```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4978-H5013]
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}  1235

                     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 Monday, May 15, 
1995, pending was the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert].
  Under the order of the House of today, there is 1 hour of debate 
remaining on the amendment and any amendments thereto, equally divided 
between the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and the Environment.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about how the States 
know this program better than anyone else.
  This amendment would strike title VIII of the bill and substitute the 
Wetlands and Watershed Management Act of 1995 proposed by the National 
Governors Association.
  This is the proposal of the Nation's Governors on wetlands.
  This amendment is similar to the amendment that I offered in 
committee and identical to the wetlands language in the Saxton 
substitute that was offered last week.
  It is clear that the States do not like what this bill proposes for 
the wetlands program.
  Here is why: The bill will eliminate protection for 60 to 80 percent 
of the existing wetlands.
  In my State of Pennsylvania, 40 percent of all wetlands will be 
removed from protection, including more than 150,000 acres of 
floodplain wetlands that protect the Chesapeake Bay from polluted 
runoff.
  In New Jersey, 35 to 50 percent of all wetlands would lose 
protection.
  In Delaware, more than 50 percent of the wetlands would lose 
protection.
  H.R. 961 decides, without regard to science, what wetlands will be 
protected and which will not.
  There are serious problems with the administration of the wetlands 
permitting program, but H.R. 961, by eliminating protection for so many 
wetlands, does not solve them.
  The National Governors Association has proposed a fast-track system 
for minor permits and an advisory committee from all levels of 
government to reduce duplication and overregulation.
  On March 7, Mr. Chairman, the Association of State Wetland Managers 
pleaded with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee not to 
adopt the language in title VIII.
  Their testimony said H.R. 961 will create a program,

       That will result in massive Federal budget requirements, 
     lead to environmental degradation and result in bureaucratic 
     quibbling. Please do not create a new wetland regulatory 
     program that is not fundable, not implementable, and not 
     acceptable to the States.

  The State association predicted that the 2 States, New Jersey and 
Michigan, that currently have assumed the section 404 program and the 
13 that issue programmatic general permits will give back their 
programs if title VIII is adopted as written.
  This amendment also includes the same exemptions for agricultural 
uses and the same expanded role for the Department of Agriculture that 
were included in the Boehlert-Roemer-Saxton substitute that we 
considered on Wednesday.
  The Agriculture Department would have the sole authority to perform 
delineation of agricultural lands.
  [[Page H4979]] I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity on this 
amendment to show that we really do want to listen to the voice of the 
States.
  Vote for this amendment, vote with the National Governors Association 
and back up all the words about a new partnership with the States.
  I urge Members to vote for the Boehlert National Governors 
Association amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and I appreciate all the hard work the gentleman and his committee 
have done.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert amendment. Like 
the Saxton-Boehlert substitute amendment which was soundly defeated, 
this amendment seeks to undermine everything this House accomplished 
during the first 100 days of this session to promote regulatory reform 
and property rights.
  First, it strikes all property rights provisions, including the right 
to compensation for property owners whose land is devalued by more than 
30 percent due to Federal wetlands regulations. These provisions are 
identical to provisions in H.R. 925, the Private Property Protection 
Act, which the House passed on March 3 with 277 votes, including 72 
Democrats.
  My colleagues, let us not reverse the strides we made so recently for 
the rights of private property owners when it comes to wetlands 
regulations.
  Second, it eliminates the three-tier classification system created by 
the bill which is designed to give greatest priority to those wetlands 
that are in most need of protection. This flies in the face of common 
sense. Every wetland is not the same. The current expansive definition 
of a wetland is the root of the overregulation so onerous to this 
country's municipalities. Only by making critical distinctions will we 
ensure sensible conservation and a healthy future for our local and 
national economies.
  And third, it removes provisions that streamline the current highly 
bureaucratic system for wetlands permitting, giving four agencies the 
power to veto a wetlands permit application. This is sheer and utter 
nonsense. I spoke last week about Lake Jackson's current difficulties 
in the permitting process. I can only imagine the cost in time, money, 
and effort the city would expend in merely getting through the 
submission process if this amendment were adopted.
  The American people have been crying out for relief from the 
intrusiveness of Government, and applauded heartily when the House 
voted overwhelmingly to give it to them. We cannot go back on the 
contract we made with America to bring sound science and common sense 
to the regulatory process, as well as to take into account the rights 
of property owners. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Boehlert 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and compliment our colleague, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert], for the leadership he has demonstrated so vigorously 
and intensively on behalf of clean water and particularly, in the case, 
on the wetlands issue.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation was rich in wetlands when the settlement of 
America began. But civilization took its harsh toll: agriculture, 
highways, railroads, cities, suburbs, exurbs, flood control, destroying 
the wetlands along our Nation's major riverways and our coastal 
waterways. All in the interest of progress and without concern for an 
understanding of the enormous power and strength of the wetlands as a 
filtering device, preventing sediment from getting into the streams, 
preventing pollution from getting into our major waterways, estuaries, 
and lakes.
  By the time I was elected to Congress in the mid-1970's, the lower 48 
States had been diminished in wetlands by half. Our migratory waterfowl 
have declined in numbers over the years, and few are here in the 
Chamber today who can remember, but all of us surely should have 
studied the dust bowl days of the 1930's caused, not by drying up of 
the rains, but by man's thoughtless and senseless use and overuse of 
the land, draining the wetland-rich prairie pothole region of America's 
midsection.
  One-third of our endangered and threatened species are sheltered by 
wetlands.

                              {time}  1245

  Coastal wetlands are the nursery and spawning grounds for half to 90 
percent of the Nation's fish catch. Wetlands protect against floods. 
They recharge our groundwater. They filter pollution. They store water 
for recycling. They are a buffer against erosion.
  We used to call them swamps and bogs and worse and drained them, 
dredged them and filled them in, then dug them up to grow crops on them 
and put housing on them and pave them over. We cannot do that any 
longer.
  We are today at the point where I am reminded of the commons of 
medieval England where herdsmen were accustomed to bringing as many of 
their sheep as possible to graze on the commons pasture. They 
overgrazed and overused it and war and disease reduced the commons to a 
place of filth and destruction, and the carrying capacity declined, and 
so did the commonality of civilization until the people realized that 
they needed to restore the commons and build it back.
  The tragedy of the commons is a story about mankind's determination 
to populate the planet to death and develop it to death. One farmer can 
benefit by putting one more sheep on the commons even though each time 
they do so they degrade it. That is what we are doing to the wetlands, 
putting more and more pressure on them, degrading and destroying these 
irreplaceable storehouses of water.
  Let us work together to learn the lesson of the commons and let it 
not be the epitaph for our generation that we permitted the destruction 
of our commons, the nation's wetlands. Please support the Boehlert 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue of wetlands is a tremendously difficult 
issue. I think both sides have done a good job of actually trying to 
improve a piece of legislation that has had some difficulty in the area 
of the definition of wetlands.
  But I learned something, and that is development is forever. I saw a 
man at Rehoboth Beach, DE, one day. He said, ``Mike, have you ever seen 
a shopping center converted into a park?'' The answer, of course, is 
``No,'' and I would ask, ``Have you ever seen a wetland which has been 
used for some other use ever converted back to a wetland?'' And the 
answer to that is also, ``No.''
  Sometimes we talk about substitute wetlands. The bottom line is once 
you lose them, they are lost forever.
  There are some problems, I think, with the present legislation. There 
are costly delays and vague regulations. The farmers and homeowners do 
properly, I think, complain about wetland permit decisions and the time 
it takes to get them. The availability of general permits for projects 
having minimal impact on wetlands should be expanded, and I believe the 
Boehlert amendment addresses each of these very, very well.
  The amendment adopts the National Governors' Association proposal on 
wetlands. The Governors' proposal would help coordinate protection 
efforts in the most efficient use of States' scare resources and 
minimize inconsistency between State, Federal, and local programs.
  Wetlands management should be integrated with other resource 
management programs, and I cannot stress that enough, such as flood 
control, allocation of water supply, protection of fish and wildlife 
and storm water and nonpoint source pollution control. Wetlands 
delineation criteria and management policy should recognize the 
significant regional and even State variants of wetlands, and land use 
regulations are traditionally a State and local function, and decisions 
on wetlands management should be made at the local level.
  They really differ. They differ from my State of Delaware than from 
California or Texas or Maine. They differ 
[[Page H4980]] all over the United States of America, and we should 
give that authority back to the States and the Governors where we can, 
and I believe that made a lot of sense when they came up with that 
particular program which addressed all of these issues.
  In addition to that, the Boehlert amendment implements a fast track 
permitting process for minor and general wetlands permits that is 
absolutely needed in America and provides technical assistance.
  For all of these reasons, I would encourage each and every one of us 
to consider this amendment. Look very carefully at it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment to title 8 offered 
by my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  First of all, let me say that everyone who will speak against this 
amendment today shares a commitment to protecting genuine wetlands. The 
key issue, as I hope to demonstrate in a moment, is how broadly a 
wetland is defined. Because if you are a bureaucrat with the EPA or 
other Federal agency, wetland does not mean something is a pond or a 
bog or a swamp or a marsh. In fact, over the last 8 years, we have seen 
areas defined as wetlands where water never actually stands or where 
there is a low spot in a cornfield, and regulators, in their never 
ending search for more control, have stretched laws designed to affect 
navigable waters so that they can regulate farmland in north central 
Iowa that is at least 100 miles from any navigable water. That is how 
the environmental extremists come up with their astonishing claims 
about wetlands being left unprotected by this bill.
  In the ideal world the overwhelming majority of Americans currently 
live in areas that could be defined as wetlands. If you define 
everything as a wetland, no matter how against common sense that 
definition may be, you can pretty much give yourself the right to 
regulate what every American does with his or her property.
  Property owners and the general public no longer know what a wetland 
is. They expect to see a swamp or marsh or bog, only to be told by 
regulators that land that is usually dry is a wetland or that a set 
spot in a field of corn is wetland. This abuse has gone on far too 
long.
  The current guidelines can allow an area to be called a wetland even 
if water never stands on it or even if the surface on the ground is 
never saturated.
  As these photographs will demonstrate, the term ``wetland'' no longer 
means what the everyday commonsense interpretation suggests or what 
Congress envisioned as the limits of Federal regulatory jurisdiction.
  The first photo is what we would all believe would be a wetland, 
obviously saturated, a pond. The problem today with the definition is 
that this land up here is also considered to be a wetland, far beyond
 the scope and definition of what should be considered. These 
photographs also show this is land under cultivation. The regulators 
can now say it is a wetland or have determined to be a wetland even 
though they have been in production for years and years. You can see 
obviously this land has been or is slightly damp, but in a couple of 
days in north central Iowa this will be dry. It has been under 
production probably for well over 100 years, generation after 
generation, and now a Federal regulator is coming in and telling this 
farmer he can no longer farm that land, and it has totally gone out of 
control.

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. It is my understanding that prior to converted 
cropland, any land converted to cropland prior to 1985 does not fall 
under jurisdiction of wetlands by any Federal agency. There are also a 
number of farms and ag areas around the country that can continue to 
farm wetlands even though they still function as a wetland. They can 
continue to do that
  Mr. LATHAM. Reclaiming my time, if that is the case, then why are 
there Federal regulators out today in prior converted agricultural 
lands defining that as wetlands, changing the use those people have? 
This is a very important point, a point that has to be gotten through 
to many of you people who continually think that agricultural land or 
that somehow we are abusing the wetlands. These lands are in 
production. They have continued to be. A lot of the tile in here was 
hand dug and today regulators are saying they are not.
  Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the confusion 
on that, the Boehlert amendment completely eliminates that.
  Mr. LATHAM. I understand that. By your definition, you will continue 
to have regulators out there defining that as wetlands. You certainly 
will, by your definition.
  Mr. GILCHREST. No, we will not.
  Mr. LATHAM. We will need a clear and defined definition of wetlands. 
I think it is very interesting that many of the proponents of this 
amendment who want to make it supposedly easier for agriculture also 
voted in the Lipinski amendment to take away 56 percent of the funds 
for the State of Iowa to comply with your regulations. Tell me the 
justice in that.
  I think it is time that we finally brought some common sense back 
into the argument, and for people to put the dollars that go to the 
States like Iowa and then say that they are trying to help us is 
absolutely ludicrous.
  I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make three very quick, 
and, I hope, succinct points. I came to this House and served for a 
number of years on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and 
while I was there, I found myself taking part in debates similar to 
this where we were making policy decisions based on a number of 
factors, and after a couple of years of serving there and weighing 
those factors, I came to the conclusion that we did not pay a lot of 
attention to science, and this debate today points out that back in 
those days that I thought I was right I can prove that, in fact, I was 
right, because, as a matter of fact, the National Academy of Sciences 
does not agree in any way, shape, or form with the definition of 
wetlands as it occurs today in H.R. 961.
  One of the major thrusts of the Boehlert amendment is that it changes 
that definition so that it is in concert with what we think is a good 
definition based on science.
  Second, H.R. 961, as it currently stands, would allow for destruction 
of well over half of the Nation's wetlands, and those of us who 
recognize the value of wetlands in terms of the life cycle, in terms of 
its use to slow down floodwater and act as a filter for pollutants 
which enter our waters upstream, recognize that it would be a disaster 
to permit an opportunity to destroy more than half of the Nation's 
wetlands.
  And, third, let me point out that the debate that just occurred 
between my friend from Maryland and my friend from Iowa, I think, is 
ample evidence that we ought to listen to what the Governors say, 
because my friend from Maryland perceives wetlands as being one thing, 
and my friend from Iowa, a different State with a different structure, 
land structure, perceives wetlands as something quite different. And 
the Boehlert amendment adopts the National Governors Association 
proposals on wetlands reform, part of which is to give the States more 
say in defining and carrying out the wetlands programs.
  So I wholeheartedly and strongly support the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert 
amendment.
  This amendment adds even more uncertainty and bureaucracy to the 
regulatory process we are already enveloped in.
  You see, it gives the Government an even bigger hammer to penalize 
landowners and ignores the fact that law-abiding citizens have been 
charged with fines and sent to prison for trying to be good stewards of 
the land.
  [[Page H4981]] The most egregious aspect of this amendment is that it 
ignores private property rights.
  I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure for working with me to include the Chenoweth 
provision in this bill before us today, a provision with would require 
the Federal Government to receive written permission from private 
property owners when going on their land for the purpose of mapping 
wetlands. It is important to keep the Federal Government in check, and 
I believe the notification provision I recommended will ensure that the 
mapping process is carried out in accordance with our constitutional 
rights.
  It is time for fairness, and it is time for sanity, and it is time 
for reason in this program.
  Title 8 of H.R. 961 recognizes that. That is why I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, because I want to 
congratulate her. This is her first amendment on a major piece of 
transportation legislation. Your involvement has really been 
significant, and I want to congratulate you and thank you very much for 
your participation.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], a leader 
in the environmental movement.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert 
amendment, and I would like to address some specifics rather than the 
generalities.
  This wetlands proposal is not about some abstract ideas of beauty or 
maybe even idealists' idea of wildlife, but it has many direct economic 
impacts, and I want to concentrate on them.
                              {time}  1300

  After all, wetlands do act as Mother Nature's sponges when water 
levels rise, when we are talking about rivers rising for floods, 
hurricanes, or whatever the case may be, and the wetlands help fight 
shoreline erosion in States like New Jersey. This is essential for 
protecting our beaches. They help purify the water tables by serving as 
filters and also for toxic pollutants from man-made runoffs.
  When we look at the whole committee bill, of course we take a serious 
setback from a 20-year effort, and it is a big step backward. The 
committee bill offers a very narrow definition of wetlands, and that is 
wrong to do. While we may find that their definition is feasible in 
some areas of the country, in New Jersey it would do serious damage to 
all of our pioneering efforts.
  New Jersey, remember, is a densely populated State, and so we have to 
have a system under the law that will apply to all States, not a one-
size-fits-all situation. In New Jersey we would be very, very concerned 
that it would be a huge setback for all the efforts that Governors in 
both parties have persevered on and pioneered on. The Boehlert 
amendment would adopt, and I want to stress this for all those, 
particularly on my side of the aisle, that revere block grants and 
Governors' proposals; I want to stress that the Boehlert amendment 
adopts the National Governors Association wetlands proposal in order to 
replace the committee's wetlands language. Here the Governors are 
right, and we should listen to them and act upon their advice.
  The Boehlert amendment is not one size fits all. What is good for 
Alaska is not good for New Jersey or maybe even for Louisiana's 
protection. Vote yes on the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, last evening I spoke about the severe 
problems with the present policies that we have on wetlands. This bill 
makes some badly needed reforms, and the Boehlert amendment would take 
us in the opposite direction. It would not be helpful to the real 
concerns that we have.
  I spoke last evening of Nancy Klein. She and her husband bought 350 
acres in Sonoma, intended to farm that. It has been farmed continuously 
every year since 1930. In 1989, the owner of the land raised cattle 
instead of farming. When the Kleins, with their five children, tried to 
begin their farming, they were informed by the Corps of Engineers that 
they could not do that, and they were threatened with $25,000 a day 
fines and were actually at one point, for most of 1994, criminally 
investigated.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from the letter that she wrote. It 
is really prepared testimony that she gave to the task force on 
wetlands of the Committee on Resources which I chaired, and we had a 
hearing, and she came and offered this. This volume of testimony will 
be printed and available for all to see in a couple of weeks, but just 
quoting from her letter:

       The FBI and EPA interrogated neighbors, acquaintances and 
     strangers. They asked about our religion, whether we were 
     intelligent, did we have tempers. They asked how we treat our 
     children. Our property was surveyed by military Blackhawk 
     helicopters. Their cars monitored our home and our children's 
     school. They accused Fred of paying neighbors to lie. The FBI 
     actually told one terrified neighbor that this investigation 
     was top secret with national security implications. The 
     community reeled, as did we. Our personal papers were 
     subpoenaed; the grant jury was convened. We spent thousands 
     of additional dollars to hire more attorneys. The Justice 
     Department told our attorneys that, unless we would plead 
     guilty and surrender our land, they would seek a criminal 
     indictment of both Fred and me. According to one government 
     attorney I was to be included because I had written a letter 
     to the editor of a local paper, in their opinion, quote 
     unquote, publicly undermining the authority of the Army 
     Corps.

  Mr. Chairman, the present law has allowed for this kind of abuse, 
tremendous abuse by the Federal Government in the area of wetlands 
regulation. The bill that we are supporting, coming out of the 
committee, provides for a good definition of wetlands, a classification 
system that uses good science to determine which wetlands are the most 
valued, those that get the greatest protection through this 
classification system, A, B or C. For that reason I urge defeat of the 
Boehlert amendment and support of the committee bill.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member of the committee.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, no issue has so defined the controversy of 
Clean Water Act reauthorization as has wetlands. We have now debated 
issues back and forth for 5 days on this floor and countless hours in 
our committee rooms.
  There is general agreement on one thing--the wetlands program is in 
need of reform. However, I strongly disagree with those who would gut 
the wetlands program to the point that 60-80 percent of the Nation's 
wetlands are no longer subject to any portion of the wetlands 
protection program.
  I have listened to passionate arguments on both sides of the issue. 
Some of my California colleagues were quite emphatic in that we must 
reduce the scope of Federal regulatory jurisdiction. I would remind my 
colleagues, however, that California has already lost over 90 percent 
of its historic wetlands, including some of its most valuable wetlands. 
I do not believe that we can now acquiesce in the potential loss of the 
majority of the small number of wetlands which remain.
  The issue is whether we will reform the wetlands program to make it 
more efficient, reasonable and user-friendly; or, will this House 
choose to use the wetlands program shortcomings as an excuse to undo 
most of the protections in the Clean Water Act for wetlands.
  The Boehlert amendment removes small, incidental, and manmade 
wetlands from the regulatory program. H.R. 961 removes 60-80 percent of 
wetlands from the program by creating an arbitrary, inflexible 
definition of wetlands. And it does so in the face of, and contrary to, 
the just released study of the National Academy of Sciences on 
wetlands.
  The Boehlert amendment addresses the issue of differing values of 
wetlands by directing that regionalization be considered in delineating 
wetlands. H.R. 961 creates an expensive and infeasible nationwide 
classification scheme which the National Academy of Sciences stated is 
beyond the state of the art to accomplish.

[[Page H4982]]

  The Boehlert amendment protects the rights of the property owners in 
this country by adhering to the rights under the fifth amendment which 
have served citizens well for over 200 years. When property has been 
taken for public use, the Constitution will guarantee compensation. 
H.R. 961 adopts the unsound takings provisions which are opposed by the 
States and which will cost the Government tens of billions of taxpayer 
dollars--billions of dollars when we are trying to balance the budget. 
H.R. 961 ignores the rights of the commercial fishermen who harvest 
over $10 billion annually, ignores the rights of waterfowl hunters who 
spend over $300 million annually, and ignores the rights of 
recreational users of wetlands who spend nearly $10 billion annually.
  The Boehlert amendment will fix the wetlands problem. H.R. 961 would 
destroy wetlands protection and raid the Treasury. Most people do not 
want that. Support the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert 
amendment and in support of the committee bill, and I believe that one 
of the most important points that needs to be made on this legislation 
is that the Boehlert amendment effectively strips out the private 
property rights protection that was included in the committee bill, and 
I want to explain why that is so important, that we include the 
protection of private property rights.
  The fifth amendment of the Constitution, which was passed for one 
reason, to protect private property rights, stated, ``nor shall 
property be taken for public use without just compensation,'' and for 
200 years we operated quite effectively with that protection under the 
fifth amendment of the Constitution.
  Twenty years ago, Mr. Chairman, this body began to pass legislation 
which increased the regulatory might and the regulatory power of the 
Federal Government dramatically, to the point where in the past 10 
years people have began to lose their private property to the 
regulation of the Federal Government without compensation.
  Now, if the Federal Government were to come in, and take someone's 
property to build a project, a dam, a road, a highway, to take their 
property to put in a park, they would be required under current law and 
under current practice to pay for that without any questions asked. I 
say to my colleagues, they're taking your property; they should pay for 
that. But if they were to come in and use a regulation like wetlands, 
section 404, the Clean Water Act, and they effectively took away all 
use or value of someone's property, under current practice and under 
the guise of some of my colleagues here they would not have to pay for 
that property even though they took away the value of the property, 
they took away the use of the property, they took away the ability for 
someone to continue to make their mortgage payments and to pay their 
property taxes. It is OK because it is all in the name of the Clean 
Water Act and preserving wetlands. Well, that is wrong.
  When we passed the takings legislation through this House, I felt 
that was an important first step in protecting private property, but 
the second step in protecting private property is including that 
protection in the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and other 
regulatory issues that we take up under the House. It is extremely 
important.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell my colleagues, if you voted for 
private property rights protection as part of the takings legislation 
and regulatory reform through this House, you have got to support 
private property rights and vote against the Boehlert amendment because 
effectively it strips----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] 
has expired.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, preceding speakers have 
provided plenty of examples of extreme and arrogant actions by EPA, and 
certainly it is true that we are here in part to reform the Clean Air 
Act because EPA has been high-handed and was abusive of the people of 
America. But let us do it right. If we adopt the Boehlert amendment, we 
will be adopting the recommendations of the Governors themselves as to 
how to make the Clean Water Act effective and citizen friendly. We will 
adopt all of the exemptions from the wetlands permitting found in the 
underlying bill, normal farming, ranching, plowing, seeding, grazing, 
repairs of dams and levees and so on. We will also be adopting expanded 
use of general permits. We will be adopting a fast track permitting 
process for minor and general permits for people seeking to fill or 
drain a wetland area in one acre or less. Those folks will have an 
answer in 60 days. We will be providing landowners with an effective 
appeals process using the very same language in the underlying bill, 
and we will be giving the Secretary of Agriculture total control over 
agricultural wetlands issues as in the underlying bill.
  This is a good, modest, logical amendment, but it does a couple of 
things that the underlying bill does not do that are terribly important 
to Connecticut. It provides, for instance, grants for technical 
assistance to small towns. Our towns have wetland commissions, and they 
are dealing very well with the permit process, but they need better 
information. They fear the classification system. They fear the 
classification system will do to my people what some of the arrogant 
EPA bureaucrats have done to people in other parts of the country. They 
fear the classification system with deny them the right in a State with 
lots of wetlands and very dependent on groundwater, will deny them the 
right to determine best use of properties within their boundaries.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
                              {time}  1350

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert 
wetlands amendment. This amendment will be our last opportunity in this 
bill to reform our Nation's wetlands programs by providing the States 
with the flexibility they need to manage their wetlands.
