```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4875-H4900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 961.

                              {time}  1003

                     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 further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, with 
Mr. McInnis in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, May 
11, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson], as amended, had been disposed of, and title VI was open at 
any point.
  Are there any amendments to title VI?
                   amendment offered by mr. lipinski

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lipinski: Pages 231 and 232, 
     strike the table and insert the following:

                                                        Percent of sums
``States:                                                   authorized:
  Alabama........................................................0.7736
  Alaska.........................................................0.2500
  Arizona........................................................1.1526
  Arkansas.......................................................0.3853
  California.....................................................9.3957
  Colorado.......................................................0.6964
  Connecticut....................................................1.3875
  Delaware.......................................................0.2500
  District of Columbia...........................................0.3203
  Florida........................................................3.4696
  Georgia........................................................2.0334
  Hawaii.........................................................0.2629
  Idaho..........................................................0.2531
  Illinois.......................................................5.6615
  Indiana........................................................3.1304
  Iowa...........................................................0.6116
  Kansas.........................................................0.8749
  Kentucky.......................................................1.3662
  Louisiana......................................................1.0128
  Maine..........................................................0.6742
  Maryland.......................................................1.6701
  Massachusetts..................................................4.3755
  Michigan.......................................................3.8495
  Minnesota......................................................1.3275
  Mississippi....................................................0.6406
  Missouri.......................................................1.7167
  Montana........................................................0.2500
  Nebraska.......................................................0.4008
  Nevada.........................................................0.2500
  New Hampshire..................................................0.4791
  New Jersey.....................................................4.7219
  New Mexico.....................................................0.2500
  New York......................................................14.7435
  North Carolina.................................................2.5920
  North Dakota...................................................0.2500
  Ohio...........................................................4.9828
  Oklahoma.......................................................0.6273
  Oregon.........................................................1.2483
  Pennsylvania...................................................4.2431
  Rhode Island...................................................0.4454
  South Carolina.................................................0.7480
  [[Page H4876]] South Dakota....................................0.2500
  Tennessee......................................................1.4767
  Texas..........................................................4.6773
  Utah...........................................................0.2937
  Vermont........................................................0.2722
  Virginia.......................................................2.4794
  Washington.....................................................2.2096
  West Virginia..................................................1.4346
  Wisconsin......................................................1.4261
  Wyoming........................................................0.2500
  Puerto Rico....................................................1.0866
  Northern Marianas..............................................0.0308
  American Samoa.................................................0.0908
  Guam...........................................................0.0657
  Palau..........................................................0.1295
  Virgin Islands..............................................0.0527''.

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very straightforward. 
During the subcommittee markup of H.R. 961, an amendment was adopted 
which revised the allotment formula for the State revolving fund grants 
for wastewater treatment facilities. Although putting a 10 percent cap 
in a hold harmless provision in the bill may seem like a good idea, the 
change in the formula has a dramatic impact on allotments for 21 
States, including Illinois.
  Let us look a history. Right now allocation is based on needs and 
population data from the 1970's. Nobody thinks we should keep using 
this allocation, and until the amendment was adopted in subcommittee, 
everyone agreed on the allocation that is in my amendment which was 
based on the most current data, which means the 1990 population 
figures, the 1990 needs. But it was changed by the subcommittee, and I 
want to change it back. The reason should be clear.
  Mr. Chairman, if my amendment does not pass, Illinois, represented by 
me and 19 other Members of this body, will lose almost $83 million over 
5 years. Also, Arizona will lose $50 million; California, $186 million; 
Connecticut, $4 million; Florida, $3 million; Georgia, $20 million; 
Indiana, $58 million; Kansas, $737,000; Kentucky, $1\1/2\ million; 
Louisiana, $850,000; Massachusetts, $78,000; New Jersey, $25,000; New 
York, $381 million; North Carolina, $74 million; Oregon, $1 million; 
Pennsylvania, $3.575 million; Tennessee, $1 million; Texas, $4 million; 
Virginia, $27 million; Washington, $35 million; West Virginia, $1.2 
million; American Samoa, $1.2 million; Guam, $875,000. For the 21 
affected States we are talking about a total of almost $1 trillion; to 
be exact, $955 million.
  But obviously some States benefit from the provision. Alaska gains 
$37 million; Hawaii, $55 million; Iowa, $77 million; Missouri, $99 
million, and Wisconsin is the biggest winner with an increase of more 
than $127 million.
  I would not be so bold as to suggest that the 16 Members from 
Wisconsin vote for this amendment. If they did, they would be voting 
against $127 million for their own State. The same goes for the 
Representatives of the 29 States that benefit from this allocation that 
is presently in the bill. Although I would be more than happy to have 
their votes, I certainly will not seek them, expect them to vote 
against the best interests of their State, but, if I and every other 
Member from a State that losses money under the new allocation votes 
against this amendment, we will be voting against our State. That does 
not make any sense to me, Mr. Chairman.
  This amendment is not complicated. There are winners and losers on 
the issue. But if every Member votes in the best interest of his or her 
State, my amendment will pass 299 to 136. I hope that will happen.
  amendment offered by mr. bateman as a substitute for the amendment 
                        offered by mr. lipinski

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bateman as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Lipinski: Pages 231 and 232, strike 
     the table and insert the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Percentage of sums authorized for fiscal
                                                  year                  
            State             ------------------------------------------
                                 1996      1997      1998    1999 & 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................    1,0693    1.0110    0.9504   0.8896    
Alaska.......................    0.5723    0.5411    0.5087   0.4761    
Arizona......................    0.7139    0.7464    0.7767   0.8060    
Arkansas.....................    0.6255    0.5914    0.5560   0.5204    
California...................    7.5590    7.9031    8.2244   8.5345    
Colorado.....................    0.7649    0.7232    0.6885   0.6847    
Connecticut..................    1.2948    1.3537    1.3718   1.3643    
Delaware.....................    0.4694    0.4438    0.4173   0.3905    
District of Columbia.........    0.4694    0.4438    0.4173   0.3905    
Florida......................    3.4532    3.4462    3.4304   3.4115    
Georgia......................    1.7870    1.8683    1.9443   1.9993    
Hawaii.......................    0.7406    0.7002    0.6583   0.6161    
Idaho........................    0.4694    0.4438    0.4173   0.3905    
Illinois.....................    4.7801    4.9976    5.2008   5.3970    
Indiana......................    2.5472    2.6631    2.7714   2.8759    
Iowa.........................    1.2942    1.2236    1.1503   1.0767    
Kansas.......................    0.8708    0.8690    0.8650   0.8602    
Kentucky.....................    1.3452    1.3570    1.3508   1.3433    
Louisiana....................    1.0512    1.0060    1.0014   0.9958    
Maine........................    0.7402    0.6999    0.6666   0.6629    
Maryland.....................    2.3128    2.1867    2.0557   1.9241    
Massachusetts................    3.5884    3.7518    3.9043   4.0515    
Michigan.....................    4.1117    3.8875    3.8061   3.7850    
Minnesota....................    1.7576    1.6618    1.5622   1.4622    
Mississippi..................    0.8615    0.8146    0.7658   0.7167    
Missouri.....................    2.6509    2.5063    2.3562   2.2054    
Montana......................    0.4694    0.4438    0.4173   0.3905    
Nebraska.....................    0.4891    0.4624    0.4347   0.4069    
Nevada.......................    0.4694    0.4438    0.4173   0.3905    
New Hampshire................    0.9556    0.9035    0.8494   0.7950    
New Jersey...................    4.3190    4.5156    4.6686   4.6428    
New Mexico...................    0.4694    0.4438    0.4173   0.3905    
New York.....................   11.6659   12.1969   12.6928  13.1714    
North Carolina...............    1.9075    1.9943    2.0754   2.1537    
North Dakota.................    0.4694    0.4438    0.4173   0.3905    
Ohio.........................    5.3833    5.0898    4.9266   4.8993    
Oklahoma.....................    0.7726    0.7304    0.6867   0.6427    
Oregon.......................    1.1939    1.2399    1.2342   1.2274    
Pennsylvania.................    4.1866    4.2145    4.1952   4.1720    
Rhode Island.................    0.6421    0.6071    0.5707   0.5342    
South Carolina...............    0.9796    0.9262    0.8707   0.8150    
South Dakota.................    0.4694    0.4438    0.4173   0.3905    
Tennessee....................    1.4697    1.4668    1.4600   1.4520    
Texas........................    4.6552    4.6458    4.6245   4.5989    
Utah.........................    0.5039    0.4764    0.4479   0.4192    
Vermont......................    0.4694    0.4438    0.4173   0.3905    
Virginia.....................    2.1630    2.2615    2.3534   2.4379    
Washington...................    1.8380    1.9217    1.9998   2.0752    
West Virginia................    1.4907    1.4249    1.4184   1.4106    
Wisconsin....................    2.5852    2.4442    2.2978   2.1507    
Wyoming......................    0.4694    0.4438    0.4173   0.3905    
Puerto Rico..................    1.2472    1.1792    1.1185   1.1123    
Northern Marianas............    0.0399    0.0377    0.0355   0.0332    
American Samoa...............    0.0859    0.0812    0.0763   0.0714    
Guam.........................    0.0621    0.0587    0.0552   0.0517    
Palau........................    0.1224    0.1158    0.1088   0.1019    
Virgin Islands...............    0.0551    0.0576    0.0599   0.0599.''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I rise 
reluctantly to offer an alternative by way of a substitute for the 
amendment just discussed and presented by the distinguished gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski]. Our relationship has been a very close 
and cordial one, and I would hold it up as an example of the bipartisan 
spirit in which all of us should conduct our affairs for all Members of 
the House.
  Let me say that I find myself somewhat in the position of the 
interloper who sought to separate two young sisters involved in a fist 
fight in the schoolyard, where the interloper, the peacemaker, became 
the subject of attack by both parties. There are indeed winners and 
losers any time we change any formula by which funding is allocated, as 
the gentleman from Illinois has pointed out.
  One of the things that we must bear in mind, however, as we go 
through this debate about how to accomplish this reallocation based 
upon a new formula is some notion of equity, especially as it bears 
upon the default of the Congress over so many years to have upgraded 
the formula that has been in the law since the 1970's. We did not do 
that which we should have done over that long period of time, and so 
finally, when we have a new need for assessment and a proposed formula 
for allocation, it creates incredible peaks and valleys for so many 
States. There are States that lose as much as 59 percent of the funding 
they have historically been receiving. There are States which have 
enormous gains as a result in the new formula. The committee bill has 
capped the gains and losses at 5 percent. The amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] implements the new formula 
without any caps, without any effort to deal with the incredible losses 
which some States will sustain while giving all of the gain to every 
State----
  Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BATEMAN. Not at this point; I will try to save some time so that 
I might at the end.
  The alternative provision that I offer to both the committee bill and 
to the gentleman from Illinois' amendment is to allow those States that 
gain to gain more than is available to them under the committee bill 
while at the same time putting some floor under the losses of the 
losing States. Under my substitute amendment, Mr. Chairman, the gainers 
would gain 5 percent each year until they had gained 20 percent above 
their present allocations. The losers would lose 5 percent each year 
until they had lost 20 percent of their allocation. Obviously this is 
an effort to do some equity, to prevent the enormous peaks and valleys 
that would occur if we just implement the new assessment formula 
without any change, but certainly would be dealing more equitably with 
the gaining States than allowing them significantly more of the gains 
they are entitled to under the new formula than would the committee 
bill as it comes to the floor.
  I strongly recommend to my colleagues that, not only from a sense of 
equity, but in terms of looking at this bill more analytically, that 
they support my substitute amendment. There are States which would gain 
more under the gentleman from Illinois' amendment, but suppose the 
gentleman from Illinois' amendment at 
[[Page H4877]] the end of the day is not the version which carries. 
They would then be stuck with the allocation formula in the bill as it 
comes to the floor or some modification which ultimately may arise in 
committee of conference, and under the worst possible case, if the bill 
is not enacted into law, we would have no reauthorization other than 
revolving funds and no funds in the future.
  I say to my colleagues, ``When you contemplate all of the 
alternatives, I think the responsible, the fair, the equitable 
alternative would be found to be the one which I offer this morning.''
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BATEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Could the gentleman answer the following questions? The 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] gave us a list of States, of how 
much they would lose under the committee's formula compared to his 
formula. It names some of the larger losers, and can the gentleman tell 
me the corresponding figures for his substitute, please?
  Mr. BATEMAN. I do not have them in front of me. I will get them and 
bring them to the gentleman. There is a list, and it will be available 
on the floor. I do not have it in my remarks. I do not have it in front 
of me.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me, I have 
those figures, and I will give them to him.
  Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
so we can get those figures?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Nadler and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bateman 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BATEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have the list. The gentleman wants to 
know what the losses are going to be. He does not know what you are 
going to ask.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Might I suggest if the time has been yielded back to me, 
the more orderly way to proceed might be for me to yield back the time 
and then you all can raise such questions as you want, and then I will 
try and have the information to respond. At this point let me yield 
back the time. I am not trying to avoid getting you the information.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first make a couple of comments here. 
Allocations of highway funding should be based on need and population. 
That is the tradition in the House and the fairest way. The amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois bases the allocations on the 
latest needs figures from 1990 and on the latest population figures 
from the 1990 census. Of course, they differ from the needs and 
population figured in 1970, 20 years ago, based on a 20-year-old 
formula. Of course, some States have greater needs now relative to 
others and greater population now relative to others, and others have 
less.
  They should gain and lose accordingly. If some States have much less 
needs, then they should have much less funds. If some States have much 
more needs, they should get a much greater proportion. That is the 
fairest way to do it, and that is what the gentleman from Illinois 
does, and that is the tradition we have followed over the years.
  The committee formula bases it on current needs and population, 
modified by a hold-harmless formula to say that those States which no 
longer have the need relative to others should continue getting more 
than they need relative to others.
  The substitute of the gentleman from Virginia says well, we are not 
going to continue that indefinitely, but we are going to continue to 
give an unfair proportion to some States, to 6 States, and an unfairly 
low proportion to 26 States, for 5 years. In fact, for any that are off 
balance by more than 20 percent, indeterminately. It is not fair and 
not right.
  Therefore I urge the defeat of the substitute amendment and the 
adoption of the amendment.
  With that, I will ask if the gentleman from Illinois would answer a 
couple of questions.
  I would ask the gentleman, under the committee formula, Washington 
loses $35 million. How much would it lose under the gentleman from 
Virginia's amendment?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. $28,452,500.
  Mr. NADLER. Virginia loses $27 million. How much would it lose under 
the amendment?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. $18,588,500.
  Mr. NADLER. New York loses $318 million. Under the gentleman's 
substitute, how much would it lose?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. The great State of New York would lose $270,720,500.
  Mr. NADLER. Illinois would lose $83 million. How much would it lose 
under the substitute?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. $63,375,000.
  Mr. NADLER. Arizona would lose $50 million. How much would it lose 
under the substitute?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. $47,850,000.
  Mr. NADLER. California would lose $186 million under the gentleman's 
substitute.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. $155,570,000.
  Mr. NADLER. And Florida would lose $3 million. Under the gentleman's 
substitute, how much would it lose?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. $4,888,000.
  Mr. NADLER. Indiana would lose $58 million under the gentleman's 
substitute.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. $47,962,000.
  Mr. NADLER. Georgia would lose $20 million under the gentleman's 
substitute.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. $14,220,000.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe the gentleman's substitute does 
very little, as you heard from those figures, to undo the inequity of 
the committee formula. The gentleman's substitute should not be 
adopted. The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, which bases the 
allocation formula strictly on needs and on population based on the 
1990 census, should be adopted as continuing the tradition of the House 
to base these allocations fairly on population and on needs. And if 
some States have much less needs currently, so be it. If others have 
greater, they should get proportionately what they need.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would not question the arithmetic of the gentleman 
from Illinois or the gentleman from New York. I would question, 
however, the ultimate analysis and where the bottom line falls. It is 
true that States you enumerated would not do as well under my 
substitute as under the Lipinski amendment. I think, however, you need 
to assess it in the context of what is the difference between the 
version of the formula in the committee bill and the Bateman 
substitute, and all of those States would be substantially improved or 
enhanced under my substitute, more than they would under the bill as it 
comes to the floor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, here are the differences. The States that 
have greater needs and greater populations would not be substantially 
benefited and treated substantially more fairly under the substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia. Compare: Washington would only 
lose $28 million instead of $35 million. Is $7 million substantial? It 
would still lose $28 million from what it should get. Virginia would 
lose $18 million instead of $27 million. New York would lose $270 
million. It is better than $318 million, but still $270 million. 
Unfair. Illinois would lose $63 million. Better than $83 million. 
California would lose $155 million. A little better than $186 million, 
but still $155 million less than it should get. Georgia, $14 million; 
Florida, $3 million.
  The sum and substance, Mr. Chairman, is that most States, the 
majority of States, 26 States, would be treated 
[[Page H4878]] unfairly under this amendment and under the substitute. 
Six States would gain. There is no reason for that other than a desire 
to protect the States which have relatively less need, and in this era 
of fiscal stringency, where we are going to be cutting down the funds 
appropriated pursuant to this appropriations bill, we should not treat 
the States unfairly.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if this passes, will the gentleman from 
New York vote for the bill? If the Lipinski amendment passes, will the 
gentleman vote for the bill?
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if many of the other changes that I and 
others on this side have suggested are adopted, I would certainly 
consider it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for his obfuscation.
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, it is never a valid argument against 
an amendment that the people supporting the amendment may or may not 
support the bill. The question is, What does the bill look like at the 
end? I cannot tell you right now what the bill is going to look like at 
the end. I reserve judgment on whether I will vote.
  Mr. SCHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  Mr. Chairman, in the committee bill we rewrote the formula. The 
formula was developed in the 1970's based on population and based on 
needs. As a result of the changing needs and the changing population, 
we rewrote that formula. However, in doing so, we recognized that it 
would have an extreme impact on 23 States, which under the raw formula 
change would see one-third or more of their grants wiped out between 
1995 and 1996. Three States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Iowa, would have their 
programs cut by 55 to 70 percent. So we said to ease the pain and the 
transition, we would put a plus or minus 10 percent cap, which seems to 
be fair.
  Now, Pennsylvania would gain under Mr. Lipinski's wiping out of this 
10 percent cap. But, nevertheless, in the interest of balance and 
fairness, I think that it is appropriate to have some form of 
transition.
  Along comes the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bateman], which actually goes a lot further toward Mr. Lipinski than 
the 10-percent cap which we imposed in the committee. Under this 
formula, it would go from a 55-percent cap to 10 percent in the second 
year, to 15 percent, to 20 percent, and 20 percent in the fifth year, 
the final year of this bill. Presumably there would be no caps as we 
move beyond the fifth year.
  I think that is more balanced and more fair. It phases out the caps 
and, ultimately over a 5-year period, we get to the raw formula that 
Mr. Lipinski is proposing, and the formula which is in the bill, 
without the caps.
