterson (MN)

Pomeroy

Rahall

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sawyer

Saxton

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Serrano

Shays

Sisisky

Skaggs

Slaughter

Smith (NJ)

Stark

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Taylor (MS)

Thompson

Thornton

Thurman

Torkildsen

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Tucker

Velazquez

Vento

Volkmer

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Williams

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

NOES—260

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bereuter

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Brewster

Browder

Brown (CA)

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chapman

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clement

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Cooley

Costello

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

Davis

de la Garza

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Doyle

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Edwards

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fawell

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Fowler

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gillmor

Gilman

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutierrez

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hilliard

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kelly

Kim

King

Kingston

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaFalce

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lightfoot

Linder

Lipinski

Livingston

LoBiondo

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Martini

Mascara

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Metcalf

Mica

Miller (FL)

Molinari

Mollohan

Montgomery

Moorhead

Murtha

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Ortiz

Orton

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Payne (VA)

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Porter

Portman

Poshard

Pryce
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4781

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Roemer

Rohrabacher

Roth

Royce

Salmon

Sanford

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shuster

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Spratt

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Traficant

Upton

Visclosky

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wilson

Wise

Wolf

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

NOT VOTING—8

Baker (CA)

Bunning

Collins (IL)

Fattah

Lewis (KY)

Moakley

Peterson (FL)

Rogers

b 2030

The Clerk announced the following

pair:

On this vote:

Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Lewis of Kentucky against.

Mr. HOLDEN changed his vote from

‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further

amendments to title III?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

would defer to our colleague, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. BACHUS],

because I understand he has a noncontroversial amendment that will be

accepted by both sides.

The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose

does the gentleman from Alabama,

[Mr. BACHUS] rise?

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer a noncontroversial amendment. This is a revised version of

amendment 1, as originally printed in

the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BACHUS: Page

146, line 17, strike ‘‘The’’ and insert ‘‘Working in conjunction with the Administrator of

the Small Business Administration and the

Small Business Ombudsman of the Environmental Protection Agency, the’’.

Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I did allow that amendment to be

read because it was short, and it basically speaks for itself. The bill refers

to small businesses, without any definition that allows the administrator of

the EPA total discretion in defining

small business. What we have simply

done, at the request of small business

advocates, including the NFIB, is simply ask that the administrator of the

Small Business Administration and the

small business advocate at the EPA

have input in defining small businesses.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will further

clarify the provisions of the bill which are intended to reduce the paperwork and regulatory burden placed upon small businesses.

In order to reduce the regulatory burden that

strangles small businesses in our Nation, the

committee bill purports to exempt small businesses from general and site-specific

stormwater discharge permits.

While the reformed permit process contained in the committee bill is a tremendously

positive step in the right direction, the bill

leaves it to the total discretion of the EPA to

promulgate a definition of whether or not a

business qualifies as a ‘‘small business.’’

Many members, myself included, fear that

EPA will attempt to circumvent the clear intent

of the bill and define ‘‘small business’’ so narrowly that it will, as a practical matter, exempt

few of the Nation’s small businesses.

My amendment requires that the EPA work

with the Small Business Administration and

the EPA’s Small Business Ombudsman in defining ‘‘small business.’’ We think, and the

NFIB and other small business advocacy

groups agree, that with SBA and the Small

Business Ombudsman’s input, it will help ensure that in drafting its definition of ‘‘small

business’’ the EPA will not frustrate the intent

of the bill.

While my amendment will continue to give

discretion to the EPA in coming to a proper

definition of ‘‘small business,’’ in my personal

view any EPA definition of ‘‘small business’’

which does not include as small businesses,

at the minimum, all businesses with 100 or

fewer employees, would frustrate the intent of

the bill. Including all such businesses as small

businesses would be consistent with section

507 of the Clean Air Act that defines ‘‘small

businesses’’ as any business with 100 or

fewer employees.

In closing, let me stress that this amendment does not affect those provisions in the

bill that empower a State to find that

stormwater discharges from any entity would

have a significant adverse effect on water

quality. In any such case, a permit would be

required regardless of whether the entity was

a small business or not.

Thus, it should be made very clear that any

small business can be made subject to the

permit requirement if a State finds that the entity is conducting an activity that has a truly

significant adverse effect on water quality.

What my amendment does is help protect the

goal of the committee to reduce cost and paperwork that burdens literally thousands of

small businesses that do not pose a threat to

our Nation’s water quality.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I yield to

the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. We have examined

this amendment and we support it, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, would

the gentleman from Alabama yield?

Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I yield to

the gentleman from California.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, this

side has looked at the amendment. We

have no objections to it at all.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. BACHUS].

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. BOEHLERT:

Page 115, strike line 5 and all that follows

through line 3 on page 117 and insert the following:

(n) COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT.—Section

6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization

Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1451 note) is

amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(1)—

(A) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.—’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(B) A State that has not received Federal

approval for the State’s core coastal management program pursuant to section 306 of

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16

U.S.C. 1455) shall have 30 months from the

date of approval of such program to submit

a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program pursuant to this section. Any such State shall

also be eligible for any extension of time for

submittal of the State’s nonpoint program

that may be received by a State with a federally approved coastal management program,’’;

(2) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘to protect

coastal waters generally’’ and inserting ‘‘to

restore and protect coastal waters where the

State has determined that coastal waters are

threatened or significantly degraded’’;

(3) in subsection (b)(3)—

(A) by striking ‘‘The implementation’’ and

inserting ‘‘A schedule for the implementation’’; and

(B) by inserting ‘‘, and no less often than

once every 5 years,’’ after ‘‘from time to

time’’;

(4) in subsection (b) by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(7) IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY AREAS.—A

prioritization of the areas in the State in

which management measures will be implemented.’’;

(5) in subsection (c) by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(5) CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.—The Secretary and Administrator may grant conditional approval to a State’s program where

the State requests additional time to complete the development of its program. During

the period during which the State’s program

is subject to conditional approval, the penalty provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) shall

not apply.’’;

(6) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ‘‘, 1993,

and 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2000’’; and

(7) in subsection (h)(2)(B)(iv) by striking

‘‘fiscal year 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘each of fiscal years 1995 through 2000’’.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

think the last vote, the last recorded

vote, indicates that there is strong sentiment for making some adjustments

to H.R. 961, as reported from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. As a matter of fact, we had

a 184 vote, indicating that people want

some adjustment.