  As other speakers have mentioned, this amendment incorporates the 
National Governors Association's wetlands proposal and is identical to 
the wetlands provisions included in the earlier substitute. This 
amendment streamlines the permitting process without endangering 
millions of acres of wetlands.
  Protection of wetlands is crucial to both the protection of our 
wildlife and the maintenance of our water quality. Wetlands are vital 
biological filters, removing sediments and pollutants that would 
otherwise suffocate our waters. Over half of the Nation's wetlands have 
disappeared since the time of Columbus. Recognizing the importance of 
this resource, President Bush pledged ``no net loss of wetlands'' 
during his administration.
  Sadly, we are falling short of even this modest and reasonable goal. 
During the 1980's, despite the scientific recognition of the value of 
wetlands, our own Chesapeake Bay lost wetlands at the rate of 8 acres a 
day. No resource can long endure such depredation.
  The Boehlert wetlands amendment adopts the National Governors 
Association proposal and deserves our support. Vote ``Yes'' on the 
Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the property rights vote, 1995. This amendment 
strikes property rights from the wetlands bill.
  Now, just a few short weeks ago 205 Republicans and 72 Democrats 
voted in favor of property rights compensation to landowners in 
wetlands regulations. Today is a real test. We are going to see today 
whether 205 Republicans who signed a contract promising to assist 
American landowners in their property rights battles with the Federal 
Government in wetlands regulations are ready to keep that contract, or 
whether they just signed a piece of paper. We are going to see whether 
72 Democrats who voted for their farmers, for their homeowners, for the 
landowners of America 
[[Page H4983]] who have been regulated to death under this wetlands 
regulation, that nobody ever passed into law, that regulators simply 
built upon, one regulation after the other, we are going to find out 
whether 72 Democrats really believe in private property rights, or 
whether they just vote for it one day and vote against it another day.
  If there is one thing people in America are sick and tired of, it is 
the old politics as usual. Vote for something one day and claim you 
were for it, and vote against it another day when it really counts. 
Well, today it really counts. Today it really counts.
  The President of the United States has declared on Earth Day before a 
throng of his environmental friends that he intends to veto the 
property rights bill we passed just a few short weeks ago. That bill is 
on its way to death, and it has not even been considered by the Senate.
  This bill today is your chance to say you really meant it when you 
voted for property rights just a few weeks ago. This is your chance to 
put property rights in the wetlands bill, where it belongs. So make 
sure that when the Government takes people's property by regulation, 
that it does what the Constitution says it ought to do, that it pays 
them fair and just compensation. That is simple. There is no way around 
this.
  In just a few short minutes this debate will end and people will come 
from their offices back to this Chamber, and we will find out whether 
205 Republicans really meant it when they signed a contract in favor
 of property rights, and whether 72 Democrats really meant it when they 
voted for property rights. We will find out today if they are prepared 
to vote ``No'' on this Boehlert amendment, and stand up for Americans 
who deserve and are entitled to be compensated when regulations take 
away the use and value of their property.
  Mr. Chairman, there is the day of reckoning. There will be other 
smaller amendments offered on the property rights issue, but this is 
the big one. This is the property rights vote of 1995. This vote and 
the one that will come on endangered species when we finally take up 
the reform of the Endangered Species Act, will really tell Americans 
how you stand on this issue central to this debate. If you believe, as 
I do, that regulations to protect wetlands are certainly important and 
regulations to protect endangered species are certainly important, but 
so are people, so land and rights, so are property rights, so are jobs, 
so is the economy in this country, and there ought to be a balance, 
that when the Government regulates people's land in such a way that 
they cannot use it anymore or their use is heavily restricted, if you 
believe as I believe, as most in America I think believe, then this is 
your chance to vote no on the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  (Mr. DURBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert 
amendment. People who are listening to this debate who do not own land 
may wonder what difference it makes whether we have wetlands or how 
many of them. What it boils down to is this: These wetlands act as 
filters for our underground water supply that we all rely on. When the 
wetland system, the natural system, fails, we have to step in at great 
expense to build filtration plants to make sure that the water we drink 
is pure.
  As taxpayers, we have a vested interest in helping mother nature do 
her job, because it is very expensive to build filtration systems to 
try to make up for mistakes which we have made. That is why this is an 
important debate. In my part of the world, in the Midwest, where there 
is a lot of row crop farming, there is a lot of concern about wetlands.
  I have to concede the critics are right. The administration of the 
wetlands program is far from exemplary and should be improved. The 
Boehlert amendment does that. The Boehlert amendment is a much more 
sensible choice than the alternative. He follows the National Governors 
Association, gives to the Department of Agriculture the power to 
delineate what a wetland is, and sensible farming practices are 
allowed. I think we should support this amendment as a commonsense 
approach to help the environment and to reduce the tax burden which all 
families will face if our wetlands fail.
  Let me close by saying this: I have listened to this debate over the 
last 2 days. The references to ``gestapos'' and ``heavy handed tactics 
by the Federal agencies'' fuel the gross national paranoia which we see 
so much of in this country. I beg my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to temper their rhetoric and realize that some people who have 
violence in their heart listen for these code words. We have an 
important debate here that does not have to reach that level.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no paranoia here and in the remarks that I 
want to make, no code words, no hint of violence; it is just straight 
facts. And the straight facts are these: The House defeated this 
amendment last week as part of a substitute to the committee bill. It 
should be defeated in regard to this time around as well.
  This amendment does nothing to solve the problems farmers and 
ranchers are having as they attempt to go about their daily lives, 
subject to the constant hassle, and that is a real word, of Federal 
wetlands regulators.
  The problem with this amendment is this: It keeps the 1987 Army corps 
manual. That manual is the big part of the whole problem. It continues 
in effect something called a memorandum of agreement between the 
Department of Agriculture, the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and 
the corps. Too many agencies in the wetlands soup. And that document is 
the source of a lot of possible mischief, even though the President and 
the administration has hailed it as the problem solver for farmers and 
ranchers.
  I think it is time to understand that conserving wetlands is the 
goal. That is the goal, not conserving Federal rules and regulations.
  The Boehlert amendment expands the permitting program with monitoring 
and tracking systems. It sets up all sorts of coordinating committees 
and ecosystem restoration programs. We have already seen the first 
hints of ecosystem management in the proposed regulations that were 
published by the Forest Service. Nobody knows what an ecosystem is, 
much less how one should be managed.
  The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] last week pointed out to 
Members that the new definition of dredging and filling contained in 
the amendment would make cutting grasslands on a wet spot to be a 
violation of the Clean Water Act. That is exactly the kind of problem 
we have had before.
  Now, under the Boehlert amendment the regulators, the corps, the EPA, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Natural Resource Conservation 
Service at the USDA, the old SGS, we changed the name, they would be 
given carte blanche authority to develop supplemental delineation 
standards for different regions of the country, add to plant and soil 
lists and supplement hydrology standards. This will all be done through 
the regulatory process. The same manual, the same regulatory process, 
the same hassle, and the same problem for ranchers and farmers. What is 
needed is a clear policy of where the Congress wants the regulators to 
take the wetlands legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment very briefly about the 
previous speaker. There really are all the exemptions that a farmer 
would ever want in order to continue farming and certainly preserve 
vital land contained in the Boehlert amendment.
  What I want to talk about briefly here, this is the map of the United 
States, and I unfortunately had to omit Alaska and Hawaii, but I have a 
great strong feeling for those two illustrious States, but at the top 
of the map 
[[Page H4984]] of the United States, who benefits from wetlands? I 
wanted to ask the question first, what do wetlands do? What is the 
function of a wetland?
  Well, wetlands purify water, they prevent flooding, they ensure 
wildlife habitat, and they ensure that fish in coastal regions, whether 
it is a tidal estuary or fresh water estuary, will continue to be able 
to reproduce.
  Who would benefit from pure water, from an area that will not flood, 
from wildlife habitat and all the diversity that goes along with that, 
and abundant fish? Who benefits? Whose property that is near those 
areas would be increased in value? I would say that everybody in the 
United States will benefit from a preservation program that ensures the 
quality of America's wetlands.
  Now, this thick book here is the 1991 field testing manual of the 
changes in wetlands delineation criteria. It was proven to be 
unworkable. The Bush administration set it aside. This particular 
manual was very restrictive, and everybody agreed that we would lose 50 
percent of our wetlands if we used this manual. Now we are using a bill 
that is even more restrictive on wetlands, so we can conclude that we 
will lose about 60 percent of our wetlands across the United States.
  What I want to do is read from the illustrious text of the National 
Academy of Sciences study on wetlands. I am on page 29. We are going to 
deal with water quality and flooding and so on. Here is a quote. ``As 
wetland acreage declines within a watershed, functional capacity such 
as maintenance of water quality begins to become impaired.''
  Right out of the text. If we lose wetlands acreage, water quality in 
those particular areas decline.
  Now, I want to give some examples. I am not targeting anybody in 
particular, but just some examples. This is also found in the new NAS 
study on page 30, if you want to look it up. California has lost since 
1780, 91 percent of its wetlands. As a direct result of those wetlands 
lost, you have 220 animals and 600 plant species that are threatened or 
endangered.
  Since 1955, according to the NAS study, the mallard population is 
down 35 percent, pintails are down 50 percent. Forty-one fish species 
have become extinct in this century as a result of lost wetlands. 
Twenty-eight percent of fresh water species have seriously been 
reduced. Prairie potholes are very important for migrating waterfowl. 
Floods in New Orleans, the Midwest, California, and many other areas 
have been mainly to a large extent caused as a result of where people 
build. And if you build on a wetlands, the water is going to go 
someplace else.
  I wanted to put up one other map. I want to say something about 
whether this should be State regulated or the Federal Government should 
work in harmony with the States and with the local communities. If each 
State can do what they wanted, look what will happen to the Chesapeake 
Bay. Up here you see Washington, DC, which is not a part of Maryland. 
We could have real strict controls over our wetlands, and you can see 
the silt that is washed out of the Potomac River into the Chesapeake 
Bay.

                             {time}   1330

  A little further, I have great respect for the State of Virginia, you 
see in the James River, right here, more silt coming into the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers]. I am pleased to have this distinguished 
scientist supporting the Boehlert amendment.
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I also want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, for his effort to 
rewrite the Clean Water Act, which certainly needs revision. I 
appreciate his efforts and, by and large, appreciate the result of what 
came out of committee. At the same time, I did vote against the bill 
coming out of committee and primarily did that for just one reason; 
that was the wetlands section.
  I believe that in our effort to revise what I call the regulatory 
overburden that we have with wetlands, we must not lose sight of our 
primary objective, and that is to try to maintain viable wetlands in 
the United States.
  I come from a State that has its own wetlands law. I believe it is 
the only State in the Union that does, and it is one of only two that 
is delegated total authority by the EPA. We have a lot of experience 
with wetlands. Michigan has a lot of wetlands and they are very 
important to us. We have regulated them well.
  I am concerned about what the bill does to the regulation of 
wetlands, but even more I am concerned about what happens to the actual 
standards that are in the bill, not about the effort to reduce 
regulation. I admire that effort to reduce regulation and I think it is 
excellent. But we have to be careful that we do not relax the standards 
to the point that we begin to lose viable wetlands.
  You may ask, why am I concerned about this since I am from Michigan 
and we already have our own law? I am concerned on behalf of 
Michiganites, but I am also concerned with others throughout the United 
States. For example, we have a tremendous population of hunters in our 
State and many who come from other States to hunt waterfowl. Without 
proper maintenance of migratory waterfowl flyway wetlands, we will not 
have an adequate population of waterfowl to satisfy the needs and 
desires of those in the sporting professions who hunt waterfowl.
  Similarly we need to maintain wetlands so we can maintain pure water 
in our Nation.
  My plea then is to reduce regulation but not to reduce standards. I 
urge support for the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, a little over two decades ago our 
predecessors stood in this well and argued the Clean Water Act. Must 
have been a tough philosophical stance to be in favor of clean water 
and by implication, I suppose, against dirty water. Not one word of 
that debate was uttered regarding wetlands, because an obscure section 
buried in the bill became the vehicle by which bureaucrats and 
regulators could add onto a dredge and fill bill, meaning most of the 
Mississippi River, and a lawsuit in 1978, an appearance in the Senate 
and then three delineation manuals elevating an obscure paragraph to a 
national debate, a national debate that by our opponents in this, with 
the offer of their amendment, would have not one EPA but now four 
Federal agencies able to veto each and every permit request in America. 
I do not know the definition of streamlining, but that is not it.
  I have heard a great deal about science. The science that is lacking 
in this debate is psychiatry, because only a study of psychiatry could 
tell me why in Grand Junction, CO, at 11,000 feet above sea level, I 
have got a wetland, the jurisdictional waters of the United States, on 
the side of a mountain. Only a psychiatrist could explain to me why the 
ducks and geese apparently who travel around the country are so much 
better at delineating wetlands than five Federal agencies. At least 
they can figure out where to land. They have never landed in the 
parking lot at the Sands Hotel which, by the way, has been declared the 
jurisdictional waters of the United States of America.
  You can either decide that what occurred since 1972 was that those 
who could care less about clean water but cared about land use made the 
conclusion that you cannot pass a bill in this House that will regulate 
people's land and zone it nationally, but you can get to it if you call 
it a wetland. And if it escapes from there, you can get to it if you 
claim it has an endangered species and you can terrify people by 
putting criminal sanctions in the Clean Water Act and send them to 
prison for not complying with regulations that no sane person in so 
many instances would be able to understand applied to their property.
  In a few minutes, we are going to vote, we are going to vote on the 
distinction between the rights of individuals and the arrogance and 
power of government.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H4985]]

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, as we have come to the close of this 
debate on wetlands, I just want to be sure that everyone understands 
exactly what this amendment would do. This amendment adopts the 
National Governors Association proposal on wetlands reform word for 
word. And this amendment gives the Secretary of Agriculture sole 
control over all agricultural wetlands.
  We have had a spirited debate and sometimes people get carried away a 
little bit with the spirit and say some things that just are not 
accurate. So I need to correct some misstatements about this amendment.
  It has been alleged that this amendment protects the status quo. The 
fact is this amendment would rewrite the wetlands provisions of the 
Clean Water Act and dramatically reduce the burden of Federal 
regulation. It has been alleged that this amendment gives Federal 
bureaucrats unbridled authority. The fact is this amendment would 
reduce Federal control over wetlands and give more authority to the 
States. That is why the National Governors Association promoted this 
proposal.
  It has been alleged that this amendment is insensitive to the need of 
farmers. The fact is this amendment contains each and every agriculture 
exemption contained in the committee bill, plus an additional exemption 
for the repair and reconstruction of tiles requested by midwestern 
farmers.
  It has been alleged that this amendment creates new bureaucracies. 
The fact is this amendment would create no additional bureaucracies 
whatsoever, just a local/State/Federal advisory panel uncompensated. 
This amendment would reduce the bureaucracy overseeing agriculture 
wetlands, giving the Department of Agriculture sole jurisdiction.
  Now let us get down to some specific cases that came up over the past 
few days in debate. We heard about someone who had to go through a 
convoluted approval process to use a wetland that was only one-eighth 
of an acre. What this amendment would actually do would provide fast-
track authority that would require a response within 60 days for 
wetlands permits of 1 acre or less.
  We heard that grazing land was being classified as wetlands. What 
this amendment would do is exempt all grazing and ranching lands from 
this section 404 wetlands permitting process.
  We heard about wetlands created by a leaky pipe or a feeding trough. 
What this amendment would actually do is exempt incidentally created 
wetlands from regulation.
  We heard that the maintenance of flood control channels would be 
regulated under this amendment. What this amendment actually would do 
is exempt the maintenance and reconstruction of flood control channels.
  So many of the stories we have heard about this amendment are simply 
fiction. They are in the long American tradition of tall tales, and the 
regulators and regulations they allege to be part of this amendment are 
about as real as Paul Bunyan and his blue ox.
  Let me tell you something about the committee bill. The committee 
bill would create an expensive new Federal bureaucracy. Thousands of 
new Federal bureaucrats will have to be employed under H.R. 961 at a 
cost of over $1 billion.
  H.R. 961 would avoid the findings of science. The report of the 
National Academy of Sciences is not even being used as a reference. It 
is being totally ignored. Why are we afraid of science?
  Most importantly, H.R. 961 would allow the
   destruction of more than half the Nation's wetlands. That 
destruction could cost the Nation billions and billions of dollars in 
lost tourism, in fishing, and flood control.

  I will say again, we are offering a moderate sensible bipartisan 
amendment, language presented to us by the National Governors 
Association, the same language that was in last week's substitute.
  This amendment should have the support of everyone who believes that 
we can reform environmental legislation without eliminating its 
safeguards, and that we can protect the environment without unduly 
burdening the citizenry.
  I operate under the assumption that we did not inherit the Earth from 
our ancestors. We are borrowing it from our children. We owe them an 
accounting of our stewardship. The American people should have as a 
birthright clean air, pure water, dedicated public officials.
  I thank my colleagues for their patience. I thank the chairman of the 
committee. I thank all who have participated in this very important 
debate. What we are about is the future of America, the next 
generation. Let us give them clean water.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert 
amendment.
  I want to address a matter that has been of great concern to me 
throughout much of the wetlands debate. That is the issue of 
legislation by anecdote.
  I am deeply troubled by some of the stories that have been recited 
during floor debate last night and today, and throughout consideration 
of amendments to the wetlands title of the Clean Water Act.
  My concern prompted me to direct my staff to look into the anecdotes 
that have been raised as examples of the problems with wetlands 
program. To the extent that the anecdotes are accurate, as a few of 
them may be, they must be addressed legislatively. I am as troubled as 
anyone by the flaws in the program, such as permitting delays.
  But I am also gravely concerned about the use by Members of this 
distinguished body of anecdotes that are not accurate, in order to 
influence the legislation. Using anecdotes that so exaggerate the 
actual events is irresponsible and dangerous, and does a great 
disservice to this body, to our constituents, and to the people whose 
experiences get distorted to serve political ends.
  If there is a problem with the wetlands title, let's fix it. If there 
is a need to illustrate the problem through examples, by all means 
let's do so, if the examples are accurate. Frankly, if an experience 
has to be grossly exaggerated because the undistorted truth does not 
demonstrate the existence of a problem, then I must question the 
seriousness of the problem.
  For example: We were told that the court awarded Mr. Harold Bowles 
only $4,500 for the taking of his property. The real story is that he 
was awarded $55,000 plus interest for the taking of his property.
  We were told that wetlands regulations precluded construction of a 
new school in Juneau, AK. The rest of the story includes that members 
of the local community raised several serious concerns about the 
proposed location for construction of the school, and the city failed 
to evaluate the availability of alternative sites what would not 
destroy wetlands, as required under the law, even though there was at 
least one alternative that had broad community support, lower costs, 
and less environmental impact.
  We were told about the case of Nancy Cline. What we were not told is 
that by filling approximately 100 acres of wetlands, the Clines damaged 
adjacent property owned by their neighbor.
  We were told that a church could not be built in California due to 
wetlands regulation. What we were not told is that the Corps of 
Engineers assisted the group in redesigning their project so that it 
would impact less than an acre of wetlands and be exempt from the 
requirement for an individual permit. With the corps' assistance, the 
Church was authorized to proceed, but proceeded to drain a vernal pool 
without authorization, destroying the wetland.
  A Member letter circulated to Members of the House stated that the 
Clean Water Act never mentions the word ``wetlands.'' That is not so: I 
am aware of at least five instances where the word ``wetlands'' appears 
in the Clean Water Act, in sections 119, 120, 208 (twice) and 404.
  It is not my intention to consume our precious debate time by arguing 
over the details of anecdotes. But, nor can I listen to what I know are 
inaccurate statements without calling attention to them.
  Finally, in the face of all of these negative anecdotes about the 
impacts of wetlands regulation, I would like to share some examples of 
the many instances where wetlands regulation protects citizens from 
property damage from flooding and other causes.
  In the case of Mr. John Pozsgai, who was convicted by a jury on 40 
counts of knowingly filling wetlands without a Clean Water Act permit, 
neighbors had flooded basements and other property damage from the 
filling.
  In the case of Mr. Ray Hendley in Georgia, neighboring homeowners 
began experiencing flooding problems after Mr. Hendley built houses on 
illegally filled wetlands.
  These are just a few of many examples of the important role that 
wetlands regulation 
[[Page H4986]] plays in protecting the property and livelihood of 
everyday citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to refrain from the irresponsible use of 
anecdotes, and to support the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Make no mistake about it, my colleagues, this Boehlert amendment guts 
the wetlands section of our legislation. Make no mistake about it, this 
Boehlert amendment does not reform wetlands but actually adds new 
procedures and new controls to the existing program which has been a 
nightmare.
  This amendment we have before us creates an 18-member bureaucracy 
chaired by EPA. And guess who appoints 10 of the 18 mechanics? A 
majority? The EPA. And what is the purpose of this EPA-controlled new 
bureaucracy? To ``help coordinate regulatory programs,'' to ``help 
develop criteria and strategies, to help develop national policies on 
delineation, classification and mitigation.'' We have had about all the 
help we can stand from the bureaucrats at EPA, and we do not need an 
additional bureaucracy to give the American people more help.
  This amendment before us is so bad that it actually expands the list 
of regulatory activities by adding new categories. It mandates--get 
this--it mandates the use of the 1987 wetlands manual, which we have 
heard so much criticism about.
  It pretends to include exemptions from permits but it allows the 
regulators, the bureaucrats to deny those exemptions.
  Now, we have heard it said how wonderful this amendment is for 
agriculture. Then why, why, I must ask, is virtually every agricultural 
organization in America in writing opposed to this amendment? Well, 
they are opposed to it because they realize it is more regulation, not 
less regulation.
  We have heard the claim that this amendment will fast track permit 
processing. Yes, but--and this is the big but--the so-called fast track 
is limited to ``minor activities affecting one acre or less.'' And 
guess who determines whether it is a minor activity or not? You have 
got it right. It is the bureaucrats who will determine what the 
definition of minor is.
  We have heard from some of our good friends in New Jersey, Michigan, 
and Maryland supporting this amendment because it is so important to 
their State. I say to my good friends from New Jersey and Maryland and 
Michigan and any other state, if they would like to have more stringent 
wetlands regulations, then adopt them in your State. There is nothing 
in our legislation that stops them from imposing stricter wetlands. 
They are free to do it. But what is good for New Jersey may not be good 
for Idaho.
  So let us have a little common sense here. Let us say that the States 
know something. And let us say there can be flexibility.
  Members can impose whatever wetlands they care to impose upon their 
State, but do not try to stuff it down the throats of the rest of the 
American people. We have heard a lot about good science, and about the 
National Academy of Sciences. We have heard the claim that 60 percent 
of the wetlands will be lost, and we have said the National Academy of 
Sciences says that.
  Do they really? During a question-and-answer session at a briefing, 
the chairman, Dr. William Lewis of the committee that wrote the report, 
was asked, ``What percentage of wetlands currently under the 
jurisdiction of the program would be deregulated'' under our bill? Do 
Members know what his first response was? It was, and I quote, ``I 
don't know.''
  Then he was pushed further for an answer. By the way, the person 
asking the question was my good friend, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert], who was pushing this, and when pushed further, he said, 
and I quote, ``I guess the amount would be in the tens of percent; 20, 
30, maybe 40 percent.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest it is highly irresponsible 
for the chairman of the committee, no doubt a scientist, to guess on 
such an important issue, then to have that wild guess taken and turned 
here on this floor into something right out of the New Testament.
  The last part of his answer, ``40 percent,'' differs from the first 
part by a 100 percent margin of error. Is that good science, that 
margin of error? I think not.
  We have also been told how the National Governors Association 
supports the Boehlert amendment. What are the facts? The facts are the 
only record in which a subcommittee of that organization went on record 
was the National Governors Association's wetlands policy. In 1992, 3 
years ago, they voted in support of the kind of Boehlert amendment we 
have before us. It was not the Governors themselves.
  Today, indeed, we have different Governors, and the Governors have 
already said they are going to reconsider their position, so I say vote 
down the Boehlert amendment, do not gut this bill.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, today we will vote on an amendment to 
the clean water bill which will severely weaken the wetlands reform 
contained in this bill.