  So, for all of those reasons, I believe in the interest of fairness 
and balance, we should support the Bateman amendment as a compromise to 
this issue, and urge adoption of the Bateman amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bateman substitute 
amendment and am in support of the Lipinski amendment. The formula used 
to allocate wastewater State evolving loan fund money under existing 
law is based on data from the mid-1970's, with most of the weight on 
needs and relatively little weight on population. No one can defend 
using out-of-date data as the best way to allocate scarce resources, or 
to effectively address needs into the 21st century, which is what the 
formula we put in this bill will have to do.
  All the clean water bills introduced in the last Congress and in this 
Congress, including H.R. 961 as originally introduced, have used the 
same new formula, one that retains the weights in existing law but is 
based on the latest needs and population data available.
  The formula was changed during subcommittee markup. This latest 
formula--the one that is in the reported bill--basically keeps the 
formula that is in existing law, but adjusts a State's allocation up or 
down by 10 percent. That is hardly bringing the formula up to date.
  We have heard a great deal in this Congress, and by proponents of 
this bill, about making decisions based on sound science. But one is 
hard put to explain how relying on data that are 20 years out of date 
and an arbitrary plus or minus 10 percent adjustment can be sound 
science.
  Because of tight Federal budget, wastewater treatment program suffers 
from severely limited funding. It is, therefore, imperative that we use 
the money available in the most effective way possible. Allocating it 
in the way best reflective of current needs is part of assuring that it 
is used as effectively as possible. The formula in existing law, of 
course, does not meet that test. Neither does the formula in H.R. 961.
  It has been argued that while a change in the existing formula is 
clearly overdue, we should only marginally adjust the formula because 
otherwise a few States would have their allotments changed 
substantially. That may be true. But it is only because we have waited 
so long to update the formula. For instance, if you allow no Social 
Security cost-of-living adjustment for 20-year catch-up cost-of-living 
adjustment will produce a big jump, too. But that does not make it any 
less justified.
  The gentleman from Illinois has circulated a ``Dear Colleague'' so 
that Members can see exactly how the formula in this bill would treat 
all States and how the formula in his amendment would treat all States. 
Given the importance of this vote, I would urge all Members to be 
familiar with that information before they cast their votes. If anyone 
does not have that information, I am sure that Mr. Lipinski can make 
that available to our colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time in support of the Lipinski 
amendment.
                              {time}  1030

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the Bateman amendment and in opposition 
to the Lipinski amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment which would reinstate 
a previously rejected and inequitable formula for the allocation of 
Federal capitalization grants for State revolving loan funds.
  First of all, it is my understanding that there is a certain amount 
of controversy regarding the validity of the 1992 needs survey on which 
the formula in the amendment is based. In addition, the formula results 
in such wild fluctuations that most States experience either tremendous 
losses or tremendous gains in their allotment.
  My own State of Wisconsin would experience a 48-percent drop from the 
formula in existing law. And that is not the most severe decrease--
several States would be cut even more dramatically. How can we be 
expected to support that?
  A decrease of that amount would be particularly frustrating and 
discouraging to States which are leaders in water quality programs and 
devote State resources to wastewater treatment programs beyond the 
required 20-percent match under the Clean Water Act. Many of these 
leaders would be cut severely under this amendment. A 10-percent 
decrease still causes some concern, but a 48-percent drop would be 
devastating and would send the wrong message to our State partners in 
clean water.
  I can assure you that many of us would be happy to receive a 10-
percent increase. Some States will receive less of an increase under 
the formula in H.R. 961, but they are still receiving a 10-percent 
increase.
  Finally, I believe that we really should take another look at what 
elements are included in this needs based formula. H.R. 961 opens up 
the State revolving loan funds so that States can use the Federal funds 
for wastewater treatment, clean lakes programs, nonpoint source 
pollution control programs, watershed and stormwater programs, and a 
host of other activities. But this formula reportedly is based 
primarily on wastewater treatment capital infrastructure requirements.
  But if you consider Wisconsin's nearly 15,000 lakes, 57,000 stream 
and river miles, 1,100 miles of Great Lakes shoreline, 1,700 square 
miles of estuaries and harbors, and the agricultural pollution 
[[Page H4879]] challenges that we face from 70,000 farms--which is four 
times what New York State has--and if all of these factors were 
included in the formula, I can assure you the overwhelming water needs 
we have in Wisconsin would become quite apparent.
  I want to commend the chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee for his action and leadership on this issue. 
And I urge that the Lipinski amendment be defeated by the House as it 
already has been in the committee.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I take it the gentleman agrees with me and 
shares my concern that if you just implemented the raw data from the 
new formula, 29 States would lose, some of them as much as of 9 percent 
of their funding.
  Mr. PETRI. That is absolutely right. What this would do, too, is, 
frankly, based on needs and not looking at what States have done tends 
to reward States that have been ineffective in using funds they got 
under the last program rather than States that have done a good job.
  It seems to me that is a little bit funny, plus removing the nonpoint 
source approaches here and the needs assessment survey does not reflect 
the broadening of the State and Federal pollution fighting effort. The 
needs is based on wastewater needs, not on total needs in each State.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess the bottom line here is that we often get 
embroiled in these formula debates here in the House. And I have heard 
some seemingly convincing arguments on the other side enumerating the 
number of States that would benefit under one formula or the other. 
But, of course, part of what is neglected in that argument is the 
population base on those States.
  Actually, under the Lipinski amendment, the math is pretty simple for 
299 Members of this House and for the constituents of 299 Members of 
this House. There is not enough money to do everything we need to do in 
wastewater treatment. I think there should be more money in the budget. 
I think the Republican budget proposed yesterday by slashing funds for 
infrastructure and wastewater treatment is going the wrong way. I would 
be willing to support a higher emphasis on these needs in our Nation. 
But given the fact we are fighting over a shrinking pie here, there is 
a pretty basic equation.
  That is, if you lose under the committee bill, which 299 Members of 
this body do, far more than a simple majority, those same 299 Members 
still lose under the Bateman substitute to the Lipinski amendment.
  So I would suggest, despite all the Rube Goldberging and everything 
else that is going on around here, that we get back to the basic facts. 
And that is, the needs are not met in those States represented by 299 
Members any better than they are in the other States represented by a 
minority of Members in this House who would benefit under this 
amendment. So I would strongly suggest that any of those 299 who vote 
to gut the Lipinski amendment will perhaps have some explaining to do 
when they go home to their constituents.
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong support of the Lipinski amendment and in 
opposition to the Bateman substitute.
   Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his very 
thoughtful substitute. And he is my friend and I reluctantly oppose his 
substitute here. I would say that under its current form, title VI of 
the Clean Water Act amendment authorizes an annual allocation of $2.5 
billion over the next 5 years for State water pollution controlling 
revolving funds or SRF's. These SRF's provide critical assistance to 
States for the operation loan programs, for the construction and 
maintenance of municipal wastewater treatment plants. These loans 
represent the frontline for localities in their struggle to improve our 
drinking water quality.
  However, as it is written now, title VI unfairly distributes these 
funds under a bizarre and outdated formula that is based on estimated 
needs and population statistics from the 1970's. Instead, the Lipinski 
allocation reflects real needs and uses real current census data, the 
result being a better return for each dollar spent.
  The Bateman substitute, on the other hand, attempts to address 
inequity through a level of caps and also trying to move in this same 
direction. But to offer or foster the argument that we have a past 
inequity that is 20 years old, that is based on data that is that old, 
that will only move toward correcting it rather than correcting it now 
seems to be perpetuating the same wrong of the past just to a lesser 
degree.
  I think in pure fairness, we should adopt the Lipinski amendment and 
reject the Bateman substitute, painful though it may be for those 
States who have, under the current calculation, received more than they 
should have for many years and will continue to receive more under this 
substitute.
  If the Lipinski amendment is not adopted, then States like 
California, New York, and my home State of Illinois will lose millions. 
The Lipinski amendment is a question of fairness. With the adoption of 
this amendment, States like Illinois will receive their equitable share 
of SRF assistance as opposed to something closer to their equitable 
share.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Lipinski amendment and to 
defeat the Bateman substitute.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bateman 
substitute amendment, and I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
   Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my very good friend, and I mean this 
sincerely, my very good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bateman], putting forth this amendment. He and I came to Congress 
together. We were friends then.
  In the last few years, we worked very closely together on the 
Merchant Marine Subcommittee. In fact, I doubt seriously there has ever 
been a majority or minority that worked any closer together. So I am 
happy that he has brought forth this amendment. I know that he frames 
it as a compromise, but in all honesty I do not see it as a compromise. 
It is a minute step in the right direction but only a minute step in 
the right direction.
  Let us remember that my amendment simply restores what was in the 
bill last year, what was in the bill at the beginning of this year, and 
what was not removed from the bill until the subcommittee markup.
  At the full committee markup, I attempted to return to the original 
formula in the bill based upon 1990 population and needs. We lost. We 
lost on a
 vote of 30 to 30. Unfortunately the 31st vote in our favor wandered in 
the door a few minutes after the gavel fell. The next day we attempted 
to revive it for another vote, but we failed. It was tabled.

  Mr. Chairman, I have heard people talk about here today that it was 
defeated in committee. There have been letters sent out saying it was 
defeated in committee, my amendment. It is true, but I thought I would 
put it in the proper perspective.
  Once again I would like to reiterate, there are winners and there are 
losers. I oppose and I ask you to oppose the Bateman substitute, and I 
ask you to support the Lipinski amendment, particularly the following 
States: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New 
York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, 
Washington, and West Virginia.
  If you do not defeat the Bateman amendment and support the Lipinski 
amendment, those States will lose close to $800 million.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Lipinski amendment. I have 
great deal of respect for the gentleman from Illinois but I think this 
approach is flawed. I will be supporting the Bateman amendment and vote 
against the Lipinski amendment because, quite frankly, the Lipinski 
provides an inequitable allotment formula for the 
[[Page H4880]] distribution of State revolving loan funds.
  Sure, I would love to think solely about my State and how much more 
money we could get out of the Lipinski formula. But we are talking 
about clean water as a national policy here. Every State deserves a 
fair allotment. The fact of the matter is the SRF is a national 
program. We in Congress have a duty and responsibility to ensure that 
national programs are run fairly and equitably. The chairman and the 
committee did that in the committee, and the Bateman substitute goes 
even further toward that end.
  It provides safeguards to prevent huge disparities in funding 
allotments and ensures that no State benefits at the expense of another 
State. Under Lipinski, however, only a few States would benefit at the 
expense of 23 other States, 14 of which stand to see their SFR funds 
cut by more than 50 percent. This is not fair, and it simply is not 
good public policy especially at a time when we are encouraging States 
to play a more active role in managing their pollution control 
programs.
  Mr. Bateman's amendment is more evenhanded and does not contain this 
egregious treatment that some States receive under the Lipinski 
amendment. The allotment formula is far more objective.
  For this reason, I ask my colleagues to do the fair thing and vote 
against the Lipinski amendment and vote for the Bateman substitute.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the Bateman substitute and in 
opposition to the Lipinski amendment.
  The gentleman is entirely correct in his formula approach; by that I 
mean the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], as was the committee. 
However, the committee balanced the extraordinary impact that would 
occur on the handful of States, somewhere 14 to 20, that would be so 
disproportionate to their present funding that it simply was not fair.
                              {time}  1045

  I would have no quarrel with accepting the formula of the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], if it did not so disservice that handful 
of States. The gentleman from Illinois was also correct when he read 
his list a moment ago and included my home State of Louisiana as one 
that would lose under both the committee and the substitute amendment 
by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman]. But I believe a State 
like Louisiana, that I represent, would lose something bigger if we did 
not understand that we should not gain at the tremendous expense of 
those who would be so unfairly impacted by the rigid change in 
allocation of formula.
  Therefore, the phase-in by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] 
is a much fairer approach, balances between the two, and I hope is 
supported by a majority of the House. We come here never forgetting 
where we are from, but we also recognize that ``U.S.'' stands in front 
of ``Congressman,'' and on the occasions when our States would be so 
severely negatively impacted we hope to remember and remind those that 
we helped at these times in asking their help in the future.
  For that reason, I, on one of the rare occasions, disagree with the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski]. I am going to oppose his 
amendment.
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Lipinski amendment. 
H.R. 961, as passed by the Transportation Committee, authorizes general 
State revolving fund capitalization grants at $3 billion each year for 
fiscal years 1996 through 2000. These SRF capitalizing grants provide 
essential assistance to States and local governments which will be 
faced with over $120 billion in capital needs related to Clean Water 
Act water quality requirements over the next 20 years.
  In addition to increasing the total amount of SRF grants available to 
States and localities, title VI, as passed by the committee, is based 
on the population and the recently estimated needs of a State, and 
includes a hold harmless cap to prevent any State from losing or 
gaining more than 20 percent of its prior allotment.
  The current SRF allotment formula is based on an outdated 1977 State 
population and needs data. The Lipinski amendment would force States to 
absorb the effects of updating a nearly 20-year-old SRF formula in 1 
year. Without the Bateman amendment and the 20-percent floor and cap, 
there would be many very big losers and a couple of very big gainers. 
The elimination of the 20-percent loss limitation, as proposed by Mr. 
Lipinski, would
 result in 30 States and the District of Columbia being faced with a 
drastic reduction in their share of SRF grants.

  New Hampshire would be the fourth largest loser under the Lipinski 
allotment formula. It would suffer a 53-percent reduction in its 
current allotment of SRF grants, which translates as a loss of over $10 
million per year. Based on the 1992 Needs Survey Report to Congress, 
New Hampshire's total sewage infrastructure needs a total over $1 
billion. This cut of $53 million between fiscal years 1996 and 2000 
would be devastating to the communities of New Hampshire. New 
Hampshire's $536 million in new sewer construction needs would still be 
unmet. Its $164 million in wastewater treatment needs would be unmet. 
Its $37 million in rehabilitation of existing sewer needs would be 
unmet. And its $330 million in combined sewer overflow needs would be 
unmet. The amendment would financially cripple communities throughout 
the State and hinder efforts to improve the quality of their water 
resources.
  New Hampshire is by no means the only State faced with enormous water 
infrastructure costs, nor is it the only State that would be faced with 
severe reductions in its SRF allotment under the Lipinski amendment. 
There would be far more big losers than big gainers under this 
amendment. The biggest losers would be Hawaii at a 66-percent loss, 
Alaska at 59 percent, Iowa at 55 percent, Delaware at 50 percent, 
Montana at 50 percent, Nevada at 50 percent, New Mexico at 50 percent, 
North Dakota at 50 percent, South Dakota at 50 percent, Wyoming at 50 
percent, and Idaho at 49 percent. The big winners under the Lipinski 
amendment would be Arizona at a 68-percent increase, North Carolina, at 
42 percent, and New York at 32 percent. Mr. Lipinski's State of 
Illinois would gain 24 percent. Mr. Chairman, is it fair for 10 States 
to lose 50 percent or more of their SRF funding to 1 State's gain of 68 
percent; or for 22 States and the District of Columbia to lose 30 
percent or more of their funding to 5 States' gain of 30 percent or 
more? With the 10 percent hold harmless in place, the 30 States and the 
District of Columbia which would have otherwise suffered significant 
cuts in their share of the SRF grants will be able to continue their 
needed wastewater treatment projects.
  This is an issue of fairness and of sound national public policy. Let 
us not return the Clean Water Act to be an unfunded mandate for a 
majority of the States. It is our obligation to ensure equity in the 
SRF allotment distribution so that all States, counties, and localities 
across this Nation have the ability to meet their wastewater 
infrastructure needs and to do their part in improving the quality of 
America's water resources. I strongly urge my colleagues join with me, 
support the Bateman amendment, and vote ``no'' on the Lipinski 
amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of my 
good friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], and in support 
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, the allocation formula of the gentleman 
from Illinois would virtually wipe out in less than a year almost half 
of the State clean water programs in this program. Maryland would lose 
money under this formula, but as many of us here have discussed in the 
last few minutes, it is not the focus of one State versus another 
State. We are not in competition. If we are in a mode to understand the 
necessity for watershed management for clean water, where a number of 
States in a particular watershed have to work together to clean their 
water, to reduce the problem of nonpoint source pollution, to do all 
those things that are necessary for States to improve the quality of 
life for 
[[Page H4881]] those people, and to have a State revolving loan fund to 
impact that, the formula of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] 
does not do that.
  In my judgment, under the allocation of the gentleman from Illinois, 
over 20 States or a third or more of the States with SRF grants would 
largely be eliminated. The States that gain under the amendment of the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] would still gain under the 
committee bill and under the gentleman's amendment, they just would not 
gain as much.
  To be fair to the many States that may potentially lose large 
portions of their programs, this amendment should be defeated. I 
encourage Members to vote for the Bateman amendment.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lipinski amendment and 
in opposition to the Bateman amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BORSKI. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania for yielding 
to me.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have failed to mention the fact that I 
think that during the course of the subcommittee markup, full committee 
markup, and here on the House floor, with a bill that is very 
controversial, because people have very strong opinions, that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation, has done an outstanding job. I have 
said this on other occasions, and I want to say it once again.
  I would also like to jump back just for a moment to my friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], because it pains me to be up 
here opposing him when, as I say, in the last 2 years we worked so 
diligently on attempting to save the U.S. merchant marine.
  However, I have to say that the Bateman substitute suffers from the 
same defects as the ones in the bill. It uses the same outdated 
population and needs data to apportion SRF money to finance 
construction of wastewater facilities. The result is a formula that 
bears no resemblance to the clean water needs we face today. Thus, it 
will not help us prepare for the environmental challenges we will be 
facing in the near future.
  The phase-in period is also problemmatical. It simply means that we 
have to wait another 4 years to get 20 percent of the adjustment we 
need to reflect current and future needs. We have waited a long time to 
update the wastewater SRF formula. We should not have to wait another 4 
years to get another 20 percent of the changes in the current data 
showing that we need it now. For the sake of getting the most efficient 
allocation of resources, of getting the most bang for our buck, we 
should defeat the substitute, and we should support the Lipinski 
amendment.
  One last time, I simply want to say that if Members are from the 
following States, and there are 299 Members from the following States, 
if you are from these States, defeat the Bateman amendment, support the 
Lipinski amendment, and these States will gain close to $1 trillion: 
Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North 
Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, 
and West Virginia.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and congratulate him 
on his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(c) of rule 
XXIII, the Chair announces that he may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the period of time within which a rollcall vote may be taken 
without intervening business on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 246, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 327]

                               AYES--160

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Mfume
     Minge
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Portman
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roth
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--246

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Boehner
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     [[Page H4882]] Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Baker (LA)
     Bono
     Boucher
     Collins (IL)
     Cox
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Fattah
     Gejdenson
     Hancock
     Hefner
     Hoyer
     Istook
     Kasich
     McDermott
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Rogers
     Tanner
     Torres
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
                              {time}  1122

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On the vote:

       Mr. Watts of Oklahoma for, with Mr. Bono against.

