H 4688 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Under current law, polluters do not have a

right to dump messes into public resources; if

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

was part of Conoco’s penalty for discharging

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

outcome might be different. The cost benefit

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

Currently, the level of toxic contamination in

a river or lake that is considered acceptable is

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

the formula.

Wetlands would change too. For the most

part they would disappear. Wetlands filter

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

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

by narrowly defining a wetland and allowing a

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

wetlands that fit the difinition.

The original goal of the Clean Water Act

was to make the Nation’s waters swimmable,

fishable, and drinkable. While we have not

cleaned up everything, the Clean Water Act

has brought us a long way on the road to that

goal. The Shuster bill not only abandons that

goal, but if enacted, will threaten our gains.

Vote ‘‘no’’ on H.R. 961.

STEWART SCHOOL,

Oxford, OH, April 7, 1995.

SAVE OUR SEAS,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SIR OR MADAM: We are learning about

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

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

stopped. Well, I and 24 other friends of mine

hate it.

Sincerely,

fFAITH MANKA.

b 1245

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

GEKAS].

(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, Members

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

support and then to assert that my

support for the bill itself is based on

several propositions.

No. 1, I am impressed by the fact that

this is a bipartisan piece of legislation

that has reached the floor. One can

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

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

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

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

search for bipartisan solutions to the

Nation’s problems.

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

is bipartisan in this particular unique

tenant about which I am concerned.

The Chesapeake Bay has for a long

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

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

also interested in the preservation of

the Chesapeake Bay as we once knew

it. In that regard this bill calls for

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

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

vital piece of legislation.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from

New Jersey [Mr. PALLONE].

Mr. PALLONE asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

support of the open rule but against

the bill. I think it is very important

that we do have an open rule without

time limits on this legislation because

it is so controversial, and I do believe

that the bill makes fundamental

changes to the Clean Water Act that

are not in the national interest.

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

[Mr. SAXTON], speak before because he

pointed out and reminded me about the

fact that when we were first elected to

the Congress, back in the mid or late

1980’s, that a big part of our election

was because we swore that we would

come down here and try to stop ocean

dumping and improve ocean water

quality. The fact of the matter is that

since those New Jersey beach closings

in 1987 and 1988 the ocean water quality

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

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

day, and in particular looking forward

to the beach season this summer, they

talk about how improved the water

quality is and how many people want

to come down to the shore and swim

and enjoy our beaches and our water.

We cannot turn the clock back, and

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

back and makes it very possible that, if

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

our water quality would significantly

decrease.

I would want to mention a few

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

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

it is dangerous.

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

contributor to water pollution. The

committee bill would end an existing

program mandating States to draw up

enforceable run-off control plans in

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

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

our efforts should be directed toward

making run-off programs enforceable,

not voluntary.

With regard to storm water, the bill

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

emphasizing voluntary measures of

compliance, again voluntary rather

than mandatory.

With regard to wetlands, by changing

definitions, the proposed legislation

would remove as much as half of the

Nation’s wetlands from protection. The

EPA would also be stripped of its veto

power of decisions by the Army Corps

of Engineers to grant wetlands development permits.

My colleague, the gentleman from

New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON], mentioned a

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

would try to improve and eliminate

some of these more egregious measures

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

This substitute would eliminate some

of the worst problems that exist in this

bill.

I was hopeful, however, that this

would be the opportunity, during the

authorization of the Clean Water Act,

to actually improve the existing Clean

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

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

and I think perhaps in this atmosphere

it is unlikely that some of these will

pass, but it is important to put them

forward.

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

with the existing Clean Water Act

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

because the fines that are imposed for

pollution or violating one’s discharge

permit are too small. The Clean Water

Enforcement Act would go after the

bad actors, the repeat violators of their

discharge permits, require mandatory

penalties and increasing penalties so

that it does not pay to pollute.

Another amendment that I will be

proposing today under the open rule is

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

has repeatedly introduced and had

passed in this House several times in

previous sessions of Congress that

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

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

quality before we decide whether

beaches are open to bathers. I would

like to see that included in the Clean

Water Act, and again that would be a

strengthening amendment.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4689

I would urge my colleagues today to,

please, support the substitute. Please

support some of the amendments being

put forth by those of us who would like

to see the Clean Water Act improved.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr.

CUNNINGHAM].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the

gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.

SCHROEDER] talked about the Academy

of Sciences and good science. We agree.