I have been told that if we break

down the overall package and bring

some of the most important component

parts before this body, we will have a

better chance of achieving our objective. Therefore, we are doing just that.

This amendment I am offering deals

with the Coastal Zone Management

Program. As we all know, the committee’s bill repeals that very important

program. The program cries out for reform, not repeal.
H 4782 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Nonpoint source pollution impairs

more water bodies nationwide than any

other pollution source. Nearly half of

all estuarine waters are impaired or

threatened, mostly from nonpoint

sources. Pollution has limited the harvest of over one-third of all shellfish

beds in the United States, and more

than 10,000 beaches, 10,000 beaches,

were closed to the public over the past

5 years, and 46 out of 50 States have

banned or issued health advisories on

fish consumption, because of contamination from dangerous toxins.

Clearly, this is a public health-public

safety issue, as well as an environmental issue. The health costs pose

even greater threats to the public welfare, not to mention the declining fisheries, the lost income, jobs for the

tourism industry.

Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act

reauthorization amendments is the

only enforceable program developed by

Congress to prevent nonpoint source

pollution. It was adopted in 1990 expressly to address polluted runoff in

coastal areas by creating a State-Federal partnership to develop and implement coastal nonpoint source pollution

control programs.

Mr. Chairman, we look, and we have

reached out to others beyond this institution, beyond this Nation’s Capitol,

for input. We have gone to those most

directly affected by that. In this instance, we have been dealing with the

Coastal States Organization, representing 30 coastal States, all up and down

the east and west coasts of the United

States and along the Gulf of Mexico.

The Coastal States Organization has

endorsed the coastal zone provisions

that I am referring to in this amendment as a substitute to the Clean

Water Act reauthorization as it remains silent on that issue. Actually, it

is more than silent. It repeals it.

Let me read from the letter of the

Coastal States Organization; once

again, 30 States, 30 Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, people who

day in and day out have to live with

this issue. The letter says:

We are encouraged to hear you will offer

an alternative package to the Clean Water

Act reauthorization that would amend, rather than repeal, the coastal nonpoint pollution control program. . . . Runoff pollution

causes significant economic harm. Commercial and recreational fisheries are being

closed. Beaches are being closed to the public. Nonpoint pollution poses serious human

health and safety concerns, while at the

same time degrades wildlife habitat. This

problem needs to be addressed now, before

this country suffers further economic losses,

health hazards, and environmental degradation. . . .

We ‘‘strongly support,’’ says the

Coastal States Organization, representing 30 States, 30 Governors, ‘‘We

strongly support your efforts to amend,

not repeal, the nonpoint pollution

coastal program established under section 6217 of’’ the act.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my

colleagues to give this the very careful

consideration it deserves. I know this

has been a long day. It has been a good

day, however, because the House has

proven that we are spirited in debate,

that competing ideas are considered,

pro and con, and finally we will render

a judgment in the people’s behalf. I

urge support of my amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise

in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply was already included in the substitute, which was very resoundingly

defeated two votes ago. I am sure my

good friend, the gentleman from New

York, would not knowingly intentionally mislead the House. The letter

the gentleman quoted from was not

from the Governors. In fact, the National Governors Association opposes

this provision. The letter he quoted

from was from the Coastal Zone Management Association, which is made up

of the bureaucrats who run it, and of

course that is quite a difference. Beyond that, the Water Quality Association also opposes this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, to say that we eliminate coastal zone management simply

is not true. Our bill does not gut those

protections. What our bill does is fold

the coastal zone management provision

into the section 319 program, so we

bring together the two programs, so we

have more flexibility, and what we do

is eliminate this one-size-fits-all provision, which is in the law and which

would be followed if my friend’s

amendment is adopted.

If his amendment is adopted, we

would simply continue with the States

being forced to adopt the same exact

program for agriculture, ranching, forestry, marinas, and urban areas. It

lacks flexibility. It imposes restrictive

Federal mandates on States. It gives

EPA the power to determine appropriate land use practices, and requires

the States to adopt enforceable land

use requirements, which would have to

be approved by EPA.

States must identify, under the provisions in our bill, States must identify

critical coastal areas. The States may

focus resources on priority coastal waters, but have the flexibility to target

areas of concern. Unlike CZARA, the

bill does not allow the Federal Government to mandate where a State coastal

zones boundary should be.

If the State already has developed its

coastal zone management program, it

may implement that program, but H.R.

961, the bill, does not mandate that

States develop two separate programs,

one for the State generally, and one for

the coastal areas. Instead, it eliminates this duplicative regulation. In

fact, even though it is late in the

evening, with some difficulty, I can lift

this 800-and-some-page tome, which

now represents all the regulations that

the States must follow under EPA

guidance. This is the kind of thing we

are trying to eliminate.

Mr. Chairman, we do not eliminate

coastal zone management, we streamline it, fold it in, and tell the States

they have flexibility to achieve what is

best for them. I urge defeat of this

amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

my colleague yield?

Mr. SHUSTER. I am happy to yield

to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the

reason it is very difficult to lift that

very heavy document is because that is

not a document that contains regulations, it contains options for the

States.

Mr. SHUSTER. I would take back my

time, Mr. Chairman, and point out that

the gentleman is so right, this was supposed to be guidelines. However, the

EPA is using this and interpreting it as

a basis for forcing the States to comply. It is one more example of something that is supposed to be an EPA

guideline, but ends up really having

the force of an unfunded mandate, and

that is another reason why we should

defeat this amendment.

b 2045

Mr. BOEHLERT. If my distinguished

chairman would yield one more time, I

would point out my amendment fixes

the problem you are referring to. That

is exactly why the amendment deserves

to be supported.

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank my friend.