  Mr. SOLOMON, Ms. PELOSI, and Messrs. STOCKMAN, PACKARD, NEAL of 
Massachusetts, ROYCE, CUNNINGHAM, DICKS, GALLEGLY, BUYER, 
FRELINGHUYSEN, LAZIO of New York, SMITH of Texas, TIAHRT, TORKILDSEN, 
KIM, and QUINN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ARMEY, GEKAS, LIGHTFOOT, DEAL of Georgia, NEY, CREMEANS, 
SABO, BALDACCI, and HOBSON, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Messrs. GEPHARDT, HEFLEY, 
EHLERS, and GANSKE, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Messrs. MFUME, BARCIA, and 
CLAY, Ms. KAPTUR, Messrs. EHRLICH, STUPAK, TAUZIN, BONIOR, GUTKNECHT, 
and RICHARDSON, and Miss COLLINS of Michigan changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I was in conference with Senators on the 
Senate side on the rescission bill and did not hear the bells nor 
realize a vote was being taken on rollcall No. 327. Had I been present 
and voting, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          personal explanation

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent on rollcall 327. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  I was unavoidably absent on rollcall 328. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, 
noes 154, not voting 33, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 328]

                               AYES--247

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baesler
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Olver
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--154

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeLay
     Dingell
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodling
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Minge
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Orton
     Oxley
     Parker
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Baker (LA)
     Bono
     Boucher
     Collins (IL)
     Cox
     Dickey
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Fattah
     Gejdenson
     Hancock
     Hefner
     Hoyer
     Istook
     Kasich
     Livingston
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Porter
     Rogers
     Skeen
     Tanner
     Torres
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. HILLEARY and Mr. McDERMOTT changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VI?
                    amendment offered by mr. largent

  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Largent: Page 232, strike lines 13 
     through 17 and insert the following:
       ``(7) $2,250,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(8) $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(9) $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(10) $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(11) $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
       Page 232, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 
     20 on page 234.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
       Page 32, line 6, strike ``$3,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``2,250,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes the gentleman from Oklahoma has an 
amendment which, in part, references title II. It will be necessary for 
the gentleman to ask for unanimous consent in order to have 
consideration of the 
[[Page H4883]] part of his amendment which affects title II.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, can we get a 
further explanation of that portion of it in terms of its relationship 
to title II?
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, does the Chair wish me to address the 
concern of our colleague, the gentleman from California, or address the 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair believes the gentleman from California has 
yielded to the gentleman from Oklahoma in pursuit of a question for 
further explanation of that part of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma that affects or impacts title II. The Chair 
would reference the gentleman to the last two lines of the amendment.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I would note that it is a conforming 
change, and we would ask that the last line be stricken.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I was just wanting to hear the 
explanation. I have no objection to what the gentleman is doing. I just 
wanted an explanation on the title II portion of it, and I appreciate 
that very, very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the original amendment will be 
considered.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Largent] for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to conform the water 
infrastructure authorizations in H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments 
of 1995, to the House budget resolution passed earlier yesterday 
morning.
  H.R. 961 currently authorizes roughly $3 billion annually for water 
infrastructure programs and capitalization of water quality State 
revolving funds. While these are laudable programs and the States do 
have an important unmet clean water need, the bill's authorization 
total is too high. The bills' fiscal year 1996 total of $3.05 billion 
is just over $750 million more than the $2.3 billion included in the 
House budget resolution passed by the Committee on the Budget.
  While my amendment represents a 25-percent reduction in H.R. 961, 
water infrastructure authorization, it still maintains the bill's 
authorization levels above the President's request of $1.87 billion for 
fiscal year 1996.
  Specifically, my amendment will eliminate the new nonpoint source 
State revolving fund capitalization program. This new program was not 
requested by the President and could cost up to $500 million a year. 
The program is redundant, since H.R. 961 allows moneys from the current 
State revolving fund program to be used for nonpoint source projects.
  My amendment further reduces the State revolving authorization from 
$2.5 billion annually to $2.25 billion in fiscal year 1996. That total 
is increased to $2.3 billion in fiscal years 1997 through 2000.
  My amendment will make a good bill better. The amendment is fiscally 
sound, while allowing the States to receive funding they need for water 
infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to include a letter that was written 
to the chairman, Chairman Shuster. This is from the Association of 
State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, the folks 
responsible with the State revolving fund. It is their strong 
recommendation, in fact, I will quote:

       It is the strong position of the Association that the 
     existing State revolving fund should be the mechanism for 
     infrastructure financing in the future, and that single-
     purpose grants like the nonpoint source revolving fund should 
     not be created, that the new nonpoint source State revolving 
     fund duplicates existing authority and is unnecessary, that 
     it would require duplication of administrative effort and 
     financial resources, it limits gubernatorial flexibility, 
     that it does not currently provide for the level of 
     flexibility provided under the existing SRF,

  And, again, finally, it is their basic position the Clean Water Act 
project-level technical and financial assistance should be consolidated 
rather then fragmented under the existing State revolving fund, and, 
therefore, they conclude, ``We are not in a position to be supportive 
of this provision that is included in the Clean Water authorization.''

         Association of State and Interstate, Water Pollution 
           Control Administrators,
                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 1995.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster: As was requested by the Committee, 
     the Association has reviewed the provision to create a State 
     Revolving Fund for non-point sources and provides the 
     following comments. Please be aware that, for the most part, 
     these comments have been shared personally with Chairman 
     Boehlert (in advance of the full committee mark-up) and some 
     items were addressed at that time.
       1. It is the strong position of the Association that the 
     existing SRF should be the mechanism for infrastructure 
     financing in the future. Subsidies/single purpose grants or 
     SRF's should not be created.
       2. This NPS/SRF duplicates existing authority and is 
     unnecessary inasmuch as non-point sources are already 
     eligible under the current program and non-point source 
     projects are currently being funded by states.
       3. The NPS/SRF would require some duplication of 
     administrative effort and financial resources to establish 
     and maintain. Again, this is an unnecessary expenditure, 
     because currently, authority allows for non-point source 
     loans.
       4. The NPS/SRF limits gubernatorial flexibility by 
     targeting State funds to a particular problem rather than the 
     overall goals of the Act--as determined by a State.
       5. The NPS/SRF does not currently provide for the level of 
     flexibility provided by the existing SRF, (i.e., the negative 
     interest options). Therefore, it is our understanding that 
     NPS loan recipients cannot benefit from reduced paybacks.
       6. It is our understanding that the Tax Act places a 
     restriction on the percentage (e.g. 10%) of an SRF that can 
     be provided to an individual or private sector entity when 
     tax exempt bonds are used to leverage or secure the State 
     match. As the NPS/SRF is specifically targeted to 
     individuals/farmers, this Tax Act restriction applies. Hence, 
     it is likely that only 10% of the total fund could be 
     utilized in some States.
       The ASIWPCA appreciates Chairman Boehlert's interest in 
     placing higher priority on non-point source pollution. Also, 
     ASIWPCA supports efforts, (within the context of the existing 
     SRF), to address these diffuse sources. However, our basic 
     position is that all Clean Water Act project-level technical 
     and financial assistance should be consolidated--rather than 
     fragmented--under the existing SRF. Therefore, we are not in 
     a position to be supportive of this provision.
       We hope that these comments are useful to the committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bruce Baker,
                                                        President.

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I must strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  We are all concerned about the budget and the Federal deficit. 
However, we cannot ignore the needs of our cities and States, and the 
bill before us is already inadequate to fully meet such needs.
  Current estimates of the needs of cities and States to meet water 
quality goals under the Clean Water Act are placed at $137 billion over 
the next 20 years. Even at $3 billion per year as provided in the bill, 
we will not be able to provide as much assistance to cities and States 
as I would prefer. Further reducing the amount will only delay 
achieving desired water quality.
  One of the recurring themes of the debate on this legislation has 
been the need to reduce unfunded mandates upon cities and States. 
Further reducing the authorized funding will not help in reducing 
unfunded mandates, it will only make matters worse.
  The $137 billion in needs which the cities and States have identified 
are real needs, and those needs will continue even if this bill were to 
become law.
  I would also like to point out to my colleagues, that the cuts in 
assistance to states and cities are even greater than they might 
appear. These Federal grants are for capitalization of State revolving 
loan funds--the money is used over and over in providing assistance to 
localities.
  Over 20 years, these funds will be used three times. Therefore, a 
$3.5 billion reduction over the life of this bill will actually be a 
reduction of over $10 
[[Page H4884]] billion in assistance to States and cities.
  Few of our Federal investments yield such a high return. We receive 
improved water quality, and the funds will be available in perpetuity.
  The final point I will make in opposition to the Largent amendment is 
that while I appreciate the efforts of the budget committee in 
developing spending assumptions, it is a function of the authorizing 
and appropriating committees to determine final funding levels for 
individual programs. This amendment presupposes the results of that 
process. And, it presupposes the results of that process even before 
the budget resolution has been considered by the House.
  Should the final budget resolution require reconciliation legislation 
or reduced levels of appropriations, then the House and appropriate 
committees can consider those options at that time. However, I believe 
that we would be doing a great disservice to the interests of the 
cities and States if we should choose to reduce the authorization 
levels in the bill at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the rejection of this amendment. We should allow 
the budget and appropriations process to work their course, and we 
should do our best to aid cities and States.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to support our full 
authorization that we brought to the floor. I would like to be able to 
support it because the needs for clean water far exceed the 
authorization which is in this bill.
  However, I am extremely cognizant of the extraordinary budget 
pressures this Congress faces. The general fund budget must be brought 
under control.
  So, for that reason, with some reluctance, I nevertheless must 
support the amendment which we have before us today, and perhaps most 
importantly, I think we should focus on the reality that in the last 
Congress the actual appropriation for this program was $2.3 billion.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] brings to the floor today a 
reduction which will nevertheless this coming year leave that 
authorization at $2.6 billion, or $300 million more than the reality of 
the actual appropriation which we saw last year. So considering the 
pressures we have on the budget, considering the reality of what the 
actual appropriations have been, and also recognizing the extraordinary 
needs that we have for clean water, I would urge support of the Largent 
amendment.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my opposition to this amendment that 
will continue the trend of reducing the investment in our Nation's 
infrastructure.
  The authorization levels in the committee bill show a commitment to 
continuing the program of investment that has existed for 20 years. 
This investment has been crucial to the success of our efforts to clean 
up the Nation's waters.
  Last year, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Oversight, I chaired a series of hearings that examined the need for 
more capital investment in this Nation.
  We found that the Nation's needs for investment in wastewater 
treatment are continuing to increase.
  The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the Nation's total 
investment needs in wastewater treatment to be almost $140 billion.
  It is estimated that an additional $6 billion a year is needed to 
meet our needs.
  One report by a respected infrastructure consulting firm estimated 
that we will have a $62 billion shortfall in our investment in 
wastewater treatment by the end of the decade.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe reducing the authorization levels in 
H.R. 961 is the way to meet our Nation's pressing water pollution 
problems.
  The State Revolving Loan Fund Program has been a shining success in 
the area of innovative financing on a cooperative Federal and State 
basis.
  The States contribute their share and then control the funds as they 
are recycled.
  Many other infrastructure initiatives have been looking to the Clean 
Water Act as a model for their own areas.
  We should not be attempting to curtail these programs but enhancing 
them as a way of solving our urgent water pollution problems.
  Adoption of this amendment would be another setback in our attempt to 
clean up our Nation's waters. I urge its defeat.
                              {time}  1145

  The States contribute their share and then control the funds as they 
are recycled. Many other infrastructure initiatives have been looking 
to the Clean Water Act as a model for their own areas. We should not be 
attempting to curtail these programs, but enhancing them as a way of 
solving our urgent water pollution problems. Adoption of this amendment 
would be another setback in our attempt to clean up our Nation's 
waters.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also make a note for those who are concerned 
most about unfunded mandates. If this amendment were to pass, we would 
give our States, and cities and localities more of an unfunded mandate 
to meet their needs. I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to the heart of the ability of 
cities to meet their obligations to clean up the Nation's waterways. At 
the very start of the Clean Water Act in 1956, my predecessor, John 
Plotnik, took on the daunting task, and then formidable and incredible 
task, of crafting legislation to clean up the Nation's waterways which 
are in a despicable state. He recognized that at the end of all the 
laws and all the discussions we have to have funds to cities and States 
to build sewage treatment plants to clean up their effluent, an 
incentive. A partnership was struck between the Federal Government, and 
municipalities and the States, and that partnership has grown, and it 
has worked extraordinarily well.
  Over the years of construction, of the construction grant program for 
the Federal water pollution control program, municipalities have used, 
in combination with Federal funds, some $75 billion to clean up point 
sources of discharge. And industry has spent in the range of $130 
billion to clean up their responsibility. Together over $205 billion 
spent in the last 25 years on cleaning up point source discharges to 
help clean up America's waterways. Most municipalities of large size 
meet secondary treatment standards, but the unmet needs and the most 
recent EPA surveys show $137 billion in needs by municipalities to 
build sewage treatment facilities to clean up those discharges. Talk 
will not clean them up. Talk will not take sewage out of the Nation's 
waterways. Treatment facilities do, and that costs money.
  Now several years ago we eliminated the construction grant program 
and replaced it with a revolving loan fund that shifted significantly 
greater costs to municipalities for their responsibility in what is 
essentially a Federal problem: Rivers run between States; that is a 
Federal responsibility. We have a partnership to carry out with them. 
We said no more grants, loans, that it is going to cost more, and now 
what the gentleman's amendment would do is for each State cut roughly 
one-quarter of the funding available to them to help municipalities to 
do the job of cleaning, continue the job of cleaning up, discharges 
into lakes and streams.
  Shifting of burden on to State and local governments is not the 
direction that we ought to go in the clean water program. It will take 
longer to achieve the Clean Water Act goals. It will take longer to 
address the incredibly complex problem of separating combined storm and 
sanitary sewers in this country. The CSO, the combined sewer overflow, 
problem continues to grow as we urbanize America, and less water is 
soaked up by wetlands, and goes directly into sewers, and causes more 
sewage to go into the Nation's waterways. We need to stay on track with 
the construction of sewage treatment facilities.
  I wish we did have a construction grant program. We now have this 
revolving loan program. I say to my colleagues, ``Don't make it more 
burdensome for local governments to meet their responsibilities to 
continue with the task of cleaning up their discharges 
[[Page H4885]] into the Nation's waterways. Make it a real 
partnership.''
  The funding in the bill that the committee has reported is in my 
judgment modest. It is less than what we need to achieve our goals. But 
it is a responsible figure. We should not cut below that number.
  Defeat the Largent amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just mention for the 
benefit of all the Members so that they understand where we are. We 
have just voted overwhelmingly to accept the Lipinski amendment so that 
our cities and States would be able to get the needed funds in order to 
meet the clean water needs of the cities and States across the country. 
It appears now this amendment would take away some $700 million in 
fiscal year 1996 for our cities and States and some $3.5 billion over 
the 5-year period, and so it seems to me, if our colleagues voted yes 
on the Lipinski amendment, then they should be voting no in very strong 
numbers again on the Largent amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Shuster and by unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I simply point out to my friends that 
under the Largent amendment, even with the cuts, the State revolving 
fund under the Largent amendment would still be very substantially 
higher than the appropriation requested by the Clinton administration. 
Under the Largent amendment the State revolving fund would be $2.3 
billion. The administration has only requested $1.6 billion, and so we 
still would be above the administration.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I make no apologies for the administration proposal. I 
think it is grossly inadequate. But I think the committee bill, which 
the chairman has reported out, is on target, it is responsible, it is 
less than, I think, what we need, but I think in today's budget climate 
it is an appropriate number, and we ought not to undercut the good work 
the committee has done.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, most of the Members know that the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] is not only an NFL Hall of Famer, but he is a 
very caring Hall of Famer here in this body. But I would like the 
people that are thinking about supporting the amendment, and I 
reluctantly rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I have 
a couple of concerns, but, first of all, yesterday we had a bill that 
would have placed on DOD an unfunded mandate that would have cost 
billions of dollars when it was proven that those DOD facilities, both 
the surface and the shore based, complied better, all put together, 
than individual ones, and that was an unfunded mandate, and I did not 
support that as well.
  I also believe in the authorization level in the committee mark that 
is thoughtful in the process. And I know that the mention of the 
Clinton budget. I do not imagine the President realized at the time of 
that budget that we were going to take a look and reauthorize the Clean 
Water Act as much as we are today.
  I also made a statement earlier that Members on both sides of the 
aisle have reacted in ways that, because of extremes on both sides, 
those that want to concrete the world and pollute, and yet those on the 
other side from the environmental groups that have used it as a weapon, 
and somewhere in between we have got to lie, but if we give this to the 
States, we have got to give them the right and the power to do what we 
are asking them to do, and I think the committee mark is adequate.
  I look in San Diego. If we treat secondary water in our sewage 
problem, it would cost us between $8 to $12 billion just for the city 
of San Diego in a waiver process. If we look at the Tijuana River that 
comes out of Mexico, that is why our beaches are fouled, and we need 
support in that, and the State cannot do it by itself.
  So reluctantly I rise in opposition to my friend's amendment, and I 
ask my colleagues to think twice before they degrade the amount in the 
level.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat perplexed as I face this issue, and it 
probably is the plight of a moderate. I can appreciate what the 
chairman is trying to do to get to a lower figure to reflect the 
everyday realities, the fiscal realities, we have now, and I can 
support that. But I cannot support eliminating section 606, the State 
nonpoint-source water pollution control revolving funds, for a very 
basis reason.
  We have constantly preached to American agriculture that we want them 
to identify with the problem and be part of the solution, and quite 
frankly American agriculture is justified when they come back to us and 
say, ``Quit giving us the sanctimonious sermon. How about a little 
financial assistance? You want us to do things that are going to cost 
money. We don't have the money. How about helping us out?''
  I think that is a legitimate request.
  So during the committee deliberations we debated long and hard on 
establishing a separate State nonpoint-source pollution revolving fund 
to the tune of $500 million. Give to the States the flexibility to use 
those funds to address the problem of nonpoint-source pollution, 
however, if there is a much higher priority and they want to use those 
funds for wastewater treatment plants, they can do so. So what we have 
said to the States and to agriculture is simply this:
  ``We have heard your pleas. On the one hand the States want 
flexibility. On the other hand agriculture wants some financial 
assistance.'' So we say we will accommodate both of those requests by 
setting up section 606, the nonpoint-source pollution revolving loan 
fund.
  Now with this amendment cutting back, and I understand the need to 
cut back; I am very sympathetic to what the ranking member has said and 
the chairman of the full committee has said. We know full well the 
legitimate needs that are out there all across America. It would take 
$130 billion if we are going to pass the funding right now as the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] has no eloquently stated, but 
we do not have that money.
  So we have to deal with the situation, not as we would like it, but 
as we are faced with it. So what I want to do is ask the author of the 
amendment if he is sympathetic to my basic request that we retain the 
section 606, State nonpoint-source pollution revolving fund, and if he 
would accept a perfecting amendment which would allow us to do so. Then 
when that is incorporated into his amendment, we can then go on to vote 
on the amendment as perfected, and everyone can vote as they best see 
fit.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, regretfully I would not be wiling to 
accept that friendly amendment, and let me just say a couple of things, 
reasons why.