  H.R. 961 is a renewed investment and commitment in our Nation's clean 
water infrastructure. It reinstates the basic constitutional right to 
obtain compensation for takings. This bill unamended, will allow 
farmers and landowners to seek a determination of whether a wetland 
exists on their property.
  My farmers and landowners in the Eighth District of Georgia are in 
desperate need of relief from the overburdensome and heavily regulated 
Federal wetlands policy. H.R. 961, unamended, will give eighth district 
farmers and landowners in towns like Ashburn and Enigma the relief they 
need. The Republicans have promised the American people that the status 
quo will no longer be the norm. Unfortunately, this amendment does 
nothing to change the status quo. We have a responsibility to protect 
the environment, yet do so without over-regulating the farmers and 
businesses that drive our economy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
against any amendment which weakens wetlands reform.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 242, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 332]

                               AYES--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Porter
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--242

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     [[Page H4987]] Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Berman
     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (IL)
     Gephardt
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Lipinski

                              {time}  1406

  Messrs. COOLEY, BAESLER, BONILLA, ROEMER, and POMEROY changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PASTOR, HASTINGS of Florida, and OLVER changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                   amendment offered by mr. gilchrest

  Mr. GILCHREST. 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. Gilchrest: Page 309, strike lines 
     8 through 12.
       Page 309, line 13, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       Page 312, line 10, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(10)''.

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, it occasionally happens that rather 
small provisions of bills which very few people know about have a 
tremendous impact.
  This amendment seeks to strike such a provision which will have a 
significant effect on hunters and other people who enjoy migratory 
birds.
  The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who 
are both members of the Migratory Bird Commission, are coauthors of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and I serve 
as the House Members on the Migratory Bird Commission and as such we 
work on ways to preserve in a voluntary way the wetlands of this 
National and North America that are important to waterfowl.
  Over the past several decades that this program has existed, we have 
in fact preserved 7 million acres of wetlands through the North 
American Wetlands Conservation Fund and 4 million acres through the 
Migratory Bird Commission funding. All of that has been done 
voluntarily.
  This amendment allows us to continue to recognize those lands that 
are important for the development and the growth of waterfowl in this 
country. It is a good bipartisan amendment. I applaud my colleague for 
offering it. I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell], for joining in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include my statement in support of the amendment as 
follows:
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment with my 
colleagues, Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Dingell. This provision in H.R. 961--
which will deny Federal protection for wetlands that are solely used by 
migratory birds--is not only unnecessary but dangerous for the future 
of our Nation's migratory birds.
  As members of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, Mr. Dingell 
and I have witnessed first hand the role wetlands protection plays in 
the recovery and protection of our Nation's migratory birds. Through 
the use of primarily duck stamp monies together with other proceeds, 
the commission has provided for the acquisition and enhancement of 
waterfowl habitat through the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  However, the wildlife refuges alone cannot provide sufficient habitat 
to support the millions of waterfowl which annually migrate across 
America. As a result, thanks to the effort of my friend, Mr. Dingell, 
the North American wetlands conservation fund was created. NAWCF is 
truly one of the most cost effective wetlands preservation initiatives 
in existence. It operates as a private-public partnership, with Federal 
grant monies being matched, often times at rates as high as 4 to 1.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4308, a bill to re-authorize and expand the North 
American wetlands fund, passed the House by a vote of 368 to 5 last 
year. Almost every single one of our colleagues recognized the need to 
preserve our Nation's wetlands in order to protect important migratory 
bird populations. The provision on page 309 of H.R. 961 which 
eliminates protection of wetlands which are solely used by migratory 
birds will halt the progress we have achieved through the work of the 
Migratory Bird Commission.
  We must take into consideration that even after passage of the North 
American wetlands conservation fund, much more still needs to be done. 
Recent estimates of North America's breeding duck population is 18 
percent below the average of the last 40 years. For certain species, 
the numbers are far worse. Mallard populations, for example, are down 
20 percent and the North Pintail population has declined by half. Other 
migratory species have suffered as well. Populations of Franklin Gulls, 
Black Terns, and Soras all have declined significantly since the early 
1950's. It is clear we cannot roll back the clock in preserving these 
species.
  Mr. Chairman, the migratory bird provision in H.R. 961 not only puts 
at risk our migratory bird populations, but contradicts case law on 
this subject. As Mr. Dingell has stated, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 
Seventh District, has specifically ruled in Hoffman Homes versus 
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that EPA is within 
its jurisdiction to view migratory birds as a connection between 
wetlands and interstate commerce. Proponents to H.R. 961 will argue 
that this case gives the EPA carte blanche to run rough shod over 
private landowners. Not true. In fact, the court ruled in favor of 
Hoffman, citing the EPA's inability to provide substantial evidence of 
migratory bird use. So you can see, the burden is on EPA to prove the 
wetlands is essential to migratory bird populations.
  In addition, I would like to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues--especially those who are most concerned with the economic 
impact on our citizens with regard to the laws we pass--exactly the 
impact H.R. 961, in its current form, will have on our hunting and 
tourism industry. In 1991, $3.6 billion was spent on hunting migratory 
birds such as waterfowl and shore birds, $15.9 billion was spent on 
nonconsumptive uses of migratory birds. Together, they contribute 
almost $20 billion to our Nation's economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell-Weldon-Gilchrest 
amendment to H.R. 961. Last year you showed your support for our 
migratory birds. If you have constituents in your district who like to 
hunt, trap, or observe migratory birds, I urge you to show your support 
again this year.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  [[Page H4988]] (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
My comments will be brief.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland and my dear friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon], who serves so ably with me on the Migratory Bird Commission 
for their fine leadership on this matter.
  This is a good amendment. I want to thank my friends, the chairman of 
the committee and also the ranking minority member and the other 
members of the committee who have been accommodating to us on this.
  This will make possible the conservation of a very precious natural 
resource much loved by millions of Americans, by duck hunters, by 
nonhunters and by ordinary citizens who enjoy it.
  I am grateful to the gentleman for the leadership he has shown. I 
thank my good friend from Pennsylvania. I urge the amendment be 
adopted.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gilchrest-Dingell 
amendment. I also applaud his tenacity in working to improve the 
wetlands provisions of this bill.
  The Gilchrest-Dingell amendment would delete from the bill another of 
the arbitrary limitations which have been included to reduce the 
protection which is afforded wetlands, regardless of the value of the 
wetland. Without this amendment, the bill will deny protection to 
virtually all isolated wetlands--the very wetlands which are so 
valuable to migratory waterfowl, and which can serve a variety of 
valuable functions such as groundwater recharge and flood control.
  As we all know, the Federal Government is one of limited powers. 
Often, the basis of the Federal Government's authority to regulate an 
activity is the commerce clause of the Constitution. In the case of 
isolated wetlands which do not cross State boundaries, the presence of 
migratory birds has been a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce so 
as to justify a Federal interest in the wetland.
  If H.R. 961 is allowed to proceed in its current form, there will be 
no Federal jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. The mere fact that a 
wetland is isolated should not make it automatically less protected 
than one which is directly linked to the otherwise navigable waters of 
the United States. I remind my colleagues that in the debate on the 
original Clean Water Act in 1972, the subject of the breadth of its 
coverage was specifically debated, and the decision was that the act 
should have the broadest application possible. This amendment defeats 
that original purpose with no concern for water quality or other 
impacts.
  Mr. Chairman, the Gilchrest-Dingell amendment will allow the wetlands 
program of the Clean Water Act to exercise its jurisdiction as allowed 
by the Constitution. Anything less is yet another attempt to assure the 
continuing loss of our Nation's valuable wetland resources.
  Support the Gilchrest-Dingell amendment and leave the constitutional 
interpretation of the Clean Water Act alone.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is an excellent amendment, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Gilchrest-Dingell amendment.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I believe H.R. 961, as presently drafted, 
goes too far. The bill, as reported out of committee, contains a 
provision which states that water or wetlands would no longer be 
subject to Federal protection solely because they are used by migratory 
birds. That provision will open thousands of wetlands used by migratory 
birds to destruction.
  As any one of the thousands of sportsmen and women from Minnesota can 
tell you, protection of isolated wetlands is important for the 
continued, stable growth of our migratory waterfowl. The wetlands which 
this amendment seeks to protect are particularly important for certain 
species of waterfowl, including mallards, teal, and pintails--whose 
numbers are critically low.
  I was born and raised on a farm in Minnesota, near a principal 
breeding area for waterfowl in the United States. I come from a family 
of hunters, and have fond memories of the time we spent, enjoying the 
sport, and absorbing the beauty of Minnesota. If this amendment is not 
accepted and isolated wetlands are left unprotected, future generations 
may not be able to experience the recreational opportunities so many of 
us have had, and the gains we have made in replenishing our wildlife 
population over the past several years could be lost forever.
  During our recent district work period I held many listening sessions 
and the message my constituents gave me was clear: Cut back 
on Federal over-regulation and micro-management, 
but do not roll back essential protections for our most vital natural 
resources. Mr. Chairman, there is a legitimate role for the Federal 
Government to play in protecting isolated wetlands for the benefit of 
all Americans. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                   amendment offered by mr. gilchrest

  Mr. GILCHREST. 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. Gilchrest: Page 243, strike line 9 
     and all that follows through line 7 on page 249 and insert 
     the following:
       ``(c) Wetlands Classification.--The Secretary shall issue 
     regulations for the classification of wetlands to the extent 
     practicable based on the best available science. Requirements 
     of this title based on the classification of wetlands as type 
     A, type B, or type C wetlands shall not become effective 
     until regulations are issued under this subsection.
       Page 282, line 11, strike ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)'' and 
     insert ``subparagraph (B)''.
       Page 282, strike line 12 and all that follows through line 
     22 on page 283.
       Page 283, strike line 23 and all that follows through 
     ``any'' on line 25 and insert the following:
       ``(B) Normal circumstances.--Any
       Page 311, line 17, strike ``section,'' and insert ``section 
     and''.
       Page 311, lines 18 through 20, strike ``, and no exception 
     shall be available under subsection (g)(1)(B),''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and a Member opposed will each 
be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is extremely straightforward. It seeks 
to strike the bill's provisions for delineation and classification of 
wetlands. These are the provisions with which the National Academy of 
Sciences disagreed most strongly and they are the provisions which have 
driven the Association of State Wetlands Managers to oppose the bill.
  The provisions in question require that wetlands be inundated for 21 
consecutive days in the growing season, that they meet a very strict 
vegetation requirement, and that they have hydric soils present.
  Under such a definition, an acre of land could be a swamp from 
October to March, saturated the first 20 days of the growing season and 
the last 20 days of the growing season, and not meet the hydrology 
requirement. It could be a swamp year round but not display the right 
sort of vegetation and not be considered a wetland. Or a landowner 
could simply wait for a drought year when very few acres will display 
wetland hydrology and again not have the parcel considered a wetland.

                              {time}  1415

  Now I know that many of us have been eager for a statutory definition 
of what constitutes a wetland. But H.R. 961 contains a definition which 
is clearly wrong--it's definition will only protect a fraction of acres 
that function as wetlands in the United States. The National Academy of 
Sciences could not assign any scientific justification, let me say that 
one more time. The National Academy of Sciences could not assign any 
scientific justification to the wetlands definition contained in H.R. 
961.
  Where did the committee get this definition, you might ask? Well, the 
definition is almost identical to the proposed 1991 manual revisions, 
but a little stricter. Those revisions were a 
[[Page H4989]] complete disaster during field testing, with the inter-
agency team calling them ``technically unsound'' and urging that the 
manual be adopted. This definition was such an utter failure that the 
Bush administration had to abandon its own proposal.
  Now I've heard that States could provide higher levels of protection 
for wetlands than what is provided under the bill. With all due 
respect, the nutrients and toxics in surrounding States very often 
cause a tremendous amount of problems in my State, which borders on the 
Chesapeake Bay. Until we can make waterways respect State boundaries, 
wetlands are going to remain an interstate matter. Mr. Chairman, every 
time farmers from States bordering my State put down fertilizer in a 
non-best-management practice, they hurt watermen in the State of 
Maryland, and nobody's going to talk about compensating the State of 
Maryland fisherman,
 although if we adopt this bill I think we should gain that debate.

  My amendment also strikes the wetlands classification system in the 
bill. Obviously, we would like to say that this wetland is more 
important than that wetland, but according to the National Academy of 
Sciences, we do not have the science right now to make that 
determination. This bill blindly subscribes to the wetter is better 
theory, but the National Academy of Sciences essentially says, and we 
all want to deal with science and we have the report, the National 
Academy of Sciences report right here, it says we cannot do that.
  Under my amendment the Army Corps of Engineers would be required to 
publish regulations for wetland classification when sufficient science 
is available. This replaces the bill's requirements that classification 
systems be implemented whether the science is available or not. If we 
go along with this bill, we are going to determine what is a wetland 
without science. Is that OK? I do not think so.
  Let me take a minute about what this amendment does not do. It does 
not change any of the bill's provisions about permitting. It does not 
change the compensation provisions. It does not remove any of the six 
pages of exempted activities. All this amendment does is remove the two 
provisions that the National Academy of Sciences say are unworkable and 
unscientific.
  My friends from Louisiana, and they are my friends, from Louisiana 
will argue that Congress should decide which wetlands to regulate, and 
obviously that is our duty. But in delineating wetlands, literally 
drawing lines around wetlands, we should use an appropriate scientific 
definition of wetlands. Once we have delineated those wetlands, we may 
decide not to regulate them, and indeed, H.R. 961 contains about 80 
other pages which deregulate various wetlands. But at the very least, 
let us keep a little science in the question of wetlands delineation.
  Most of the groups who oppose title VIII of the bill, the Governors, 
the State legislators, the fishermen, among others, oppose this 
provision more than any other. And while I cannot say they would 
support it with this provision gone, that means we take out the 
delineation criteria, and we inject it with science, at the very least 
it would temper their opposition. That means we would have support of 
the National Governors Association, we would have the support of 
fishermen, we would have the support of people who truly want clean 
water, who want to prevent flooding, who want wildlife habitat, who 
want a whole range of things that improve the quality of our lives.
  Last week the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] told a story 
which I hope everyone heard. He talked about how a certain State 
legislature voted to change pi. Remember in eighth grade in your math 
class. It was not apple pie, it was a mathematical equation, the 
circumference for circles. The definition of what is a functional 
wetland is every bit as scientific as pi. If we have to deregulate 
wetlands, this bill does that. But at the very least, for delineation 
purposes, let us keep a scientific definition of wetlands in place.
  Let us talk some sense about what we do today for tomorrow's 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] will 
control the opposition to the amendment and is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily 
yield the control of that time to the distinguished gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, this is the study that has been referenced 
here before of the National Academy of Sciences, and my copy says 
advance copy, not for public release, before Tuesday, May 9, 1995, 
eastern standard time; in other words, right after I can take advantage 
of it for news purposes, but too late for anyone to go through it and 
criticize it. It is also interesting when you turn a few pages, I find 
out the academy was doing a lot of nonscientific things, unless of 
course you mean political science. One of the things they did was make 
sure they noted on page 2 that this was paid for by the EPA and then 
later after nearly 3 years of work and a mere 19 months late, they 
concluded what we should base science on an EPA delineation manual. 
That must have been a tough and rigorous decision. They also had to do 
so under some terrible circumstances. They were forced to travel to 
Sedona, Vicksburg, over to Maryland, over to Florida, over to North 
Dakota, all around the country spending our tax dollars on field 
hearings. But most interestingly of all, it required four different EPA 
folks to travel with them to Arizona to tell them what a wetland was. 
And you wonder why people are having problems. It required four Fish 
and Wildlife Service members from Washington to go to North Dakota, and 
then most importantly, of course, I wonder how long was the 
determination that Raphael Lopez of San Diego would do the cover art of 
drawing a crane for $1,500.
  I do not believe we need to have waited the 19 months to get a report 
that merely said Federal agencies have the leverage to have scientists 
who are misled by regulator after regulator after regulator affect what 
should be a scientific process, which is why I have letters now from 
different environmental consultants across the Nation telling me that 
their participation was constantly interrupted not by the scientists 
but by regulators, that the questions came from regulators, that the 
regulators were leading the panel talking about how you actually 
implement the manual.
  Both scientists and regulators need to go back to the field, back to 
talk to landowners and find out what policy should be.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has 13 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] has 9 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I commend my Republican colleague from Maryland for this excellent 
amendment. I rise in strong support. We do need a workable and 
scientific description of wetlands.
  I want to speak on behalf of the oldest industry in this country, our 
commercial fishing industry. That industry contributes more than $111 
billion annually and provides jobs for 1\1/2\ million Americans.
  This fishing industry will be put in jeopardy by H.R. 961. More than 
75 percent of fish and shellfish species rely on wetlands for some 
portion of their cycle. Yet, H.R. 961 would allow more than half of all 
wetlands to go unprotected by simply redefining them as dry land.
  It is for these reasons that the Pacific Coast Federation of 
Fishermen's Associations, that is the largest organization of fishermen 
and fisherwomen in the entire length of the west coast, why they have 
come out in opposition of H.R. 961.
  If Members care about the future of America's fishing industry or if 
they just like to eat fish, I urge they vote yes on the Gilchrest 
amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], 
[[Page H4990]] chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time. I would like to engage in a colloquy that is very important to 
the agricultural sector and would ask the distinguished chairman the 
following question: In the chairman's en bloc amendment that was agreed 
to earlier there is a section beginning on line 20, page 284, that 
grandfathers wetlands delineations made by the Secretary of Agriculture 
under the 1985 Food Security Act--1985 FS Act--as amended, if those 
delineations were administratively final upon enactment of this 
legislation. I appreciate the Transportation Committee's willingness to 
amend the committee bill as reported to incorporate this provision in 
the law. It is very important to American farmers and ranchers; 
however, I note that there appears to be a difference between the term 
``delineation'' as used in the clean water amendments and the term as 
used in the Food Security Act of 1985.
  Under the terms of the 1985 Food Security Act, as first enacted, the 
term ``delineation'' was not used. However, in the period 1986 through 
1990 several thousand administrative determinations were made by the 
Secretary exempting persons from the program ineligibility provisions 
of section 1221 of the Food Security Act of 1985. In the 1990 
amendments to section 1222 of the Food Security Act of 1985, made by 
the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990--FACT Act of 
1990--the concept of delineation was first introduced in the Food 
Security Act. The Secretary of Agriculture under section 122 amended by 
the FACT Act of 1990 included an on-site visit to make a delineation 
determination, if the landowner requests such an on-site visit.
  In addition, section 1222(a)(4) of the 1985 Food Security Act 
requires the Secretary to provide a process for the periodic review and 
update of the delineations, but a landowner may not be adversely 
affected by any actions the owner may have taken based on an earlier 
wetland determination made by the Secretary of Agriculture.
  Chairman Shuster, I assume it was your intent by grandfathering 
delineations of the Secretary of Agriculture that were final upon 
enactment of this bill to mean that administrative determinations made 
by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Food Security Act would also 
be grandfathered. In other words, the term delineation as used in the 
clean water amendments of 1995 is meant to include the administrative 
finality of determinations as that term is used in section 1222 of the 
1985 Food Security Act, as amended.
  Mr. Shuster. If the gentleman will yield, I would answer by saying 
that he is correct, the committee intends for a wetland delineation 
made under the Clean Water Act as we are amending it today would 
provide finality of determinations made by the Secretary of Agriculture 
under the Food Security Act.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for his clarification. And I would 
only add at this time, Mr. Chairman, that I would also like to rise in 
opposition to the Gilchrest amendment.
  Now the Gilchrest amendment, in the eyes of the sometimes powerful 
House Committee on Agriculture and its members, would provide authority 
to the Federal regulatory community to decide what classifications will 
be used for various functions and values of wetlands. The gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] has already spoken to that. I associate 
myself with his remarks. And to some of these regulators, quite 
frankly, every wet spot is a valuable wetland. That is the problem. 
That is the problem with the gentleman's amendment. They will use a 
seat-of-the-pants science to determine wetlands. I would imagine they 
would go out in the field, sit down on the ground, and if their pants 
get damp, why then it would be a wetland.
  The Gilchrest amendment eliminates the statutory wetlands delineation 
process of H.R. 961 which requires land to actually be wet for a 
significant part of the growing season. The committee bill requires 
some water-loving plants to be found on the ground.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] would eliminate that 
requirement. He would eliminate the requirements for how hydric soils 
are delineated.
  In short, I would tell my colleagues that the Gilchrest amendment 
guts the committee's well-reasoned, commonsense approach and replaces 
it with a program ruled by those who write the rules, EPA and Fish and 
Wildlife. That is part of the problem.
  We do not need this amendment. The gentleman's intent is good, his 
leadership is good, he is a fine Member but we should oppose his 
amendment. Let us get on with the adoption of H.R. 961 and defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment to my good 
friend the gentleman from Kansas that the reason America's agriculture 
is as advanced as it is today is because we use good science. We do not 
want to reverse ourselves and go back to a Third-World-nation status 
not using the best available knowledge to pursue the agricultural 
industry.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
                              {time}  1430

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this issue that we have before us is not a 
new one. The Competitiveness Council under Vice President Quayle tried 
to define, redefine, wetlands in very much the same way that H.R. 961 
does, and at that time Governor Wilson from the State of California did 
a very smart thing. He asked State officials to assess the impact of 
this new definition on California.
  He wrote, because he was so alarmed, on December 13, 1991, to 
President Bush to protest the wetlands definition of the 
Competitiveness Council, essentially the same definition in this bill. 
And he said, ``This would cause irreparable damage to the State's 
natural resource base.'' He found that definition we are considering 
today would eliminate half of California's wetlands. In southern 
California, the State biologists found the coastal wetlands would be 
reduced by 75 percent. Half of San Francisco's bay tidal marshes, which 
are essential habitats for numerous fish species, would also lose 
protection.
  He asked that we have a National Academy of Sciences study, and that 
report is now before us, and now this study is being ignored.
  For years we have heard opponents of environmental protection in this 
body talk about the need for sound science. When we passed H.R. 9 
earlier this year, legislation that rolls back 25 years of 
environmental protection, we were told that we were acting in the name 
of sound science. When we debated a whole host of bills, opponents of 
environmental protection gave impassioned and eloquent lectures on the 
need for sound science.
  In my remarks in the Record I am going to quote back some of the 
statements made by our colleagues. Apparently many Members want sound 
science only if it matches their political views.
  What we have today is a new political correctness that has captured 
this House.
  The National Academy of Sciences, our Nation's premier scientific 
organization, has completed a rigorous and comprehensive analysis and 
concluded that H.R. 961 does not reflect good science. The bill's 
sponsors react to this news not by amending their bill and accepting 
the Gilchrest amendment but by denouncing the National Academy of 
Sciences.
  The message is clear. This Congress will accept sound science only if 
the science fits its political agenda. I think that is wrong, and that 
is why I am going to vote for the Gilchrest amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gilchrest 
amendment, and I want to talk a little bit about wetlands delineation.
  Ordinary people no longer know what a wetland is. They expect to see 
a swamp or a marsh, only to be told by regulators that land that is 
usually dry is a wetland, or that a field of corn is a wetland. It is 
really time to get the water back into wetlands.
  [[Page H4991]] The current guidelines can allow an area to be called 
a wetland even if water never stands on it or even if the surface of 
the ground is never saturated. For Federal regulation under the Clean 
Water Act there should be a real influence of water as well as the 
presence of wetland vegetation and soils before property comes under 
regulatory control. Some say this approach is unscientific.
  Well, the scientists have had 20 years to decide this, and there is 
still no clear, understandable, agreed upon approach. We have heard a 
lot of rhetoric.
  The gentleman from California was just talking about the National 
Academy of Sciences study which was released on Tuesday, and while I am 
personally more than a little suspicious of their timing and of 
consideration for the NAS's political motivations in releasing this 
report to coincide with the debate here in the House of the Clean Water 
Act, I am glad to see them finally come forward with a report.
  But let me try to dispel some of the distortions and unfounded 
allegations that occurred regarding the bill's delineations provisions. 
Some of the self-serving special interest groups backed by 
environmental extremists have claimed the bill is going to result in 
anywhere from 50 to 60 to 80 percent reduction in the amount of private 
property that is regulated as so-called wetlands. There is no 
scientific basis other than their own self-interest and political 
motivations to make such claims.
  We should be dealing with the truth; the truth is that nobody knows 
the extent of wetlands in this Nation, even under the existing rules. 