That is not the way we interpret it, it

is not the way the national Governors

interpret it, and it is not the way the

State Water Quality Association interprets it.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would

just like to point out, I know there is

some confusion over all the letters we

have had floating around here today,

but the letter that the gentleman from

New York refers to that does endorse

this provision, the provision that is the

subject of this amendment, is a letter

from the Coastal States Organization

which was an organization founded in

1970 to represent the Governors of the

35 coastal States, Territories and Commonwealths on coastal, Great Lakes,

and ocean affairs.

Mr. SHUSTER. I would take back my

time and say the gentleman is absolutely right. It is an organization.

These are the bureaucrats from the

various States, and the National Governors Association opposes this amendment.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield

such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.

STUDDS].

(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding me the

time. I had an identical amendment

drafted myself. I commend the gentleman from New York and his leadership on this and all other matters

today.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4783

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman’s amendment. H.R. 961 will undo much

of the progress we have made in cleaning up

our rivers, lakes, and oceans over the last 25

years. The supporters of this bill dismiss such

concerns as hysterical. But all you have to do

is read the bill. H.R. 961 throws out the baby

and makes the taxpayer drink the bathwater.

It weakens protection of the aquatic environment on nearly every major front. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York

would restore some protection on just one of

those fronts—nonpoint pollution of our coastal

waters.

Those of us that represent coastal areas—

and there are many of us in this body, know

that a clean marine environment is vital to the

local economy and quality of life. This is important considering that more than half of all

Americans now live in coastal counties, and

this proportion is expected to increase in the

future. Americans who do not live on the coast

also benefit from a clean coastal environment,

either in the form of abundant, healthy seafood or from recreational opportunities at the

seashore. Fisheries and tourism can only

thrive along our coasts if the water is clean.

Commercial and recreational fisheries contribute more than $30 billion to the economy annually. Coastal tourism is worth another $10

billion each year.

While we need to continue to make

progress on all fronts, it is only fair to say that

a major success of the Clean Water Act has

been to reduce pollution from point source discharges. However, the greatest remaining

cause of water pollution in the United States

is nonpoint source pollution—polluted runoff

not attributable to a particular discharge pipe

or outfall.

Unfortunately, the supporters of H.R. 961 ignore the need to deal effectively with nonpoint

pollution. The bill before the House repeals

the coastal nonpoint pollution control program,

which is the only national program that holds

any promise of actually abating nonpoint pollution. Repealing the program now is especially

ill-timed because the coastal States will be

submitting their plans for addressing nonpoint

pollution this year. H.R. 961 would instead rely

on existing voluntary measures under section

319 of the Clean Water Act. Hundreds of millions have been spent under section 319 over

many years with no demonstrable progress.

To make matters worse, H.R. 961 weakens

section 319 by pushing back deadlines and relaxing requirements for the State to identify

meaningful ways of abating nonpoint pollution.

Under the coastal nonpoint pollution program, coastal States have been working hard

for 5 years to prepare their plans for controlling nonpoint pollution. This has not been

easy, but progress has been made. Perhaps

more importantly, the coastal States support

this program. They have, however, sought

more flexibility in complying. While I believe

that some of the changes sought by the

Coastal States Organization will delay

progress in reducing nonpoint pollution, that is

not really the question. The real question is:

Do we want a meaningful nonpoint pollution

control program or do we not? If you support

healthy fisheries, a strong coastal economy,

and beautiful coastlines, the answer must be

a resounding ‘‘yes.’’

This amendment strikes language in H.R.

961 that repeals the coastal nonpoint pollution

control program. In addition, it makes the

changes needed in the nonpoint program to

give the States more flexibility in complying.

Most importantly, it allows more time for

States to meet the program’s requirements

and allows States to target priority areas for

implementation of management measures.

The coastal States have put 5 hard years of

work into this program. Don’t throw away that

progress. I urge the House to support the

amendment.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the amendment which would preserve the coastal zone nonpoint source

pollution control program while incorporating several important modifications to reflect the evolution of the

program.

When Congress approved the

nonpoint source program targeted at

coastal areas, it did so with the recognition that nonpoint source pollution in the coastal zone is a serious and

growing problem.

Nonpoint source pollution plays a

significant role in nutrient enrichment

in estuaries. This can lead to direct effects on human health, such as shellfish poisoning, as well as a loss of recreational uses of the coast and reduced

fish mortality.

Unfortunately, the coastal zone is

under tremendous stress from human

activity. Although the coastal zone accounts for only about 11 percent of the

country’s area, it is home to about onehalf of the Nation’s population. Additionally, about 40 percent of commercial and industrial structures built in

the United States between 1970 and 1989

were built in the coastal zone.

All of this activity in the coastal

zone creates tremendous stress on the

near-shore waters. Repealing the provisions for coastal protection will only

exacerbate the decline of our coastal

resources.

The States and EPA have made great

progress in preparing plans to address

nonpoint pollution in the coastal zone.

States are preparing plans for submission this summer, with implementation likely to begin about 1 year later.

The repeal of the program will mean

that the efforts of States and EPA and

NOAA will have been largely wasted.

More seriously, it also means that no

real progress will be initiated on coastal nonpoint source pollution for nearly

another 5 years. And that assumes that

this bill is enacted soon. That is too

long to wait when States are otherwise

ready to go.

This repeal of coastal nonpoint programs sends exactly the wrong statement about our commitment to clean

coastal waters. We hear repeatedly

that we must move this bill quickly to

preserve appropriations. One thing is

near certain. If this committee approves legislation repealing the coastal

program, how can we expect the appropriations committee to provide funding

in 1996 or subsequent years?

What we will be creating if this

amendment is defeated is an unfunded

mandate on coastal States. The requirements will continue, but we cannot count on continued funding.

Second, we will be telling the States

to stop in their tracks. Why would a

State continue its efforts to establish a

coastal zone program, when we are

about to repeal it?

The States have had some differences

with EPA over implementation of the

program. Fortunately, the States and

EPA have worked out a number of differences in the implementation of the

program. These agreements are reflected in the amendment restoring the

program. The amendment addresses

the problems which the Coastal States

Organization have identified. The

coastal States do not want the program repealed—they want it fixed. This

amendment does that.