  Currently the present funding for the State revolving fund is $1.2 
billion. Under this amendment we increase that funding over a billion 
dollars, where it would be $2.25 billion. Currently the State revolving 
fund has the flexibility to address nonpoint-source problems, and on 
top of that I have a letter to the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure from the Cattlemen's Association, the 
Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the sheep industry and pork producers, 
the very people that are concerned about nonpoint-source problems, and 
they say in this letter that the increased funding that we are 
authorizing under this amendment, that we believe that this provides 
adequate authority for States to reorient appropriate portions of the 
existing, the existing, State revolving fund creatively and 
aggressively and assisting those who must address nonpoint-source 
runoff, including provisions that allow modifications to reflect 
economic need.
  [[Page H4886]] And so the reason that I would object to this is that 
it is running 180 degrees opposite of what I feel like that we are 
trying to do in the 104th Congress, and that is try to reduce the 
amount of bureaucracy and creating any structures within the Clean 
Water Act.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is unfortunate, 
because the fact of the matter is what I am suggesting will not add $1, 
not $1, to the bottom line amount. But what it will add is flexibility 
for the Governors, and what it will do is guarantee for the first time 
that America's farmers have a source to apply to receive some 
assistance to follow through with instilling best management practices, 
doing the type of things that they want to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehlert was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have found repeatedly that America's 
farmers are among the best stewards of our land. They drink the water 
that we drink, they breathe the air that we breathe. They want to be 
responsible, but they lack the resources. And, very honestly, and I 
think everyone here will admit that under the present State revolving 
fund program, not one dime goes to American farmers to give them a 
helping hand.
  I want to guarantee that they know that there is a source of money 
that is fenced off for them. They can apply for it, they can use it. 
They can help be part of the solution. That is what they want to do.
  But, as I said earlier, the farmers of America are tired of our 
sanctimonious sermons coming from Washington, on this great hill, the 
citadel of freedom, telling them very pompously, ``We want you to be 
part of the solution. But, incidently, we are not going to give you any 
money to solve the problem.'' That is not responsible.
  So I fail to see why my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma would 
not accept the perfecting amendment that does not add one penny to the 
total bottom line amount. Not one penny. It just says for the first 
time, after this great deliberation in our Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, after I worked hand in glove with the chairman to 
develop something that was going to be meaningful. And it passed with 
not one dissenting vote. Nobody voted against it. Every single member 
of that committee, Democrat, Republican; liberal, conservative; 
supported the Boehlert amendment, because they said you are right, we 
have got to do something to recognize the problem, and we have got to 
do it with more than just words and good intentions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehlert was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to know one of the 
reasons I am proceeding is we are trying to draft the language for the 
perfecting amendment, so we can all appreciate that sometimes takes a 
little time. We have got great scholars and wizards in the back room 
doing that.
  But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Latham was here on 
the floor, my good and distinguished colleague and great friend from 
Iowa telling us of the problems of American agriculture. I serve as the 
chair of the Subcommittee on Water, Resources, and the Environment. We 
had a hearing in upstate Utica, NY, on this very subject, exclusively 
devoted to that subject of nonpoint-source pollution.
  We have talked to agriculture. Agriculture likes this initiative. 
They want us to get it in part of the final language, and so do I. So I 
know nobody, that, really sincerely, when they evaluate all the facts 
of this, would argue that we should turn our backs on American farmers. 
I am not going to do so.
  I am privileged to serve as chair of the Northeast Agriculture 
Caucus. In that capacity I work with my colleagues from both sides of 
the aisle to listen to America's farmers, to work with them. I want to 
help them, and the perfecting amendment I am suggesting would be very 
much in order and would help them.
   amendment offered by mr. boehlert to the amendment offered by mr. 
                                largent

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Largent: Strike that portion of the amendment which 
     strikes line 18 on page 232 and all that follows, through 
     line 20 on page 234.

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Largent] once again, now that he has had a chance to reflect upon 
this, if he might see a different perspective to it; and, as the 
gentleman approaches the podium, I want to remind him, we are not 
adding one penny to the bottom line.
  What we are adding is something the gentleman has fought vigorously 
for, as you have campaigned, and I welcome you here to be part of the 
new majority, you said during that campaign you want to return more 
authority to local government. Boy, I agree with the gentleman 100 
percent. The gentleman said during his campaign he wants to cut down as 
much as possible the Federal spending.
  I could not agree more with the gentleman. I, too, want to cut down 
as much as possible Federal spending. The gentleman has said, and I 
have said, we want to march together, to go forward, to help American 
agriculture, and I want to do that.
  So I would ask the gentleman if, upon sober reflection, if he has any 
new insights he would like to share with this distinguished body.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I have not seen the 
amendment yet. I look forward to reading it here in just a second. But 
I would just say that in my mind what I see this doing is what the 
gentleman is saying, is that we are not asking for one additional 
penny. But what the gentleman would do with his amendment is simply add 
another drawer in the already full kitchen of the Federal Government. 
We will not put any money in there right now, but that drawer will 
still be there.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, not so; not adding 
another drawer. It goes to the States. That is what the State revolving 
fund does. We send the money from Washington to the States. The States 
administer the State revolving fund. We are saying the same people 
administer it. Do not hire any more bureaucrats; we have enough of 
them.
  We are saying take that money and sort of put it over to the side, 
just like when you sit down and work out the monthly budget at home. 
You have so much for your mortgage, so much for your car payments, so 
much for your groceries. If you decide to earmark a specific amount for 
groceries, you do not go out and add new members to your family. You 
just sort of move that account over a little bit.
  What I am saying is let us demonstrate, colleagues, here on the floor 
of the House of Representatives, let us demonstrate in very tangible 
form that we want to work with American agriculture. We want to help 
America's farmers. Once again, let me repeat, they are the best 
stewards of the land that I know.
  I am privileged to represent a district where agriculture is very 
important, and I talk to farmers. I can go and talk to a farmer. A 
typical farmer in upstate New York might be milking 60 or 70 cows, a 
farmer, wife, maybe a couple of kids. Along comes somebody and says, 
Mr. Farmer, we are concerned about the quality of water. Guess what the 
farmer says? So am I.
  Then along comes this expert and says we know how to solve part of 
the problem. We would like you to maybe have a little buffer strip 
between your land where you are growing crops and where your pasture 
land is, and the river or stream, or put up a fence, or, maybe even 
more costly, a little manure management system. It is only going to 
cost you $10,000. The farmer looks you in the eye and says where in the 
hell am I going to get $10,000? 
[[Page H4887]] Money does not come down from Heaven.
  We say we have set up a special fund. You can apply to your State 
government, not Washington, not those bureaucrats down there, but your 
State government. You can go to them and say here is the best 
management plan that I have worked out. I accept. I think it makes good 
sense. It is going to protect my land and your land; it is going to 
protect our water. Now, I would like to have a low-interest, long-term 
loan from the State revolving fund to help me do it. I think that makes 
an awful lot of sense.
  Mr. LARGENT. If the gentleman will yield further, I would just say 
once again that the current State revolving fund is accessible to that 
farmer in your district as it currently exists right now.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell you the 
everyday practical politics of it. Not one penny has gone to farmers. 
There are all the pressures on the State capitals and the people 
administering those fund dollars for funds for wastewater treatment 
plants. If you have this fund fenced off and they say this is what we 
collectively have agreed on, the Federal Government, the State 
government, we think this makes sense, I think it would help a great 
deal.
  Mr. LARGENT. If the gentleman will yield further, I would argue just 
the opposite, that by creating a special fund that in fact you could 
eventually limit the amount of money that would be available to those 
farmers if you depleted that fund and they said you have already used 
up everything you have got in your special nonpoint source revolving 
fund, so we are not going to give you any more, as opposed to being 
able to tap the entire fund.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, you cannot take 
anything away from nothing. That is what they are now getting, zero, 
zip, zilch, nothing. I want to say here is some hope. You might have an 
opportunity to get something. I think that serves our best interests. 
It serves the best interests of American agriculture, and I will urge 
support of my perfecting amendment.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe I am in support of the gentleman from New 
York's perfecting amendment, but I really want to go at the overall 
amendment because I think that is what is crucial here.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma's amendment I believe is sincere. He is 
concerned about deficit reduction and other things. I just think it is 
the wrong way to go at this time.
  I have the opportunity from time to time to be involved in, as we all 
in this hall do, the dedication and ground breaking ceremonies for 
sewage treatment facilities, and there is a map that we have in the 
West Virginia facilities when we preside over these.
  There is a map that is provided; there are actually two maps. One 
hand is all that has been built, the partnership between the State 
government, the Federal Government, the local government, and the 
ratepayers, as well as taxpayers all. That partnership has built $1 
billion worth of sewage treatment facilities, wastewater construction 
projects, in our State. And that is impressive in a small State. That 
is the map on one side, what has been done.
  There is a map on the other side, too, and that shows the many 
locations that still need to be constructed if it is to meet the goals 
set by this Congress and to meet common sense goals of health. What 
that map shows is that there is at least a $2 billion need.
  So that map on one side says $1 billion has been constructed. The map 
on the other side says there is still $2 billion worth of construction 
to do. So we look at what the national figures are. Nationally, I hear 
statistics ranging everywhere from the most conservative of somewhere 
around 100 to 130 to 150 billion dollars' worth of projects still 
needing to be done simply to meet existing requirements.
  So I ask how are we going to do this? I think it is important to look 
at the evolution of the State revolving fund. Remember, it was just a 
few years ago, a dozen years ago, that it was a grant program, and it 
was authorized for as much as $5 billion. That was imply for point 
source pollution. Then it was ratcheted down over the years to $2.5 
billion. Then it changed from a grant fund gradually to a revolving 
loan fund that people have to pay back.
  So what we have gone from is an outright grant to a revolving loan 
fund. Incidentally, it is funded at a far lesser rate than $5 billion, 
roughly $2 billion last year.
  Now look at what is in this bill as far as additional demands upon 
municipal treatment facilities. I supported some of the measures in 
this bill for additionally flexibility, but I also know that when you 
per deal with pretreatment of industrial waste, you are going to put 
additional demands on existing facilities as well as those to be built. 
Are we now to step back from that commitment as well? Are we to step 
back from some of the requirements and demands that will be placed upon 
state and local governments?
  I also look at unfunded mandates. A lot of talk around here about 
that. This legislation does maintain certain mandates in place. Yet 
would we cut back further on the money that is to go to the State and 
local governments and the ratepayers themselves to assist in meeting 
those mandates?
  Mr. Chairman, this is really I think prefacing for what will be a 
much greater discussion that must be conducted in this Congress, but in 
some ways it is going to be started on some of these seemingly smaller 
issues.
  What role does growth have in our budget process? The effort to 
balance the budget in 7 years, we all agree on the need for a balanced 
budget. But the effort to balance that, is it going to restrict the 
kind of growth that is going to be needed to take place in order to 
accomplish that?
  My feeling is you cannot cut your way out of this mess. You are going 
to have to growth as a solid component. We have legitimate 
disagreements in here as to what will lead to that growth, but I do not 
think we ought to be cutting back those very programs that are indeed 
so necessary.
  I had the chance to attend a ground breaking the other day for an 
industrial part which is guaranteed to create at least 350 jobs and 
probably as high as 800 jobs. So important to that park was the money 
necessary for the sewage treatment facilities. They could not have that 
park without it.

                              {time}  1215

  The Federal Government's return on its investment is going to be 
gotten back entirely within 4 years, based upon taxes that will be paid 
by the newly working people and so on, 4 years. I had a real estate 
developer, major developer come up to me afterward and say, If I could 
get my return back in 4 years on every investment, I would be in hog 
heaven.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Wise was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I ask this body to recognize the important 
need of investment. Behind every major industrial development project 
is a need for waste treatment disposal. We are asking the Government, 
governmental sector, local and State governments and public service 
districts to take on an increased responsibility along with increased 
flexibility. This is not the time to be cutting back the authorization 
for them to do that. It is the time actually to be increasing.
  I will not make that argument on the floor today, but I would urge 
that we not support the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma and 
urge my colleagues to permit the language to continue that is in the 
bill.

  Modification of Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert to the Amendment 
                         offered by Mr. Largent

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment to the amendment be modified, in the interest of clarity, so 
that my colleagues will understand, to strike $2.3 billion each place 
it appears in the bill and insert $1.8 billion. So what we do, in 
effect, is retain the section 606 that sets up this nonpoint source 
pollution revolving fund at $500 million, when added to the $1.8 
billion totals the $2.3 
[[Page H4888]] billion that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] 
has set as his ceiling. So that is the perfecting amendment.
  I would hope on a bipartisan basis the perfecting amendment can be 
accepted. Then we could have the vote on the Largent amendment as 
perfected and everyone can work as they wish.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Largent: Strike ``$2,300,000,000'' 
     each place it appears and insert ``$1,800,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, my 
understanding of what would occur in that reduction is that all of that 
would come from the State revolving fund. I vigorously oppose that. I 
most certainly believe the gentleman has a right to a vote on that, but 
I certainly could not consent to it under unanimous consent.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, what I want my distinguished colleague, 
the gentleman from Louisiana, to note is that the funds are 
interchangeable. This gives the flexibility to the State government, 
the State government agency administering the fund.
  As you well know, because you are a student of this, as you well 
know, presently farmers get zip from the State revolving fund, nothing. 
We are setting up something that says, We are responsive to your need 
for financial assistance. We will give the money in a State revolving 
fund. We will fence off $500 million for nonpoint source pollution.
  However, in recognition of your legitimate concern, we will give the 
flexibility to the State. The State can use all of that money for other 
than nonpoint source pollution, if that is its highest priority.
  But I would respectfully submit to the gentleman, and that has been 
pointed out to me by a number of my colleagues from agriculture States, 
that in many States they have done very will in terms of addressing the 
problem of waste water treatment plants. They have got what they need. 
But they need more assistance for nonpoint source pollution and they 
have not had the source.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
ask the gentleman, in what manner would that be distributed? Under the 
formula?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that would be the same formula as we had for the SRF.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, as I say, I do not think that is the 
appropriate time or moment. I will object to the unanimous consent. I 
most certainly will not object to furthering our discussion at a 
different time.
  Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman that under the 
current State revolving funds the States already have the flexibility 
to address nonpoint source matters. So what we are doing is really 
redundant and provides less flexibility for States, potentially 
supplies less flexibility.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to belabor the point at this 
time. As I say, it is certainly an appropriate discussion but I feel 
that I will have to object to the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman maintains his 
objection, you, as a senior member of the committee of jurisdiction, 
know full well, because we have examined this very thoroughly in long, 
long hearings, American farmers are not getting one penny out of the 
State revolving fund to do some of the things that we are suggesting 
from on high here in Washington they should do to be part of the 
solution rather than just standing idly by and being perpetuators of 
the problem. We want to give them a source of money so that they can 
apply to their State government. We want to give their State government 
the flexibility that I think you and I would agree they should have to 
make the decisions at that level.
  Louisiana knows what is best for Louisiana, what is good for 
Louisiana, as does New York know best what is good for New York.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, it would be my understanding, I do not want 
to belabor the point now, but I believe that the agricultural community 
is opposed to the gentleman's position, as are the cities and States.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
no.
  Mr. HAYES. As I say, I think that would be more appropriate perhaps 
for another moment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am simply going to have to object to the unanimous-
consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of my colleague from New York. What I would like to 
do for the Members, especially for Members who might be from a suburban 
area or an urban area, is to give them some idea what nonpoint source 
pollution is.
  Nonpoint source pollution happens in suburbs. It happens in urban 
areas. It happens in rural areas on agricultural farms.
  You have all kinds of farms. You have dairy farms. You have chicken 
farms. You have grain farms, et cetera. There is a variety of farms. I 
want to show you what the problems are with nonpoint source pollution 
on farms in any one of these areas.
  Most farms, especially if there are cows, chickens, grain farmers, 
cattle farmers, they have a barn. Somebody said pig, OK. Now we have a 
barn. Somewhere around a farm generally you are going to have a river 
or some waterway.
  This is the Clean Water Act that we are talking about. We are trying 
to prevent pollution from a source to get into the water. So what we 
see here, whether you have pigs, cows, chickens, grain, or whatever, 
they have manure. So it very often costs money, if you are going to put 
a manure shed for composting purposes next to the farm. That composting 
shed could cost $5,000.
  If you have dairy farms and cows, you will have to put a holding area 
for the cows sometime before you take them in for them to milk. That 
holding area is concentrating manure which gradually will get into the 
ground water unless you build a holding area which prevents the manure 
from leaving that area. That is about $10,000 on this side.
  The other things you need for a farm is fertilizer, pesticides, 
herbicides. All of these things, if they leach or flow into the 
waterway, are going to cause a problem with the quality of the water. 
So what do you need to do to hold those things? You need certain things 
called waterways, if you have any contour on the land.
  A waterway is a grassy area that helps absorb the runoff to prevent 
the silt or the fertilizer from getting into the ground water into the 
waterway. You need other things called buffer zones. A buffer zone is a 
grassy area around the waterway and that, again, prevents the pollution 
or the silt or a variety of other things from getting into the ground 
water.
  There is something else you need. If you plant corn or wheat or rye 
or soybean, very often you do not put anything on the ground during the 
winter months and the nitrogen that you put on the ground in the spring 
and the summer, unless it is taken up into these plants during the 
winter months, gets into the ground water so that costs more money.
  In essence, for one farm, if this is a dairy farm or a pig farm or a 
chicken farm or a grain farm, every single farmer, whether they own 
10,000 acres or 100 acres, has a certain amount of cost if he is going 
to prevent nonpoint source pollution. And all of this costs money.
  Generally speaking, farmers have not gotten enough aid in this area. 
So I strongly, I am a big football fan and all 
[[Page H4889]] the rest of that, but I have to rise in strong 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. HAYES. Would the gentleman mind drawing in the five different 
Federal regulators that are going to be on the farm right after that 
river was drawn in?
  Mr. GILCHREST. First of all, the Federal regulators should be on the 
farm and talk about possom hunting, then have a cup of coffee and a 
piece of pie, and the Federal regulators ought to be good neighbors and 
talk about how we can solve some of these problems, but unless the 
allocation is there, unless the funding is there, unless the awareness 
is there that this kind of thing exists, we are not going to stop the 
greater problem that we have today of nonpoint source pollution and 
help those people who need to be a part of the solution.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out to the gentleman from 
Maryland and also the gentleman from New York that we actually have 
already in Ohio a nonpoint source program that has been specifically 
developed inside the existing law. And it is particularly targeted for 
ag interests so that farmers can get funding through the revolving loan 
fund in order to be able to do exactly the kinds of things that you are 
talking about.
  What I am saying is, we do not need to fence off this money inside 
this bill in order to achieve what you want to do. I cannot see any 
reason to support the Boehlert amendment when, A, it is possible to do 
what the gentleman from New York wants to do already; B, it is being 
done in places like Ohio; and C----
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, it may be done in places like Ohio, but 
it is not being done across the Nation. If we are looking at watershed 
ideas and keeping water going from one State to another State and 
raising the awareness of nonpoint source problems, especially in 
agriculture, I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] has the 
right idea.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman does think 
that, but clearly the whole argument here and the reason that we are 
making these changes in this act have to do with giving greater 
flexibility to the States to be able to do these things.
