H 4956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 15, 1995

in there, there is no book to stop the

agency from getting out of control. In

your amendment you talk about going

back to the 1987 delineation manual

and sticking to that until we get something better. You define wetlands in

your definitions of your amendment as

land that supports aquatic vegetation

or wetlands-type vegetation. That is

your definition of a wetland.

I say to my colleague, now, on your

way home tonight, or when you come

in in the morning, because it’s going to

be dark here, go by just 395, make a

right, go down about a mile, and you’ll

see a sign that says the future site of

the Fairmount Hotel, and it’s an acre

or two of land that has toolies, that

has sitting water on it, that looks, by

every definition, as a wetland, but this

is land that’s been developed for a long

time that we tore down an old building.

They’re putting up a new one.

I say to my colleagues, I mean you

have got to have something more to it

than that. You’ve got to define the difference between the wetlands I saw in

Louisiana and this. You’ve got to define the difference between what the

value of these wetlands are to the environment. You don’t do that; that’s

what we’re trying to fix.

Mr. Chairman, we are trying to stop

the agencies from going out, and running amok, and trying to do this type

of thing. That is what has to stop. I say

to my colleague, your amendment to

this bill doesn’t do that, and I understand the importance of wetlands in

different parts of the country. I heard

the people in North Carolina talk

about the importance of wetlands to

their area. I heard the people in Louisiana talk about the fishermen, talk

about the importance of wetlands to

their livelihood. I heard the people in

Vancouver talk about the importance

of wetlands to their livelihood, but

there is a big difference between the

wetlands that they talk about and the

wetlands that look like this. They are

not the same thing.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman,

would the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. BOELERT. I would like to read

one section, section 818, definitions.

The term ‘‘wetland’’ means those areas

that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that, under normal circumstances, do support, a prevalence of

vegetation typically adapted to life in

saturated soil conditions.

Mr. POMBO. OK. Now, does the gentleman understand his definition because I am going to ask the gentleman

a question about that?

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from California [Mr. POMBO]

has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. POMBO

was allowed to proceed for 3 additional

minutes.)

Mr. POMBO. I say to the gentleman,

If you understand your definition of

what is in your amendment, if I had a

broken water pipe, and the land was

sufficiently saturated so that it would

support the kind of vegetation that is

in a wetland, would that not fit your

definition?

Mr. BEOHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. No, it would not, because that was manmade, and it is frequency that the gentleman is ignoring.

That was a one-time occurrence.

Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, I

have read the gentleman’s amendment.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman’s

definition states that it is land that is

saturated enough so that it will sustain aquatic vegetation.

Mr. BOEHLERT. But the gentleman

is forgetting the frequency part of the

definition. That is important.

Mr. POMBO. Yes, if the land is wet

long enough, it will support that kind

of vegetation.

In my house in California, across the

street they have a cattle trough, and it

runs over all the time because it comes

out of a spring and it supports aquatic

vegetation. It has got toolies down the

cattle pasture. It is saturated long

enough to fit the gentleman’s definition, and it is not a wetland, and that

is the kind of stuff we are trying to

stop. I say to the gentleman, You don’t

allow us to do that. You’re getting

back into the original reason that the

Clean Water Act was passed. We wanted to stop polluted rivers. We wanted

to stop polluted rivers.

Now, somewhere along the line they

decided that we were going to regulate

wetlands under the Clean Water Act,

and there is a reason to protect wetlands. We all understand that. Any of

us that have done our homework understands the reason to protect wetlands, real wetlands. But there is a big

difference between differing types of

wetlands. I say to the gentleman, What

you have in your home State is not the

same as what I have in my district.

b 2030

What Mr. HAYES has in Louisiana is

not the same as what is in my district.

You are not giving us the ability to differentiate between those. You are

throwing it back to the bureaucrats,

throwing it back to the regulators and

telling them you are going to make the

decision. You are avoiding making the

tough policy decisions that have to be

made. Let us give it to the bureaucrats.

One of the things that has frustrated

me the most about serving in this body

is that we intentionally draft legislation to be as vague as possible so that

we can always blame it on the regulators. We can always blame it on the

bureaucrats. It is always their fault. It

is never our fault.

Unless we start making changes like

this bill has in it, we will never correct

these problems. Make the tough decisions.

Mr. SHUSTER. 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.

HAYWORTH) having assumed the chair,

Mr. MCINNIS, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration

the bill (H.R. 961) to amend the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act, had come

to no resolution thereon.

PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON

THE BUDGET TO FILE REPORT

fON CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR

1996

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the Committee on the Budget have until midnight

tonight to file its report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal

year 1996.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

SPECIAL ORDERS

fHAYWORTH). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 1995, and

under a previous order of the House,

the following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

MEDICARE AND THE BUDGET

fprevious order of the House, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms.

DELAURO] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues tell us they want

to fix Medicare. But I find it curious

that fixing Medicare was never a Republican priority until they needed to

pay for a $345 billion tax break for the

wealthy.

Even now the Republicans have failed

to put forth a concrete plan that will

ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare without compromising health care

costs and quality for our Nation’s seniors. All the Republicans have put forward is a proposal to cut Medicare by

$285 billion. This plan is all cuts and no

reform.

This convenient discovery of a Medicare crisis is nothing but a smokescreen for the real Republican goal:

They want to use Medicare as a piggy

bank for their tax giveaway to the

wealthiest 1 percent of the taxpayers.

The GOP budget takes away $1,060 in

Medicare benefits from seniors on fixed

incomes to pay for a $20,000 a year

windfall to those Americans making

over $350,000. Courageous? Hardly.

And, what of the Republican plan for

reform? While the Republicans don’t

mind being specific about tax giveaways and Medicare cuts, they’ve