Let us preserve those areas of water

pollution control where real problems

have been identified, and real solutions

to those problems are being put in

place. Let us respect the wishes of the

States which implement the program,

and support the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to

commend the gentleman from New

York [Mr. BOEHLERT] for bringing this

amendment back to the floor tonight,

and I would also like to commend the

ranking minority member for having

the foresight to support it. I would just

say two things.

Mr. Chairman, the first point I would

make is that it is impossible for the

Congress of the United States to pretend that the issue of nonpoint source

pollution does not exist around the

coasts of the United States. It is simply impossible, because the problem is

there. It is a fact of life as clear as the

nose on our faces. Beaches close every

year. Red tides and blue tides and

green tides, they come from algae

buildup because nutrient buildup is

there.

Organizations form around our coasts

like the Committee to Save Chesapeake Bay, the Barnegat Bay Watershed Association, and other groups like

that which recognize the seriousness of

this problem. This House in 1990 recognized it as well. That is why we amended the Coastal Zone Management Act

to provide for a nonpoint source pollution program and encouraged the

States to adopt these programs.

It is dumb to pretend that the problem does not exist, just plain dumb.

For us to stop in the middle of the

road, amend the Coastal Zone Management Act while pretending the problem

does not exist, is equally dumb. I do

not know any other way to say it. It

just does not make any sense whatsoever.

The second point that I would make,

and I know that the chairman did not

mean to misrepresent the identity of

those organizations that support this

amendment, but the Coastal States Organization is an organization made up

of 35 States, Territories, and Commonwealths who are coastal States and
H 4784 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

have an interest in this type of issue

and in this legislation. The Coastal

States Organization was founded in

1970 to represent the Governors of

coastal States.

We have a letter here which at the

appropriate time I would like to make

part of the RECORD, because it is as

clear as a bell in support of the Boehlert amendment. I would just read one

paragraph from that letter.

The serious problem of non-point pollution

of the Nation’s coastal waters is well-documented. Runoff pollution causes significant

economic harm. Commercial and recreational fisheries are being closed. Beaches

are being closed to the public. Non-point pollution poses serious human health and safety

concerns while at the same time degrades

wildlife habitat. This problem needs to be

addressed now, before this country suffers

further economic losses, health hazards and

environmental degradation. With the proper

amendments, which we understand your bill

contains, the section 6217 program will well

serve this purpose.

It goes on to explain other reasons

for supporting the program to do something about the very serious problem

that remains in the coastal areas,

namely, nonpoint source pollution, and

the program is well under way with the

States all around the coasts of this

country.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has

to be passed in order to do any kind of

sane continuation to solve the problem

that we all must know exists.

Mr. Chairman, I include the letter referred to for the RECORD.

COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION,

Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.

Hon. JIM SAXTON,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SAXTON: We are encouraged to hear you will offer an alternative package on the Clean Water Act reauthorization that would amend, rather then

repeal, the coastal nonpoint pollution control program established by § 6217 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990

(OBRA). We write to support you in this effort.

The serious problem of nonpoint pollution

of the Nation’s coastal waters is well documented. Runoff pollution causes significant

economic harm. Commercial and recreational fisheries are being closed. Beaches

are being closed to the public. Nonpoint pollution poses serious human health and safety

concerns, while at the same time degrades

wildlife habitat. This problem needs to be

addressed now, before this country suffers

further economic losses, health hazards and

environmental degradation. With the proper

amendments, which we understand your bill

contains, the § 6217 program will serve this

purpose.

It is no secret that we have had complaints

about the § 6217 program. Nonetheless, we believe that the immediacy of the coastal

nonpoint pollution problem calls for this

program to be fixed, not killed. The coastal

States have over four years worth of work

invested in developing the § 6217 programs;

they are nearly complete, and are due for

submission in July. Why throw four years of

diligent work out the window two months

before the completion date? By amending

the § 6217 program as we propose, the Nation

will have in place an effective coastal

nonpoint pollution control program within 8

months from now. Repealing § 6217, on the

other hand, will delay getting any program

up and running for another five or six years.

We strongly support your efforts to amend,

not repeal, the coastal nonpoint pollution

control program established under § 6217 of

OBRA.

Sincerely,

H. WAYNE BEAM,

Chairman.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support

this amendment to strike the repeal of

the highly effective coastal zone

nonpoint pollution program.

The amendment would substitute the

language that was proposed by the

Coastal States Organization, a coalition of 30 States.

The Coastal States Organization has

repeatedly expressed its strong opposition to the repeal of the coastal

nonpoint pollution program.

On March 17, the Coastal States Organization said, ‘‘Section 6217 should

not be repealed, but amended, to establish a workable and effective state-implemented program.’’

This is what the Coastal States Organization had to say on nonpoint pollution.

The problem on non-point pollution of the

nation’s coastal waters is real and serious.

Runoff pollution is causing serious economic harm.

Let me repeat that:

Runoff pollution is causing serious economic harm.

Commercial and recreational fisheries are

being shut down due to runoff pollution.

Beaches are being closed.

Nonpoint source pollution poses human

health and safety concerns, while at the

same time degrading wildlife habitat.

I am still quoting from the Coastal

States Organization.

This problem needs to be addressed now,

before this country suffers further economic

losses, health hazards and environmental

degradation.

They say the coastal States have 4

years of work invested in this program

which would be lost if we repeal czara.

The coastal States letter opposes the

very approach that is being taken in

the bill before us.

The assertion is often raised that the section 6217 program is Duplicative of the clean

water act section 319 program. We assert it is

the other way around.

By amending the section 6217 program as

we have suggested, the Nation will have in

place an effective coastal nonpoint pollution

control program within 10 months from now.

But, by repealing section 6217 outright and

replacing it with the clean water act section

319 program, the Nation will not have a program in place to address this serious problem

for another five and a half years after the

clean water reauthorization is enacted.

The reauthorization effort will require at

least several more months to finally be enacted, making it about six years before any

program is in place to address the serious

nonpoint pollution programs degrading our

coastal waters.