  What I am suggesting to the gentleman is that already in many States, 
Ohio is not the only one, that flexibility has been utilized in a 
responsible way.
  Last, the other thing I wanted to say about the bill generally, the 
Largent amendment, is that I sit on the Committee on the Budget. And it 
strikes me that if we do not undertake the kind of amendment that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] has brought today, then we are 
just back in the same old routine that we have been in year after year 
after year.
  I frankly do not want to support going through this charade where we 
have these authorizing bills that have 20, 30, 40, 50 percent more 
money in them than what the Committee on the Budget has said there will 
be available to spend and what we know that the appropriators are going 
to come up with ultimately.
  Let us have some honesty, some truth in budgeting. Let us have some 
truth in legislation in this. This is supported by the chairman. This 
is the right direction. This is the right way to go.
  We ought to have the mark in the authorizing bill match the mark in 
the Committee on the Budget bill, match the mark that we are finally 
going to come up with in the Committee on Appropriations. That is 
crystal clear.
  If we do not take this opportunity now to start on that road, then we 
will play the same old games in the 104th Congress that we have placed 
in all previous Congresses.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the distinguished gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert] if he will engage me in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the Largent amendment would reduce 
the total funding to $2.3 billion.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. That is my understanding.
  Mr. BORSKI. And I would ask the gentleman, what would the Boehlert 
amendment do? Would that add $500 million to that $2.3 billion?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. No, Mr. Chairman, it would not. My perfecting amendment 
would reduce it to $1.8 billion, and retain the section 606, which is 
$500 million. Here is what I would suggest we do for the good of the 
cause.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw 
the amendment, so we can continue the discussions between the chairman 
and the ranking minority member and the subcommittee chair and the 
ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and try to work this out. 
I do not think that there is any argument here, that we are trying to 
do something that demonstrates to American agriculture that we want to 
set up something that is earmarked specifically for their needs in 
addressing the problem of nonpoint source pollution, but we want to do 
it in such a way as to permit flexibility for the State Governors and 
the administrators of the State revolving fund.
  I would like to think that we are creative enough to accomplish both 
worthy objectives.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
requesting that his amendment be withdrawn?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BORSKI. I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] then, so we can move forward on other provisions here, that 
one of the suggestions is that he put this in title X, so we may 
proceed with the amendment before us.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] yield 
for that purpose?
  Mr. BORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from New York for that purpose.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The request has been granted, and the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. MINETA. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, just as a 
parliamentary inquiry, would this require, then, that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Boehlert] go back to title VI if we are to have him 
withdraw this, and we proceed forward on the bill? Would he have to get 
unanimous consent to go back to title VI in order to be able to amend, 
if he is to do this in title X?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if I may amend my unanimous consent 
request, the unanimous consent request is to withdraw this amendment at 
this point, with authority to revisit title VI for the purpose of this 
amendment only at a later date.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will first state that the amendment has been 
withdrawn.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. With this proviso.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert] that the gentleman be able to offer an 
amendment to title VI after it is passed in the reading?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. For this specific amendment only.
  The CHAIRMAN. For this specific purpose only.
  Without objection, it shall be in order for the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] to offer a form of his amendment to title VI at a 
later time during consideration.
  There was no objection.
                  [[Page H4890]] parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. MINETA. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, at this point is the only issue pending 
before us the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Largent]?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate my opposition to 
the Largent amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
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 209, 
noes 192, not voting 33, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 329]

                               AYES--209

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Heineman
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Andrews
     Baker (LA)
     Barrett (NE)
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Chenoweth
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Hancock
     Hefner
     Lincoln
     Longley
     McCrery
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Tanner
     Torres
     Watts (OK)
     Williams

                              {time}  1252

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Dunn of Washington for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois 
     against.
       Mr. Bono for, with Mrs. Meek of Florida against.
       Mr. Watts of Oklahoma for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Messrs. HOUGHTON, COBLE, WELLER, HASTERT, and EWING changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GRAHAM and Mr. HORN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that on the last 
vote, rollcall 329, I voted incorrectly. I had intended to vote ``no'' 
and I was registered as ``yes.''
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title VI?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VII.
  The text of title VII is as follows:
                  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''.
     [[Page H4891]] 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).
                  amendment offered by mr. de la garza

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. de la Garza: On page 237, in line 
     11 after ``treatment works'' insert ``and appropriate 
     connections''.
       On page 237, strike line 14, and all that follows through 
     ``(c)'' on line 19 and insert ``(b)''.
       On page 237, on line 23 redesignate ``(d)'' as ``(c)''.

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member for agreeing to this amendment. It is 
an amendment that will give more flexibility to the Administrator of 
EPA to negotiate with areas on wastewater treatment that are 
underserved and underprivileged.
  I want to thank Chairman Shuster and the ranking member of the 
committee, Mr. Mineta, for supporting my amendment to section 703, the 
wastewater service for colonias of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments 
of 1995. Section 703 is similar to a bill I introduced last Congress 
and which I reintroduced this Congress as H.R. 908.
  As some of you know, colonias are unincorporated areas along our 
southwestern border that lack basic services, such as water and 
wastewater. There are some 250,000 Americans living in colonias.
  This amendment will amend section 703 of the bill to authorize the 
Administrator to make grants to States to provide assistance for 
planning, design, and construction of treatment works to provide 
wastewater service and for appropriate connections. My amendment would 
allow recipient States to use the financial assistance for appropriate 
connections for colonia residences to connect them to sewer collection 
systems which will allow them to make any improvements necessary to 
meet existing county or city requirements. This is an important problem 
that we need to address in order to bring wastewater connections into 
the homes of these communities.
  In addition, this amendment will delete the requirements that the 
Federal share of the cost of a project for a wastewater service be 50 
percent. This deletion will allow maximum flexibility for the 
Administrator in determining the appropriate funding of these projects 
in allowing EPA to negotiate the match requirement with the recipient 
State.
  Again, thank you Chairman Shuster and Mr. Mineta for your assistance 
regarding this important problem to our southwestern communities. I 
look forward to working with you and your committee on this important 
issue.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have examined this. We think it is a 
good amendment, and we support it.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have looked at the amendment. We have no objections 
to the amendment on this side. We do appreciate the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts] being on our side as well.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas, the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for his leadership on this particular bill. We on this side of the 
aisle have looked at it very carefully and we agree. We are certainly 
happy to have the gentleman, on our side of the aisle.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title VII?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VIII.
  The text of title VIII is as follows:
            TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Wetlands 
     Conservation and Management Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 802. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) wetlands play an integral role in maintaining the 
     quality of life through material contributions to our 
     national economy, food supply, water supply and quality, 
     flood control, and fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and 
     thus to the health, safety, recreation and economic well-
     being of citizens throughout the Nation;
       (2) wetlands serve important ecological and natural 
     resource functions, such as providing essential nesting and 
     feeding habitat for waterfowl, other wildlife, and many rare 
     and endangered species, fisheries habitat, the enhancement of 
     water quality, and natural flood control;
       (3) much of the Nation's resource has sustained significant 
     degradation, resulting in the need for effective programs to 
     limit the loss of ecologically significant wetlands and to 
     provide for long-term restoration and enhancement of the 
     wetlands resource base;
       (4) most of the loss of wetlands in coastal Louisiana is 
     not attributable to human activity;
       (5) because 75 percent of the Nation's wetlands in the 
     lower 48 States are privately owned and because the majority 
     of the Nation's population lives in or near wetlands areas, 
     an effective wetlands conservation and management program 
     must reflect a balanced approach that conserves and enhances 
     important wetlands values and functions while observing 
     private property rights, recognizing the need for essential 
     public infrastructure, such as highways, ports, airports, 
     pipelines, sewer systems, and public water supply systems, 
     and providing the opportunity for sustained economic growth;
       (6) while wetlands provide many varied economic and 
     environmental benefits, they also present health risks in 
     some instances where they act as breeding grounds for insects 
     that are carriers of human and animal diseases;
       (7) the Federal permit program established under section 
     404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not 
     originally conceived as a wetlands regulatory program and is 
     insufficient to ensure that the Nation's wetlands resource 
     base will be conserved and managed in a fair and 
     environmentally sound manner; and
       (8) navigational dredging plays a vital role in the 
     Nation's economy and, while adequate safeguards for aquatic 
     resources must be maintained, it is essential that the 
     regulatory process be streamlined.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to establish a 
     new Federal regulatory program for certain wetlands and 
     waters of the United States--
       (1) to assert Federal regulatory jurisdiction over a broad 
     category of specifically identified activities that result in 
     the degradation or loss of wetlands;
       (2) to provide that each Federal agency, officer, and 
     employee exercise Federal authority under section 404 of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act to ensure that agency 
     action under such section will not limit the use of privately 
     owned property so as to diminish its value;
       (3) to account for variations in wetlands functions in 
     determining the character and extent of regulation of 
     activities occurring in wetlands areas;
       (4) to provide sufficient regulatory incentives for 
     conservation, restoration, or enhancement activities;
       (5) to encourage conservation of resources on a watershed 
     basis to the fullest extent practicable;
       (6) to protect public safety and balance public and private 
     interests in determining the conditions under which activity 
     in wetlands areas may occur; and

[[Page H4892]]

       (7) to streamline the regulatory mechanisms relating to 
     navigational dredging in the Nation's waters.

     SEC. 803. WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT.

       Title IV (33 U.S.C. 1341 et seq.) is further amended by 
     striking section 404 and inserting the following new section:

     ``SEC. 404. PERMITS FOR ACTIVITIES IN WETLANDS OR WATERS OF 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       ``(a) Prohibited Activities.--No person shall undertake an 
     activity in wetlands or waters of the United States unless 
     such activity is undertaken pursuant to a permit issued by 
     the Secretary or is otherwise authorized under this section.
       ``(b) Authorized Activities.--
       ``(1) Permits.--The Secretary is authorized to issue 
     permits authorizing an activity in wetlands or waters of the 
     United States in accordance with the requirements of this 
     section.
       ``(2) Nonpermit activities.--An activity in wetlands or 
     waters of the United States may be undertaken without a 
     permit from the Secretary if that activity is authorized 
     under subsection (e)(6) or (e)(8) or is exempt from the 
     requirements of this section under subsection (f) or other 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(c) Wetlands Classification.--
       ``(1) Regulations; applications.--
       ``(A) Deadline for issuance of regulations.--Not later than 
     1 year after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive 
     Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, the 
     Secretary shall issue regulations to classify wetlands as 
     type A, type B, or type C wetlands depending on the relative 
     ecological significance of the wetlands.
       ``(B) Application requirement.--Any person seeking to 
     undertake activities in wetlands or waters of the United 
     States for which a permit is required under this section 
     shall make application to the Secretary identifying the site 
     of such activity and requesting that the Secretary determine, 
     in accordance with paragraph (3) of this subsection, the 
     classification of the wetlands in which such activity is 
     proposed to occur. The applicant may also provide such 
     additional information regarding such proposed activity as 
     may be necessary or appropriate for purposes of determining 
     the classification of such wetlands or whether and under what 
     conditions the proposed activity may be permitted to occur.
       ``(2) Deadlines for classifications.--
       ``(A) General rule.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B) 
     of this paragraph, within 90 days following the receipt of an 
     application under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide 
     notice to the applicant of the classification of the wetlands 
     that are the subject of such application and shall state in 
     writing the basis for such classification. The classification 
     of the wetlands that are the subject of the application shall 
     be determined by the Secretary in accordance with the 
     requirements for classification of wetlands under paragraph 
     (3) and subsection (i).
       ``(B) Rule for advance classifications.--In the case of an 
     application proposing activities located in wetlands that are 
     the subject of an advance classification under subsection 
     (h), the Secretary shall provide notice to the applicant of 
     such classification within thirty days following the receipt 
     of such application, and shall provide an opportunity for 
     review of such classification under paragraph (5) and 
     subsection (i).
       ``(3) Classification system.--Upon application under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) classify as type A wetlands those wetlands that are 
     of critical significance to the long-term conservation of the 
     aquatic environment of which such wetlands are a part and 
     which meet the following requirements:
       ``(i) such wetlands serve critical wetlands functions, 
     including the provision of critical habitat for a 
     concentration of avian, aquatic, or wetland dependent 
     wildlife;
       ``(ii) such wetlands consist of or may be a portion of ten 
     or more contiguous acres and have an inlet or outlet for 
     relief of water flow; except that this requirement shall not 
     operate to preclude the classification as type A wetlands 
     lands containing prairie pothole features, playa lakes, or 
     vernal pools if such lands otherwise meet the requirements 
     for type A classification under this paragraph;
       ``(iii) there exists a scarcity within the watershed or 
     aquatic environment of identified functions served by such 
     wetlands such that the use of such wetlands for an activity 
     in wetlands or waters of the United States would seriously 
     jeopardize the availability of these identified wetlands 
     functions; and
       ``(iv) there is unlikely to be an overriding public 
     interest in the use of such wetlands for purposes other than 
     conservation;
       ``(B) classify as type B wetlands those wetlands that 
     provide habitat for a significant population of wetland 
     dependent wildlife or provide other significant wetlands 
     functions, including significant enhancement or protection of 
     water quality or significant natural flood control; and
       ``(C) classify as type C wetlands all wetlands that--
       ``(i) serve limited wetlands functions;
       ``(ii) serve marginal wetlands functions but which exist in 
     such abundance that regulation of activities in such wetlands 
     is not necessary for conserving important wetlands functions;
       ``(iii) are prior converted cropland;
       ``(iv) are fastlands; or
       ``(v) are wetlands within industrial, commercial, or 
     residential complexes or other intensely developed areas that 
     do not serve significant wetlands functions as a result of 
     such location.
       ``(4) Request for determination of jurisdiction.--
       ``(A) In general.--A person who holds an ownership interest 
     in property, or who has written authorization from such a 
     person, may submit a request to the Secretary identifying the 
     property and requesting the Secretary to make one or more of 
     the following determinations with respect to the property:
       ``(i) Whether the property contains waters of the United 
     States.
       ``(ii) If the determination under clause (i) is made, 
     whether any portion of the waters meets the requirements for 
     delineation as wetland under subsection (g).
       ``(iii) If the determination under clause (ii) is made, the 
     classification of each wetland on the property under this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Provision of information.--The person shall provide 
     such additional information as may be necessary to make each 
     determination requested under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Determination and notification by the secretary.--Not 
     later than 90 days after receipt of a request under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) notify the person submitting the request of each 
     determination made by the Secretary pursuant to the request; 
     and
       ``(ii) provide written documentation of each determination 
     and the basis for each determination.
       ``(D) Authority to seek immediate review.--Any person 
     authorized under this paragraph to request a jurisdictional 
     determination may seek immediate judicial review of any such 
     jurisdictional determination or may proceed under subsection 
     (i).
       ``(5) De novo determination after advance classification.--
     Within 30 days of receipt of notice of an advance 
     classification by the Secretary under paragraph (2)(B) of 
     this subsection, an applicant may request the Secretary to 
     make a de novo determination of the classification of 
     wetlands that are the subject of such notice.
       ``(d) Right to Compensation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal Government shall compensate 
     an owner of property whose use of any portion of that 
     property has been limited by an agency action under this 
     section that diminishes the fair market value of that portion 
     by 20 percent or more. The amount of the compensation shall 
     equal the diminution in value that resulted from the agency 
     action. If the diminution in value of a portion of that 
     property is greater than 50 percent, at the option of the 
     owner, the Federal Government shall buy that portion of the 
     property for its fair market value.
       ``(2) Duration of limitation on use.--Property with respect 
     to which compensation has been paid under this section shall 
     not thereafter be used contrary to the limitation imposed by 
     the agency action, even if that action is later rescinded or 
     otherwise vitiated. However, if that action is later 
     rescinded or otherwise vitiated, and the owner elects to 
     refund the amount of the compensation, adjusted for 
     inflation, to the Treasury of the United States, the property 
     may be so used.
       ``(3) Effect of state law.--If a use is a nuisance as 
     defined by the law of a State or is already prohibited under 
     a local zoning ordinance, no compensation shall be made under 
     this section with respect to a limitation on that use.
       ``(4) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Prevention of hazard to health or safety or damage to 
     specific property.--No compensation shall be made under this 
     section with respect to an agency action the primary purpose 
     of which is to prevent an identifiable--
       ``(i) hazard to public health or safety; or
       ``(ii) damage to specific property other than the property 
     whose use is limited.
       ``(B) Navigation servitude.--No compensation shall be made 
     under this section with respect to an agency action pursuant 
     to the Federal navigation servitude, as defined by the courts 
     of the United States, except to the extent such servitude is 
     interpreted to apply to wetlands.
       ``(5) Procedure.--
       ``(A) Request of owner.--An owner seeking compensation 
     under this section shall make a written request for 
     compensation to the agency whose agency action resulted in 
     the limitation. No such request may be made later than 180 
     days after the owner receives actual notice of that agency 
     action.
       ``(B) Negotiations.--The agency may bargain with that owner 
     to establish the amount of the compensation. If the agency 
     and the owner agree to such an amount, the agency shall 
     promptly pay the owner the amount agreed upon.
       ``(C) Choice of remedies.--If, not later than 180 days 
     after the written request is made, the parties do not come to 
     an agreement as to the right to and amount of compensation, 
     the owner may choose to take the matter to binding 
     arbitration or seek compensation in a civil action.
       ``(D) Arbitration.--The procedures that govern the 
     arbitration shall, as nearly as practicable, be those 
     established under title 9, United States Code, for 
     arbitration proceedings to which that title applies. An award 
     made in such arbitration shall include a reasonable 
     attorney's fee and other arbitration costs (including 
     appraisal fees). The agency shall promptly pay any award made 
     to the owner.
       ``(E) Civil action.--An owner who does not choose 
     arbitration, or who does not receive prompt payment when 
     required by this section, may obtain appropriate relief in a 
     civil action against the agency. An owner who prevails in a 
     civil action under this section shall be entitled to, and the 
     agency shall be liable for, a reasonable attorney's fee and 
     other litigation costs (including appraisal fees). The court 
     shall award interest on the amount of any compensation from 
     the time of the limitation.
       ``(F) Source of payments.--Any payment made under this 
     section to an owner and any judgment obtained by an owner in 
     a civil action under this section shall, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, be made from the annual 
     [[Page H4893]] appropriation of the agency whose action 
     occasioned the payment or judgment. If the agency action 
     resulted from a requirement imposed by
      another agency, then the agency making the payment or 
     satisfying the judgment may seek partial or complete 
     reimbursement from the appropriated funds of the other 
     agency. For this purpose the head of the agency concerned 
     may transfer or reprogram any appropriated funds available 
     to the agency. If insufficient funds exist for the payment 
     or to satisfy the judgment, it shall be the duty of the 
     head of the agency to seek the appropriation of such funds 
     for the next fiscal year.
       ``(6) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any obligation of the United States to make any payment 
     under this section shall be subject to the availability of 
     appropriations.
       ``(7) Duty of notice to owners.--Whenever an agency takes 
     an agency action limiting the use of private property, the 
     agency shall give appropriate notice to the owners of that 
     property directly affected explaining their rights under this 
     section and the procedures for obtaining any compensation 
     that may be due to them under this section.