The truth is that our bill requires that there be a reasonable 
relationship, a reasonable relationship between water and Federal 
regulation under the Clean Water Act. We have obtained information on 
how our bill would affect the extent of Federal jurisdiction in the 
Florida Everglades but we believe that this would be helpful, because 
the liberal extremists claimed our bill would remove the Everglades 
from Federal jurisdiction. The consultants found that our bill would 
actually result in an increase in jurisdiction and not a decrease.
  This increase will certainly not occur in every case throughout the 
country, but it serves as a helpful example of just how desperate some 
of the opponents of this bill have become.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If I could, I would like to quickly respond to the gentleman from 
Missouri. Approximately 66 percent of the 1989 wetlands acreage at 
interagency test sites would have failed the proposed 1991 criteria 
comments of the Missouri River Division.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the Gilchrest 
amendment. I would hate to believe that the long awaited National 
Academy of Sciences study has not gotten here just in time. A million 
dollars is what we put down to get somebody objective to look at this 
problem.
  The reduction in wetland acres, my colleagues, is awesome.
  This is a radical change based on ignorance.
  Indeed, the provisions that are objectionable are based on 
discredited provisions of the 1991 manual. How can we use a 1991 manual 
that failed field testing and not a state-of-the-art study?
  In this area, we are spending tax dollars to restore wetlands. Let 
the Amy Corps of Engineers use the NAS study, the only study with any 
integrity, to develop delineation criteria. The wetlands title before 
us is an act of ignorance.
  Please, support the Gilchrest amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support my colleague's 
amendment.
  The Gilchrest amendment would strike the classification provisions of 
the wetlands title, and replace them with a requirement that any 
wetlands classification regulations be based on the best available 
science. It also strikes the arbitrary restrictions on delineation of 
wetlands which are contrary to the findings of the National Academy of 
Sciences.
  The Gilchrest amendment is an opportunity to correct one of the 
inconsistencies of H.R. 961. The sponsors of the bill are fond of 
stating how environmental decisions need to be based upon sound science 
and the best information available. Yet, when it comes to the issue of 
what is a wetland, the bill ignores science and creates its own 
arbitrary and unscientific definition of what is a wetland. This is 
particularly troubling in light of the recently released report of the 
National Academy of Sciences.
  The bill includes an absolute standard for wetlands hydrology of 21 
days of inundation. Yet, the Academy says that Federal regulation 
should reflect regional differences. If the Gilchrest amendment is 
adopted, the wetlands program will have the flexibility to acknowledge 
the differences in wetlands which occur in this country.
  H.R. 961 is often a contradiction in terms. The use of accurate 
scientific information is only to be used when the polluter believes 
that it would be to the polluter's benefit.
  The bill requires States and EPA to spend millions to develop new 
test species to determine water quality violations, even when EPA says 
that such expenditures are not necessary. Yet there will be no risk 
assessment when determining whether increased amounts of toxics will be 
released into the water because industry says that such expenditures 
are not necessary.
  The National Academy of Sciences says that there should be 
flexibility in the regional determination of what is a wetland, yet the 
bill insists that there must be standing water at the surface for 21 
days--a requirement that will leave parts of the Everglades out of the 
wetlands program. The result is that the bill ignores science when it 
is in the interest of the polluter to do so.
  It is time to bring some common sense and supportable facts to the 
wetlands debate. Support the Gilchrest amendment and allow the wetlands 
program to protect true wetlands.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilchrest 
amendment. This is a straightforward amendment which simply replaces 
what are artificial definitions in H.R. 961, with a reliance on the 
best available science.
  We have repeatedly heard, the Republicans have said repeatedly, they 
want to rely on sound science in reforming our environmental laws and 
other areas within the Congress. The Speaker himself, Speaker Gingrich 
himself, has endorsed this principle. Yet here we have a case where the 
National Academy of Sciences, a nonpartisan, reliable and highly 
respected body, has assembled a panel, a very broad and diverse panel, 
which has studied for 2 years the issue of how to identify a wetland, 
and they have found there is absolutely no scientific justification for 
the wetlands provisions and the wetlands definitions in this 
legislation, H.R. 961.
  So if you support using sound science in regulatory decisions, then 
you must support the Gilchrest amendment, and anything less would be 
sheer hypocrisy.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland to eliminate the delineation requirements and 
to require that classification of wetlands be based on the best 
available science.
  What could be more common sense than to require that a technical 
subject such as classification of wetlands be required to be based on 
science?
  It makes no sense to set up a classification that has nothing to do 
with scientific findings.
  Just last week, the National Academy of Sciences at the request of 
Congress, issued its report on wetlands which shatters the entire 
foundation of title VIII of H.R. 961.
  Title VIII defines wetlands without any regard to science. It doesn't 
just ignore scientific findings--it flies directly in the face of 
science.

[[Page H4992]]

  Supporters of title VIII say this decision is not a scientific 
decision--it is a policy decision.
  But policy must be based on the best information possible. H.R. 961 
has ignored this information.
  It is true that we in Congress should make the policy determinations. 
But we cannot, as a matter of policy, determine what is a wetland and 
what is not.
  H.R. 961 attempts to define wetlands despite the scientific finds. We 
might as well attempt to define the color of the sky or the grass.
  We cannot do that. What we can do, based on a scientific definition 
of wetlands, is determine whether we want to protect those wetlands.
  H.R. 961 has determined that it will withdraw protection from 60 to 
80 percent of the Nation's wetlands.
  That is a policy decision but it is the wrong policy decision.
  I compliment the gentleman from Maryland for attempting to make sure 
that our national wetlands policy is based on the best available 
science.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  My last couple of comments will deal with who benefits from wetlands. 
The people who benefit from wetlands are those people who want clean 
water, those people who want floods prevented in their neighborhoods 
and in their regions, those people who understand the esthetic value, 
the appeal and the quality of life when it comes to habitat for 
wildlife, those people who feel a sense of closeness to nature, to the 
economic value of the coastal fisheries. All Americans benefit from 
sound wetlands policy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, just as the previous 
amendment which we disposed of overwhelmingly gutted the wetlands 
provision of this bill, so does this provision as well. This is simply 
another gutting amendment. It is gutting amendment, because it 
eliminates all efforts to require that wetlands have a closer 
relationship to water.
  Now, this argument that the approach in the bill is not scientific is 
baloney. The approach in the bill is just as scientific as the much 
more rigid approach taken by my good friend from Maryland. Indeed, the 
amendment we have before us now eliminates all the requirements 
requiring that a degree of regulation has got to match the relative 
value of the wetlands. That is what we say in the bill.
  We say it has got to be under water 21 days. They say 15 days. Which 
is more scientific? One is as scientific as the other.
  In fact, very interesting, when we keep hearing about all of this 
science and the importance of it, I refer again to the very, very 
importantly point that the chairman of the National Academy of Sciences 
committee, when asked how many wetlands would be affected by our 
legislation, his response was, ``I don't know.'' And when pushed 
finally, he said, ``Well, maybe in the 10 percent, or 20, or 30 or 
40.'' That is science? ``I don't know,'' and then, ``Maybe 10 percent, 
maybe 20 percent, maybe 30 percent, 40 percent.'' Some science.

                              {time}  1445

  So the science we provide in our bill is every bit as accurate. In 
fact we require rulemaking by the Army Corps of Engineers to define and 
determine which category of wetland the various wetlands fall under. 
And I would emphasize again:

       If you do not like what the bill does, if your State does 
     not like what the bill does, your State can impose tougher 
     wetlands regulations. We do not inhibit the States from 
     imposing their own regulations. What we do through is sat 
     that the State of New Jersey cannot force the State of Idaho 
     to adopt the provisions that the State of New Jersey seems to 
     think are important for that state.

  And yes, we have heard about the Governors' Association supporting 
their wetlands provision. Well, I have a letter sent to us today from 
the vice-chairman of the Governors' Association National Resources 
Committee in which he says the National Resources Committee will be 
reviewing its current policy at its annual meeting in July. Since many 
new Governors have joined the NGA this year, we believe it is important 
to examine all the current policies to determine if the sitting 
Governors are in agreement with what was passed by this subcommittee 3 
years ago, and he goes on to say, and this is important, I quote, H.R. 
961, our bill, does provide States with flexibility to regulate 
wetlands in accordance with State needs. So it is important to realize 
that the National Governors' Association, which has come out in support 
of our overall bill, in fact in expressing their reservations about 
this particular amendment that we have before us.
  My colleagues, this is simply another gutting amendment. It should be 
defeated.
  I will close by referring to two examples of what would be a wetland 
if this amendment were to be adopted by friend from Maryland.
  Riverside, CA, a picture of a desert. Well, this desert wants to be 
the site of a public flash control project. It was delineated as waters 
of the United States, waters of the United States, a desert. That is a 
wetland under the amendment we have before us. And in Phoenix, AZ, a 
picture of another desert. Yes, this property was declared, quote, 
water of the United States for regulatory purposes, a desert. That is a 
wetland.
  Let us bring common sense to wetlands. Let us, just as we 
overwhelmingly did on the last amendment, let us defeat this amendment 
so we can have real wetland reform in the interest of America and in 
the interest of sound environment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 247, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 333]

                               AYES--180

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Porter
     Pryce
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--247

     Allard
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     [[Page H4993]] Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Archer
     Berman
     Collins (IL)
     DeLay
     Gephardt
     Kleczka
     Lipinski

                              {time}  1508

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina and Mr. WHITFIELD changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SERRANO, GONZALEZ, and TORRES changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman 
concerning a matter that is of great importance to me and to my 
constituents.
  A question has arisen as to whether the issuance of livestock grazing 
permits is subject to State certification under section 401 of the 
Clean Water Act.
  It is my understanding that under current law section 401 only 
applies where a conveyance of some sort is involved in the discharge. 
That conveyance may be, but is not necessarily, a point source.
  My interest is in clarifying that section 401 does not apply to a 
Federal lease or permit to authorize livestock grazing on lands owned 
or under the control of the United States, unless there is a conveyance 
from which pollutants are or may be discharged. Recent litigation in 
the district court in Oregon has increased the need to clarify the 
intent and scope of section 401.
  Is it the chairman's understanding that section 401 State 
certification would not apply absent a conveyance?
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is exactly 
correct. The answer is yes. Section 401 would generally not apply to 
grazing permits. Where there is no point source or other conveyance 
such as a pipe or ditch. The State certification provision under 
section 401 should not apply.
  I thank the gentleman for raising this issue so that many people in 
farming and the ranching communities concerned about this issue may 
have some clarification.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MINETA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the chairman that section 401 was 
not intended to apply to discharges that do not involve some sort of 
conveyance.
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking minority 
member. Based upon this clarification of existing law, I will not 
insist on offering an amendment at this time.
                     Amendment Offered by Mr. minge

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Minge: Page 274, after line 19, 
     add the following:
       ``(10) Mitigation of agricultural lands.--Any mitigation 
     requirement approved by the Secretary under this section for 
     agricultural lands shall be developed in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Agriculture.''

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a pale substitute for an 
amendment that was printed in the Record last week and reported in the 
House action reports. My goal with these amendments to the Clean Water 
Act has been to simplify the process for the public.
  Tragically, farmers, ranchers, and other landowners have had to go 
from agency to agency asking for clarification, seeking permits, and 
making sure action that they plan to take in using their own land does 
not violate the law. Three Federal departments, one major Federal 
agency, and a handful of State and local agencies are involved in this 
process.
  Regulatory reform ought to at a minimum include simplification, one-
stop shopping. Answers ought to be prompt, understandable, and 
consistent. The frustration, the delay, and the expense inherent in the 
present way that we go about making decisions regarding wetlands is a 
tragic story. It is done as much to drive the demand for regulatory 
reform as any other factor.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my goal to coordinate this convoluted multi-
agency process for dealing with wetlands. In consulting with the chair 
of the committee, I understand that the amendment as revised is 
acceptable.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the revised 
amendment. It is consistent with the overall theme of the bill, and I 
urge its support.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to also 
point out that the amendment as offered deals with the topic of 
mitigation, and it is extremely important that we not set up a process 
under the Clean Water Act that has a framework for mitigation that is 
incompatible with swampbuster, which is a part of the Food Security Act 
of 1985.
                              {time}  1515

  Landowners who comply with the requirements of one Federal law should 
not find that it is impossible to comply with the requirements of 
another Federal law because the laws are inconsistent. Instead, we 
should make sure that these laws work together to achieve a common 
goal.
  Landowners should not have to go to two different Federal departments 
and satisfy each with respect to what is involved in mitigation. 
Instead, they should be able to deal with one Federal agency. And the 
benefit of this amendment is to require that the Secretary of the Army 
and the Secretary of Agriculture work together, that the Secretary of 
the Army will consult with respect to mitigation procedures and their 
development with the Secretary of Agriculture.
  I am optimistic that I will be able to pursue the rest of the 
amendments that I had intended to offer in the context of the 1995 farm 
bill. I look forward to working with the chair of this committee and 
the chair of the Committee on Agriculture and other officials in trying 
to develop a consistent, comprehensive Federal one-stop-shopping 
process for landowners in America.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do this simply to announce that we have just passed 
28 
[[Page H4994]] hours of debate on this bill, three times the amount of 
time spent on the original act. And I urge support for the amendment 
that is now before us.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                     amendment offered by mr. riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. 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. Riggs: On page 276, strike lines 3 
     through 7 and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``ponds, 
     wastewater retention or management facilities (including 
     dikes and berms, and related structures) that are used by 
     concentrated animal feeding operations or advanced treatment 
     municipal wastewater reuse operations, or irrigation canals 
     and ditches or the maintenance of drainage ditches;''.

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I do believe that this will go quickly and 
that my amendment is of a noncontroversial nature, having cleared it 
with the ranking minority member as well as, of course, the chairman of 
the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a companion to one I offered earlier 
to title IV, dealing with antibacksliding provisions of the Clean Water 
Act.
  The present proposal would amend language in section 404, as modified 
by the committee. It adds wastewater reuse operations to the list of 
activities that are exempt from the section 404 permit process if 
advanced treatment practices are followed. Applicable water quality 
standards would, of course, still have to be met.
  One of the purposes of H.R. 961, as expressed in the committee 
report, is to encourage communities to utilize alternative treatment 
systems such as constructed wetlands. This amendment encourages 
wastewater reuse in agriculture and wetlands by providing relief to 
municipalities from the unintended consequences of current law.
  Section 404, as presently written, fails to recognize the net 
environmental benefits that can be provided by wastewater reuse. 
Without my amendment, more wastewater will be disposed of into the 
ocean or local rivers.
  Years of studies have shown that advanced-treated wastewater can be 
used without adverse effects in wetlands to restore habitat and remove 
nutrients that would harm rivers and oceans--but not wetlands. Existing 
regulations and policies that are based on section 404 leave the 
decision about whether to allow restoration of wetlands with reclaimed 
wastewater to bureaucrats.
  In northern California and elsewhere, projects that provide the dual 
benefit of wetland restoration and water quality improvement have been 
arbitrarily and systematically prevented.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment, together with other provisions of H.R. 
961, would help reverse the counterproductive and unintended impact of 
section 404. By granting relief from the permitting process to 
municipal wastewater facilities that utilize advanced treatment 
practices, the effect of the amendment will be to encourage cities to 
use properly treated wastewater to restore degraded wetlands and create 
new wetlands--precisely what the Clean Water Act should be encouraging, 
not discouraging.
  I urge approval of the amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have examined this amendment. It is a 
good one and we urge its support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                   amendments offered by mr. pallone

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, printed in the 
Record as amendments No. 42 and No. 43.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.

       Amendments offered by Mr. Pallone: Amendment No. 42. Page 
     240, line 23, after the semicolon insert ``and''.
       Page 241, line 5, strike the semicolon and all that follows 
     through the period on line 9 and insert a period.
       Page 242, line 4, after the semicolon insert ``and''.
       Page 242, line 7, strike the semicolon and all that follows 
     through the period on line 11 and insert a period.
       Page 276, line 10, strike the comma and all that follows 
     through the comma on line 11.
       Page 292, line 17, after the semicolon insert ``and''.
       Page 292, strike lines 18 through 20.
       Page 292, line 21, strike ``(G)'' and insert ``(F)''.
       Page 292, strike line 24, and all that follows through line 
     6 on page 294.
       Page 294, line 7, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       Page 295, line 3, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 295, line 16, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 315, strike lines 11 through 15.
       Page 315, line 16, strike ``(K)'' and insert ``(J)''.
       Page 315, line 19, strike ``(L)'' and insert ``(K)''.
       Page 315, line 21, strike ``(M)'' and insert ``(L)''.
       Page 316, line 14, strike ``(N)'' and insert ``(M)''.
       Amendment No. 43: Strike title IX of the bill (pages 323 
     through 326).

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my amendments strike the bill's provisions 
which reassign certain regulatory authority over ocean dumping and 
navigational dredging permits from the EPA to the Army Corps of 
Engineers. Under existing law, ocean dumping of dredged material 
currently falls for the most part under the jurisdiction of the Marine 
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act. Under that act, the EPA sets 
up criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications, the EPA 
designates recommended sites and times for dumping. The Secretary of 
the Army Corps makes permit decisions on the dumping of dredged 
materials using the EPA criteria and siting recommendations.
  The EPA has veto power over the Army Corps' permitting decisions and 
the EPA grants permit waivers to the Army Corps.
  Under H.R. 961, the committee mark, the corps would be responsible 
for all ocean dumping permit decisions. The corps would set up criteria 
for reviewing and evaluating permit applications. The Army Corps would 
designate recommended sites and times for dumping, and the Army Corps 
would grant its own permit waivers.
  The corps only has to consult with the EPA before issuing a permit, 
and the EPA no longer has veto power.
  And most importantly, H.R. 961 requires that ``the least costly 
environmentally acceptable disposal alternative will be selected.''
  The problem with removing the EPA from the dredging process is 
essentially that the corps has engineering and dredging expertise but 
not expertise in environmental management, science, protection and 
conservation. The Army Corps in my opinion should not be the lead 
agency to develop plans that are supposed to ensure protection of the 
marine environment and human health. Keeping the Army Corps 
environmental authority will jeopardize our oceans, allowing them to be 
exposed to dioxins like PCB's and other cancer causing pollutants.
  Removing the EPA also creates a conflict of interest in my opinion 
for the Army Corps because under H.R. 961 the corps would grant its own 
permits, select its own sites and even grant its own waivers.
  If I could just read a selection from a paper that my own State of 
New Jersey department of environmental protection put forward, they 
say:

       The amendments
        contained in H.R. 961 will affect dredging in New Jersey 
     in several ways. The elimination of the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency from their oversight role in dredging 
     operations will put the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
     agency charged with keeping navigation channels open, in 
     the role of both permitting and enforcing their own 
     operations. This creates a perceived if not an actual 
     conflict of interest in the management of dredging 
     operations. While there would be definite value to 
     consolidating the process in one agency, the environmental 
     protection value of the permits is best managed by the 
     EPA. Perhaps this conflict would better then be resolved 
     by eliminating the corps from the process instead of the 
     EPA.

  Last week, Mr. Chairman, the EPA released its toxicity results from 
the mud dump site which is off the coast of my district in New Jersey 
and showed 
[[Page H4995]] that sediments there do not meet ocean dumping criteria. 
I maintain that these sediments are another indication of what will 
happen if the EPA is removed from the dredging process.
  Also, I would like to stress this problem with requiring the least 
costly disposal alternative which is what H.R. 961 does. Waste disposal 
should not be predicated on what is cheapest but on what methods best 
ensure that human environmental health are not jeopardized. The least 
costly disposal alternative is always ocean disposal, but it should not 
be the one that we choose.
  I would also like to mention that in my own State of New Jersey, our 
Governor, who happens to be a Republican, has been in the forefront of 
saying that contaminated dredged material should not be disposed of 
offshore, and I think that her efforts will be undercut by having the 
Army Corps solely administer the dredging disposal permitting process 
as opposed to the EPA.
  My amendment returns the dredging process to the status quo, gives 
the interagency working group on the dredging process the latitude to 
implement its recommendations. In December 1994, after a couple years, 
the EPA and the Army Corps together came up with an action plan that 
basically seeks to deal with dredging in a cooperative way and move the 
permitting process forward and streamline it pursuant to existing law 
with the two agencies working together. Let these two agencies work 
together, continue under the current law. They have devised an action 
plan that will do well without having to change the basic underlying 
statute.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 961 would change the way that dredging is done in 
America. It would break the partnership that currently exists between 
the EPA and the Army Corps, handing over authority of every dredging 
activity solely to the corps. If H.R. 961 passes, America's oceans 
could be exposed to toxics like PCB's dioxin and other cancer causing 
pollutants. That is why I am asking for support of my amendment to 
strike the dredging provisions in H.R. 961. I think the action plan 
that both the EPA and the corps have put together is the right way to 
go. Let us not gut this legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in strong opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would delete the reforms that are 
achieved in this bill for our Nation's navigational dredging program. 
Our country's ports and harbors are a vital link not only to interstate 
commerce but to global commerce, the national economy and very 
importantly, the creation of jobs.
  Under implementation of the current law, necessary dredging 
activities, even though the vast majority are environmentally sound, 
are subject to excessive delay and to interagency disputes.
  Our bill addresses the problem by streamlining the regulatory 
requirements applicable to navigational dredging without sacrificing 
the environment. And it places a single agency, the Corps of Engineers, 
which certainly has been criticized here today for being too 
environmental, places the Corps of Engineers solely in charge of 
running the program so we have an environmentally sensitive agency in 
charge. It does not share, therefore, the responsibility with other 
agencies, creating needless interagency disputes.
  Without these reforms, our balance of trade will continue to suffer 
and jobs will be lost. I urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, representatives of our Nation's ports, including those 
in North Carolina, support the committee's inclusion of title VIII and 
IX in H.R. 961. Title VIII and IX modifies the regulatory provisions of 
the Ocean Dumping Act to transfer from the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to the Secretary of the Army the 
responsibility for navigational dredging. If enacted, the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers would be the lead Federal agency for: First, issuing 
ocean dumping permits for dredged material; second, designating dumping 
sites; and third, developing permit criteria.
  Consolidation of the management of navigational dredging in the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers will make this task more efficient, without 
compromising the environment. The corps is well-versed in the relevant 
Federal environmental statutes as well as the delicate art of dredging. 
Since the Chief of Engineers wears both hats, it makes sense to 
reassign this responsibility to the corps.
  As my colleagues understand, commercial navigational is critical to 
our economy and the maintenance of our Nation's ports is necessary to 
enhance commerce within--and throughout our States--and to boost U.S. 
exports. We must streamline the dredging process to eliminate 
unnecessary delays in this process.
  During committee consideration of H.R. 961, I supported the Franks 
amendment to reduce EPA's role in the permitting process for 
navigational dredging. The committee overwhelmingly approved this 
streamlining amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to accept the Franks amendment to 
this title which clarifies that the corps only gains jurisdiction over 
dredge material. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey for offering 
this amendment.
  On the other hand, I must object to the amendment being offered to 
title VIII and IX by another of our colleagues from New Jersey, 
Congressman Frank Pallone, which would strike all of this title. As I 
have outlined, the committee and our constituents have argued for the 
efficiency and common sense which title IX provides.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Franks amendment 
and against the Pallone amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  The amendments were rejected.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, in a colloquy so I might clarify my understanding of a 
provision in title VIII. Specifically, I refer to page 311, line 16 of 
the bill, which makes reference to previously-denied permits. I have 
provided the chairman with a copy of the specific language.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to engage the gentleman from 
Illinois in a colloquy.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, let me preface my remarks by regrettably 
stating that regardless of the understanding I hope to reach in this 
colloquy regarding this provision, I do not support this provision, and 
believe it is inconsistent with the intent and goals of the 
legislation.
  However, for clarification purposes, I would ask the chairman of the 
committee to confirm my understanding of how this provision would apply 
to a party that has applied twice for a section 404 permit and has been 
denied a permit both times by the Corps of Engineers. If the party 
applying for the permit litigates the second permit denial and is 
successful in court in overturning the Corps of Engineers' second 
permit denial, will the party be able to file another permit 
application, or have their permit application reconsidered under this 
provision?
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
would reply that the gentleman is correct. Should the party be 
successful in court in overturning the corps' decision in such a 
circumstance, it could do one of the following: First, have their 
permit application reconsidered, second, amend their permit 
application, or third, reapply to the corps for a permit.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman profoundly.

             amendment offered by mr. taylor of mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  [[Page H4996]] The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi: Page 292, 
     line 20, strike ``and''.