First of all, San Diego has had a problem with effluent sewage. The sewage

treatment is actually treated, and then

we want to put it 4 miles out to sea,

but the EPA, which a rule was written

for the Clean Water Act, was written,

‘‘If you dump that sewage into a river

or a lake.’’ The Academy of Sciences

and Scripps Oceanographic said it actually enhances the ocean, but yet the

EPA is unwilling to bend, and what we

are trying to do is, when we talk about

risk assessment and fairness, is to look

because what it would do is cost the

city of San Diego between $8 to $12 billion. That is $12 billion we do not have

for law enforcement, or housing, or

education and those kinds of things,

but yet science says that we do not

have to double-treat the sewage. It is

treated in the first place, but we do not

have to do secondary sewage. That is

reasonable.

When we take a look at it, when we

need to move ahead, a company near

my district named Micogen has a

chemical. It is not actually a chemical,

but it is an insecticide type that is created out of DNA, and, when they use

that, the actual farmers would grow

their material or spray it over their

crops, and it is not a toxic pesticide

that run off into our lakes, and rivers

and oceans. That is what we need to

support as far as good science. But yet

the administration has put a burden on

our biotech industry in California.

Those are the things we need to move

ahead with.

The EPA, Endangered Species, Clean

Water, Clean Air were all written with

good intentions, but there are special

interests on both sides of this area,

those that do want to pollute and those

that want to use it as a weapon for no

growth at all. What the legislation

that the Republican Party is coming

up with is a commonsense application

and suits neither one. Take a look at

the issues that burden us every day.

Look at the EPA and Endangered Species. I think we can work on a more bipartisan area.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman

from New York [Mrs. MALONEY].

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule.

The new majority has a case of special interest amnesia.

The special interests and polluters

claim they are overregulated.

So the new majority is forgetting the

days when our rivers burned, when fish

and wildlife floated dead in our lakes

and streams, and when our drinking

water was in imminent danger of contamination.

The Clean Water Act remedied that

situation.

Now, the new majority wants to gut

the Clean Water Act.

The New York City water supply

needs no additional purification,

thanks to safeguards in the Clean

Water Act and the Safe Drinking

Water.

Weakened standards on pollution

runoff under this bill will severely

jeopardize the city’s drinking water

and our rivers and lakes.

So will loosened restrictions on sewage treatment plants that operate in

watershed areas.

When is the new majority going to

realize that some government regulations actually do some good?

This time, they are not just throwing

the baby out with the bathwater.

They are throwing out the drinking

water, too.

I implore my colleagues to think

about what we drink and to reject this

Dirty Water Act.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of

the rule. I urge the passage of the bill.

Amendments to the Clean Water Act

are long overdue. I urge the Members

of this body to adopt the rule, and pass

the bill, and go forward with this legislation which is so badly needed.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. QUILLEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I

would like to point out that the substitute, the alternative that will be advanced by my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON],

the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROEMER], and I, 70 percent of our alternative is identical to the committee

bill. So there is much to be said for a

number of provisions in the committee

bill that address some problems that

concern us all. We are focusing narrowly on those areas that need the

most attention to preserve, and protect

and enhance our Nation’s waterways.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield

back the balance of my time, and I

move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

WICKER). The question is the resolution.

The question was taken; and the

Speaker pro tempore announced that

the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I object to

the vote on the ground that a quorum

is not present and make the point of

order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 414, nays 4,

not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 311]

YEAS—414

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Allard

Andrews

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Baldacci

Ballenger

Barcia

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Barrett (WI)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Bereuter

Berman

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bonior

Bono

Borski

Boucher

Brewster

Browder

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bryant (TX)

Bunn

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chapman

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clay

Clayton

Clement

Clinger

Clyburn

Coble

Coburn

Coleman

Collins (GA)

Collins (MI)

Combest

Condit

Conyers

Cooley

Costello

Cox

Coyne

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

Davis

de la Garza

Deal

DeFazio

DeLauro

DeLay

Dellums

Deutsch

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dicks

Dixon

Doggett

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Doyle

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Durbin

Edwards

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

Engel

English

Ensign

Eshoo

Evans

Everett

Ewing

Farr

Fattah

Fawell

Fazio

Fields (LA)

Fields (TX)

Filner

Flake

Flanagan

Foglietta

Foley

Forbes

Fowler

Fox

Frank (MA)

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Frost

Funderburk

Furse

Gallegly

Ganske

Gejdenson

Gekas

Gephardt

Geren

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gillmor

Gilman

Gonzalez

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon

Goss

Green

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutierrez

Gutknecht

Hall (OH)

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Harman

Hastert

Hastings (FL)

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Hefner

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hilliard

Hinchey

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Holden

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hoyer

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Johnson (CT)

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnson, Sam

Johnston

Jones

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kasich

Kelly

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Kim

King

Kingston

Kleczka

Klink

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaFalce

LaHood

Lantos

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Levin

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (GA)

Lightfoot

Linder

Lipinski

Livingston

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Longley

Lowey

Lucas

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Manzullo

Markey

Martinez

Martini

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McDermott

McHale

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Metcalf

Meyers

Mfume

Mica

Miller (CA)