These 30 States said:

We believe the best course of action is not

to throw out 4 years of State effort developing their coastal nonpoint pollution control

programs, but rather to put in place, at the

earliest possibility, a workable and effective

program to attack nonpoint pollution of the

Nation’s coastal waters.

Finally, they said:

We urge you to help us act against the pollution of our coastal waters as soon as possible and not let the problem fester for another 6 years.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that we do what

the Coastal States Organization has

asked us to do.

They want the program maintained

with amendments that would allow impaired or threatened waters to be targeted and to allow additional time for

States to receive approval of their programs. This amendment would substitute the language the States are

seeking for the repeal in the bill.

This is a case of deciding whether the

States who run the programs or Washington knows best. This amendment offered by the gentleman from New York

supports the States.

b 2100

Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter

into a colloquy with the chairman regarding laboratory biological monitoring criteria and the field bioassessment

in section 304 of H.R. 961 as amended by

the chairman’s en bloc amendment.

It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that section 304(a) of H.R. 961 as

amended would revise the provisions of

the Clean Water Act found in section

303(c)(2)(B) by giving additional direction as to the criteria for whole effluent toxicity, based on laboratory biological monitoring or assessment

methods.

The statute as amended gives three

criteria. Common to all three criteria

is the concept that the test species

must have some actual relationship to

the receiving water.

The test species cannot, for instance,

be selected simply because it is highly

sensitive to toxicity. The test species

must either be indigenous to the type

of receiving water involved or be able

to live in the type of receiving water

involved.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the

gentlewoman will yield, that is correct.

Mrs. FOWLER. It is my understanding that section 304(b) of H.R. 961 as

amended would revise section 402 of the

Clean Water Act to make it clear that

exceedence of a laboratory whole effluent bioassay would not be regarded as

a permit violation, but would give rise

to a procedure for re-testing and identification of the cause of such

exceedence.

However, the permittee can discontinue such procedure if the permittee can demonstrate, through a field

bio-assessment, that there is no real

world toxicity problem because a balanced and healthy population of aquatic species, indigenous to the type of

water involved, exists in the receiving

water affected by the discharge.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4785

To complete this demonstration, the

permittee must also show that all applicable numerical water quality

standards for specific pollutants are

met. The point here is that this is a

real world demonstration. There is no

reference in this provision to laboratory whole effluent bioassays, which

can be highly variable and unrelated to

real world conditions.

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentlewoman is

absolutely correct.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. FOWLER. I am happy to yield

to my colleague, the gentleman from

Colorado.

Mr. HEFLEY. First, I would like to

thank the gentlewoman from Florida

for seeking this clarification in section

304(a) of H.R. 961. This section as

amended seeks only to bring a sense of

place-based science to the development

of criteria based biological monitoring

to the Clean Water Act.

Second, I would like to commend the

chairman of the full committee for including these well crafted provisions on

whole effluent criteria and use of biological monitoring in the committee

bill. These provisions faithfully address

those issues and provisions of my bill,

the Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Biological Monitoring Use Act, introduced this year as H.R. 634 with our

colleague form Arizona, Congressman

PASTOR. As further explained in the

committee report, this section would

bring common sense and due process to

the use of whole effluent toxicity tests

by substituting enforceable response

procedures for locating and reducing

toxicity in place of fines and penalties

for test failures. This is important to

local governments particularly because

of the unreliability of these tests and

because sewage treatment plants are

not designed to treat whole effluent

toxicity as they are designed to treat

specific chemicals.

I thank the chairman and the committee for including section 304 and I

thank the gentlelady for yielding to

me.

Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I

thank Congressman HEFLEY for his

supportive comments and I thank the

chairman for this understanding.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of

misinformation in this Chamber about

the widespread support this bill has

from State and local governments. The

truth is that the State’s interests were

ignored when it came to the coastal

nonpoint pollution program because

their wishes differed with those of polluters and special interests.

Today, coastal counties are growing

three times faster than the rest of the

country. Already about half of the U.S.

population lives in coastal areas. Without adequate protection, this continuing growth will only exacerbate coastal

pollution—resulting in more beach

closings, more polluted shellfish beds,

more contaminated fish, and millions

of dollars in lost tourism revenue.

To tackle these threats, Congress enacted the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution

Program (section 6217) under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. In fact I sponsored the

amendment at that time. Section 6217

establishes sensible, State-managed

partnerships to address the threats to

coastal waters—the majority of which

comes from nonpoint sources. It is the

only program that will bring about significant reductions in nonpoint source

pollution. Yet, H.R. 961 repeals this

important program—even though the

coastal States themselves want it preserved.

The Coastal States Organization

[CSO], which represents the 35 coastal

States, territories and commonwealths, has made it clear that the urgency of the coastal nonpoint pollution

problem compels us not to pull the

plug on this program.

Let’s be clear: This amendment does

what the States asked us to do. It

adopts their suggestions for providing

flexibility and targeting of coastal

nonpoint programs. Our amendment

will put an effective Coastal Nonpoint

Pollution Program in place in less than

a year.

Two-thirds of coastal States have invested millions of dollars over the past

4 years crafting innovative runoff control programs that are nearly ready for

approval. My own State of New York

has invested considerable time and effort in developing a plan that will benefit Long Island Sound, the Hudson

River, and the New York City watershed. By making sensible investments

early-on, it also promises to save taxpayers millions of dollars down the

road—or downstream as the case may

be.

Long Island Sound is a $6 billion a

year resource for the region’s fishing,

boating, and recreation industries. In

New York and Connecticut, business,

labor, and environmental groups have

set-aside old disagreements and joined

together in developing a plan to clean

up the sound. They have forged a powerful coalition. The Coastal Nonpoint

Pollution Program is an integral component of those efforts, and now is certainly not the time to pull the rug out

from under their feet.

As the coastal States themselves are

asking: Why throw 4 years of diligent

work out the window 2 months before

the completion date? There is no reasonable answer. I urge my colleagues

to support their States by supporting

this amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I just do not understand. Why do we think we have to

have more bureaucracy to stop pollution? That is the old approach. The

new approach is an approach of flexibility, consolidation, elimination of

unnecessary bureaucracy. All this bill

does is streamline, then consolidate.