       ``(8) Rules of construction.--
       ``(A) Effect on constitutional right to compensation.--
     Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any right 
     to compensation that exists under the Constitution, laws of 
     the United States, or laws of any State.
       ``(B) Effect of payment.--Payment of compensation under 
     this section (other than when the property is bought by the 
     Federal Government at the option of the owner) shall not 
     confer any rights on the Federal Government other than the 
     limitation on use resulting from the agency action.
       ``(9) Treatment of certain actions.--A diminution in value 
     under this subsection shall apply to surface interests in 
     lands only or water rights allocated under State law; except 
     that--
       ``(A) if the Secretary determines that the exploration for 
     or development of oil and gas or mineral interests is not 
     compatible with limitations on use related to the surface 
     interests in lands that have been classified as type A or 
     type B wetlands located above such oil and gas or mineral 
     interests (or located adjacent to such oil and gas or mineral 
     interests where such adjacent lands are necessary to provide 
     reasonable access to such interests), the Secretary shall 
     notify the owner of such interests that the owner may elect 
     to receive compensation for such interests under paragraph 
     (1); and
       ``(B) the failure to provide reasonable access to oil and 
     gas or mineral interests located beneath or adjacent to 
     surface interests of type A or type B wetlands shall be 
     deemed a diminution in value of such oil and gas or mineral 
     interests.
       ``(10) Jurisdiction.--The arbitrator or court under 
     paragraph (5)(D) or (5)(E) of this subsection, as the case 
     may be, shall have jurisdiction, in the case of oil and gas 
     or mineral interests, to require the United States to provide 
     reasonable access in, across, or through lands that may be 
     the subject of a diminution in value under this subsection 
     solely for the purpose of undertaking activity necessary to 
     determine the value of the interests diminished and to 
     provide other equitable remedies deemed appropriate.
       ``(11) Limitations on statutory construction.--No action 
     under this subsection shall be construed--
       ``(A) to impose any obligation on any State or political 
     subdivision thereof to compensate any person, even in the 
     event that the Secretary has approved a land management plan 
     under subsection (f)(2) or an individual and general permit 
     program under subsection (l); or
       ``(B) to alter or supersede requirements governing use of 
     water applicable under State law.
       ``(e) Requirements Applicable to Permitted Activity.--
       ``(1) Issuance or denial of permits.--Following the 
     determination of wetlands classification pursuant to 
     subsection (c) if applicable, and after compliance with the 
     requirements of subsection (d) if applicable, the Secretary 
     may issue or deny permits for authorization to undertake 
     activities in wetlands or waters of the United States in 
     accordance with the requirements of this subsection.
       ``(2) Type a wetlands.--
       ``(A) Sequential 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 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.
       ``(B) Mitigation terms and conditions.--Any permit issued 
     authorizing activities in type A wetlands may contain such 
     terms and conditions concerning mitigation (including those 
     applicable under paragraph (3) for type B wetlands) that the 
     Secretary deems appropriate to prevent the unacceptable loss 
     or degradation of type A wetlands. The Secretary shall deem 
     the mitigation requirement of this section to be met with 
     respect to activities in type A wetlands if such activities 
     (i) are carried out in accordance with a State-approved 
     reclamation plan or permit which requires recontouring and 
     revegetation following mining, and (ii) will result in 
     overall environmental benefits being achieved.
       ``(3) Type b wetlands.--
       ``(A) General rule.--The Secretary may issue a permit 
     authorizing activities in type B wetlands if the Secretary 
     finds that issuance of the permit is in the public interest, 
     balancing the reasonably foreseeable benefits and detriments 
     resulting from the issuance of the permit. The permit shall 
     be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     finds are necessary to carry out the purposes of the 
     Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 
     1995. In determining whether or not to issue the permit and 
     whether or not specific terms and conditions are necessary to 
     avoid a significant loss of wetlands functions, the Secretary 
     shall consider the following factors:
       ``(i) The quality and quantity of significant functions 
     served by the areas to be affected.
       ``(ii) The opportunities to reduce impacts through cost 
     effective design to minimize use of wetlands areas.
       ``(iii) The costs of mitigation requirements and the 
     social, recreational, and economic benefits associated with 
     the proposed activity, including local, regional, or national 
     needs for improved or expanded infrastructure, minerals, 
     energy, food production, or recreation.
       ``(iv) The ability of the permittee to mitigate wetlands 
     loss or degradation as measured by wetlands functions.
       ``(v) The environmental benefit, measured by wetlands 
     functions, that may occur through mitigation efforts, 
     including restoring, preserving, enhancing, or creating 
     wetlands values and functions.
       ``(vi) The marginal impact of the proposed activity on the 
     watershed of which such wetlands are a part.
       ``(vii) Whether the impact on the wetlands is temporary or 
     permanent.
       ``(B) Determination of project purpose.--In considering an 
     application for activities on type B wetlands, there shall be 
     a rebuttable presumption that the project purpose as defined 
     by the applicant shall be binding upon the Secretary. The 
     definition of project purpose for projects sponsored by 
     public agencies shall be binding upon the Secretary, subject 
     to the authority of the Secretary to impose mitigation 
     requirements to minimize impacts on wetlands values and 
     functions, including cost effective redesign of projects on 
     the proposed project site.
       ``(C) Mitigation requirements.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in this section, requirements for mitigation shall 
     be imposed when the Secretary finds that activities 
     undertaken under this section will result in the loss or 
     degradation of type B wetlands functions where such loss or 
     degradation is not a temporary or incidental impact. When 
     determining mitigation requirements in any specific case, the 
     Secretary shall take into consideration the type of wetlands 
     affected, the character of the impact on wetland functions, 
     whether any adverse effects on wetlands are of a permanent or 
     temporary nature, and the cost effectiveness of such 
     mitigation and shall seek to minimize the costs of such 
     mitigation. Such mitigation requirement shall be calculated 
     based upon the specific impact of a particular project. The 
     Secretary shall deem the mitigation requirement of this 
     section to be met with respect to activities in type B 
     wetlands if such activities (i) are carried out in accordance 
     with a State-approved reclamation plan or permit which 
     requires recontouring and revegetation following mining, and 
     (ii) will result in overall environmental benefits being 
     achieved.
       ``(D) Rules governing mitigation.--In accordance with 
     subsection (j), the Secretary shall issue rules governing 
     requirements for mitigation for activities occurring in 
     wetlands that allow for--
       ``(i) minimization of impacts through project design in the 
     proposed project site consistent with the project's purpose, 
     provisions for compensatory mitigation, if any, and other 
     terms and conditions necessary and appropriate in the public 
     interest;
       ``(ii) preservation or donation of type A wetlands or type 
     B wetlands (where title has not been acquired by the United 
     States and no compensation under subsection (d) for such 
     wetlands has been provided) as mitigation for activities that 
     alter or degrade wetlands;
       ``(iii) enhancement or restoration of degraded wetlands as 
     compensation for wetlands lost or degraded through permitted 
     activity;
       ``(iv) creation of wetlands as compensation for wetlands 
     lost or degraded through permitted activity if conditions are 
     imposed that have a reasonable likelihood of being 
     successful;
       ``(v) compensation through contribution to a mitigation 
     bank program established pursuant to paragraph (4);
       ``(vi) offsite compensatory mitigation if such mitigation 
     contributes to the restoration, enhancement or creation of 
     significant wetlands functions on a watershed basis and is 
     balanced with the effects that the proposed activity will 
     have on the specific site; except that offsite compensatory 
     mitigation, if any, shall be required only within the State 
     within which the proposed activity is to occur, and shall, to 
     the extent practicable, be within the watershed within which 
     the proposed activity is to occur, unless otherwise 
     consistent with a State wetlands management plan;
       ``(vii) contribution of in-kind value acceptable to the 
     Secretary and otherwise authorized by law;
       ``(viii) in areas subject to wetlands loss, the 
     construction of coastal protection and enhancement projects;
       ``(ix) contribution of resources of more than one permittee 
     toward a single mitigation project; and
       ``(x) other mitigation measures, including contributions of 
     other than in-kind value referred to in clause (vii), 
     determined by the Secretary to be appropriate in the public 
     interest and consistent with the requirements and purposes of 
     this Act.
       ``(E) Limitations on requiring mitigation.--Notwithstanding 
     the provisions of subparagraph (C), the Secretary may 
     determine not to impose requirements for compensatory 
     mitigation if the Secretary finds that--
       ``(i) the adverse impacts of a permitted activity are 
     limited;
       ``(ii) the failure to impose compensatory mitigation 
     requirements is compatible with maintaining wetlands 
     functions;
     [[Page H4894]]   ``(iii) no practicable and reasonable means 
     of mitigation are available;
       ``(iv) there is an abundance of similar significant 
     wetlands functions and values in or near the area in which 
     the proposed activity is to occur that will continue to serve 
     the functions lost or degraded as a result of such activity, 
     taking into account the impacts of such proposed activity and 
     the cumulative impacts of similar activity in the area;
       ``(v) the temporary character of the impacts and the use of 
     minimization techniques make compensatory mitigation 
     unnecessary to protect significant wetlands values; or
       ``(vi) a waiver from requirements for compensatory 
     mitigation is necessary to prevent special hardship.
       ``(4) Mitigation banks.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this subparagraph, after providing 
     notice and opportunity for public review and comment, the 
     Secretary shall issue regulations for the establishment, use, 
     maintenance, and oversight of mitigation banks. The 
     regulations shall be developed in consultation with the heads 
     of other appropriate Federal agencies.
       ``(B) Provisions and requirements.--The regulations issued 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall ensure that each 
     mitigation bank--
       ``(i) provides for the chemical, physical, and biological 
     functions of wetlands or waters of the United States which 
     are lost as a result of authorized adverse impacts to 
     wetlands or other waters of the United States;
       ``(ii) to the extent practicable and environmentally 
     desirable, provides in-kind replacement of lost wetlands 
     functions and be located in, or in proximity to, the same 
     watershed or designated geographic area as the affected 
     wetlands or waters of the United States;
       ``(iii) be operated by a public or private entity which has 
     the financial capability to meet the requirements of this 
     paragraph, including the deposit of a performance bond or 
     other appropriate demonstration of financial responsibility 
     to support the long-term maintenance of the bank, fulfill 
     responsibilities for long-term monitoring, maintenance, and 
     protection, and provide for the long-term security of 
     ownership interests of wetlands and uplands on which projects 
     are conducted to protect the wetlands functions associated 
     with the mitigation bank;
       ``(iv) employ consistent and scientifically sound methods 
     to determine debits by evaluating wetlands functions, project 
     impacts, and duration of the impact at the sites of proposed 
     permits for authorized activities pursuant to this section 
     and to determine credits based on wetlands functions at the 
     site of the mitigation bank;
       ``(v) provide for the transfer of credits for mitigation 
     that has been performed and for mitigation that shall be 
     performed within a designated time in the future, provided 
     that financial bonds shall be posted in sufficient amount to 
     ensure that the mitigation will be performed in the case of 
     default; and
       ``(vi) provide opportunity for public notice of and comment 
     on proposals for the mitigation banks; except that any 
     process utilized by a mitigation bank to obtain a permit 
     authorizing operations under this section before the date of 
     the enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and 
     Management Act of 1995 satisfies the requirement for such 
     public notice and comment.
       ``(5) Procedures and deadlines for final action.--
       ``(A) Opportunity for public comment.--Not later than 15 
     days after receipt of a complete application for a permit 
     under this section, together with information necessary to 
     consider such application, the Secretary shall publish notice 
     that the application has been received and shall provide 
     opportunity for public comment and, to the extent 
     appropriate, opportunity for a public hearing on the issuance 
     of the permit.
       ``(B) General procedures.--In the case of any application 
     for authorization to undertake activities in wetlands or 
     waters of the United States that are not eligible for 
     treatment on an expedited basis pursuant to paragraph (8), 
     final action by the Secretary shall occur within 90 days 
     following the date such application is filed, unless--
       ``(i) the Secretary and the applicant agree that such final 
     action shall occur within a longer period of time;
       ``(ii) the Secretary determines that an additional, 
     specified period of time is necessary to permit the Secretary 
     to comply with other applicable Federal law; except that if 
     the Secretary is required under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to prepare an 
     environmental impact statement, with respect to the 
     application, the final action shall occur not later than 45 
     days following the date such statement is filed; or
       ``(iii) the Secretary, within 15 days from the date such 
     application is received, notifies the applicant that such 
     application does not contain all information necessary to 
     allow the Secretary to consider such application and 
     identifies any necessary additional information, in which 
     case, the provisions of subparagraph (C) shall apply.
       ``(C) Special rule when additional information is 
     required.--Upon the receipt of a request for additional 
     information under subparagraph (B)(iii), the applicant shall 
     supply such additional information and shall advise the 
     Secretary that the application contains all requested 
     information and is therefore complete. The Secretary may--
       ``(i) within 30 days of the receipt of notice of the 
     applicant that the application is complete, determine that 
     the application does not contain all requested additional 
     information and, on that basis, deny the application without 
     prejudice to resubmission; or
       ``(ii) within 90 days from the date that the applicant 
     provides notification to the Secretary that the application 
     is complete, review the application and take final action.
       ``(D) Effect of not meeting deadline.--If the Secretary 
     fails to take final action on an application under this 
     paragraph within 90 days from the date that the applicant 
     provides notification to the Secretary that such application 
     is complete, a permit shall be presumed to be granted 
     authorizing the activities proposed in such application under 
     such terms and conditions as are stated in such completed 
     application.
       ``(6) Type c wetlands.--Activities in wetlands that have 
     been classified as type C wetlands by the Secretary may be 
     undertaken without authorization required under subsection 
     (a) of this section.
       ``(7) States with substantial conserved wetlands.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to type A and type B 
     wetlands in States with substantial conserved wetlands areas, 
     at the option of the permit applicant, the Secretary shall 
     issue permits authorizing activities in such wetlands 
     pursuant to this paragraph. Final action on issuance of such 
     permits shall be in accordance with the procedures and 
     deadlines of paragraph (5). The Secretary may include 
     conditions or requirements for minimization of adverse 
     impacts to wetlands functions when minimization is 
     economically practicable. No permit to which this paragraph 
     applies shall include conditions, requirements, or standards 
     for mitigation to compensate for adverse impacts to wetlands 
     or waters of the United States or conditions, requirements, 
     or standards for avoidance of adverse impacts to wetlands or 
     waters of the United States.
       ``(B) Economic base lands.--Upon application by the owner 
     of economic base lands in a State with substantial conserved 
     wetlands areas, the Secretary shall issue individual and 
     general permits to owners of such lands for activities in 
     wetlands or waters of the United States. The Secretary shall 
     reduce the requirements of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) to allow economic base lands to be beneficially used 
     to create and sustain economic activity; and
       ``(ii) in the case of lands owned by Alaska Native 
     entities, to reflect the social and economic needs of Alaska 
     Natives to utilize economic base lands.
     The Secretary shall consult with and provide assistance to 
     the Alaska Natives (including Alaska Native Corporations) in 
     promulgation and administration of policies and regulations 
     under this section.
       ``(8) General permits.--
       ``(A) General authority.--The Secretary may issue, by rule 
     in accordance with subsection
      (j), general permits on a programmatic, State, regional, or 
     nationwide basis for any category of activities involving 
     an activity in wetlands or waters of the United States if 
     the Secretary determines that such activities are similar 
     in nature and that such activities, when performed 
     separately and cumulatively, will not result in the 
     significant loss of ecologically significant wetlands 
     values and functions.
       ``(B) Procedures.--Permits issued under this paragraph 
     shall include procedures for expedited review of eligibility 
     for such permits (if such review is required) and may include 
     requirements for reporting and mitigation. To the extent that 
     a proposed activity requires a determination by the Secretary 
     as to the eligibility to qualify for a general permit under 
     this subsection, such determination shall be made within 30 
     days of the date of submission of the application for such 
     qualification, or the application shall be treated as being 
     approved.
       ``(C) Compensatory mitigation.--Requirements for 
     compensatory mitigation for general permits may be imposed 
     where necessary to offset the significant loss or degradation 
     of significant wetlands functions where such loss or 
     degradation is not a temporary or incidental impact. Such 
     compensatory mitigation shall be calculated based upon the 
     specific impact of a particular project.
       ``(D) Grandfather of existing general permits.--General 
     permits in effect on day before the date of the enactment of 
     the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 
     1995 shall remain in effect until otherwise modified by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(E) States with substantial conserved lands.--Upon 
     application by a State or local authority in a State with 
     substantial conserved wetlands areas, the Secretary shall 
     issue a general permit applicable to such authority for 
     activities in wetlands or waters of the United States. No 
     permit issued pursuant to this subparagraph shall include 
     conditions, requirements, or standards for mitigation to 
     compensate for adverse impacts to wetlands or waters of the 
     United States or shall include conditions, requirements, or 
     standards for avoidance of adverse impacts of wetlands or 
     waters of the United States.
       ``(9) Other waters of the united states.--The Secretary may 
     issue a permit authorizing activities in waters of the United 
     States (other than those classified as type A, B, or C 
     wetlands under this section) if the Secretary finds that 
     issuance of the permit is in the public interest, balancing 
     the reasonably foreseeable benefits and detriments resulting 
     from the issuance of the permit. The permit shall be subject 
     to such terms and conditions as the Secretary finds are 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of the Comprehensive 
     Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995. In 
     determining whether or not to issue the permit and whether or 
     not specific terms and conditions are necessary to carry out 
     such purposes, the Secretary shall consider the factors set 
     forth in paragraph (3)(A) as they apply to nonwetlands areas 
     and such other provisions of paragraph (3) as the Secretary 
     determines are appropriate to apply to nonwetlands areas.