Miller (FL)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Molinari

Mollohan

Montgomery

Moorhead

Moran

Morella

Myers

Myrick

Nadler
H 4690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 10, 1995

Neal

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Owens

Oxley

Packard

Pallone

Parker

Pastor

Paxon

Payne (NJ)

Payne (VA)

Peterson (MN)

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Pomeroy

Porter

Portman

Poshard

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Rahall

Ramstad

Rangel

Reed

Regula

Reynolds

Richardson

Riggs

Rivers

Roberts

Roemer

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roth

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Royce

Rush

Sabo

Salmon

Sanders

Sanford

Sawyer

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Schumer

Scott

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Serrano

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Shuster

Sisisky

Skaggs

Skeen

Skelton

Slaughter

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Spratt

Stark

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stokes

Studds

Stump

Stupak

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thompson

Thornberry

Thornton

Thurman

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Traficant

Tucker

Upton

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Volkmer

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

Whitfield

Wicker

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Wolf

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

NAYS—4

Dingell

Jefferson

Schroeder

Yates

NOT VOTING—16

Bliley

Bunning

Cardin

Collins (IL)

Ford

Graham

Lewis (KY)

Lincoln

Moakley

Murtha

Pelosi

Peterson (FL)

Rogers

Talent

Waxman

White

b 1316

Mr. HILLEARY changed his vote

from ‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’

So the resolution was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

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

fently detained and missed rollcall No. 311,

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

Water Act amendments of 1995. Had I been

present, I would have voted ‘‘aye.’’

CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF

1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

WICKER). Pursuant to House Resolution

140 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares

the House in the Committee of the

Whole House on the State of the Union

for the consideration of the bill, H.R.

961.

b 1316

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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

House on the State of the Union for the

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

amend the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act, with Mr. MCGINNIS in the

chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

rule, the bill is considered as having

been read the first time.

Under the rule, the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] will be

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

will be recognized for 1 hour.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER].

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

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

purposes of debate only, and I ask

unanimous consent that the gentleman

from Louisiana control the time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield

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

and I ask unanimous consent that he

may control that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

California?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

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

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER].

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.

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

Amendments of 1995.

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

professional environmentalists, the

Washington-knows-best crowd, the

EPA, the career bureaucrats, and the

K-Street lobbyists on the one hand and

the rest of America on the other hand.

It is extremely important to note,

Mr. Chairman, that we bring this bill

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

by an overwhelming 19-to-5 vote with

both a majority of Republicans and

Democrats voting in favor of it. This

bill passed the full committee by an

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

Democrats voting for it.

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

the goals of the successful clean water

program while it fixes the problems

that we have uncovered. And indeed,

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

We have heard some crocodile tears

here today about how quickly this bill

has moved. The truth of the matter is,

this essentially is the bipartisan bill

that we tried to pass last year. Indeed,

it is very significant to note that,

while we have proceeded with an open

process in committee and on the floor

here today, an open rule today, last

year this legislation was bottled up by

the Democratic majority to the point

that we were never even permitted to

get a vote on this legislation.

So now we hear complaints about the

process not being open enough when, in

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

year, and now I am very pleased that

we do, indeed, have an open process

and, in fact, the bill as reported out of

committee was on the Internet 24

hours after it passed committee and

has been available for the past several

weeks.

Well, what does this bill do? It gives

more flexibility to the State and local

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

top-down approach. Those who oppose

the approach in this bill are saying

that they do not trust the Governors

and the State regulators. It provides a

more reasonable risk-based regulation,

consistent with recent House-passed

legislation.

This bill requires EPA to subject its

mandates and its regulations to risk

assessment and cost-benefit analysis.

In a major victory for common sense,

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

control stormwater like other forms of

runoff. And this bill provides marketbased approaches allowing for trading

in certain circumstances to provide the

most cost-effective pollution reduction.

And this bill addresses unfunded

mandates by providing regulatory

flexibility. The bill reduces the cost of

unfunded mandates, particularly in the

area of stormwater management,

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

of the approach in this bill.

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

mandates in the Clean Water Act cost

the cities $3.6 billion in 1993. Grand

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

to spend $400,000 preparing its

stormwater permit. The average cost

to larger cities for stormwater permits

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

spend $1.1 million just on their permit

application, without solving the problem at all.

This bill also reforms the wetlands

program. It provides for comprehensive

reforms to the beleaguered wetlands

permitting program. No longer will we

have a situation, as in Morristown, NJ,

where an airplane, the airport there,

the pilot was unable to see the runway.

And they were told they could not cut

down a tree that was blocking the view

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

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

flooded the field. They went in and told

him he was no longer allowed to farm

his farm because it was a wetland.

And there are hundreds and thousands of horror stories of the excessive