Basically the amendment that is being

offered is essentially the same provision that was in the substitute that

was rejected decisively by the Members

of this House.

This bill eliminates a duplicative

program of regulation and it consolidates it into one program. Now the

question is why should we do this now,

because the answer is no State has this

coastal management program up and

running. That is why we should do it

now. It makes perfect sense to do it

now. Because if we wait, then we will

have these programs up and running.

We still allow the States all of the

flexibility they want to target these resources, to identify the programs that

they consider to be a problem and to

focus resources into that. And when we

hear the argument that the States

want to be told by the EPA what to do

with their land use, et cetera, I just do

not buy that, Mr. Chairman.

What we need to do is to reject this

amendment just as we rejected the substitute and move ahead, streamline and

consolidate and make this a workable

program.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I have a

parliamentary inquiry. Is the Chair

going to be alternating between the

Republican and Democratic side in

terms of recognition?

The CHAIRMAN. That is the attempt

of the Chair, yes. Was the gentleman

from California seeking recognition?

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, under

that procedure, I believe the gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. PALLONE] was

standing.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Maryland

[Mr. GILCHREST], a member of the committee. The gentleman from Maryland

will proceed. Following the gentleman

from Maryland’s statement the Chair

would intend to come to this side for

recognition. The gentleman from

Maryland may proceed for a period of 5

minutes.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the

previous speaker did not extend the

courtesy of yielding at the conclusion

of his time. I would like to directly

rebut a couple of comments he made.

First of all he said the States do not

want it. He is wrong. The States do

want it. As matter of fact, the secretary of state for New York was in

town today lobbying for this. I will tell

you who wants it: every single coastal

State up and down the east coast and

west coast and on along the Gulf of

Mexico and along the Great Lakes region.

And second, and this is very important as my colleague knows, It is no secret, say the Coastal States Organization, that we have had complaints

about this program. Nonetheless, we

believe that the immediacy of the

coastal nonpoint pollution program
H 4786 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

calls for this program to be fixed, not

killed. And this is very important. The

coastal States, 30 of them, have invested over 4 years of work in developing the 6,217 programs; they are nearly

complete, with that program and it

will be submitted in July. Why throw

out, say the coastal States, 4 years of

diligent work, throw it out the window

2 months before the completion date.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

b 2115

Mr. GILCHREST. I need to make a

couple of quick statements. No. 1, the

previous gentleman, and a number of

people, have been talking about giving

the States the flexibility, let the

States do this, let the States do that.

One comment about the Constitutional Convention, you know, over 200

years ago, the reason the Constitutional Convention came about was because there was a dispute between

Maryland and Virginia dealing with

the Potomac River because it went

across State lines, so there is a Federal

role to play, especially when pollution

runs downstream.

I would like to draw your attention

to this map one more time, the Chesapeake Bay region. We are talking about

nonpoint source pollution, and we are

talking about the Coastal Zone Management Act which helps protect pollution along the coastal waters. If you

look at Washington, DC, right here,

here, we have a certain amount of

nonpoint source protection, but you

still see this urban area putting pollution, silt, and a number of other things

into the Potomac River which gradually gets into the coastal waters.

If you look at the coast of Delaware,

Maryland, and Virginia, you see no

such thing during that storm, and the

reason is because the Coastal Zone

Management Act was able to protect

this particular area of the coastline,

and if we go with the same rule of

nonpoint programs and fold the Coastal

Zone Management Act into that program, we stand the chance of having

this that you see on this map, polluting the Chesapeake Bay and eventually

the coastal waters, happening over

here along the coast.

The last thing is, there are a lot of

people that have approached me on the

House floor today and said, ‘‘Washington, DC, was built on a wetland. What

do you think about that?’’ I guess there

was not a sense of the problem of population and urban sprawl and unbridled

development 200 years ago, 200 years

ago, let us say 1795; there were 3 million people in the world; 100 years ago

in 1895, there were 76 million people in

the world. Today, 1995, there are 265

million people in the United States.

Now, there is a certain sense of sharing the resources and what we do or do

not do to our neighbor downstream.

And so the cumulative impact of population growth which is expanding now

to the coastal areas of this country

poses a certain threat to the resources

of those areas, and it is up to us, this

legislative body, to understand how we

can help the State and local communities create an environment where we

can manage resources and still have

people living in areas where they do

not have to worry about their drinking

water, their natural resources.

And one more comment before my

time is up, I want to point to the areas

that have urban sprawl and urban development. If you will notice, during

this rain storm, all of the silt that

comes down the Potomac River, but

you do not see that because of the protection of the coastal areas along Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for

the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5

minutes.

I did want to make reference though

to a previous speaker, the gentleman

from California, and his statement

about the vote being very close on the

Saxton-Boehlert amendment, and also

the suggestion that somehow this

amendment was not in order. I would

point out that the vote was actually

fairly close on the Boehlert-Saxton

amendment, and also that this amendment is a very important part of that

overall substitute which I think should

be addressed separately.

I think one of the things that needs

to be pointed out tonight is that the

amendment offered by the gentleman

from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT] basically is a reasonable compromise, if

you will, based on the recommendations of the Coastal States Organization. The amendment does not take us

back to the original language of the existing statute but, rather, it is a carefully crafted compromise that allows

States that have not received Federal

approval of their coastal zone management program to have 30 months to

submit their coastal nonpoint source

pollution program. It only applies to

threatened or significantly degraded

waters as opposed to coastal waters

generally. It allows for prioritization of

areas for implementation of management measures. It allows for conditional approval when States request

additional time to complete their plans

without penalty.

The bottom line is the gentleman

from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT], again,

as part of this substitute, has drafted

something that seeks to change the

language, if you will, of the current

law without sacrificing the mandatory

and enforceable nature of the original

law, and I think that is the key.

Nonpoint source pollution is really

the problem that we face with regard

to water quality in the future. Over the

next 5 or 10 years this is likely, if it is

not already, to become the major

source of pollution that would we have,

and the committee bill makes this

whole program voluntary.