     [[Page H4895]]   ``(f) Activities not Requiring Permit.--
       ``(1) In general.--Activities undertaken in any wetlands or 
     waters of the United States 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 or prohibitions 
     under section 307 of this Act) if such activities--
       ``(A) 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;
       ``(B) 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;
       ``(C) 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 of drainage ditches;
       ``(D) 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;
       ``(E) are for the purpose of construction or maintenance of 
     farm roads or forest roads, railroad lines of up to 10 miles 
     in length, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment, 
     access roads for utility distribution and transmission lines 
     if such roads or railroad lines are constructed and 
     maintained, 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;
       ``(F) 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;
       ``(G) result from any activity with respect to which a 
     State has an approved program under section 208(b)(4) of this 
     Act which meets the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) 
     of such section;
       ``(H) are consistent with a State or local land management 
     plan submitted to the Secretary and approved pursuant to 
     paragraph (2);
       ``(I) are undertaken in connection with a marsh management 
     and conservation program in a coastal parish in the State of 
     Louisiana where such program has been approved by the 
     Governor of such State or the designee of the Governor;
       ``(J) are undertaken on lands or involve activities within 
     a State's coastal zone which are excluded from regulation 
     under a State coastal zone management program approved under 
     the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451, et 
     seq.);
       ``(K) 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;
       ``(L) are for the purpose of preserving and enhancing 
     aviation safety or are undertaken in order to prevent an 
     airport hazard;
       ``(M) result from aggregate or clay mining activities in 
     wetlands conducted pursuant to a State or Federal permit that 
     requires the reclamation of such affected wetlands if such 
     reclamation will be completed within 5 years of the 
     commencement of activities at the site and, upon completion 
     of such reclamation, the wetlands will support wetlands 
     functions equivalent to the functions supported by the 
     wetlands at the time of commencement of such activities;
       ``(N) are for the placement of a structural member for a 
     pile-supported structure, such as a pier or dock, or for a 
     linear project such as a bridge, transmission or distribution 
     line footing, powerline structure, or elevated or other 
     walkway;
       ``(O) are for the placement of a piling in waters of the 
     United States in a circumstance that involves--
       ``(i) a linear project described in subparagraph (N); or
       ``(ii) a structure such as a pier, boathouse, wharf, 
     marina, lighthouse, or individual house built on stilts 
     solely to reduce the potential of flooding;
       ``(P) are for the clearing (including mechanized clearing) 
     of vegetation within a right-of-way associated with the 
     development and maintenance of a transmission or distribution 
     line or other powerline structure or for the maintenance of 
     water supply reservoirs which provide water predominantly to 
     public drinking water systems;
       ``(Q) are undertaken in or affecting waterfilled 
     depressions created in uplands incidental to construction 
     activity, or are undertaken in or affecting 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; or
       ``(R) are undertaken in a State with substantial conserved 
     wetlands areas and--
       ``(i) are for purposes of providing critical 
     infrastructure, including water and sewer systems, airports, 
     roads, communication sites, fuel storage sites, landfills, 
     housing, hospitals, medical clinics, schools, and other 
     community infrastructure;
       ``(ii) are for construction and maintenance of log transfer 
     facilities associated with log transportation activities;
       ``(iii) are for construction of tailings impoundments 
     utilized for treatment facilities (as determined by the 
     development document) for the mining subcategory for which 
     the tailings impoundment is constructed; or
       ``(iv) are for construction of ice pads and ice roads and 
     for purposes of snow storage and removal.
       ``(2) State or local management plan.--Any State or 
     political subdivision thereof acting pursuant to State 
     authorization may develop a land management plan with respect 
     to lands that include identified wetlands. The State or local 
     government agency may submit any such plan to the Secretary 
     for review and approval. The Secretary shall, within 60 days, 
     notify in writing the designated State or local official of 
     approval or disapproval of any such plan. The Secretary shall 
     approve any plan that is consistent with the purposes of this 
     section. No person shall be entitled to judicial review of 
     the decision of the Secretary to approve or disapprove a land 
     management plan under this paragraph. Nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to alter, limit, or supersede 
     the authority of a State or political subdivision thereof to 
     establish land management plans for purposes other than the 
     provisions of this subsection.
       ``(g) Rules for Delineating Wetlands.--
       ``(1) Standards.--
       ``(A) Issuance of rule.--The Secretary is authorized and 
     directed to establish standards, by rule in accordance with 
     subsection (j), that shall govern the delineation of lands as 
     `wetlands' for purposes of this section. Such rules shall be 
     established after consultation with the heads of other 
     appropriate Federal agencies and shall be binding on all 
     Federal agencies in connection with the administration or 
     implementation of any provision of this section. The 
     standards for delineation of wetlands and any decision of the 
     Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture (in the case of 
     agricultural lands and associated nonagricultural lands), or 
     any other Federal officer or agency made in connection with 
     the administration of this section shall comply with the 
     requirements for delineation of wetlands set forth in 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C).
       ``(B) Exceptions.--The standards established by rule or 
     applied in any case for purposes of this section shall ensure 
     that lands are delineated as wetlands only if such lands are 
     found to be `wetlands' under section 502 of this Act; except 
     that such standards may not--
       ``(i) result in the delineation of lands as wetlands unless 
     clear evidence of wetlands hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, 
     and hydric soil are found to be present during the period in 
     which such delineation is made, which delineation shall be 
     conducted during the growing season unless otherwise 
     requested by the applicant;
       ``(ii) result in the classification of vegetation as 
     hydrophytic if such vegetation is equally adapted to dry or 
     wet soil conditions or is more typically adapted to dry soil 
     conditions than to wet soil conditions;
       ``(iii) result in the classification of lands as wetlands 
     unless some obligate wetlands vegetation is found to be 
     present during the period of delineation; except that if such 
     vegetation has been removed for the purpose of evading 
     jurisdiction under this section, this clause shall not apply;
       ``(iv) result in the conclusion that wetlands hydrology is 
     present unless water is found to be present at the surface of 
     such lands for 21 consecutive days in the growing seasons in 
     a majority of the years for which records are available; and
       ``(v) result in the classification of lands as wetlands 
     that are temporarily or incidentally created as a result of 
     adjacent development activity.
       ``(C) Normal circumstances.--In addition to the 
     requirements of subparagraph (B), any standards established 
     by rule or applied to delineate wetlands for purposes of this 
     section shall provide that `normal circumstances' shall be 
     determined on the basis of the factual circumstances in 
     existence at the time a classification is made under 
     subsection (h) or at the time of application under subsection 
     (e), whichever is applicable, if such circumstances have not 
     been altered by an activity prohibited under this section.
       ``(2) Land area cap for type a wetlands.--No more than 20 
     percent of any county, parish, or borough shall be classified 
     as type A wetlands. Type A wetlands in Federal or State 
     ownership (including type A wetlands in units of the National 
     Wildlife Refuge System, the National Park System, and lands 
     held in conservation easements) shall be included in 
     calculating the percent of type A wetlands in a county, 
     parish, or borough.
       ``(3) 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 activities related 
     to the land determined to be exempt from the requirements of 
     [[Page H4896]] 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 
     activities 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.
       ``(h) Mapping and Public Notice Requirements.--
       ``(1) Provision of public notice.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
     Conservation and Management Act of 1995, the Secretary shall 
     provide the court of each county, parish, or borough in which 
     the wetland subject to classification under subsection (c) is 
     located, a notice for posting near the property records of 
     the county, parish, or borough. The notice shall--
       ``(A) state that wetlands regulated under this section may 
     be located in the county, parish, or borough;
       ``(B) provide an explanation understandable to the general 
     public of how wetlands are delineated and classified;
       ``(C) describe the requirements and restrictions of the 
     regulatory program under this section; and
       ``(D) provide instructions on how to obtain a delineation 
     and classification of wetlands under this section.
       ``(2) Provision of delineation determinations.--On 
     completion under this section of a delineation and 
     classification of property that contains wetlands or a 
     delineation of property that contains waters of the United 
     States that are not wetlands, the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     in the case of wetlands located on agricultural lands and 
     associated nonagricultural lands, and the Secretary, in the 
     case of other lands, shall--
       ``(A) file a copy of the delineation, including the 
     classification of any wetland located on the property, with 
     the records of the property in the local courthouse; and
       ``(B) serve a copy of the delineation determination on 
     every owner of the property on record and any person with a 
     recorded mortgage or lien on the property.
       ``(3) Notice of enforcement actions.--The Secretary shall 
     file notice of each enforcement action under this section 
     taken with respect to private property with the records of 
     the property in the local courthouse.
       ``(4) Wetlands identification and classification project.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall undertake a project to identify and 
     classify wetlands in the United States that are regulated 
     under this section. The Secretaries shall complete such 
     project not later than 10 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and 
     Management Act of 1995.
       ``(B) Applicability of delineation standards.--In 
     conducting the project under this section, the Secretaries 
     shall identify and classify wetlands in accordance with 
     standards for delineation of wetlands established by the 
     Secretaries under subsection (g).
       ``(C) Public hearings.--In conducting the project under 
     this section, the Secretaries shall provide notice and an 
     opportunity for a public hearing in each county, parish or 
     borough of a State before completion of identification and 
     classification of wetlands in such county, parish, or 
     borough.
       ``(D) Publication.--Promptly after completion of 
     identification and classification of wetlands in a county, 
     parish, or borough under this section, the Secretaries shall 
     have published information on such identification and 
     classification in the Federal Register and in publications of 
     wide circulation and take other steps reasonably necessary to 
     ensure that such information is available to the public.
       ``(E) Reports.--The Secretaries shall report to Congress on 
     implementation of the project to be conducted under this 
     section not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and 
     Management Act of 1995 and annually thereafter.
       ``(F) Recordation.--Any classification of lands as wetlands 
     under this section shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     be recorded on the property records in the county, parish, or 
     borough in which such wetlands are located.
       ``(i) Administrative Appeals.--
       ``(1) Regulations establishing procedures.--Not later than 
     1 year after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive 
     Wetlands Conservation and 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 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.
       ``(j) Administrative Provisions.--
       ``(1) Final regulations for issuance of permits.--Not later 
     than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the 
     Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 
     1995, the Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity for 
     comment, issue (in accordance with section 553 of title 5 of 
     the United States Code and this section) final regulations 
     for implementation of this section. Such regulations shall, 
     in accordance with this section, provide--
       ``(A) standards and procedures for the classification and 
     delineation of wetlands and procedures for administrative 
     review of any such classification or delineation;
       ``(B) standards and procedures for the review of State or 
     local land management plans and State programs for the 
     regulation of wetlands;
       ``(C) for the issuance of general permits, including 
     programmatic, State, regional, and nationwide permits;
       ``(D) standards and procedures for the individual permit 
     applications under this section;
       ``(E) for enforcement of this section;
       ``(F) guidelines for the specification of sites for the 
     disposal of dredged or fill material for navigational 
     dredging; and
       ``(G) any other rules and regulations that the Secretary 
     deems necessary or appropriate to implement the requirements 
     of this section.
       ``(2) Navigational dredging guidelines.--Guidelines 
     developed under paragraph (1)(F) shall--
       ``(A) be based upon criteria comparable to the criteria 
     applicable to the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and 
     the oceans under section 403(c); and
       ``(B) ensure that with respect to the issuance of permits 
     under this section--
       ``(i) the least costly, environmentally acceptable disposal 
     alternative will be selected, taking into consideration cost, 
     existing technology, short term and long term dredging 
     requirements, and logistics;
       ``(ii) a disposal site will be specified after comparing 
     reasonably available upland, confined aquatic, beneficial 
     use, and open water disposal alternatives on the basis of 
     relative risk, environmental acceptability, economics, 
     practicability, and current technological feasibility;
       ``(iii) a disposal site will be specified after comparing 
     the reasonably anticipated environmental and economic 
     benefits of undertaking the underlying project to the status 
     quo; and
       ``(iv) in comparing alternatives and selection of a 
     disposal site, management measures may be considered and 
     utilized to limit, to the extent practicable, adverse 
     environmental effects by employing suitable chemical, 
     biological, or physical techniques to prevent unacceptable 
     adverse impacts on the environment.
       ``(3) Judicial review of final regulations.--Any judicial 
     review of final regulations issued pursuant to this section 
     and the Secretary's denial of any petition for the issuance, 
     amendment, or repeal of any regulation under this section 
     shall be in accordance with sections 701 through 706 of title 
     5 of the United States Code; except that a petition for 
     review of action of the Secretary in issuing any regulation 
     or requirement under this section or denying any petition for 
     the issuance, amendment, or repeal of any regulation under 
     this section may be filed only in the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia, and such petition shall 
     be filed within 90 days from the date of such issuance or 
     denial or after such date if such petition for review is 
     based solely on grounds arising after such ninetieth day. 
     Action of the Secretary with respect to which review could 
     have been obtained under this subsection shall not be subject 
     to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for 
     enforcement.
       ``(4) Interim regulations.--The Secretary shall, within 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive 
     Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, issue 
     interim regulations consistent with this section to take 
     effect immediately. Notice of the interim regulations shall 
     be published in the Federal Register, and such regulations 
     shall be binding until the issuance of final regulations 
     pursuant to paragraph (1); except that the Secretary shall 
     provide adequate procedures for waiver of any provisions of 
     such interim regulations to avoid special hardship, inequity, 
     or unfair distribution of burdens or to advance the purposes 
     of this section.
       ``(5) Administration by secretary.--Except where otherwise 
     expressly provided in this section, the Secretary shall 
     administer this section. The Secretary or any other Federal 
     officer or agency in which any function under this section 
     [[Page H4897]] is vested or delegated is authorized to 
     perform any and all acts (including appropriate enforcement 
     activity), and to prescribe, issue, amend, or rescind such 
     rules or orders as such officer or agency may find necessary 
     or appropriate with this subsection, subject to the 
     requirements of this subsection.
       ``(k) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Compliance order.--Whenever, on the basis of reliable 
     and substantial information and after reasonable inquiry, the 
     Secretary finds that any person is or may be in violation of 
     this section or of any condition or limitation set forth in a 
     permit issued by the Secretary under this section, the 
     Secretary shall issue an order requiring such persons to 
     comply with this section or with such condition or 
     limitation.
       ``(2) Notice and other procedural requirements relating to 
     orders.--A copy of any order issued under this subsection 
     shall be sent immediately by the Secretary to the Governor of 
     the State in which the violation occurs and the Governors of 
     other affected States. The person committing the asserted 
     violation that results in issuance of the order shall be 
     notified of the issuance of the order by personal service 
     made to the appropriate person or corporate officer. The 
     notice shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of 
     the asserted violation and specify a time for compliance, not 
     to exceed 30 days, which the Secretary determines is 
     reasonable taking into account the seriousness of the 
     asserted violation and any good faith efforts to comply with 
     applicable requirements. If the person receiving the notice 
     disputes the Secretary's determination, the person may file 
     an appeal as provided in subsection (i). Within 60 days of a 
     decision which denies an appeal, or within 150 days from the 
     date of notification of violation by the Secretary if no 
     appeal is filed, the Secretary shall prosecute a civil action 
     in accordance with paragraph (3) or rescind such order and be 
     estopped from any further enforcement proceedings for the 
     same asserted violation.
       ``(3) Civil action enforcement.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to commence a civil action for appropriate relief, 
     including a permanent or temporary injunction, for any 
     violation for which the Secretary is authorized to issue a 
     compliance order under paragraph (1). Any action under this 
     paragraph may be brought in the district court of the United 
     States for the district in which the defendant is located or 
     resides or is doing business, and such court shall have 
     jurisdiction to restrain such violation and to require 
     compliance. Notice of the commencement of such action shall 
     be given immediately to the appropriate State.
       ``(4) Civil penalties.--Any person who violates any 
     condition or limitation in a permit issued by the Secretary 
     under this section and any person who violates any order 
     issued by the Secretary under paragraph (1) shall be subject 
     to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each 
     violation commencing on expiration of the compliance period 
     if no appeal is filed or on the 30th day following the date 
     of the denial of an appeal of such violation. The amount of 
     the penalty imposed per day shall be in proportion to the 
     scale or scope of the project. In determining the amount of a 
     civil penalty, the court shall consider the seriousness of 
     the violation or violations, the economic benefit (if any) 
     resulting from the violation, any history of such violations, 
     any good-faith efforts to comply with the applicable 
     requirements, the economic impact of the penalty on the 
     violator, and such other matters as justice may require.
       ``(5) Criminal penalties.--If any person knowingly and 
     willfully violates any condition or limitation in a permit 
     issued by the Secretary under this section or knowingly and 
     willfully violates an order issued by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1) and has been notified of the issuance of such 
     order under paragraph (2) and if such violation has resulted 
     in actual degradation of the environment, such person shall 
     be punished by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than 
     $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more 
     than 3 years, or by both. If a conviction of a person is for 
     a violation committed after a first conviction of such person 
     under this paragraph, punishment shall be by a fine of not 
     more than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of 
     not more than 6 years, or by both. An action for imposition 
     of a criminal penalty under this paragraph may only be 
     brought by the Attorney General.
       ``(l) State Regulation.--
       ``(1) Submission of proposed state program.--The Governor 
     of any State desiring to administer its own individual or 
     general permit program for some or all of the activities 
     covered by this section within any geographical region within 
     its jurisdiction may submit to the Secretary a description of 
     the program it proposes to establish and administer under 
     State law or under an interstate compact. In addition, such 
     State shall submit a statement from the chief legal officer 
     in the case of the State or interstate agency, that the laws 
     of such State, or the interstate compact, as the case may be, 
     provide adequate authority to carry out the described 
     program.
       ``(2) State authorities required for approval.--Not later 
     than 1 year after the date of the receipt by the Secretary of 
     a program and statement submitted by any State under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall determine whether such 
     State has the following authority with respect to the 
     issuance of permits pursuant to such program--
       ``(A) to issue permits which--
       ``(i) apply, and assure compliance with, any applicable 
     requirements of this section; and
       ``(ii) can be terminated or modified for cause, including--

       ``(I) violation of any condition of the permit;
       ``(II) obtaining a permit by misrepresentation, or failure 
     to disclose fully all relevant facts; or
       ``(III) change in any condition that requires either a 
     temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the 
     permitted activity;
       ``(B) to issue permits which apply, and ensure compliance 
     with, all applicable requirements of section 308 of this Act 
     or to inspect, monitor, enter, and require reports to at 
     least the same extent as required in section 308 of this Act;
       ``(C) to ensure that the public, and any other State the 
     waters of which may be affected, receive notice of each 
     application for a permit and to provide an opportunity for 
     public hearing before a ruling on each such application;
       ``(D) to ensure that the Secretary receives notice of each 
     application for a permit and that, prior to any action by the 
     State, both the applicant for the permit and the State have 
     received from the Secretary information with respect to any 
     advance classification applicable to wetlands that are the 
     subject of such application;
       ``(E) to ensure that any State (other than the permitting 
     State) whose waters may be affected by the issuance of a 
     permit may submit written recommendation to the permitting 
     State with respect to any permit application and, if any part 
     of such written recommendations are not accepted by the 
     permitting State, that the permitting State will notify such 
     affected State (and the Secretary) in writing of its failure 
     to so accept such recommendations together with its reasons 
     for doing so; and
       ``(F) to abate violations of the permit or the permit 
     program, including civil and criminal penalties and other 
     ways and means of enforcement.
       ``(3) Approval; resubmission.--If, with respect to a State 
     program submitted under paragraph (1) of this section, the 
     Secretary determines that the State--
       ``(A) has the authority set forth in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall approve the program and so notify such State 
     and suspend the issuance of permits under subsection (b) for 
     activities with respect to which a permit may be issued 
     pursuant to the State program; or
       ``(B) does not have the authority set forth in paragraph 
     (2) of this subsection, the Secretary shall so notify such 
     State and provide a description of the revisions or 
     modifications necessary so that the State may resubmit the 
     program for a determination by the Secretary under this 
     subsection.
       ``(4) Effect of failure of secretary to make timely 
     decision.--If the Secretary fails to make a determination 
     with respect to any program submitted by a State under this 
     subsection within 1 year after the date of receipt of the 
     program, the program shall be treated as being approved 
     pursuant to paragraph (3)(A) and the Secretary shall so 
     notify the State and suspend the issuance of permits under 
     subsection (b) for activities with respect to which a permit 
     may be issued by the State.
       ``(5) Transfer of pending applications for permits.--If the 
     Secretary approves a State permit program under paragraph 
     (3)(A) or (4), the Secretary shall transfer any applications 
     for permits pending before the Secretary for activities with 
     respect to which a permit may be issued pursuant to the State 
     program to the State for appropriate action.