       Page 292, after line 20; insert the following:
       (G) standards and procedures that, to the maximum extent 
     practicable and economically feasible, require the creation 
     of wetlands and other environmentally beneficial uses of 
     dredged or fill material associated with navigational 
     dredging; and
       Page 292, line 21, strike ``(G)'' and insert ``(H)''.

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, for many decades the Corps 
of Engineers, being like all of us, were creatures of habit in that 
when they dredged, they would take the spoils and throw it to the 
nearest possible place without much regard for the effects on the 
environment, whether they were destroying an oyster reef, whether they 
were filling in a marsh, whether they were destroying a swamp. To their 
credit, the corps has now gone in another direction, and perhaps to an 
extreme.
  Just recently in south Mississippi a 7-mile pipeline was constructed 
to remove the dredged material from Biloxi Bay and pump it farther 
inland. In another instance, what is known to be toxic dredged 
materials in the harbor at Pass Christian is being hauled inland, but 
in not every instance, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] 
has pointed out, is the dredge material polluted. In many instances it 
is virgin bottom, it is not polluted, and it can be used for other 
things.
  I think the Corps of Engineers would be very wise to consider a third 
alternative other than ocean dumping, other than hauling the material 
inland. That would be to create coastal marshes or wetlands with the 
dredged material. This would do three very valuable things. No. 1, it 
would create wetlands. As we all know, we have lost about half the 
wetlands in this country in the past 100 years.
  No. 2, it would save money, because in most instances it would be the 
cheapest way to dispose of the dredged material, the closest to the 
channels that are being dredged. No. 3, in States like Louisiana and my 
home State of Mississippi, we are losing some very valuable property to 
coastal erosion. There is a national historic landmark, the lighthouse 
at Rhode Island, MS, that is soon to wash into the sea if something is 
not done to prevent the erosion of that island.
  Last, Mr. Chairman, it would create wildlife habitat. Therefore, I 
have spoken to both the majority and minority on this matter. We are 
asking, but not directing, the Corps of Engineers that whenever 
practicable, to take this dredged material and consider the use of it 
for creating wetlands and marshes with this dredged material, rather 
than, A, hauling it inland, or B, dragging it out to the middle of the 
ocean.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment is an 
excellent environmental contribution to the bill, and I accept it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                 amendment offered by mr. frelinghuysen

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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. Frelinghuysen: In the 
     matter proposed to be inserted as section 404(l) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act by section 803 of the 
     bill (as amended by Mr. Shuster's amendment) strike paragraph 
     (8) and insert the following:
       (8) Treatment of existing problems.--Any State which has 
     received approval to administer a program pursuant to this 
     subsection before the date of the enactment of the 
     Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 
     1995 shall not be required to reapply for approval and shall 
     be permitted to continue administering such program.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, for adding 
language to his en bloc amendment to address the concerns of New Jersey 
and Michigan regarding their current operation of wetlands permitting 
under the section 404 program of the current Clean Water Act. What I am 
offering now is simply a perfecting amendment.
  Unfortunately, part of the language that was included in the en bloc 
amendment contradicts the goal of States rights. I believe that the 
language in the amendment en bloc goes too far. As the chairman rightly 
stated in his opening remarks on this bill, his goal is to provide the 
States with maximum flexibility in wetlands permitting, and to 
encourage them to take leadership roles. New Jersey is currently doing 
just that. This amendment simply allows two States that have already 
assumed the responsibility of permitting wetlands to keep their current 
programs without going through another lengthy procedure, and without 
having the final decision thrown into the political arena. It gives my 
Govenror the choice to either accept the new delineation process, or 
keep intact the current program. The argument is simple. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] was right in his opening statement on 
the bill. Let the States decide. Give them the option. These two States 
have gone through several years of the lengthy assumption process. Let 
us not penalize them for doing the right thing and for taking the 
initiative in creating programs that actually do work. I urge adoption 
of this amendment, coauthored by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Knollenberg].
  Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because if any part of our 
legislation that is now on the books is broken, it is the disastrous 
404 wetlands program. We are simply saying that the two States which 
have adopted their own program in conformity with the Federal program 
should not hide behind a Federal program which is now being changed. 
The States will have the total freedom to adopt whatever State law they 
want to adopt for their own wetlands program, but they should not be 
able to continue to use, in effect hide behind, a Federal program which 
is being changed here.
  Mr. Chairman, it is of great importance, I think, to recognize that a 
State may want to assume management of the program. That is what the 
political process is all about at the State level. That is why we have 
worked hard to make State assumptions more attractive and more flexible 
in the bill.
  In fact, the committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute 
included a modification specifically designed to allow the opportunity 
for a State to petition the Secretary for deviations from the 
requirement of this bill. This allows for the real possibility that 
States could tailor their Federal delegated program, but does so within 
the context of a deliberate, open decision process that would allow for 
input from all affected parties.
  Mr. Chairman, we tried to strike a balance between total, 
unconstrained delegation of programs and the need to achieve some 
degree of reform, even in States with federally delegated programs. 
This bill already does that. This amendment simply goes too far. 
Therefore, Mr. Chairman I would say the State may adopt their own State 
law. They should not hide behind a Federal law which no longer is going 
to exist. For that reason, we should defeat this amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Frelinghuysen 
amendment. Two States, New Jersey and Michigan, have assumed 
responsibility for administering the section 404 wetlands program. 
Those States should be encouraged to retain the program, and other 
States should be encouraged to participate as well. The Frelinghuysen 
amendment respects the rights of Michigan and New Jersey to continue to 
operate their wetlands program as they are today. My chairman has 
repeatedly asked this House to respect State flexibility, because 
States know how to best protect State interests. The Frelinghuysen 
amendment respects their efforts and the interests of the State, and 
should be supported.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frelinghuysen amendment. I, 
too, look 
[[Page H4997]] at this as a States' rights issue. As has been pointed 
out by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], we have a unique problem. My 
home State of Michigan has been administering its own wetlands program 
for some 15 years. We are not trying to hide behind a Federal program, 
we are trying to maintain the program that we have which works. I do 
not believe in every facet of this program. In fact, I believe that 
Michigan and New Jersey should look to the gentleman here as a road map 
to some reform. However, I believe that the Governor, the Governors of 
given States, should have maximum flexibility to govern the transition 
from the current program to a new and better one. This amendment will 
simply give the Governor that flexibility by allowing him to either 
continue the current program, adopt the new Federal guidelines, or work 
with the Secretary of the Army to craft a hybrid approach that uses the 
best from both plans. This is consistent, I believe, with the current 
philosophy here in Washington, and certainly with this Congress, to 
give States the specific flexibility to do what is best for the 
particular State.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman. He was very 
generous in his time. We did spend a great deal of time in trying to 
work out an agreement. Although we could not reach that agreement, I 
sincerely thank him for his courtesy and his generosity in terms of 
time, effort, and consideration. I do urge, however, the adoption of 
the amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Frelinghuysen amendment. 
In 1993, New Jersey became the second State to assume regulatory 
authority of its wetlands program, and I believe the State assumption 
streamlines the permit process while ensuring environmental protection 
of wetlands. Under current law, States like New Jersey adopt their own 
wetlands programs to be implemented in place of the Federal program if 
that program is at least as stringent as the Federal program. Under 
H.R. 961, New Jersey would be forced to apply to the Army Corps of 
Engineers in order to continue to implement its own wetlands program. 
This application would take place in about a year and a half, when New 
Jersey's program next comes up for review. To receive additional 
approval, most likely New Jersey would have to severely weaken its 
existing program in order to comply with the demands for the new title 
VIII wetlands program, such as the classification and delineation that 
we have already discussed in this House today and the previous day.
  The new wetlands program, under H.R. 961, I believe, will destroy New 
Jersey's existing program and all the important gains that have been 
made since the program was implemented in 1988. Unlike current law, 
which allows a State to administer its own program with limited 
oversight by the Federal Government, H.R. 961 says the States 
administering their own programs have to submit notices to the corps 
for permit applications. Again, this erases the greatest benefit of 
assumption, elimination of the duplicative Federal review process, and 
this severely weakens the incentive for New Jersey to reapply for 
assumption of its wetlands program. Eventually, I think New Jersey and 
Michigan would probably just simply go along with the new Federal 
program if we do not have the Frelinghuysen 
amendment. The Frelinghuysen amendment 
allows our States to maintain the existing programs, and exempts them 
permanently from having to apply for corps approval of their programs.
  This would protect the gains that these two States have already made 
in wetlands protection. It would give New Jersey the latitude to have 
State law as stringent or more stringent than Federal law, and it would 
negate the message, most important, Mr. Chairman, that H.R. 961 
currently sends, and that is that those States that actively work to 
make progress in environmental protection and compliance with the Clean 
Water Act made a mistake in doing so because their efforts would be 
wasted because of the changes, and the drastic changes, that are being 
proposed under H.R. 961.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Frelinghuysen amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 181, 
noes 243, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 334]

                               AYES--181

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Knollenberg
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--243

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     [[Page H4998]] Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berman
     Boucher
     Collins (IL)
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Jacobs
     Kleczka
     Lipinski
     Wynn

                              {time}  1605

  Messrs. CALLAHAN, HASTERT, KASICH, and GONZALEZ changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I regret that my being involved in an event 
on the Senate side prevented me from voting on rollcall No. 334. Had I 
been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall 
vote No. 334. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purposes of a colloquy, and I yield to my good friend, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, currently the Army Corps of Engineers and 
the Environmental Protection Agency regulations for implementing 
section 404(f) exemptions for agricultural and related activities 
require that an activity ``must be part of an `established' or 
`ongoing' farming, silviculture or ranching operation''.
  Mr. Chairman, what is the gentleman's intent in amending section 
404(f) with respect to these exemptions? Under the amended section 
404(f), will it be permissible to change from one exempted 
agriculturally related activity to another without triggering the 
permit requirements?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, the gentleman is absolutely correct. Changing from 
one exempted agricultural activity, such as grazing, to another 
exempted agricultural activity, such as plowing, will not cause the 
exemption to end. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the 
exempted activity be established or ongoing as the regulations 
currently require.
  In fact, I emphasize to my good friend, the gentleman from California 
that this is one of the significant differences between current law and 
what we are doing in this reform. Under current law the bureaucrats can 
and have used the exemption process to say that when you move from one 
agricultural activity to another process you are not exempt, and that 
is what we fix in this legislation.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

                     amendment offered by mr. wyden

  Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN: Page 251, after line 2, 
     insert the following:
       ``(C) Prevention of reduction in fair market value of 
     private homes--No compensation shall be made under this 
     section with respect to an agency action that prevents or 
     restricts any activity that is likely to result in a total 
     reduction in the fair market value of one or more private 
     homes of $10,000 or more.
       Page 315, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(K) Private home.--The term `private home' means any 
     owner occupied dwelling, including any multi-family dwelling 
     and any condominium.
       Page 315, line 16, strike ``(K)'' and insert ``(L)''.
       Page 315, line 19, strike ``(L)'' and insert ``(M)''.
       Page 315, line 21, strike ``(M)'' and insert ``(N)''.
       Page 316, line 14, strike ``(N)'' and insert ``(O)''.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment to 
protect the rights of private homeowners whose property values would be 
reduced by $10,000 or more when a developer fills in a wetland.
  Right now the bill creates a double standard. There are one set, a 
generous set of rules for protecting the rights of those who want to 
develop property, and a far weaker set of rules for the neighboring 
homeowners who live nearby. If we do not vote to correct this double 
standard, Members will find citizens coming up to them and asking, Why 
did you vote to lower the property value of my house?
  Here is why Members are going to get that question: By voting for 
this bill there are going to be more wetlands filled. Wetlands help 
limit flooding by acting as a huge sponge that can soak up water and 
rainfall. When a wetland is filled, the excess water has to find 
someplace to go, and that could be the basement or the backyard of the 
homeowners living downstream from the development.
  That is why Members are going to get asked, if we do not vote to 
correct the double standard in this bill, why they have been willing to 
go along with reducing the value of their neighbor's house under this 
bill.
  In addition, for those who are concerned about the deficit issues in 
this bill, this amendment should also be appealing. A 1992 
congressional budget analysis estimated the cost of compensating 
wetland owners for not developing their property could be as high as 
$10 to $15 billion. The entire corps regulatory budget is in the 
millions.
  Let us make sure that we recognize that those who develop property in 
our country deserve fair treatment. But let us also recognize that the 
homeowners who live next door to wetlands that are going to be filled 
under this legislation also deserve fair treatment.
  Vote to give those homeowners a fair shake by supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I understand the 
gentleman's amendment. Is the gentleman saying if I happen to have my 
home next to wetland and the developer goes on that wetland under this 
bill and somehow fills it in with a landfill or whatever so he can 
build a subdivision or building of some sort, as a result my property, 
my basement floods or something happens to my property, that I have a 
right to recover for my loss?
  Mr. WYDEN. What I am saying is the standard to protect you as a 
homeowner is far weaker than the standard that protects the developer. 
The developer, for example, gets compensated if their property value is 
just diminished as a result of the activity that this bill addresses. 
You, as a homeowner, do not get any concern under this bill if your 
property value is reduced. You actually have to have the flooding in 
your basement before there is any consideration.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the gentleman will yield, if a person is really in 
favor of property rights, then they would be in favor of those property 
rights lost because a wetland is filled inasmuch as they would be if 
they had land that had wetlands on it, would they
 not?

  Mr. WYDEN. Not only is the gentleman correct, but let us remember 
there are many more homeowners situated in the fashion the gentleman 
has described than there are those who want to develop property. There 
are 65 million private homeowners in this country. They enjoy the 
benefit of environmental laws. Certainly not all of them obviously live 
next door to a wetland, but there are many, many more homeowners like 
the ones the gentleman's question addresses than there are those who 
want to develop property.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the gentleman I have heard many speeches 
around here about property rights. This is an eminently sensible and 
fair amendment, and I assume we will pass it by voice vote, and I 
support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  [[Page H4999]] Mr. Chairman, while the intent of this amendment may 
not be completely clear, it appears to be totally unnecessary, 
duplicative, and indeed, the source of much litigation. If the intent 
of the amendment is to protect other property owners from being harmed 
by the issuance of a wetland permit provisions already contained in 
H.R. 961 more than adequately do that. I refer specifically to page 
250, which is clear.
  I would also point out that this amendment by my good friend from 
Oregon is essentially the same amendment he offered during the private 
property rights debate a few months ago, and at that time his amendment 
was overwhelmingly defeated, 165 to 260. Section 803(b) of our 
legislation expressly prohibits the payments of compensation if the 
activity requiring a wetlands permit would harm another property owner. 
It is very clear. The private property rights protection also prohibits 
the payment of compensation for any activity that would be considered a 
nuisance under the applicable State law or is inconsistent with the 
local zoning law.

                              {time}  1615

  These two provisions make it perfectly clear that no one has the 
right to take actions on their property that would damage somebody 
else's property.
  Now, if my good friend in his amendment is attempting to assure that 
adjoining property owners are not to be flooded or directly harmed, his 
amendment is not needed. However, I suspect the case really, given my 
good friend's strong opposition to property rights legislation, is that 
he is trying to establish a bureaucratic out for compensation in every 
case, and I must oppose it.
  The property rights provision in this bill, exactly like those 
contained in H.R. 961, requires that a direct link be established 
between the action requiring a permit and the harm to another's 
property. The absence of this link would allow neighbors who just do 
not want to see development on another piece of property to undermine 
the constitutional rights of the property owner. That is not right. It 
is not American, and we should not let it happen.
  The other limitation to this amendment is that, if in the mind of 
some bureaucrat, some mythical reduction in property values might 
occur, hundreds, even thousands, of miles away, then they could escape 
the compensation requirements of this act. Again, this is not what this 
country is all about.
  The amendment is sufficiently vague that it will almost certainly 
result in mountains of litigation. It is a lawyer's paradise. We need 
to protect property rights, not to provide more work for lawyers.
  I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon, the author of the 
amendment.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just like to respond, if I might, to my friend from 
Pennsylvania.
  First, let me tell my colleagues that this amendment is far narrower 
in terms of protecting the rights of homeowners than any similar issue 
ever discussed on the floor. We have stipulated, for example, that 
there must be damage to the adjoining homeowners of $10,000 or more.
  Second, and I want the Members to understand exactly what the double 
standard is which no more favorably treats developers than it does 
homeowners, in the bill, the developer is compensated if their property 
value is merely diminished. The neighboring homeowner has to meet a 
higher standard which requires actual physical damage such as the 
flooding to their basement. So there clearly is a double standard here.
  I share the view of the gentleman from Pennsylvania that a developer 
deserves a fair shake. Certainly there are takings in our country, and 
developers warrant fair treatment. Let us as we finally move toward the 
closing of this bill produce some balance and say the millions and 
millions of homeowners who live next door to these developments have 
some rights as well. They should not just have to go out and take their 
chances in some local court.
  This bill says that the developer gets a fair shake at the Federal 
level. Let us make sure that the adjoining homeowner gets a fair shake 
at the Federal level as well.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the amendment 
offered by our colleague from Oregon. While it certainly does not cure 
the ills of the takings provisions which are in the bill, it does make 
an important point.
  Throughout the takings debate, the proponents of the legislation 
always frame the argument in the context of the individual property 
owner against the Government. They are never willing to acknowledge 
that often the rationale for regulation is the protection of the 
property rights of others. The amendment specifically acknowledges 
this.
  The U.S. Treasury, and the taxpayer, should not be expected to 
compensate an individual who has been denied the opportunity to take an 
action which results in the diminution of the property right of another 
taxpayer. It would be the greatest of ironies to the taxpayer for an 
individual, through his or her taxes, to pay compensation to a 
neighboring property owner for an action which caused a diminution in 
the individuals own property.
  Whether the bill's sponsors will agree or not, what we are really 
taking about in the whole takings debate is whether there is a public 
interest in the action taken--whether the various interests of property 
owners are correctly balanced one against the other. When one owner 
bears a disproportionate burden, a taking has occurred and the 
Constitution provides a right to compensation.
  The bill has severely tilted an otherwise level playing field in the 
favor of the owner who seeks not to be regulated. The Wyden amendment 
is an attempt to assure that some sense of fairness to the taxpayer is 
preserved, and that the relative rights of property owners everywhere 
are recognized.
  The amendment makes sense, it creates the proper balance of property 
rights, and it deserves our support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 270, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 335]

                               AYES--158

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer
                        [[Page H5000]] NOES--270

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Berman
     Collins (IL)
     Gephardt
     Kleczka
     Lipinski
     Maloney

                              {time}  1642

  Messrs. FOLEY, SMITH of New Jersey, and GEKAS changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. POMEROY and Mr. MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to engage the chairman of 
the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, on page 247 of H.R. 961, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure classified that type C wetlands 
include, and I quote, wetlands within industrial, commercial or 
residential complexes or other intensely developed areas that do not 
serve significant wetlands functions; is that correct?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MOLINARI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, the gentlewoman from New York is correct.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Is it also correct that such wetlands are not 
classified as type C merely because they are located in developed or 
urban areas?
  Mr. SHUSTER. The gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] is 
absolutely correct. In fact, the committee specifically recognizes in 
the report many valuable wetlands are located in or adjacent to urban 
centers or other developed sites. Any wetlands which serve significant 
wetlands functions as a result of such location would not automatically 
be classified as type C wetlands.

                              {time}  1645

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VIII? If not, the 
Clerk will designate title IX.
  The text of title IX is as follows:
                    TITLE IX--NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

     SEC. 901. REFERENCES TO ACT.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Marine Protection, Research, and 
     Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).

     SEC. 902. OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS.

       (a) Issuance of Permits.--Section 102 (33 U.S.C. 1412) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``environmental 
     protection agency''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Secretary'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (G) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (H), and (I) as paragraphs (1) 
     through (8), respectively;
       (C) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by redesignating 
     subparagraphs (i) through (iii) as subparagraphs (A) through 
     (C), respectively; and
       (D) by striking the first and second sentences following 
     the indented paragraphs.
       (b) Categories of Permits.--Section 102(b) (33 U.S.C. 
     1412(b)) is amended by striking ``Administrator'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary''.
       (c) Designation of Sites.--Section 102(c) (33 U.S.C. 
     1412(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Secretary''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Secretary'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``Administrator''.
       (d) Special Rules.--Section 102(d) and 102(e) (33 U.S.C. 
     1412(d) and 1412(e)) are amended by striking 
     ``Administrator'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary''.

     SEC. 903. DREDGED MATERIAL PERMITS.

       (a) Disposal Sites.--Section 103 (33 U.S.C. 1413) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``Corps of 
     Engineers'' and inserting ``Dredged Material''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``by the Administrator'' each place it 
     appears;
       (B) by striking ``, with the concurrence of the 
     Administrator,''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Administrator'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary''.
       (b) Consultation With the Administrator.--Section 103(c) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1413(c) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Consultation With the Administrator.--Prior to 
     issuing a permit to any person under this section the 
     Secretary shall first consult with the Administrator.''.
       (c) Waivers.--Section 103(d) (33 U.S.C. 1413(d)) is amended 
     by striking ``request a waiver'' and all that follows through 
     the period at the end and inserting ``grant a waiver.''.

     SEC. 904. PERMIT CONDITIONS.

       Section 104 (33 U.S.C. 1414) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Administrator or the Secretary, as the 
     case may be,'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary'';
       (2) in subsection (a) by inserting a comma before ``after 
     consultation'';
       (3) in subsection (h)--
       (A) by striking ``Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency'' and inserting ``Secretary''; and
       (B) in the last sentence by striking ``Administrator 
     determines'' and inserting ``Secretary determines''; and
       (4) in subsection (i)--
       (A) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Secretary'';
       (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Merchant Marine and 
     Fisheries'' and inserting ``Transportation and 
     Infrastructure''; and
       (C) in paragraph (4)(D) by striking ``of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency''.

     SEC. 905. SPECIAL PROVISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN DUMPING SITES.

       Section 104A (33 U.S.C. 1414a) is amended by striking 
     ``Administrator'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary''.

     SEC. 906. REFERENCES TO ADMINISTRATOR.

       With respect to any function transferred from the 
     Administrator to the Secretary of the Army by an amendment 
     made by this title and exercised after the effective date of 
     such transfer, reference in any Federal law to the 
     Administrator shall be considered to refer to the Secretary 
     of the Army.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title IX?

             Amendment Offered by Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey

  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. 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. Franks of New Jersey: Page 323, 
     strike line 1 and all that follows through line 23 on page 
     326 and insert the following:
             [[Page H5001]] TITLE IX--NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

     SEC. 901. REFERENCES TO ACT.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Marine Protection, Research, and 
     Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).

     SEC. 902. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PERMITS.

       Section 102(c) (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (3) by striking 
     ``the Administrator, in conjunction with the Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``the Secretary, in conjunction with the 
     Administrator,''; and
       (2) in the second sentence of paragraph (3) by striking 
     ``the Administrator and the Secretary'' and inserting ``the 
     Secretary and the Administrator''.

     SEC. 903. CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITS.

       (a) Disposal Sites.--Section 103(b) (33 U.S.C. 1413(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``, 
     with the concurrence of the Administrator,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Administrator'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary''.
       (b) Consultation With the Administrator.--Section 103(c) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1413(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Consultation With the Administrator.--Prior to 
     issuing a permit to any person under this section, the 
     Secretary shall first consult with the Administrator.''.

     SEC. 904. PENALTIES.

       Section 105 (33 U.S.C. 1415) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by inserting ``or, with respect 
     to violations of section 103, the Secretary'' before the 
     period at the end;
       (2) in the fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences by inserting 
     ``or the Secretary, as the case may be,'' after 
     ``Administrator'' each place it appears; and
       (3) in subsection (g)(2)(C) by inserting ``or the 
     Secretary, as the case may be,'' after ``the Administrator'' 
     the first place it appears.

     SEC. 905. ANNUAL REPORT.

       Section 112 (33 U.S.C. 1421) is amended by striking ``with 
     the concurrence of the Administrator''.

     SEC. 906. REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE.

       Section 104(i)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1414(i)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``Merchant Marine and Fisheries'' and inserting 
     ``Transportation and Infrastructure''.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, over the course of the last 
2\1/2\ years I have worked with a bipartisan group of Members to help 
resolve what has increasingly become a pressing environmental and 
economic concern, not only to my home Port of New York and New Jersey, 
but to commerce throughout this great Nation. In short, Mr. Chairman, 
the continuing silting up of our harbors and waterways threatens to 
strangle our ability to move American products at home and abroad.