Basically what the gentleman from

New York [Mr. BOEHLERT] is trying to

do is to put the teeth back into the

program, preserving the program while

also looking at it in a way that I think

is very reasonable and manageable.

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I think

this is a very important amendment,

because section 6217 of the Coastal

Zone Act reauthorization amendments

is the only enforceable program developed by Congress to prevent nonpoint

source pollution, and H.R. 961 basically

repeals this entire section 6217 and, instead, the bill replaces the enforceable

provisions with a proviso that State

programs make reasonable progress,

essentially making the program voluntary.

As my own State of New Jersey has

made significant progress with regard

to this program, and is very proud of

the progress we have made, there are

about 19 other coastal States, including New Jersey, that went through a

very helpful threshold review, with respect to these plans. In our State in

the summer of 1994, we did a review. We

held three public hearings this month.

We will be submitting our completed

section 6217 program proposal in July.

All of the coastal States are currently making progress in development

of their coastal nonpoint programs.

Thousands of dollars and years of efforts have been expended, and proposals for new programs have been made.

The section 6217 program has already

gained a significant momentum, and

shows great promise. But to undermine

it with a less substantive program that

decreases predictability of action

would greatly increase the risks to valuable coastal resources, and it would

penalize those coastal States that have

made a concerted effort to comply with

existing law.

I ask the House, do not pull the rug

out from under the program. Support

the Boehlert amendment. I is what the

coastal States want.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to

take my full 5 minutes either.

But this is a very, very important

issue to coastal States. I do not believe

this amendment does any damage to

the underlying bill. I think it is, in

fact, perfectly compatible with the underlying bill.

My colleague from California says we

do not want more bureaucracy, we are

trying to stop bureaucracy, we are trying to create local control. That is exactly what this amendment does.

Now, California takes up almost the

entire coast of the Western United

States. They only have a couple of

neighbors to worry about.

Little States in New England have

lots of other States to worry about,

and so New England with its number of

little States along the coast, needs a

regional plan, needs Federal conformity. And this amendment preserves the

underlying coastal zone management

law, but reverts to the States the kind

of flexibility, the kind of relief from
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4787

Federal bureaucracy and Federal control that we all know makes for a more

cost effective and solid response, that

combines the environmental interest of

the State with the economic interest of

a State.

Now, the Governors have proposed,

through those who have worked to

make these plans and to implement

that law, three things, and let me tell

you how they affect my district. The

reforms in this plan will allow States

the flexibility to delineate the scope of

the management area. That means

EPA cannot come in and tell you that

every little stream that feeds into

every river is part of the coastal area

management section. So it means that

a lot of my farmers are no longer going

to be attacked by EPA to do things

that they do not know how to do, and

that we do not know how to help them

to do. That ability in this law to let

States delineate their area, let States

even select the projects that they

think are important, and implement

those projects, that is exactly what the

States are asking for, and that is what

we are going to get.

But why do we need the underlying

law?

We need it because no matter how

much money Connecticut puts into

this, if Massachusetts does not, if

Maine does not, and if New York does

not, then we will lose those fisheries

and those shell beds that we have spent

millions of dollars to bring back on our

intracoastal water, and if we lose

those, we lose jobs in an industry that

is growing. We lose a coast that attracts tourism.

This is a big economic issue for our

State, and I do not think the interior

States quite understand what a big

economic issue this is for the coastal

States and how impossible it is going

to be for us to achieve the level of

coastal water cleanliness that is essential to our economies as well as to our

environments if we do not have the

Federal uniformity that the underlying

coastal zone management law provides,

complemented by the reforms that the

Governors have asked for.

This amendment does no damage to

the underlying bill. It achieves the objectives of the underlying bill in harmony with the consistency of principle

and program that an area of old industrial States, which is what the Northeast is, so we have got lots of old site

land, that is a problem in terms of

nonpoint source pollution, gives us

that uniformity of goal that will return our shores and our shoreline waters to the level, to the quality that

will assure the economic benefits of

clean coastal waters as well as the

health and environment benefits.

So I urge you to think about what is

the difference between living in the

middle of the United States and what

is the responsibility of the coastal

States. And, please, do not take from

us the program that we all now support

and give us the flexibility we need to

make it work right economically and

environmentally.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I

yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentlewoman for a very eloquent statement.

I want to point out it is not just the

23 coastal States, also all the Great

Lakes States are heavily involved and

deeply interested in this. The Coastal

States Organization represents 30, 30

coastal States, Great Lakes and coastal States, so it is very important.

I thank the gentlewoman for a fine

statement.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I realize the time is

late, but I think it is important to correct the RECORD.

You heard tonight that all of the

coastal States are in support of this

program called CZARA 6217. That is incorrect.

We are in possession of a letter from

the State of Louisiana opposing that

section of the CZM law and supporting

the provisions of the bill that would, in

fact, fold language back into section

319 of the current Coastal Management

Act. We are in possession also of letters

from the State of Wisconsin indicating

support for the bill and for elimination

of the coastal nonpoint pollution control program contained in section 6217,

and a letter from the Texas department

of agriculture similarly in support of

the changes embodied in the bill.

Let me correct another point in the

RECORD. The Boehlert amendment that

contained the same amendment we now

debate was not defeated on a close

vote. If 58 votes is a close vote, I am

very surprised in this House. That is a

very good margin.

Let me tell you why this amendment

ought to be defeated and why the bill,

as it recommends changes in the law,

should be approved. The bill that we

are talking about does, in fact, repeal a

section of the Coastal Zone Act, not

the act that was passed years ago; it

repeals a section of the act that was

adopted in a budget resolution in 1990,

not through the normal process. The

section of the Coastal Zone Management Act that the bill repeals was not

adopted as a part of the original act. It

was adopted as a part of a budget resolution, an amendment attached to a

budget resolution, not the normal process by which we write environmental

law in this body.

It was attached in 1990, and those

programs are about to go into effect

unless we change it here tonight.