       ``(6) General permits.--Upon notification from a State with 
     a permit program approved under this subsection that such 
     State intends to administer and enforce the terms and 
     conditions of a general permit issued by the Secretary under 
     subsection (e) with respect to activities in the State to 
     which such general permit applies, the Secretary shall 
     suspend the administration and enforcement of such general 
     permit with respect to such activities.
       ``(7) Review by secretary.--Every 5 years after approval of 
     a State administered program under paragraph (3)(A), the 
     Secretary shall review the program to determine whether it is 
     being administered in accordance with this section. If, on 
     the basis of such review, the Secretary finds that a State is 
     not administering its program in accordance with this section 
     or if the Secretary determines based on clear and convincing 
     evidence after a public hearing that a State is not 
     administering its program in accordance with this section and 
     that substantial adverse impacts to wetlands or waters of the 
     United States are imminent, the Secretary shall notify the 
     State and, if appropriate corrective action is not taken 
     within a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days after the 
     date of the receipt of such notification, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) withdraw approval of the program until the Secretary 
     determines such corrective action has been taken; and
       ``(B) resume the program for the issuance of permits under 
     subsections (b) and (e) for all activities with respect to 
     which the State was issuing permits until such time as the 
     Secretary makes the determination described in paragraph (2) 
     and the State again has an approved program.
       ``(m) Miscellaneous Provisions.--
       ``(1) State authority to control discharges.--Nothing in 
     this section shall preclude or deny the right of any State or 
     interstate agency to control activities in waters within the 
     jurisdiction of such State, including any activity of any 
     Federal agency, and each such agency shall comply with such 
     State or interstate requirements both substantive and 
     procedural to control such activities to the same extent that 
     any person is subject to such requirements. This section 
     shall not be construed as affecting or impairing the 
     authority of the Secretary to maintain navigation.
       ``(2) Availability to public.--A copy of each permit 
     application and each permit issued under this section shall 
     be available to the public. Such permit application or 
     portion thereof shall further be available on request for the 
     purpose of reproduction.
       ``(3) Publication in federal register.--The Secretary shall 
     have published in the Federal 
     [[Page H4898]] Register all memoranda of agreement, 
     regulatory guidance letters, and other guidance documents of 
     general applicability to implementation of this section at 
     the time they are distributed to agency regional or field 
     offices. In addition, the Secretary shall prepare, update on 
     a biennial basis and make available to the public for 
     purchase at cost--
       ``(A) an indexed publication containing all Federal 
     regulations, general permits, memoranda of agreement, 
     regulatory guidance letters, and other guidance documents 
     relevant to the permitting of activities pursuant to this 
     section; and
       ``(B) information to enable the general public to 
     understand the delineation of wetlands, the permitting 
     requirements referred to in subsection (e), wetlands 
     restoration and enhancement, wetlands functions, available 
     nonregulatory programs to conserve and restore wetlands, and 
     other matters that the Secretary considers relevant.
       ``(4) Compliance.--
       ``(A) Compliance with permit.--Compliance with a permit 
     issued pursuant to this section, including any activity 
     carried out pursuant to a general permit issued under this 
     section, shall be deemed in compliance, for purposes of 
     sections 309 and 505, with sections 301, 307, and 403.
       ``(B) 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--
       ``(i) 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
       ``(ii) the activity is required by any State or Federal 
     water quality program.
       ``(5) Limitation on fees.--Any fee charged in connection 
     with the delineation or classification of wetlands, the 
     submission or processing of an application for a permit 
     authorizing an activity in wetlands or waters of the United 
     States, or any other action taken in compliance with the 
     requirements of this section (other than fines for violations 
     under subsection (k)) shall not exceed the amount in effect 
     for such fee on February 15, 1995.
       ``(6) Balanced implementation.--
       ``(A) In general.--In implementing his or her 
     responsibilities under the regulatory program under this 
     section, the Secretary shall balance the objective of 
     conserving functioning wetlands with the objective of 
     ensuring continued economic growth, providing essential 
     infrastructure, maintaining strong State and local tax bases, 
     and protecting against the diminishment of the use and value 
     of privately owned property.
       ``(B) Minimization of adverse effects on private 
     property.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary and 
     the heads of all other Federal agencies shall seek in all 
     actions to minimize the adverse effects of the regulatory 
     program under this section on the use and value of privately 
     owned property.
       ``(7) Procedures for emergencies.--The Secretary shall 
     develop procedures for facilitating actions under this 
     section that are necessary to respond to emergency conditions 
     (including flood events and other emergency situations) which 
     may involve loss of life and property damage. Such procedures 
     shall address circumstances requiring expedited approvals as 
     well as circumstances requiring no formal approval under this 
     section.
       ``(8) Use of property.--For purposes of this section, a use 
     of property is limited by an agency action if a particular 
     legal right to use that property no longer exists because of 
     the action.
       ``(9) Limitation on classification of certain waters.--For 
     purposes of this section, no water of the United States or 
     wetland shall be subject to this section based solely on the 
     fact that migratory birds use or could use such water or 
     wetland.
       ``(10) Transition rules.--
       ``(A) Permit required.--After the effective date of this 
     section under section 806 of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
     Conservation and Management Act of 1995, no permit for any 
     activity in wetlands or waters of the United States may be 
     issued except in accordance with this section. Any 
     application for a permit for such an activity pending under 
     this section on such effective date shall be deemed to be an 
     application for a permit under this section.
       ``(B) Prior permits.--Any permit for an activity in 
     wetlands or waters of the United
      States issued under this section prior to the effective date 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be deemed to be a 
     permit under this section and shall continue in force and 
     effect for the term of the permit unless revoked, 
     modified, suspended, or canceled in accordance with this 
     section.
       ``(C) Reevaluation.--
       ``(i) Petition.--Any person holding a permit for an 
     activity in wetlands or water of the United States on the 
     effective date referred to in subparagraph (A) may petition, 
     after such effective date, the Secretary for reevaluation of 
     any decision made before such effective date concerning (I) a 
     determination of regulatory jurisdiction under this section, 
     or (II) any condition imposed under the permit. Upon receipt 
     of a petition for reevaluation, the Secretary shall conduct 
     the reevaluation in accordance with the provisions of this 
     section.
       ``(ii) Modification of permit.--If the Secretary finds that 
     the provisions of this section apply with respect to 
     activities and lands which are subject to the permit, the 
     Secretary shall modify, revoke, suspend, cancel, or continue 
     the permit as appropriate in accordance with the provisions 
     of this section; except that no compensation shall be awarded 
     under this section to any person as a result of reevaluation 
     pursuant to this subparagraph and, if the permit covers 
     activities in type A wetlands, the permit shall continue in 
     effect without modification.
       ``(iii) Procedure.--The reevaluation shall be carried out 
     in accordance with time limits set forth in subsection (e)(5) 
     and shall be subject to administrative appeal under 
     subsection (i).
       ``(D) Previously denied permits.--No permit shall be issued 
     under this section, no exemption shall be available under 
     subsection (f), and no exception shall be available under 
     subsection (g)(1)(B), for any activity for which a permit has 
     previously been denied by the Secretary on more than one 
     occasion unless such activity--
       ``(i) has been approved by the affected State, county, and 
     local government within the boundaries of which the activity 
     is proposed;
       ``(ii) in the case of unincorporated land, has been 
     approved by all local governments within 1 mile of the 
     proposed activity; and
       ``(iii) would result in a net improvement to water quality 
     at the site of such activity.
       ``(11) Definitions.--In this section the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Activity in wetlands or waters of the united 
     states.--The term `activity in wetlands or waters of the 
     United States' means--
       ``(i) the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters 
     of the United States, including wetlands at a specific 
     disposal site; or
       ``(ii) the draining, channelization, or excavation of 
     wetlands.
       ``(B) Agency.--The term `agency' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(C) Agency action.--The term `agency action' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United 
     States Code, but also includes the making of a grant to a 
     public authority conditioned upon an action by the recipient 
     that would constitute a limitation if done directly by the 
     agency.
       ``(D) Agricultural land.--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.
       ``(E) Conserved wetlands.--The term `conserved wetlands' 
     means wetlands that are located in the National Park System, 
     National Wildlife Refuge System, National Wilderness System, 
     the Wild and Scenic River System, and other similar Federal 
     conservation systems, combined with wetlands located in 
     comparable types of conservation systems established under 
     State and local authority within State and local land use 
     systems.
       ``(F) Economic base lands.--The term `economic base lands' 
     means lands conveyed to, selected by, or owned by Alaska 
     Native entities pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act, Public Law 92-203 or the Alaska Native 
     Allotment Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 197), and lands conveyed to, 
     selected by, or owned by the State of Alaska pursuant to the 
     Alaska Statehood Act, Public Law 85-508.
       ``(G) Fair market value.--The term `fair market value' 
     means the most probable price at which property would change 
     hands, in a competitive and open market under all conditions 
     requisite to a fair sale, between a willing buyer and a 
     willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or 
     sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, 
     at the time the agency action occurs.
       ``(H) Law of a state.--The term `law of a State' includes 
     the law of a political subdivision of a State.
       ``(I) Mitigation bank.--The term `mitigation bank' means a 
     wetlands restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation 
     project undertaken by one or more parties, including private 
     and public entities, expressly for the purpose of providing 
     mitigation compensation credits to offset adverse impacts to 
     wetlands or other waters of the United States authorized by 
     the terms of permits allowing activities in such wetlands or 
     waters.
       ``(J) Navigational dredging.--The term `navigational 
     dredging' means the dredging of ports, waterways, and inland 
     harbors, including berthing areas and local access channels 
     appurtenant to a Federal navigation channel.
       ``(K) Property.--The term `property' means land and 
     includes the right to use or receive water.
       ``(L) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of the Army.
       ``(M) State with substantial conserved wetlands areas.--The 
     term `State with substantial conserved wetlands areas' means 
     any State which--
       ``(i) contains at least 10 areas of wetlands for each acre 
     of wetlands filled, drained, or otherwise converted within 
     such State (based upon wetlands loss statistics reported in 
     the 1990 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands 
     Trends report to Congress entitled `Wetlands Losses in the 
     United States 1780's to 1980's'); or
       ``(ii) the Secretary of the Army determines has sufficient 
     conserved wetlands areas to provided adequate wetlands 
     conservation in such State, based on the policies set forth 
     in this Act.
       ``(N) Wetlands.--The term `wetlands' means those lands that 
     meet the criteria for delineation of lands as wetlands set 
     forth in subsection (g).''.

     SEC. 804. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by striking ``dredged spoil,'';
       (B) by striking ``or (B)'' and inserting ``(B)''; and
       (C) by inserting before the period at the end ``; and (C) 
     dredged or fill material''; and

[[Page H4899]]

       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(28) The term `wetlands' means lands which have a 
     predominance of hydric soils and which are inundated by 
     surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to 
     support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 
     prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in 
     saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, 
     marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
       ``(29) The term `creation of wetlands' means an activity 
     that brings a wetland into existence at a site where it did 
     not formerly occur for the purpose of compensatory 
     mitigation.
       ``(30) The term `enhancement of wetlands' means any 
     activity that increases the value of one or more functions in 
     existing wetlands.
       ``(31) The term `fastlands' means lands located behind 
     legally constituted man-made structures or natural 
     formations, such as levees constructed and maintained to 
     permit the utilization of such lands for commercial, 
     industrial, or residential purposes consistent with local 
     land use planning requirements.
       ``(32) The term `wetlands functions' means the roles 
     wetlands serve, including flood water storage, flood water 
     conveyance, ground water recharge, erosion control, wave 
     attenuation, water quality protection, scenic and aesthetic 
     use, food chain support, fisheries, wetlands plant habitat, 
     aquatic habitat, and habitat for wetland dependent wildlife.
       ``(33) The term `growing season' means, for each plant 
     hardiness zone, the period between the average date of last 
     frost in spring and the average date of first frost in 
     autumn.
       ``(34) The term `incidentally created wetlands' means lands 
     that exhibit wetlands characteristics sufficient to meet the 
     criteria for delineation of wetlands, where one or more of 
     such characteristics is the unintended result of human 
     induced alterations of hydrology.
       ``(35) The term `maintenance' when used in reference to 
     wetlands means activities undertaken to assure continuation 
     of a wetland or the accomplishment of project goals after a 
     restoration or creation project has been technically 
     completed, including water level manipulations and control of 
     nonnative plant species.
       ``(36) The term `mitigation banking' means wetlands 
     restoration, enhancement, preservation or creation for the 
     purpose of providing compensation for wetland degradation or 
     loss.
       ``(37) 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.
       ``(38) The term `prior converted cropland' means any 
     agricultural land that was manipulated (by drainage or other 
     physical alteration to remove excess water from the land) or 
     used for the production of any annual or perennial 
     agricultural crop (including forage or hay), aquacultural 
     product, nursery product or wetlands crop, or the production 
     of livestock before December 23, 1985.
       ``(39) The term `restoration' in reference to wetlands 
     means an activity undertaken to return a wetland from a 
     disturbed or altered condition with lesser acreage or fewer 
     functions to a previous condition with greater wetlands 
     acreage or functions.
       ``(40) The term `temporary impact' means the disturbance or 
     alteration of wetlands caused by activities under 
     circumstances in which, within 3 years following the 
     commencement of such activities, such wetlands--
       ``(A) are returned to the conditions in existence prior to 
     the commencement of such activity; or
       ``(B) display conditions sufficient to ensure, that without 
     further human action, such wetlands will return to the 
     conditions in existence prior to the commencement of such 
     activity.
       ``(41) The term `airport hazard' has the meaning such term 
     has under section 47102 of title 49, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 805. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
       (a) Violation.--Section 301(a) (33 U.S.C. 1311(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``402, and 404'' and inserting ``and 402''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Except as in 
     compliance with this section and section 404, the undertaking 
     of any activity in wetlands or waters of the United States 
     shall be unlawful.''.
       (b) Federal Enforcement.--Section 309 (33 U.S.C. 1319) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``or 404'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``or in a permit 
     issued under section 404 of this Act by a State'';
       (3) in each of subsections (c)(1)(A) and (c)(2)(A) by 
     striking ``or in a permit'' and all that follows through 
     ``State;'' and inserting a semicolon;
       (4) in subsection (c)(3)(A) by striking ``or in a permit'' 
     and all that follows through ``State, and'' and inserting 
     ``and'';
       (5) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following:
       ``(8) Treatment of certain violations.--Any person who 
     violates section 301 with respect to an activity in wetlands 
     or waters of the United States for which a permit is required 
     under section 404 shall not be subject to punishment under 
     this subsection but shall be subject to punishment under 
     section 404(k)(5).'';
       (6) in subsection (d) by striking ``, or in a permit issued 
     under section 404 of this Act by a State,'';
       (7) by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following: 
     ``Any person who violates section 301 with respect to an 
     activity in wetlands or waters of the United States for which 
     a permit is required under section 404 shall not be subject 
     to a civil penalty under this subsection but shall be subject 
     to a civil penalty under section 404(k)(4).'';
       (8) in subsection (g)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``--'' and all that follows through 
     ``(A)'';
       (B) by striking ``or in a permit issued under section 404 
     by a State, or''; and
       (C) by striking ``(B)'' and all that follows through ``as 
     the case may be,'' and inserting ``the Administrator'';
       (9) by adding at the end of subsection (g) the following:
       ``(12) Treatment of certain violations.--Any person who 
     violates section 301 with respect to an activity in wetlands 
     or waters of the United States for which a permit is required 
     under section 404 shall not be subject to assessment of a 
     civil penalty under this subsection but shall be subject to 
     assessment of a civil penalty under section 404(k)(4).'';
       (10) by striking ``or Secretary'', ``or the Secretary'', 
     ``or the Secretary, as the case may be,'', ``or 
     Secretary's'', and ``and the Secretary'' each place they 
     appear; and
       (11) in subsection (g)(9)(B) by inserting a comma after 
     ``Administrator''.

     SEC. 806. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title, including the amendments made by this title, 
     shall take effect on the 90th day following the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 961 the Clean 
Water Act amendments, a measure which represents a retreat from over 20 
years of progress and commitment and since presented on the floor this 
week has become increasingly weakened by further amendments being 
added.
  The first 3 months of this 104th Congress has with the Republican 
``Contract'' represented an assault on the sound, fair and needed 
environmental laws enacted on a bi-partisan basis the past four 
decades.
  The Clean Water Act [CWA] has been a good success with extraordinary 
achievements and effort within the Federal framework. State and local 
governments have been spurred to positive action with an effective 
national framework of law and funding to help achieve the objectives 
and standards. Each instance when the law was rewritten resulted in 
pragmatic adjustments and amendments reinforcing and empowering safety, 
health and environmental considerations. As new information and 
pressures impact the range of law and issues inherent regarding the 
CWA, efforts have been made to respond.
  That is changed in the measure H.R. 961 that is being promoted in the 
Congress today.
  This legislation is a denial of the problem and trades short-term 
gain for a narrow group of special interests against the long term 
problems of despoiling the safety, health and environment of the 
people.
  This negative initiative discards the lessons of the past, abandons 
the investments made by the Federal and State Governments as it 
sacrifices sound standards to political expediency; it is wrong for the 
economy and the environment.
  The measure H.R. 961 includes provisions waiving secondary treatment 
facilities, replaces the wetland delineation with loose State process 
and creates a new payment entitlement system to reward polluters for 
not polluting, the measure H.R. 961 repeals existing law for special 
runoff control provisions for coastal areas, repeals the existing storm 
water management program. An effort to restore these provisions was 
rejected save the amendment addressing some coastal provisions--which 
no doubt will be revoted before we complete this measure in the House. 
Candidly, the fingerprints of special interests are all over this bill 
as it left committee, in fact it's an open secret that portions of the 
bill, the CWA 1995, have been written by the lobbyists. It isn't just 
the environment that is being despoiled; it is the Congress and the 
House in such a mode of behavior and activity that is being despoiled.
  The bottom line is that this measure represents a retreat, a reneging 
on the commitment to clean water and sound environmental policy.
  Dismantling the Federal role and the Federal Government and the 
coordination, collaboration that is inherent to the Federal Government 
role is absolutely essential to sound environmental policy, to clean 
water, to clean air, to the protection of biodiversity. In fact, today 
we, the Congress, should be pursuing global agreements not turning back 
and away from science and sound policy.
  Congress can't achieve sound environmental policy in the absence of a 
weakened or undercut Federal policy and as nature abhors a vacuum, the 
power of the people, the Federal Government, is being filled by the big 
corporations and special interests who put private profit and interest 
first and the American people second. We must reject this measure and 
flawed policy and philosophy.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I do that simply to announce that it is my understanding we will take 
up the wetlands debate Monday evening 
[[Page H4900]] after the votes occur on suspensions, but there will be 
no votes on the wetlands debate Monday evening and we will move to the 
continuation of this bill Tuesday morning, with an objective of 
finishing this legislation by Tuesday night.
  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. Fox 
of Pennsylvania) 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.

                          ____________________
```