  Nearly 67 percent of American exports by dollar value reach their 
foreign destination by ships that are loaded at our Nation's network of 
ports. Fully 10 percent of this ocean-borne cargo by value leaves the 
Port of New York and New Jersey, the third busiest port in the Nation, 
and the largest container port on the east coast, handling over 38 
million tons of cargo a year. In my region, 180,000 people depend on 
the continuing operation of this port for their employment, and the 
port contributes over $20 billion a year to the region's economy.
  If the safe and timely dredging of my port and ports around the 
country is thwarted, people lose jobs and the potential grows for an 
environmental disaster to occur. In committee, I worked with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, to craft language that 
would help streamline the dredging permit process in this country. 
Since that time, Mr. Chairman, I have worked to refine the text of that 
amendment contained in title IX to more clearly address the crisis at 
hand.
  My amendment would grant the Army Corps additional jurisdiction over 
dredged material permits and leave the Environmental Protection Agency 
in charge of the disposal of solid waste, sewage sludge, incinerator 
residue, or other materials as in current law.
  In addition, my amendment ensures that the EPA will establish and 
apply the baseline criteria for reviewing and evaluating ocean dumping 
permit applications for all materials. Moreover, the amendment now 
ensures that the opportunity for public comment to both the Army Corps 
and the EPA is retained.
  I appreciate all of the assistance that I have received from Chairman 
Shuster and his staff as I have drafted this amendment, as well as the 
substantial input we have received from environmental, port, business, 
and labor interests. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment 
that will help both protect the environment and promote the economic 
viability of our Nation's ports.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman for the 
leadership he has provided in this. I strongly support his amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Franks amendment. I have 
to say that, as I guess was clear from my previous amendment, I do 
believe that it is a mistake as the bill goes to reassign certain 
regulatory authority over ocean dumping of dredge materials from the 
EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers. I also believe that the problem 
that the gentleman from New Jersey, my colleague, is trying to address, 
is best addressed by the interagency working group that has been worked 
out between the corps and the EPA, which I think ultimately would 
streamline the dredging process, the permitting process, without the 
need for changing the underlying law of the Clean Water Act or the 
Ocean Dumping Act.
  However, I have to commend the gentleman from New Jersey, my 
colleague, Mr. Franks, because this amendment does put the EPA back in 
charge of certain things and goes far toward, I believe, reasserting 
the EPA's authority over environmental concerns that relate to ocean 
dumping, as well as dredging.
  As Mr. Franks mentioned, the amendment puts the EPA back in charge of 
ocean dumping permits for material other than dredge material. It puts 
the EPA back in charge of establishing criteria for reviewing and 
evaluating permit applications, and gives waiver authority back to the 
EPA for dredger permits. So clearly there is significant progress here 
in terms of trying to put back the EPA and having them cooperate with 
the corps in the whole process of dredging, as well as other forms of 
ocean dumping.
  I would point out unfortunately though, that the amendment would 
still give disposal siting and monitoring authority to the corps and 
still requires that the least costly disposal alternative be selected. 
Overall, this is certainly an improving amendment that does address 
many of the concerns that I discussed before. I would urge support for 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
                     amendment offered by mr. petri

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Petri: Page 326, after line 23, 
     add the following:

                     TITLE X--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 1001. COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL.

       (a) In General.--Section 6217(a)(1) of the Coastal Zone Act 
     Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1451 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``shall'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``may''; and
       (2) by striking ``the Secretary and''.
       (b) Program Submission, Approval, and Implementation.--
     Section 6217(c) of such Act is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``the Secretary and the Administrator shall 
     jointly'' and inserting ``the Administrator shall''; and
       (B) by striking ``The program'' and all that follows 
     through the period at the end of the paragraph and inserting 
     ``The program shall be approved if the Administrator 
     determines that the program meets the requirements of this 
     section.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``If the Secretary'' and inserting ``If the 
     Administrator'';
       (B) by striking ``the Secretary shall withhold'' and 
     inserting ``the Administrator shall direct the Secretary to 
     withhold''; and
       (C) by striking ``The Secretary shall make'' and inserting 
     ``The Administrator shall direct the Secretary to make''.
       (c) Finanical Assistance.--Section 6217(f) of such Act as 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Administrator,'' and inserting ``the Administrator''; and
       [[Page H5002]] (B) by inserting ``and implementing'' after 
     ``developing'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``and implementing'' 
     after ``developing''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``the Secretary'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``the Administrator'';
       (B) by striking ``, in consultation with the 
     Administrator,''; and
       (C) by inserting ``and implementing'' after ``preparing''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 6217(h)(2) of 
     such Act is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``, other than for 
     providing in the form of grants under subsection (f)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``the Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``the Administrator''.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  Mr. PETRI (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which I am offering with 
Representative Tauzin, makes certain additional revisions, as requested 
by the States, to the coastal nonpoint pollution program under section 
6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990.
  First, this amendment keeps in law the coastal zone program, as we 
voted last week, but provides that it is up to each State to determine 
whether to participate in the program.
  While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will still 
play a role, the amendment provides the EPA will be the lead agency in 
administering the program, and it makes Federal grants available for 
implementation of coastal zone programs in addition to simply 
development of the plans.
  Mr. Chairman, last week, we went back and forth as to who and what 
groups were supporting what position.
  Let me be clear--we have worked with the National Governors' 
Association and the State water pollution control officials in drafting 
these improvements to the program. The amendments to the 6217 program 
made by Chairman Boehlert's amendment last week were necessary and 
positive and we do not change any of that language, but further 
improvements can be made to the program.
  This amendment gives flexibility to the Governors in determining how 
to address coastal pollution. But the amendment also keeps in place the 
6217 program so that States which want to continue to move forward with 
programs--those States which have found it to be successful for their 
State--may continue to pursue the 6217 program.
  This amendment would allow a State to opt out of the program if it 
wishes. But I would point out that the State will still have to address 
nonpoint source pollution through the Clean Water Act section 319 
nonpoint source program. Again, States that want to continue under the 
coastal zone program are fully able to do so. Let me note that, in 
essence, participation in section 6217 already is voluntary. If a State 
has a management program approved pursuant to section 306 of the 
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, then it must submit a nonpoint 
program under section 6217.
  But it is up to a coastal State to determine whether to participate 
in the basic coastal zone management program in the first place. A 
State currently can simply withdraw from the entire program if it 
wishes and section 6217 does not apply. My own State of Wisconsin is 
currently considering doing just that.
  This amendment streamlines the program so that States will deal with 
only one agency. That agency will be the EPA--which is, after all, the 
Federal agency with the expertise in nonpoint source pollution. 
However, NOAA will continue to be involved in the program.
  As we have heard repeatedly, a constant source of frustration for 
those trying to implement programs is when various Federal agencies 
administer a single program, and we correct that here.
  As we heard last week, some States are about ready to submit their 
programs and so this amendment makes Federal funds eligible for the 
next phase--that of implementation. Currently, Federal grants may be 
used only for development of programs.
  The revisions made to the program through the Boehlert amendment last 
week are very necessary and do improve the program. These are further 
improvements to section 6217, as requested by the States.
  I urge the House to adopt this amendment to provide needed 
flexibility to ensure that States can develop effective coastal 
nonpoint programs.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I join 
him in offering this amendment.
  I want to point out to the House again, this amendment does not 
repeal or even undercut the Boehlert amendment nor the CZM program. It 
simply does what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] said he 
wanted to do, give the States a choice to either use that program or in 
fact work with section 319 of the clean water bill.
  It, second, harmonizes those two sections by allowing the 
coordination of management under the EPA, and it does a very good thing 
I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] would like. It 
allows the funds for the program that can only be used right now to 
plan the CZM nonpoint source pollution program, to be used to implement 
that plan. So it really extends and further implements the plans if the 
States want to in fact go forward with them.
  In short, it allows for State option to either use a CZM program or 
to in fact use section 319 and to operate their program accordingly.
  I want the House to know the first thing I received when we began 
talking about this amendment was a notice from Mr. Kanjorski, head of 
our program in Louisiana, saying this is exactly what the State of 
Louisiana would like. I suspect that more States would prefer doing 
exactly this, giving the States the flexibility to use one or the other 
programs, to harmonize them under one agency and to use the funds not 
only to plan, but to actually implement those plans.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for the amendment and join him 
in offering it, and urge its adoption by the House.
  Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, I would point out that our Governor, 
Tommy Thompson, has felt this is of extreme importance to the State of 
Wisconsin, too, and they want the flexibility, not whether or not to 
have a program, but to administer it with the EPA.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the very difficult position of having 
to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Petri]. As we suggested over the last several days, modifications to 
the amendment could have been made to shore up some of the problem 
areas, but were not. As a matter of fact, when the debate of this issue 
started a few minutes ago, we were still off the floor trying to 
understand how we could arrive at those agreements. Unfortunately, we 
were unable to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I must say that this amendment, while it is 
true it does not touch the language of the Boehlert amendment, does do 
violence to the CZMA Program, in that it essentially takes away the 
motivation that is currently in the current law to provide for those 
aspects that encourage people to be in the program.
  As a matter of fact, I have before me a memorandum from the Coastal 
States Organization which I would like to quote directly from, because 
the Coastal States Organization very much opposes the Tauzin-Petri 
amendment. They say that they have reviewed this amendment and 
determined that it is not consistent with either the policy of the 
National Governors' Association or with the Coastal States 
Organization.
  In regards to the revised version of Tauzin-Petri they say the 
following: The revised version has the same problems as the original 
version in that the amendment would allow States to operate out of CZMA 
section 6217, contrary to what we have heard from some of the 
proponents of Tauzin-Petri amendment. Allowing States to operate out of 
the program does not serve the purpose of additional flexibility to the 
States. Rather, it will put increased pressure on the States by those 
[[Page H5003]] who would have the States opt out, namely, causers of 
pollution, polluters, to opt out of CZARA 6217 in favor of the 319 
program which holds little prospect of improving water.
                              {time}  1700

  This is the statement brought to us today, May 16, by Kerry Kehoe of 
the Coastal States Organization. In the interest of the integrity of 
CZMA as it relates to nonpoint source pollution, this is simply a 
revote, this is nothing more than a revote of the amendment that we 
voted last week.
  In addition, the proposed amendment deletes the enforceable policy 
requirements from CZARA. As you are aware, NOAA and the EPA have 
recently agreed to longstanding policies which this apparently also 
deletes.
  Mr. Chairman, it is with reluctance but with a sense of determination 
that this revote on the amendment that was offered last week, which has 
the same effect, and that is to gut the CZMA nonpoint pollution 
program, must be defeated.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership 
on this issue. I want him to know and my colleagues to know that we are 
still working at a fever pitch to preserve the basic integrity of the 
program and yet have some basis for accommodation.
  So the debate will continue and I am with my colleague 100 percent, 
but the negotiations are ongoing. I think we are about this close, 
because I could not agree more with the distinguished chairman, that we 
have to preserve the basic integrity of the program.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I am informed by staff that the amendment 
that we have introduced does not delete the enforceability provisions. 
I just wanted to correct the record so far as that is concerned and 
also assure both my colleagues that should this amendment be adopted, 
we would be eager to continue working with the gentleman as the bill 
moved forward through conference and so on to work out any problems. We 
are not trying to do anything to hurt the Coastal Zone Program. What we 
are tying to do is give States the opportunity to deal with one Federal 
agency, if that makes sense.
  Mr. SAXTON. We can certainly agree on that point, Mr. Chairman. We 
can certainly agree. I think there are three items that are 
contentious. We can certainly agree on two, the one the gentleman just 
mentioned, whether this is a program and whether this is a program that 
is administered through the EPA or NOAA, but the ability of States who 
have internal political pressure to opt out of the program or to fail 
to opt into the program is something that is very contentious and 
something that we have not and cannot agree to.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me correct perhaps a statement that I am sure was 
not made on purpose. We are not revoting the Boehlert amendment. The 
Boehlert amendment was an amendment designed in fact to place the 
coastal zone management nonpoint source pollution back in the bill. It 
had been repealed by the original bill. This amendment does not take it 
back out. In fact, it says, any State that wants to can, in fact, 
implement that coastal zone nonpoint source pollution program, just as 
they would without this amendment.
  The only thing this amendment does is say to States, which want to 
use a section 319, with the enforceability provision still in the bill, 
they have to do the nonpoint source program but they do it under 
section 319 instead of under this new reinvented wheel program. It 
gives the States the flexibility.
  It does exactly what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], I 
think, said he wanted to do, and that is give the States the real 
chance to run their program the way we intended.
  If, in fact, if, in fact, the purpose of the
   Boehlert amendment was to represent the will of the States, as it 
was presented on the floor of the House, then this is a perfecting 
amendment. This makes it very clear that the States make the choice. 
The States have the option.

  I want to point out to you that the existing coastal zone management 
program was indeed a voluntary program. It involved land use decisions 
which had been traditionally and correctly reserved for the States. It 
was not a program where the Federal Government came in and dictated the 
coastal zone boundaries, nor was it a program where the Federal 
Government dictated land use decisions within that coastal zone 
boundary.
  The amendment we offer preserves that voluntary State-managed program 
under CZM. It gives a certain amount of assurance that there will be 
coordination in the program, because it says that now one agency, the 
EPA, rather than two agencies, NOAA on the one hand, EPA on the other 
hand, are managing two very similar programs that might collide with 
one another.
  Lastly, it aids in the success of nonpoint source pollution control 
in that it allows the moneys that are available to be used in 
implementing the program not just planning. I think most Americans are 
rather fed up with the notion that so much Federal money gets spent on 
studies and planning and so little actually is used to accomplish the 
good that a program is designed to accomplish.
  To that end, this amendment makes sure that money can be used to 
actually carry out the program, not just to plan it.
  So for those very good three reasons: First, the States ought to have 
the flexibility to coordinate the programs as the States feel work best 
in their own State, particularly when you consider that CZM has always 
been a State-run voluntary program; second, that coordination under a 
single Federal agency makes sense, why have two different agencies 
running two programs at a parallel that might in fact and generally do 
collide running, run into conflicts with one another; and third, why 
not provide, as we do in this amendment, that moneys available under 
the program can in fact be used to implement it, not just to plan and 
keep planning and keep planning ad infinitum and wasting Federal and 
local resources in planning processes when we could be using it to 
actually begin controlling nonpoint source pollution
 in the coastal zone.

  I urge the Members of the House, again, to consider, we are not 
repealing the Boehlert amendment, not at all. We are saying that 
Boehlert amendment stands. The CZM Program stands. If your State wants 
to implement it as the Fed wants you to do, you can go right ahead. It 
simply says that a State like Louisiana, which wants to coordinate its 
319 programs with the CZM nonsource program, can do so and further that 
it can use the money to implement the program and it will be 
coordinated by only one Federal agency, not a pair of agencies which 
are often in conflict. That makes sense.
  If this session of Congress is about rationalizing programs, ending 
duplication, creating flexibility for those on the local level who 
implement the programs, this amendment, the Petri-Tauzin amendment is 
exactly the way to make the Boehlert amendment work well.
  I will say it again, either you really meant what you said when you 
said that you were trying to represent the will of the States in this 
point of view or you did not. if you really meant to represent the will 
of the States, this amendment perfects that. It gives the States the 
flexibility, the option to make the decisions that best suit the CZM 
Program in a given State, a program that has always been voluntary, 
always been State-run, always been defined by State law and regulated, 
and managed by State managers.
  If you believe that, if that is the purpose of the original Boehlert 
amendment, this amendment strengthens it, makes it clearer that States 
do have that option. If your State wants to run it the way it is 
currently run, you have full authority to do so under this amendment. 
If your State is one like mine that wants to coordinate it under 
section 319, this amendment gives you that power.
  I urge the Members to adopt this amendment.

[[Page H5004]]

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I commend 
the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Louisiana for this 
effort. This corrects what I think is a serious defect in the bill 
created by the earlier Boehlert amendment which takes away the kind of 
flexibility that the States need to have in dealing with nonpoint-
source pollution problems.
  The State of Virginia that I represent is a very diverse State. It 
has very diverse types of geography in different parts of the State. 
And it is the State itself and the State agencies and the elected 
officials in the State of Virginia that best understand the competing 
needs of different parts of the State.
  The State of Virginia borders a great deal of the Chesapeake Bay, and 
we very much value and treasure the Chesapeake Bay, but we also 
understand the needs of those in other parts of the State. And it is 
far more appropriate for the State to be able to take the lead in 
deciding this and not have to work with two competing different 
Government agencies, Federal Government agencies dictating to the State 
of Virginia how to handle a wide variety of land use issues that take 
place all across the State.
  I commend the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin. I strongly urge this as a very good amendment which will 
correct a problem that exists in the bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I want to point 
out that when I was a young State legislator, many years ago, that I 
managed a CZM bill through the Louisiana Legislature. I remember all 
the promises that were made then, that the State would always run its 
program, define its boundaries, decide land use practices. In fact it 
was always going to be a State-run program.
  This amendment perfects the Boehlert amendment to make sure that 
process is kept, that each State runs its program in the way that makes 
sense, that it is coordinated properly, and that moneys can be used to 
carry out the intent of the Boehlert amendment.
  I commend the gentleman for his support and urge other Members to do 
the same thing.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and I concur 
in his statement. I think that it is definitely the case and so often 
overlooked here that nobody has a greater incentive to make sure that 
the waters and lands of the State of Virginia, the State of Louisiana, 
the State of Wisconsin, and every other State than those people who 
live in the States. This is clearly an issue of States rights and 
States' opportunity to have the flexibility to handle this problem 
themselves.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard an interesting interpretation of this 
supposedly de minimis amendment. There are a couple of things I find 
disturbing. Obviously on lines 8 and 9 we strike the word shall and 
replace it with may, and on page 4 we go to elimination of requirement 
of enforceable mechanisms.
  So in fact this does become----
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is reading a 
previous amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Is there another version?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Yes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. So you are working on another version as we speak?
  Mr. SHUSTER. No. The Petri amendment before us is another version 
from the earlier version which the gentleman is referring to.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. There is some confusion on this side of the aisle then 
regarding exactly what it is we are voting on at the moment. I heard 
the issue of States----
  Mr. SHUSTER. The amendment was submitted at the desk. We could ask 
the desk to provide it to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, what we have been hearing here is, we 
still, I still see a line 7 and 8, shall and may. So that part has not 
changed. This was just handed to me. And then I guess perhaps you took 
out the enforcement part. So enforcement is still in, but it is now, we 
are going to enforce something that you may do or you may choose.
  The problem I have here is water pollution does not really follow 
State boundaries. I heard a lot of talk about States rights here. But 
water pollution does not rather strictly adhere to States' boundaries.
  And many of the bodies of water we are talking about in this bill 
deregulating happen to affect more than one State. In my region, we 
border California and Washington. We have upstate concerns, upstream 
concerns with Idaho, Montana, another country even, dealing with the 
Columbia River. So I have a concern when we begin to move major 
mechanisms we have to deal with precious coastal estuaries, fragile 
estuaries, extraordinarily valuable resources in terms of shellfish 
where we have had shellfish beds close, spawning grounds for our 
endangered salmon. And we are going to go to something that says, you 
may, you may, if you so choose, comply.
  Well, certainly, I do not believe my neighboring State of Washington 
or California is going to do anything to our detriment, but on the 
other hand I would be a lot more comfortable if we were applying a 
uniform Federal standard in this bill and not weakening that standard.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am informed by the staff that the national estuary 
program formed for the specific purpose of protection across State 
lines is not affected by this. We have the national estuary program, we 
have the nonpoint source program, and then we have an additional 
coastal thing. We are just saying we do not really need three programs 
to accomplish what the gentleman is trying to do.
  Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is saying is absolutely right, we do 
need to have comprehensive watershed based approaches that follow the 
real world, rather than political jurisdiction of lines, and we have 
it, and it is not affected by this amendment. It is the national 
estuary program.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
clarification. It certainly sounds better than the way it was described 
by some of the earlier speakers in terms of this portion of the bill.
  However, I guess I will go back to a problem I have had throughout 
the bill, which is in a number of critical cases we have seen the bill 
essentially written, rewritten, and amendments sort of mutating as we 
go along in this process, and no capability of really explaining them.
  Some might remember my debate over the section 401, hydropower 
licensing, last Thursday night, where the authors of the substitute 
amendment could not explain it. They could not explain the laws they 
were referencing, and what principles would still apply.
  Mr. Chairman, our water resources are too precious, just too 
precious, to have either outside influences, polluters, or to have 
others writing on the back of the napkin and rewriting these laws. This 
should be a more deliberate process.
  Certainly, in this case, I thank the gentleman for his clarification. 
It seems that they have substantially amended the original version and 
improved it, but I think that this is not the first instance during the 
consideration of this bill where we have had this problem. I think it 
should be instructive to the chairman and others that this is not the 
best way for such an important piece of legislation to be rushed 
through the House. I do not see a rush. The Clean Water Act has been 
working substantially across the country, working well. It is one of 
the few success stories that we can all point to in terms of Federal 
enforcement. We should modify it carefully and deliberately, where 
there has been excess, 
[[Page H5005]] but where it has been a success, we should build and 
improve upon it. Our water resources are too precious, our progress has 
been so hard won, that we should not go backward.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, again, the way I understand the amendment now, in its 
latest version, basically it is saying that this coastal nonpoint 
source pollution program on the part of the State would be enforceable, 
but is still voluntary. That is really the crux of the matter, is that 
the program would be voluntary, whereas the Boehlert amendment, again, 
when the Boehlert amendment was passed, it essentially kept the 
existing mandatory nature of the program.
  I was listening to the gentleman from Louisiana and what he said 
about flexibility. States have always had flexibility with regard to 
implementing the program, because they can devise ways in which the 
program is effective or not. Different States may devise different ways 
of dealing with land use or agricultural runoff or some of the other 
things that might impact on coastal nonpoint source pollution.
  The bottom line is that the current law requires that there be a 
nationwide program, and that States have to put a program in place. If 
the Petri-Tauzin amendment passes, those States could voluntarily 
decide not to have a coastal nonpoint source program.
 That is the problem. Nonpoint source pollution of the Nation's unique 
and precious coastal waters is real and serious. It is causing 
significant economic harm.
  Mr. Chairman, commercial recreational fisheries are being shut down 
due to runoff pollution, beaches are being closed, habitat is being 
degraded. Coastal States report that about a third of their estuarine 
waters are impaired and a third are threatened. Nonpoint source 
problems are responsible for half of all instances of coastal water-
quality degradation. The bottom line is that coastal nonpoint source 
pollution must be abated now. By passing the Boehlert amendment last 
week, the House fully indicated it does not want to weaken coastal 
programs controlling nonpoint source pollution, but the Petri-Tauzin 
amendment would do just that.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important, even though I know we are 
not amending, we are not just totally repealing the Boehlert amendment, 
but what we are doing is making the program voluntary, and even if 
States, if States want to do it and they want to enforce it, that is 
fine, but I am afraid that many States will simply not have a program, 
and that is why we should oppose this amendment.
  (Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Speaker, I heard the last speaker discuss this as a voluntary 
program. As I understand the Petri-Tauzin amendment, it tells the State 
they have a choice. It does not make it mandatory. It says to States 
``You have got to do it under one act or another act. You cannot just 
say `I don't want to do it.'''
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we have worked 
out a compromise now. It is my understanding that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] is going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw his 
amendment and to offer the compromise that has been worked out. If my 
friend would yield the balance of his time, we might be able to finish 
this bill tonight.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, if it is considered good judgment to stop 
talking and accept the agreement, I will use good judgment.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
pending amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
                     amendment offered by mr. petri

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as 
follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr Petri: Page 362, after line 23, add 
     the following:

                     TITLE X--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 1001. COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL.

       (a) In General.--Section 6217(a)(1) of the Coastal Zone Act 
     Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1451 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``shall'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``may''; and
       (2) by striking ``the Secretary and''.
       (3) After the first sentence, insert the following 
     sentence: ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the 
     Administrator determines, in consultation with the State, 
     such program is needed to supplement the program under 
     section 319 of the Clean Water Act as it relates to the 
     Coastal Zone, the State shall prepare and submit such 
     program.''