Now, why should we change it here

tonight? Because if we do not change it

here tonight, what will go into effect is

a program that mandates a one-sizefits-all Federal mandate program on

the States inflexible, that gives the

EPA the power to determine appropriate land use practices in coastal

zones, that gives the EPA the power to

determine coastal zone boundaries, unlike the current law which allowed the

States to make those determinations.

b 2130

If we do not repeal that section, you

will be giving in effect the EPA that

authority. What the bill does is repeal

that section, fold this section of environmental law protection for coastal

zone into Section 319 where the States

have the power to focus their resources

on the critical coastal areas they want

to work on and, in fact, protect those

areas as much as any of my colleagues

in this House want to have them protected.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. PETRI. I just want to reiterate

what you said as far as the State of

Wisconsin is concerned. We are just a

coastal State. We do oppose the Boehlert amendment. DNR has worked on

this very closely with Chairman SHUSTER and others. We want a strong nonpoint source program. We have to have

an integrated one, not a separate one

for coastal, and for lakes, and for rivers, and to get the job done, and, to do

it most effectively, we want one program, not a proliferation of many programs.

So the gentleman is absolutely right.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman.

Let me say to my colleagues and

point out again, if you believe your

State ought to have the flexibility to

adopt its coastal zone program to the

needs of your coastal zone, then you

vote against the Boehlert amendment.

If you like Federal mandates and new

Federal EPA authorities to determine

land use restrictions and the coastal

zone of your State, then vote for Mr.

Boehlert’s amendment because that’s

what it does. It ought to be defeated.

Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support

of this amendment to reauthorize the coastal

nonpoint source pollution control program

known as section 6217.

This program is important because our

coastal States have unique and significant

problems. While there have been some complaints about the 6217 program, we should

look at ways to improve not kill it.

I had representatives from my State come

to me to announce that New York will have a

management program for approval in July. Approximately 18 States will be ready to go on

September. We can not end the program now.

To repeal this program would punish the

States that are making good faith efforts to

work on their nonpoint pollution. To repeal this

program would reward States that have not

been making strong efforts to address the

nonpoint problems specific to the coastal

States.

I am worried that to repeal the program now

will delay any progress that it ready to be

made.

I rise in support of the gentleman’s amendment.
H 4788 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT].

The question was taken; and the

Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 224, noes 199,

not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 314]

AYES—224

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baesler

Baldacci

Barcia

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Bereuter

Berman

Bilirakis

Bishop

Blute

Boehlert

Bonior

Borski

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Bunn

Callahan

Cardin

Castle

Chapman

Clay

Clayton

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

Davis

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Diaz-Balart

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Doyle

Durbin

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Engel

English

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fawell

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Flanagan

Foglietta

Foley

Forbes

Ford

Fox

Frank (MA)

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gephardt

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gilman

Gordon

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hefley

Hefner

Hinchey

Houghton

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Johnson (CT)

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kelly

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Kleczka

Klink

Kolbe

LaFalce

Lantos

Lazio

Leach

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lincoln

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Longley

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martinez

Martini

Mascara

Matsui

McCollum

McDermott

McHale

McHugh

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Meyers

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Miller (FL)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Molinari

Mollohan

Moran

Morella

Murtha

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Orton

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Payne (VA)

Pelosi

Peterson (MN)

Pomeroy

Porter

Quinn

Rahall

Ramstad

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Roemer

Ros-Lehtinen

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sanford

Sawyer

Saxton

Scarborough

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Serrano

Shaw

Shays

Skaggs

Slaughter

Smith (NJ)

Spratt

Stark

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Taylor (MS)

Thompson

Thornton

Thurman

Torkildsen

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Tucker

Upton

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Volkmer

Walsh

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Weldon (PA)

Whitfield

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Wolf

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

Young (FL)

Zimmer

NOES—199

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bevill

Bilbray

Bliley

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Brewster

Browder

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Chabot

Chambliss

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clement

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

de la Garza

Deal

DeLay

Dickey

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Edwards

Emerson

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fazio

Fields (TX)

Fowler

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gillmor

Gonzalez

Goodlatte

Goodling

Green

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hilliard

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Holden

Horn

Hostettler

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kim

King

Kingston

Klug

Knollenberg

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lewis (CA)

Lightfoot

Linder

Lipinski

Livingston

Lucas

Manzullo

McCarthy

McCrery

McDade

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Metcalf

Mica

Montgomery

Moorhead

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Ortiz

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Portman

Poshard

Pryce

Quillen

Radanovich

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Rohrabacher

Rose

Roth

Royce

Salmon

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shuster

Sisisky

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Traficant

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weller

White

Wicker

Young (AK)

Zeliff

NOT VOTING—11

Baker (CA)

Boucher

Bunning

Collins (IL)

Fattah

Jefferson

Lewis (KY)

Moakley

Peterson (FL)

Rangel

Rogers

b 2152

Messrs. REYNOLDS, CHAPMAN,

MILLER of Florida, CALLAHAN,

MCCOLLUM, GRAHAM, and BISHOP

changed their vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I move

that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose;

and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. NORWOOD) having assumed the chair, Mr.

MCINNIS, Chairman of the Committee

of the Whole House on the State of the

Union, reported that that Committee,

having had under consideration the bill

(H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act, had come to no

resolution thereon.

PERMISSION FOR CERTAIN COMMITTEES TO SIT TOMORROW,

fTHURSDAY, MAY 11, 1995, DURING

THE 5-MINUTE RULE

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the following

committees and their subcommittees

be permitted to sit tomorrow while the

House is meeting in the Committee of

the Whole House under the 5-minute

rule.

The Committee on Agriculture; the

Committee on Banking and Financial

Services; the Committee on Commerce;

the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; the Committee

on International Relations; the Committee on Resources; the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure; the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs; and

the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding

that the minority has been consulted

and that there is no objection to these

requests.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

SPECIAL ORDERS

fNORWOOD). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 1995, and

under a previous order of the House,

the following Members will be recogprevious order of the House, the gennized for 5 minutes each.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from New York [Mr. OWENS] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. OWENS addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from South Carolina [Mr. GRAHAM] is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. GRAHAM addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from California [Mr. BECERRA]

is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. BECERRA addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from California [Mr. DORNAN] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. DORNAN addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]