       (b) Program Submission, Approval, and Implementation.--
     Section 6217(c) of such Act is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``the Secretary and the Administrator shall 
     jointly'' and inserting ``the Administrator shall''; and
       (B) by striking ``The program'' and all that follows 
     through the period at the end of the paragraph and inserting 
     ``The program shall be approved if the Administrator 
     determines that the program meets the requirements of this 
     section''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``If the Secretary'' and inserting ``If the 
     Administrator'';
       (B) by striking ``the Secretary shall withhold'' and 
     inserting ``the Administrator shall direct the Secretary to 
     withhold''; and
       (C) by striking ``The Secretary shall make'' and inserting 
     ``The Administrator shall direct the Secretary to make''.
       (c) Financial Assistance.--Section 6217(f) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Administrator,'' and inserting ``the Administrator''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and implementing'' after ``developing'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``and implementing'' 
     after ``developing''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``the Secretary'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``the Administrator'';
       (B) by striking ``, in consultation with the 
     Administrator,''; and
       (C) by inserting ``and implementing'' after ``preparing''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 6217(h)(2) of 
     such Act is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``, other than for 
     providing in the form of grants under subsection (f)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``the Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``the Administrator''.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  Mr. PETRI (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. MINETA. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, do we have a copy of the amendment? We are 
not aware of what the gentleman is referring to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk is preparing copies.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] is recognized for 5 minutes 
in support of his amendment.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would just attempt to summarize the 
language that has been worked out.
  Mr. Chairman, we will have to, I think, continue working on this 
problem in conference. Frankly, like any compromise, it is not fully 
acceptable to me, and I will have to check with my State administrators 
and others, but in the spirit of comity and to try to move this process 
forward and get this bill acted on tonight, we have, I think, reached 
an agreement which provides that after discussions and consultation 
between the EPA and the various States, the administrator of EPA would 
determine whether a State's plan, as far as coastal nonpoint source 
runoff, was adequate or not, and if it was adequate, then they would 
move forward.
  It would not be at the discretion or election of the Governor or of 
the State, it would be at the discretion or election of the EPA, so 
there would be national standards there, but we would gain the 
opportunity of being able to actually spend money on cleaning up the 
environment instead of on planning, as is required in the law now, and 
we think that is important. We are trying to clean up the environment, 
not 
[[Page H5006]] write plans. Plans are tools, not the objective.
  Second, we would have the opportunity of dealing with the EPA, 
potentially, rather than with a multiplicity of Federal agencies, and 
that is important in terms of simplicity.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me thank all parties for 
their cooperation over the last 3 or 4 days. The gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] and I have worked together with the gentleman's 
very cooperative staff to arrive at an agreement, which, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] points out correctly, is not 
perfect.
  However, we believe it does move in the right direction and solve 
some of our problems, particularly relative to the ability to opt out 
of the program. It does provide that the EPA Administrator has the 
power to review and to, subsequent to the review, require a CZMA 
program that would have to do with nonpoint coastal pollution.
  The State would then be required to adopt programs that would bring 
their CZMA nonpoint coastal pollution program to quality water 
standards, and while this is not perfect, certainly it is something 
that we believe at this late stage in negotiations we can live with.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to echo what my colleague from New 
Jersey says. The important thing is this protects the basic integrity 
of the coastal zone program, critically important to 30 States, the 
Great Lakes States, and the Gulf of Mexico States.
  These are tough issues, but we have worked together and we have come 
out with, I think, a reasonable compromise. Let me add, Mr. Chairman, 
while we are about this, all of us are up here and we are highly 
visible, but the professional staff, and they are that, very 
professional, whether they are proponents or opponents of any one 
section or the bill in its entirety, have worked very hard for a long 
period of time. I think we all owe them a debt of gratitude.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. As I understand, Mr. Chairman, the compromise goes to 
literally ensure that when the States have made their selection, and 
actually put together their plans, that EPA has some say as to whether 
or not that plan is adequate, and actually addresses the problem.
  I think that is a workable compromise, but I, like the gentleman, 
reserve the right to continue to work with the gentleman through the 
conference to make sure that we have this thing tied down properly, 
where the balance is respective between the States and the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, I would urge all of my colleagues to 
support the amendment as it is before the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the Clean Water 
Act legislation. After careful examination of the committee bill, H.R. 
961, and the Boehlert substitute, I have decided to support H.R. 961 on 
final passage. Though I do not agree with every provision, I believe it 
is an improvement on current law and addresses many of the specific 
problems that my constituents have identified in the Clear Water Act. 
it makes the Clean Water Act more flexible and less prescriptive and 
addresses a number of regulatory issues of concern to me.
  The Clean Water Act is widely regarded as one of the Nation's most 
successful environmental laws in terms of cleaning up dirty water. I am 
pleased at the level of cleanup in Ohio generally and in my district 
specifically. One beneficiary has been the Little Miami River, Ohio's 
first State and national scenic river, which runs through my district. 
Although the Little Miami is considered to be an exceptional warmwater 
habitat, it has one of the highest volumes of treated sewage pumped 
into it. The water quality has improved over the last decade in part 
because fewer pollutants are being discharged from these treatment 
plants along the river. And this is in part due to the Clean Water Act. 
However, problems with the act itself persist.
  H.R. 961 works to address some of the problems that the Ohio EPA 
recently identified regarding the cleanliness of the Little Miami 
River. One of the major threats to the Little Miami includes increased 
stormwater runoff. In 1987, Congress charged the EPA with implementing 
a specific permit program for stormwater discharges from industrial 
sources and municipalities. The permit program has resulted in the 
creation of one of the most burdensome unfunded Federal mandates in 
history. It has been brought to my attention time and time again by 
local governments. I have been told, for example, that a permit 
application alone can cost over $600,000 to prepare. Compliance costs 
could be in the billions by requiring stormwater to meet fishable and 
swimmable quality standards without taking into account the sudden, 
short-term nature of storms. The EPA's own estimate of costs to 
municipalities to comply with the current stormwater permitting 
requirements of the Clean Water Act is between $3.4 and $5.3 billion 
annually.
  It is evident that these wet-weather flows are not amenable to 
traditional end-of-pipe, command and control regulatory approaches. 
Attempts to impose these controls on wet-weather flows have led to 
regulations that require results that are only achievable at an 
enormous cost. Accordingly, the current law has been unable to 
effectively address the problems with this type of pollution.
  H.R. 961 would essentially convert the current stormwater permit 
program into a nonpoint source management-type program. Nonpoint source 
discharges include stormwater and runoff from farm fields, streets, and 
other areas. The new bill requires States to develop stormwater 
management programs within
 4 years and to meet the goal of attainment of water quality standards 
for stormwater within 15 years of program approval. To meet that goal, 
States have the flexibility to target receiving waters and sources of 
stormwater discharges. State controls begin with pollution prevention 
plans and may proceed to general and site-specific permits as 
determined to be necessary by the State.

  By returning this program to the States, Ohio can adopt a program 
that will best eliminate stormwater pollution. Currently, a one-size-
fits-all approach exists, which in many cases does not provide the best 
solutions for communities along the Little Miami River and every other 
river in Ohio. Flexibility is necessary to achieve the greatest 
environmental benefits from scarce resources. I believe that States 
working with local communities are simply better equipped to address 
these problems.
  Regarding the larger problem of nonpoint source pollution, the bill 
adds to and improves upon current law. Nonpoint source pollution is 
believed to account for more than half of all remaining pollution 
nationwide. Although Congress attempted to address nonpoint source 
pollution in 1987, there is more that Congress can and should do. For 
example, H.R. 961 provides grants for preparing reports and management 
programs in addition to grants for implementing programs--under current 
law. These are new Federal grants to address specific problems. The 
share of a project which may be funded by grants is also increased from 
60 to 75 percent. Finally, it requires States to resubmit management 
programs every 5 years. Should a State fail to submit a program, the 
EPA is directed to prepare and implement one for the State.
  I do want to note that I am disappointed that the House adopted an 
amendment to strike a provision in the bill that would have authorized 
$500 million annually for a new State revolving loan fund program to 
reduce nonpoint source pollution. I opposed this amendment when it was 
considered by the House. I believe these funds would have helped to 
reduce some of the problems that we are currently facing with nonpoint 
source pollution.
  In addition, H.R. 961 works to eliminate many of the unfunded 
mandates that exist in current law. These provisions are in the spirit 
of H.R. 5, the unfunded mandates bill I sponsored that are 
overwhelmingly approved by the House and Senate earlier this year and 
signed into law by the President.
  During the debate in the House earlier this year on unfunded Federal 
mandates (H.R. 5), the Clean Water Act was mentioned again and again as 
imposing particularly burdensome mandates on State and local 
governments. Because H.R. 5 did not address retroactively the impact of 
mandates that are currently in effect and does not apply to 
reauthorizations 
[[Page H5007]] until next year, Congress did not have the opportunity 
to strike any mandates in the Clean Water Act. H.R. 961 gives us that 
opportunity.
  Among other things, H.R. 961 gets at the mandate problem by 
authorizing increased funding for several important clean water 
programs. For example, grants for State revolving funds would be
 authorized at $2.5 billion annually for the next 5 years, compared 
with the current appropriation of $1.2 billion. This is a significant 
clean water financial burden that is lifted from the shoulders of 
States.

  H.R. 961 also includes two provisions that I supported in the 
Contract With America--cost-benefit analysis and takings. H.R. 961 
inserts greater consideration of cost into the Clean Water Act. Current 
law does not expressly include analysis of cost effectiveness of water 
quality standards. In the past decade, the cost to our citizens of 
complying with environmental regulations has risen dramatically. It is 
estimated that each household spends $1,500 per year on environmental 
protection. Approximately one-third of these costs are attributable to 
the Clean Water Act. Although many regulations perform a valuable 
function, the cost of some regulations simply outweighs the benefits. 
With resources of this magnitude being obligated to protect our 
Nation's water quality, it is extremely important that policymakers 
have information that is based on sound scientific analyses of 
potential risks to public health and the environment. In addition, the 
costs of proposed Clean Water Act regulations must be weighed against 
their benefits before they are promulgated. Through cost-benefit and 
risk analysis, H.R. 961 helps to eliminate problematic regulations and 
focus our limited resources on the most-pressing environmental 
problems.
  I also support the concept of takings which is part of H.R. 961. The 
current wetlands program has resulted in serious infringements on 
private property rights. It is estimated that 75 percent of wetlands in 
the United States are located on private property. H.R. 961 requires 
the Government to compensate individuals for an amount equivalent to 
the diminution in value if a Federal agency diminishes the fair market 
value of property by 20 percent or more. Twenty percent may be too low, 
but the concept is sound. If the diminution is more than 50 percent, 
the Federal Government is required to buy the affected portion of the 
property.
  I have only touched on some of the highlights of H.R. 961. Although 
H.R. 961 is not a perfect bill, I believe it will lead to improved 
water policy in the United States in a responsible and efficient and 
more flexible manner, and will help maintain the high quality of our 
Nation's water as we move into the next century.
  Ms. ESHOO. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 961, the so-called 
Clean Amendments of 1995.
  When Republicans talked about a rising tide lifting all boats, they 
did not say how polluted the tide water would be. Yet enactment of this 
legislation would repeal or weaken key sections of one of the most 
successful environmental laws on the books.
  I have fought hard in the past to strengthen the Clean Water Act to 
further protect our coasts and fragile estuaries. This bill does 
nothing to strengthen current law--indeed, it is harmful in a number of 
ways. It deregulates 50 percent of existing wetlands, repeals the 
coastal zone nonpoint pollution program, removes secondary treatment 
requirements in certain ocean waters, eliminates storm water permit 
requirements, and exempts point-source dischargers.
  In a recent editorial, the San Francisco Chronicle called it the 
Polluters Revenge Act of 1995, claiming it was written by the very 
interests the law was intended to regulate. If the people of this 
country were at the table when it was drafted, we would have a 
completely different bill. The American people want to be able to drink 
and swim in clean water and H.R. 961 does nothing to achieve these 
goals.
  In sum, the bill reverses more than 20 years of progress in fighting 
water pollution. I urge my colleagues to oppose what should be called 
the Dirty Water Amendments of 1995.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 961. This bill 
does not deserve the title its authors have given it. Unfortunately, 
H.R. 961 is no Clean Water Act.
  It is a cornucopia of special interest loopholes, waivers, and 
exemptions that weaken the Clean Water Act at a time when we should be 
strengthening it.
  We should be building on the two decades of progress we have made 
cleaning up our Nation's lakes, rivers, and streams. Instead of making 
the Clean Water Act work better for the American people, H.R. 961 makes 
it easier for polluters to pollute.
  The Clean Water Act is not a perfect law. Any statute of this scope 
and complexity will never be immune from shortcomings. As we had the 
experience of implementing the Clean Water Act, certain problems have 
come to the surface. Even if action on these problems is overdue, this 
cannot be an excuse for steps that threaten to undermine our Nation's 
commitment to clean water.
  Where there are problems, we should correct them. For example, most 
of us agree that existing wetlands regulation are needlessly burdensome 
and in need of reform. But H.R. 961 is not about reform. Instead of 
fixing the wetlands provisions, H.R. 961 redefines most wetlands out of 
existence.
  I am particularly concerned about the effect this bill would have on 
the Great Lakes. My State of Michigan has the toughest pollution 
standards in the region. For 6 years, the States in our region have 
been working on a bipartisan basis with the Environmental Protection 
Agency on the Great Lakes Initiative [GLI].
  The GLI is a program established in 1990 to ensure that all States 
within the Great Lakes basin have uniform water quality standards. The 
Great Lakes Initiative is a carefully balanced compromise that has been 
subjected to extensive scientific scrutiny and rigorous cost-benefit 
analysis. It incorporates significant State flexibility. Wide 
consultation with effected industries and the public led to significant 
revisions and lower costs.
  H.R. 961 undermines the fundamental purpose of the Great Lakes 
Initiative by giving States more discretion to ignore the Federal 
requirement for strong, uniform standards. Without uniform rules, Great 
Lakes States, like Michigan, with strong environmental standards will 
continue to lose jobs to neighbors with looser standards. We should not 
water down this critical program.
  The Clean Water Act has the strong support of the American people. 
Today we are debating an extreme bill that would turn back the clock on 
two decades of environmental progress. H.R. 961 deserves to be 
defeated.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 961, 
the so-called Clean Water Act of 1995. The bill's proponents would have 
us believe that it simply reauthorizes the original Clean Water Act, 
with, perhaps, a bit of fine-tuning. I hope that the American people 
can see clearly that this bill goes far beyond fine-tuning, would bring 
to a screeching halt further improvements in our water quality, and 
would allow for backsliding on the important progress we have already 
made toward cleaner water.
  The original Clean Water Act, enacted in 1972 to clean up our 
Nation's badly polluted rivers, lakes, and harbors, is one of the most 
successful environmental laws on the books today. But all that is about 
to change. With H.R. 961, the new Republican majority in Congress would 
gut the current law, rolling back water quality standards, allowing 
industries to pollute more, not less, and leaving taxpayers to foot the 
bill to clean up the mess.
  While the bill purports to respond to some mysterious mandate from 
the people for regulatory reform, recent polls have shown that 76 
percent of Americans think clean water laws need to be strengthened, 
not weakened. It is clear that H.R. 961 responds to industry interests, 
not the people's mandate.
  H.R. 961 will result in backsliding on water quality, by letting 
industries seek waivers allowing them to dump toxics and other wastes 
to municipal wastewater treatment plants not allowed under current law. 
To preserve the same level of water quality, these toxics would have to 
be removed at the treatment facility, at the taxpayer's expense. In 
addition, H.R. 961 lets States downgrade the designated use of a body 
of water, so that a lake or river could be subject to a lower standard 
of water quality than it is today. Finally, the bill will allow 
industrial polluters to undertake vaguely defined pollution prevention 
activities instead of complying with the water quality standards in 
current law.
  H.R. 961 devastates our wetlands protection program. Under this bill, 
which includes a new and highly unscientific method of defining and 
classifying wetlands, two-thirds of our Nation's wetlands would be 
defined right out of existence. And many of the remaining wetlands will 
receive less protection than under current law. Finally, the Government 
will have to pay landowners to preserve wetlands on their property, 
even when protection of the wetland increases the overall value of the 
property. Again, the taxpayer pays. Wetlands are important because they 
filter and purify water, act as sponges during storms to reduce flood 
damage, and provide valuable ecosystems for many plant and animal 
species. We already have lost more than half our Nation's wetlands; we 
must provide adequate protection for the wetlands that remain.
  H.R. 961 fails to make progress in the one area where progress is 
needed most. Polluted run-off from farms, industrial facilities, and 
city streets--called non-point source pollution--is the most important 
source of water pollution remaining today. H.R. 961 tells States to 
develop programs to make reasonable further progress toward bringing 
the non-point source pollution problem under control but does not 
require such programs to be enforced. In addition, the bill allows for 
delays, possibly of as 
[[Page H5008]] long as nearly two decades, in the implementation of the 
voluntary initiatives. This provision could have a devastating impact 
on our multibillion dollar fishing and tourism industries. In New 
England, our fishermen already are suffering due to declining stocks, 
and are currently seeking disaster relief. H.R. 961 will only 
exacerbate the difficulties faced by our fishermen.
  We must not allow the Clean Water Act to be gutted. It is an 
extremely important and successful statute that has been largely 
responsible for cleaning up many of our Nation's waters. In Boston, we 
once had the notoriety of having the filthiest harbor in America. 
Thanks to the Clean Water Act, and an enormous commitment on the part 
of Massachusetts residents, the Boston Harbor is cleaner now than it 
has been in decades. Surely we cannot go back to the dirty water days 
after all that we have contributed to get to where we are now.
  Many of us can still remember the days when open pipes led into our 
streams and lakes, spewing forth all kinds of toxics and pollutants. In 
most communities, those days are gone because of the Clean Water Act. 
But the job is not done. Unfortunately, over 40 percent of our Nation's 
waters are still not fishable or swimmable. We must continue working to 
enforce tough clean water standards to protect the health and safety of 
every American. As the tragic 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak in 
Milwaukee plainly demonstrated, our water is not yet too clean, we do 
not have too many wetlands, and our fish are not too safe to eat.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 961 and say 
``yes'' to clean water.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, as we continue to debate H.R. 961, there 
is a need to clarify some of the bill's provisions.
  One of the provisions, included in my en bloc amendments, modifies 
the goals contained in section 101 of the Clean Water Act. It clarifies 
that the act should not unnecessarily restrict outdoor recreational 
activity and other socially beneficial activities. A related provision 
in title VIII of the bill addresses outdoor recreational activities.
  The amendments I am submitting to H.R. 961 included in the chairman's 
amendments will clarify, among other things, that the Clean Water Act 
is intended by Congress to benefit society and not unreasonably 
restrict outdoor recreational activity.
  It has come to my attention that several lawsuits have recently been 
brought claiming that certain recreational activities conducted around 
water require permitting under the Clean Water Act. These lawsuits have 
become an invitation to judicially expand the Clean Water Act beyond 
what Congress originally enacted. These lawsuits may be a sham effort 
to shut down rightful outdoor recreation, specifically hunting and the 
shooting sports. The Clean Water Act was not designed to require NPDES 
permits under section 402 or wetlands dredge and fill permits under 
section 404 as a condition of enjoying our traditional outdoor 
recreational activities. My amendment makes clear that the act was not 
intended to be abused in the manner employed in certain lawsuits.
  Another regulatory provision relates to waste treatment systems for 
concentrated animal feeding operations [CAFO's]. Section 401 clarifies 
that an existing CAFO that uses a natural topographic impoundment or 
structure on the effective date of this act, which is not 
hydrologically connected to any other waters of the United States, as a 
waste treatment system or wastewater retention facility may, for 
purposes of this act, continue to use that natural topographic feature 
for waste storage regardless of its size, capacity, or previous use.
  Some of H.R. 961's funding provisions need additional clarification, 
as well. The bill does not specify any set-asides or allocations off 
the top for section 106 moneys. Our intent however, is that one-half of 
1 percent or $500,000--whichever is greater--should be allocated to the 
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 
Administrators for assistance in administering programs for the 
prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution and to serve as the 
State liaison forum with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on 
policy development.
  Administration of the funding provided in section 102(d) also needs 
clarification. Section 102(d) of H.R. 961 authorizes the Administrator 
of the EPA to make grants to the States for planning, design, and 
construction of publicly owned treatment works in rural communities of 
3,000 people or less which are severely economically disadvantage. The 
committee report states the committee's intention to work closely with 
the Administrator to develop appropriate criteria regarding severely 
economically disadvantaged. I wish to clarify that the committee 
considers eligible communities as those having a per capita income of 
no more than 80 percent of the national average and an unemployment 
rate of 1 percent or more above the national average.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following communication for the Record:
                                                     May 16, 1995.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman.
     Hon. Norm Mineta,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Gentlemen: We write this letter in response to the 
     debate on H.R. 961 that took place last Thursday evening, May 
     9, 1995, in which Representative Laughlin offered a 
     substitute amendment to that offered by Representative 
     Emerson regarding section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
       It is indeed unfortunate that we were not given the 
     opportunity to review the amendment prior to its 
     introduction, as we believe that our input may have proved 
     valuable in the ensuing discussion.
       We wish to state now for the record that we believe states 
     should have the authority to determine the quality of the 
     waters within the state. As we have consistently maintained, 
     we do not believe any amendments to section 401 are 
     warranted; and we cannot support the amendment to section 401 
     that was adopted last Thursday evening.
       The adopted amendment would have the following adverse 
     repercussions;
       The amendment takes from states the authority to determine 
     the water quality of state waters, and improperly gives such 
     authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 
     for hydroelectric projects located within the state.
       The amendment reverses PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. 
     State of Washington Department of Ecology, otherwise known as 
     the Tacoma case, in which the Supreme Court affirmed that 
     section 401 authorizes states to impose conditions in water 
     quality certifications to ensure that discharges from 
     federally licensed activities comply with state law.
       The amendment causes inequities between state licensed 
     activities which must comply with state law, and 
     hydroelectric projects which FERC may exempt from state law.
       The amendment will likely spawn significant litigation 
     regarding its implementation and how agencies are to 
     interpret presumptions of validity.
       In sum, we believe that section 401 strikes the appropriate 
     balance between state and federal authority over state water 
     quality, and that no amendment to section 401 is necessary. 
     We thank you for the opportunity to share our views with you.
           Sincerely,
         Governor Mike Lowry, Chair, Committee on Natural 
           Resources, National Governors' Association.
         Governor Michael O. Leavitt, Chair, Western Governors' 
           Association.
         Tom Udall, Attorney General of New Mexico.
         Governor Terry E. Branstad, Vice Chair, Committee on 
           Natural Resources, National Governors' Association.
         Governor E. Benjamin Nelson, Vice Chair, Western 
           Governors' Association.
         Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington.

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 961, 
the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. I believe this title is a misnomer 
as this bill will dramatically undermine the progress we have made over 
the past 20 years in cleaning up the Nation's waters, improving public 
health, and furthering economic development. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this measure to send a strong signal that the House will 
not turn back the clock on environmental protection.
  The Clean Water Act, signed into law in 1972, is arguably our most 
successful environmental protection statute. When it was passed more 
than two decades ago, the majority of our waters were off-limits to 
swimming and fishing, toxic pollutants and sewage were discharged 
almost at will, and in extreme cases, certain bodies of water were so 
fouled that they actually caught fire. Many communities nationwide were 
not served by sewage treatment plants and many that were had antiquated 
systems which failed to protect public health. Companies were able to 
discharge toxic pollutants, including some which cause cancer, directly 
into our rivers, lakes, and streams. Finally, wetlands were being 
filled in and drained at a rate of approximately 450,000 acres per year 
with subsequent adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and bird 
populations, water quality, and flood control.
  Over the past 23 years we have made tremendous progress in addressing 
these and other water quality issues. Nearly twice as many people are 
served by modern sewage treatment plants today than in 1972. Annually 
900 million tons of sewage are not discharged into our lakes, streams, 
and rivers. Under the State Revolving Fund program and a previous grant 
program, the Federal Government has invested $66 billion in sewage 
treatment plant construction and upgrades. Investment in sewage 
treatment has made fundamental improvements in public health for 
millions of American citizens. More than 1 billion pounds of toxic 
pollutants are removed yearly from waters discharged by companies and 
other entities which utilize them.
  [[Page H5009]] Twice as many bodies of water meet their designated 
uses today than prior to the passage of the act. These water quality 
improvements have expanded recreational opportunities, opened 
multimillion-dollar shellfish beds to harvest, and brought tourists 
back to communities along our coasts. Finally, the Clean Water Act has 
helped to cut wetland losses almost in half. Currently, the lower 48 
States have about 10 percent of the wetlands that existed in the late 
1700's. While wetlands have a ``bad rap'' in this body, which I believe 
is completely unfounded and used for political expediency, they provide 
vital habitat to a myriad of fish, wildlife, and bird species, improve 
water quality by filtering out organic and nonorganic contaminants, and 
serve valuable flood control functions without the need for costly 
levees, dikes, and dams.
  While we have made tremendous progress over the past two decades, 
problems remain. More than one-third of our waters do not meet their 
designated uses. Thousands of miles of rivers and acres of lakes are 
off-limits to swimming and fishing. Sewage treatment facilities in many 
communities remain inadequate and often discharge raw sewage directing 
into our waterways during storms. Pathogens in sewage poses a serious 
threat to public health. Ineffective sewage treatment also results in 
excessive nutrients being added to our waters which cause algae blooms, 
deplete oxygen content, and adversely affect shell- and fin-fish and 
marine habitat. Nonpoint source pollution accounts for at least half of 
our remaining water pollution problems. Wetlands continue to disappear 
at rate of 250,000 acres per year. As a result, certain migratory bird 
populations and species of fish have suffered and flooding has been 
exacerbated. In fact, some believe that the devastating flooding in the 
Midwest in 1993 could have been mitigated if wetlands had not been 
filled or drained to grow crops or for sites for housing developments. 
The bottom line is that we have a long way to go and should not be 
passing legislation which will turn the clock back to the 1960's.
  I have numerous concerns with H.R. 961 and will touch on the most 
significant ones. I am especially concerned about the effects this bill 
will have on water quality in coastal communities. My district borders 
Long Island Sound, which is a vital economic and environmental resource 
for my State of Connecticut. Connecticut has invested tens of millions 
of dollars in cleaning up the sound in an effort to improve public 
health, fisheries, tourism, and quality of life for our residents. The 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], New York and Connecticut have 
spent the past 10 years and $11 million conducting a comprehensive 
study of the problems facing the sound. Last fall, the agency and the 
States approved a comprehensive conservation and management plan [CCMP] 
which sets forth a schedule to implement specific measures for 
remediating water quality problems and restoring the sound to health 
status. H.R. 961 threatens to completely undermine these efforts and 
investments.
  It would repeal section 6217 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
of 1990 which requires coastal States to develop enforceable programs 
to control nonpoint discharges which impair coastal waters. Nonpoint 
source contamination is the greatest threat to our coastal waters and 
is partially responsible for thousands of beach closures each year and 
contaminated shelfish and finfish populations. Beach closures and 
shell- and fin-fish bans cost local economies millions of dollars each 
year when tourists can't go to the beach and fish products can't be 
harvested and sold. Connecticut is the second leading producer of 
oysters in the United States with annual sales between $40 and $50 
million and tourism pumps nearly $4 billion into my State's economy. 
Repealing section 6217 does not make good environmental or economic 
sense for my State or any other coastal State.
  The assistant commissioner of Connecticut's Department of 
Environmental Protection [DEP] has written me to express his strong 
opposition to the committee's action. While he admits section 6217 is 
not perfect, he firmly believes that repeal is completely 
counterproductive. The committee's action is even more egregious when 
one considers that the Coastal States Organization submitted a proposal 
to reform section 6217 to the committee. The CSO proposal represented a 
compromise developed by the States, but was cast aside by the 
committee. Without a program which approximates section 6217, 
Connecticut's efforts to reduce nonpoint contamination of Long Island 
Sound will be seriously undermined.
  Unfortunately, the outlook for the sound gets bleaker when one 
considers the provisions of section 309 relating to secondary 
treatment. According to the EPA, secondary treatment, which removes 
oxygen-depleting nutrients as well as toxic contaminants from 
wastewater, has played a substantial role in improving water quality 
across the Nation over the last 20 years. Secondary treatment is 
especially important for communities along Long Island Sound because it 
is plagued by severe hypoxia during the summer months. Hypoxia is a 
state of low dissolved oxygen in the water which adversely affects fish 
populations and marine habitat. The best way to eliminate hypoxia is to 
reduce the input of excess nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous. 
Secondary treatment is one of the most effective methods of reducing 
nutrient loading.
  Connecticut has 84 treatment plants, all of which employ secondary 
treatment. In fact, 25 plants, or about 25 percent of the total, employ 
advanced treatment to reduce nitrogen loading more dramatically. Under 
section 309 of H.R. 961, coastal or other communities with fewer than 
20,000 residents would be exempt from secondary treatment requirements 
if a treatment works will provide an adequate level of protection to 
receiving waters. The bill does not define ``adequate level'' and I am 
very concerned that this exemption will seriously undermine our efforts 
to improve water quality in the sound.
  In Connecticut, 52 plants could be allowed to discontinue secondary 
treatment under this section. This would bring little, if any, savings 
to the ratepayers because these plants currently utilize secondary 
treatment technology. At the same time, it will exacerbate hypoxia 
which will adversely affect the fishing, aquaculture, and tourism 
industries. These effects will cost my State millions of dollars in the 
short term and many millions more over the long run because Long Island 
Sound cleanup will become more costly. This provision is bad for the 
environment, the economy, and taxpayers in my State.
  I am also concerned about the effects of loosening pretreatment 
standards for the discharge of toxic pollutants to publicly owned 
treatment works [POTW]. The Clean Water Act establishes uniform 
national requirements that certain highly toxic pollutants, which 
cannot be effectively treated by POTW's or which adversely affect the 
operation of such works, must be treated by those entities
 discharging them to reduce their negative impacts prior to releasing 
wastewaters containing these contaminants to the POTW. This requirement 
guarantees that every community will receive a similar level of 
protection from toxic pollutants.

  Under H.R. 961, uniform requirements would be replaced by a system 
which would allow individual treatment works to reduce pretreatment 
standards if those standards drive up administrative costs. This would 
create a hodge-podge of standards within States and watersheds and 
undermine rational water pollution control policy. Furthermore, this 
provision shifts the costs of controlling toxic pollutants from 
entities producing those pollutants to the ratepayers at the POTW. It 
is very likely that these toxics will ultimately adversely affect the 
operations of the POTW and the ratepayers will be left with the bill.
  While nonpoint source pollution is responsible for at least one-half 
of our remaining water pollution problems, H.R. 961 fails to tackle 
this important issue. The provisions of section 319 effectively 
postpone the date of compliance with nonpoint source controls for 15 
years. Moreover, compliance may never have to be achieved because the 
section provides yearly extensions of compliance deadlines for every 
year that Congress fails to appropriate every dollar authorized by this 
section. While I believe that Congress should do its level best to 
provide funding to States to assist with compliance, it is unreasonable 
to provide extensions if Congress falls $1 short of the authorized 
level. I believe this provision is even more unreasonable when one 
considers that Congress has done a relatively good job in providing 
States with substantial funding to improve water quality. This 
provision renders compliance deadlines meaningless.
  The risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis portions of this bill 
are tilted toward polluters and will undermine public health. Federal 
agencies will be required to conduct lengthy and unproven risk 
assessment reviews of virtually every regulatory action which could 
cost more than $25 million. These reviews will add substantial layers 
of bureaucracy and delay timely action to address health concerns. In 
addition, the cost-benefit portion of the bill is weighted toward 
assessing the economic and social costs of complying with a requirement 
but makes no mention of assessing the benefits to society from 
environmental protection. Moreover, the bill does not provide an 
exemption from these onerous requirements to allow the EPA to respond 
quickly to an imminent threat to public health or the environment. 
These provisions are merely an attempt to gut environmental protection 
through backdoor maneuvers.
  Finally, the wetlands portion of the bill will open much of our 
remaining wetlands to uncontrolled filling, draining, and development. 
If these provisions are enacted, many species of fish and wildlife will 
be pushed toward extinction, water quality will suffer, and flooding 
will worsen. As a result, the American people will be forced to pay 
more for clean water, flood insurance
 premiums will increase, and our quality of life will suffer.
  [[Page H5010]] In spite of all the talk by my Republican colleagues 
about the need to use ``good science'' when developing environmental 
regulations, this portion of the bill has no connection to good science 
whatsoever. The bill proposes to designate wetlands as class A, B, or C 
with class A receiving the highest degree of protection, class B less 
protection, and class C could be developed at will. The criteria to be 
used to classify wetlands is arbitrary as well. For example, the 
Secretary of the Army can only designate a portion of land as class A 
wetlands if it consists of 10 or more contiguous acres of land and 
there is unlikely to be any other overriding public use for that land. 
Wetlands should receive protection based on the ecological value and 
not because protection is convenient because someone doesn't believe 
the land can be developed under any circumstances. Moreover, the bill 
stipulates that no more than 20 percent of the wetlands classified by 
the Secretary may be classified as class A. This is a baseless cutoff 
designed to subjugate ecological considerations to the desire of 
developers to have unrestricted access to as much land as possible.
  In addition, the protections for class A and B wetlands can be 
weakened considerably under the bill if they are not economically 
practicable or if the wetlands are located in a State with substantial 
conserved wetlands. The exemption based on a State having wetlands 
conserved by the Federal Government completely disregards the fact that 
wetlands serve important local functions which are completely separate 
from the benefits provided by wetlands clear across the State. Once 
again, short-term economic considerations are given precedence while 
the long-term interests of the majority of Americans are pushed aside.
  Finally, development can take place in class C wetlands without a 
permit. The skewed classification requirements of this bill work to 
winnow as many acres of wetlands toward class C designation as 
possible. This bill falsely assumes that small wetlands or those that 
are in highly developed areas serve no significant function. This 
couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, small wetlands in 
developed areas provide critical habitat for birds, ducks, and 
wildlife, help to recharge the groundwater, and act to purify runoff 
from surrounding areas. These wetlands should receive a high degree of 
protection rather than be opened up to unchecked development. Moreover, 
18 different activities, including building logging roads, clearing 
rights-of-way, and just about any infrastructure project whatsoever in 
a State with substantial conserved wetlands, are specifically exempt 
from any restrictions governing activities in wetlands.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 961 should be defeated for the reasons I have 
enumerated here and many others. Most significantly, this is a bad bill 
for the people of my State who would see years of hard work and tens of 
millions of dollars literally go down the drain. The Connecticut River 
would once again be fouled by sewage and our efforts to restore Long 
Island Sound would be dealt a tremendous blow. The costs of cleaning up 
pollution would be transferred from polluters to the American public. 
Public health will be compromised, recreation opportunities lost, and 
the economic growth will be stymied in countless communities 
nationwide. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 961.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this bill will reverse the significant 
progress we have made under the Clean Water Act. For the first time in 
25 years, our water is expected to become dirtier instead of cleaner. 
We may well be returning to a time when our rivers catch fire, we 
cannot swim and fish in our lakes, and human health is jeopardized by 
toxic chemicals in our water.
  It is no secret that the House Republican leadership worked hand in 
hand with the chemical companies and other special interests to draft a 
bill littered with loopholes for polluters and developers. The bill 
includes a myriad of exemptions and waivers for industry which will 
significantly increase water pollution. It also removes approximately 
50 percent of wetlands--which provide a natural water filtering 
system--from Federal protection. It is deeply disturbing that the 
attack on the environment that was so prevalent in the Contract With 
America has now reached into environmental successes like the Clean 
Water Act.
  I am pleased that this bill reauthorizes funds for the State 
revolving loan fund that helps towns, like rural towns in my State of 
Vermont, upgrade their sewage treatment facilities. It also authorizes 
funds to help these same towns clean up agricultural pesticide runoff. 
Unfortunately, in today's environment of cutbacks I am seriously 
concerned that these needed funds will not become a reality. I strongly 
urge the appropriators to fully fund these programs so that small rural 
towns can meet their environmental responsibilities.
  I am deeply disappointed that the House rejected an amendment which 
included these important authorizations and linked them with meaningful 
relief from unnecessarily burdensome regulations. Instead the House is 
considering a bill that gives industry free rein to pollute our 
waterways and developers the right to develop our ecologically 
important wetlands.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bipartisan committee-
passed version of H.R. 961.
  One message that the American public has made clear--one message that 
this Congress has seen fit to heed in passing several pieces of 
legislation this year--has been the fact that this Nation has entered 
an era in which new approaches and local flexibility are needed to 
provide lasting solutions to our Nation's greatest problems.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill continues the great traditions of the leaders 
of the Republican Party who made the protection of the environment and 
natural resources a top priority--Presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt 
and Richard Nixon. This bill not only reaffirms the importance of the 
1972 Clean Water Act and preserves its successes, it significantly 
updates that historic legislation to meet the water quality needs and 
circumstances of this Nation in 1995 and beyond.
  As many members have explained throughout this debate, our State and 
local communities are now well-equipped, and in most cases, better 
equipped, to devise and implement solutions to the expensive point 
source and nonpoint source pollution problems within their communities. 
H.R. 961, as it stands now, gives the State and local governments the 
flexibility and authority they need to implement those solutions. 
Solutions, mind you, that will improve our communities' water quality 
both more quickly and at less cost.
  Let me share a couple of examples of particular problems in my 
district which will greatly benefit from passage of the committee-
passed H.R. 961. In a rural town in my district, Francesville, IN, a 
major wastewater treatment facility construction project which will 
greatly improve the quality of water for tens of thousands of people 
along the watershed, was delayed. This delay lasted more than 2 years 
due to a concern that the plant would interfere with less than 1 acre 
of a man-made pit which environmental officials had determined to be a 
wetland.
  Another example in my backyard illustrates how small communities 
throughout Indiana are struggling to meet complex Federal requirements 
which are financially prohibitive. H.R. 961 seeks to loosen these types 
of regulatory constraints on small communities which have the effect of 
actually hindering their ability to improve their water quality. My 
hometown of Buffalo, IN, which has a population of 250 is undertaking a 
sewer system construction which will improve the water quality on the 
Tippecanoe River and Lakes Shafer and Freeman. Unfortunately, they've 
been bitten by these same regulatory restrictions that hinder their 
ability to use new and innovative technology like constructed wetlands 
treatment facilities. The impact could not only be the delays they now 
face in construction, but local sewer bills could soar from a projected 
$35 per month to reach $90 per month.
  As if that isn't clear enough, I have another example of the impact 
of current law and enforcement on municipalities and small communities. 
Approximately 5,000 people reside in Rensselaer, IN. They have a $3.5 
million sewer treatment facility serving their community. The city of 
Rensselaer was informed by regulators that they are not in compliance 
and must conduct combined sewer overflow [CSO] monitoring. They learned 
that it was estimated to cost each person in the town $1,000 per year. 
This translates into nearly $5 million in costs to implement this CSO 
Program, nearly twice the amount it costs to build the entire sewer 
treatment facility, all just to monitor and not treat the water.
  My final story shows the inability of the Federal Government, without 
clear definitions and political accountability, to provide simple, 
effective, and cost-efficient solutions to the situations families, 
farmers, businesses, and communities face. A Cass County farmer in my 
district had less than one-quarter of an acre of ground in the middle 
of a farm field determined as a wetland. Despite the fact that he could 
potentially have profited only $20 annually from farming the area, 
Federal regulators slapped him with over $300,000 in fines and lost 
benefits. Yet, as if it isn't enough, under the current law, he could 
have sold this land to any number of retailers, such as Wal-Mart, who 
could have paved this wetland and made it part of a parking lot without 
any penalties or fines whatsoever.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that these are not isolated 
instances. We must continue and follow up on the bipartisan message 
which was sent to not only State and local governments, but also the 
Federal regulators. We must encourage flexible, commonsense rationality 
to our regulatory policies.
  For instance, title VIII of H.R. 961 establishes a new Federal 
wetlands policy by replacing the current section 404 of CWA with 
comprehensive new language to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill 
materials into U.S. waters and wetlands, as well as the drainage, 
[[Page H5011]] channelization, and excavation of wetlands. For the 
first time in legislation, this bill establishes a procedure for both 
classifying and delineating wetlands, directing the Secretary of the 
Army to issue classification regulations and delineation rules within 1 
year of enactment. It outlines application procedures for persons 
seeking to undertake activities in wetlands, as well as property owners 
who seek a determination of whether a wetland exists on their property, 
and provides for judicial review. Thus, H.R. 961 provides for greater 
certainty and expedited procedures to applicants. This provision is 
comparable to legislation I cosponsored last year to address wetlands 
issues.
  This bill modifies the list of exempt activities in order to clarify 
the intent of Congress where agency and court decisions have resulted 
in broader regulations than intended. H.R. 961 includes the following 
to those activities already exempted by the act: First, maintenance and 
emergency reconstruction of facilities for flood control, water supply, 
reservoirs, utility lines, and transportation structures; second, 
farming activities such as constructing stock ponds, irrigation canals, 
and drainage ditches; third, activities to enhance aviation safety, 
such as clearing vegetation that obscures a control tower's view of the 
runway approach; and fourth, activities that are consistent with a 
State-approved land management plan approved by the Army Secretary, as 
well as a few other limited activities.
  It is also extremely important to note that H.R. 961 is consistent 
with the provisions bipartisanly passed by this Congress under H.R. 
925. In doing so, this bill requires that property owners who have 
their property value diminished by 20 percent or more as a result of a 
Federal agency wetlands management action must be compensated by the 
Government for that amount.
  H.R. 961 provides not only flexibility with the reiteration of 
regulatory reforms and just compensation, but it also authorizes 
billions of additional dollars for State and local governments to 
prioritize solutions and utilize advanced technologies. I support the 
commonsense bipartisan solution H.R. 961 provides.
  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. 
Walker) 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 140, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                motion to recommit offered by mr. bonior

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BONIOR. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bonior moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure with instructions to report 
     it back to the House promptly with the following changes:
       With standards for the discharge of industrial pollution 
     into water no move lax than those which exist today;
       With water pollution prevention and control protections no 
     less than those which exist today for public water supplies 
     which are used for drinking;
       With a report on this bill by the Congressional Budget 
     Office which complies with section 101 of Public Law 104-4, 
     the ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995'', as such section 
     would otherwise be in effect on January 1, 1996.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to make this 
Government work better.
  But they do not want us to turn back 20 years of progress on clean 
water.
  They do not want us to turn back 20 years of progress on safe 
drinking water.
  But that is exactly what this bill before us today does. There is a 
reason why the Baltimore Sun calls this bill ``the Polluters Protection 
Act.''
  Because it stops 20 years of progress dead in its tracks.
  How do you think the American people would feel if they knew that 
this bill allowed raw sewage to be dumped just 1 mile off our shores?
  How do you think they'd feel if they knew that this bill weakens the 
safeguards we've put in place to make sure our drinking water is safe?
  How do you think they'd feel if they knew--as USA Today pointed out 
just yesterday--that this bill ``dramatically eases requirements on 
industrial waste, urban runoff, and sewage treatment * * * and permits 
more waivers for pouring pollution into lakes and rivers.''
  Mr. Speaker, have we all forgotten Milwaukee?
  Have we all forgotten the 100 people who died in 1993--and the 
400,000 people who got sick--when a deadly toxin called cryptosperidium 
infiltrated Milwaukee's drinking water?
  Do we want to go back to the days of Love Canal--and poisoned fish, 
when Lake Erie was dead--and the Cuyahoga River was so polluted it 
actually caught on fire?
  I'm certain the American people don't want to go back. And they can't 
seem to understand why we'd pass a bill that makes it easier to pollute 
the water we all need to survive.
  Why? Because a few corporations oppose the safeguards we have now?
  Because a few special interests oppose the tough anti-pollution 
protections on the books now?
  Is that any reason to put safe drinking water at risk?
  Let me ask this: Does anybody really believe these people are looking 
out for the public interest and public safety first?
  This bill is the ultimate example of putting the fox in charge of the 
hen house. Not only does it let the polluters off the hook--it actually 
let them write the bill.
  I have here a memo, a copy of a memo that the committee itself sent 
out to lobbyists and special interests. A memo inviting them to help 
write the bill.
  It says, and I quote, ``we encourage you to work together to identify 
outstanding issues and to formulate your proposals for addressing 
them.'' The following groups have agreed to take the lead for this 
front work.
  Do you think these people had the public interest in mind?
  Mr. Speaker, I think we can do a lot better. And that's what this 
motion to recommit is all about.
  This motion insists on three things:
  First, that we keep environmental standards strong and don't allow 
rollbacks for industrial polluters;
  Second, that we keep drinking water safe;
  And third, that in improving the Clean Water Act, we don't pass along 
any costs to the States that we don't pay for first.
  In other words, we're simply asking that the Clean Water Act be 
allowed to live up to its name--and build on the progress we've made 
the past 20 years.
  Today, over 60 percent of our waterways are clean--and drinking water 
is safe.
  But we've still got a lot of work left to do--and we can't afford to 
turn the clock back now.
  We can never forget--that in the end--even though we have many 
differences as Americans;
  We all drink the same water;
  We all swim in the same lakes;
  We all depend on the same water to cook with, to clean with, and to 
bathe in.
  And we all have an interest in seeing our water remain safe and 
clean.
  But I would remind all of you here today: we may not win this vote on 
the motion to recommit--and we may not win the vote on final passage.
  But this is a defining issue for our Nation.
  And I am confident that we will have more than enough votes today to 
sustain a Presidential veto.
  In the end, this vote comes down to one simple question: Whose side 
are you on? Are you on the side of the special interests--or are you on 
the side of the American people?
  [[Page H5012]] Are you on the side of clean water for ourselves and 
for the future--or do you want to roll the clock back? That's the 
question.
  I urge my colleagues: vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit. Vote 
``no'' on final passage.
                              {time}  1730

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have heard on this motion to recommit is simply 
nothing more than the same old delaying tactics. This motion if it were 
adopted would gut the bill. What we have heard here now is nothing more 
than the same old scare tactics. In fact, I was somewhat astonished to 
hear our friend in the well refer to the Milwaukee tragedy as an 
example of something that presumably the bureaucrats could have 
prevented or could prevent in the future if we were somehow to adopt 
the big-government bill that they would prefer.
  As we all know, the tragedy in Milwaukee occurred because of wildlife 
in the stream, because of deer polluting the water, and so I can see 
apparently if we follow through my good friend's suggestion to its 
logical conclusion that we will have bureaucrats from EPA out there in 
Wisconsin with lassos lassoing the deer to keep them out of the stream. 
It obviously simply does not wash. This whole idea that they somehow 
through more government and more command control from the top on down 
can somehow correct these problems does not wash. Indeed, we have 
before us an historic environmental bill, a sound environmental bill, a 
balanced environmental bill.
  I would point out to my friends that as we have worked through over 
30 hours of debate on this historic legislation, we have defended the 
committee position with overwhelming votes. We have reformed the 
wetlands and we have defeated the weakening amendments by 50, 60, 70, 
80 votes. We have reformed stormwater. We have defeated the weakening 
amendments by 60, 70, 80 votes. We have provided a workable nonpoint 
source program. And, yes, we have provided flexibility to the States 
and to the localities. We have created a situation where a city like 
San Diego will not have to spend $3 billion needlessly which is what 
the EPA was attempting to force the city of San Diego to do even though 
the California EPA and an eminent group of scientists said that it was 
unnecessary for San Diego.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of reforms and improvements which 
have been made in this historic legislation. Yes, we have also provided 
substantial funding. Not as much as many of us would like to see, but 
substantial funding so we can continue with this very successful 
program.
  As we move along to conference, we certainly continue to have an open 
mind. If there are other suggestions and as we sit down with Members of 
the other body for further improvements to this legislation, we 
certainly will be able to address those issues and we will do our very 
best to do so.
  I know some Members have concerns about the formula. You have my 
commitment to work in conference to fix the formula.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues, they can proudly and 
proenvironmentally vote ``yes'' on final passage, vote ``no'' on this 
motion to recommit. Vote ``yes'' on final passage to pass this historic 
clean water legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The question is on the motion 
to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BONIOR. 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 169, 
nays 256, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 336]

                               YEAS--169

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--256

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Berman
     Collins (IL)
     Gephardt
     Goodling
     Hilliard
     Hunter
     Kleczka
     Lipinski
     Peterson (MN)
                      [[Page H5013]] {time}  1756

  Messrs. HOLDEN, TAYLOR of Mississippi, and CONYERS changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The question is on the passage of 
the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 185, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 337]

                               YEAS--240

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Berman
     Brewster
     Collins (IL)
     Gephardt
     Goodling
     Kleczka
     Lipinski
     Waters
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1814

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________
```